Sheila Lall And Ors. vs Rent Control Tribunal
1995 Latest Caselaw 28 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

(1) Order passed by Shri K.S. Gupta, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi on 17.8.1992 allowing the appeal of the respondent thereby setting aside an order passed on 30.1.1992 by Shri K.S. Khurana, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi rejecting respondents' application for interior relief is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2) A petition under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by respondent No.2 for restoration of electricity and water supply to Qtr. No.2, Kothi No.19, Amrita Sher Gill Marg, New Delhi. It was alleged by her that she was a tenant in physical possession of Qtr. No.2 on payment of Rs. 150.00 as rent inclusive of water and electricity charges. She also alleged that she and her husband Bhirn Singh were in, petitioner's services as his domestic servants on a monthly salary of RS. 800.00 p.m. Her husband Bhirn Singh expired on 14.7.1991 due to negligence on the part of the petitioner for which criminal case had been registered. In order to usurp earned wages and other benefits, the petitioner had with malafide intent extended threats of forcible dispossession and a petition was also pending for eviction against her and now essential amenities had been withheld by the petitioner. A prayer was also made for interim relief under Section 45(3) of the Act.

(3) Petitioner contested the petition on numerous grounds. Preliminary objections were taken - one of which was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Respondent No.2 had never been inducted as a tenant. It was alleged that her husband was a domestic servant, who had left the services in August, 1991. The quarter had been given to her husband as a licensee being a domestic servant. After he left the service, the respondent had no locus standi to remain in occupation. She was a mere trespasser. It was also alleged that the respondent was not entitled for restoration of electricity and water connections in the premises.

(4) The Controller declined to grant the interim relief to the respondent by rejecting application filed under Section 45(3) of the Act after coming to the conclusion that there being no relationship of landlord and tenant, the respondent was not entitled to the order of restoration of electricity and water under the provisions of the Act. Respondent's appeal was allowed by the Tribunal after reversing the order of Controller. It was held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant since petitioner had admitted respondent to be tenant in a petition for eviction filed against respondent. It is this order which is under challenge.

(5) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None put in appearance on behalf of the respondent when the case was called for hearing. Even on the last date, namely, 25.10.1994 none appeared for the respondent.

(6) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no absolutely material on record even to justify a conclusion that prima facie there was a relationship of landlord and tenant. The Tribunal was wrong in observing that there was an admission on the part of the petitioner about relationship of landlord and tenant. The order being perverse requires interference. Learned counsel has also taken me through the entire record.

(7) The Tribunal primarily reversed the order of the Controller on the ground that the petitioner had admitted the respondent to be a tenant since a petition for eviction under Section 22 of the Act had been filed against the respondent. The act of filing the petition was an admission on the part of the petitioner that respondent was a tenant in the premises. Such a finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside mainly on two grounds. Firstly that the mere act of the petitioner having filed a petition under Section 22 of the Act cannot be considered to be an act unequivocally admitting the respondent to be a tenant and secondly the petition for eviction which was stated to have been filed under a mistaken legal advise has since been dismissed as withdrawn. In the petition filed under Section 22 of the Act there is no clear or categorical admission on the part of the petitioner about the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent had been in occupation since 1984 as a domestic servant and no rent was being charged from her. After death of her husband in July, 1991 the respondent had left the job and was now employed in some other house, namely, Kothi No.19, Amrita Shergill Marg, New Delhi. The quarter was allotted for her residence and residence of other family members because of her being in employment without any right to continue of possession. This statement of fact cannot in law be said to be an unequivocal admission as regards the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This is an admission as regards facts only, namely, respondent being a domestic servant and having been allotted residence due to her being in service. The question whether on these facts respondent can be said to be a tenant will be a question depending upon the definition of 'landlord' and 'tenant' as per provisions of the Act. A person to whom premises are given in lieu of service without any right to continue in occupation after the service comes to an end does not fall within the definition of a tenant under the provisions of the Act. Thus, there was no unequivocal admission on the part of the petitioner that respondent was a tenant. Moreover, it is stated that the said petition for eviction was got dismissed as withdrawn since the same had been filed under a bonafide mistaken legal advice. For these reasons alone the impugned order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

(8) Resultantly, the petition is allowed. Order passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and that of Controller is restored.