Ram Devi vs Raj Rani & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 7163 Del

*            THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          R.C.REV. 381/2012

                                           Date of Decision: 14.12.2012

RAM DEVI                                            ...... Petitioner
                           Through:     Mr. Vijay Tandon, Advocate.

                                  Versus

RAJ RANI & ANR.                                        ...... Respondent
                           Through:     Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the „Act‟) is directed against the order dated 2.5.2012 of Addl. Rent Controller (North), whereby the leave to defend application filed by the respondents, was allowed.

2. The respondents are the tenants under the petitioner in respect of two rooms with covered verandah etc. on the ground floor of property No. 4325, Basti Data Ram, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. Their eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the petitioner for herself and for her family members. The respondents filed application for leave to defend, which was allowed by the learned ARC vide impugned order. The same is under challenge in the instant

petition. From the averments of the leave to defend application and the reply, the learned ARC recorded that there is a dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant as also the ownership of the suit premises. The respondents had claimed ownership in the suit premises. The issue of ownership earlier arose when a suit was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the year 1992 being Suit No. 28/1992 before the learned Judge Small Cause Courts wherein the issue regarding the ownership, was framed. Eventually, when the petitioner failed to prove her ownership, the said suit was dismissed on 7.11.1996, and the application for review of that order was also dismissed on 23.2.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises having purchased the same by sale deed in October, 2006. The respondents had categorically denied the petitioner having become the owner of the suit premises by way of registered sale deed. The respondents have claimed to be the owners in possession of the suit premises by virtue of a settlement arrived at in the year 1992. Undisputedly, the suit premises was also being assessed to house tax in their names since then. The petitioner also admitted that there was no attornment in her favour till date. With these kind of averments, the learned ARC recorded, and rightly so, this to be a triable issue as to whether the respondents are the tenants in the suit premises under the petitioner or they are the owners by virtue of compromise of the year 1992. It was also observed by the learned ARC, and rightly so, that earlier a petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act, seeking eviction on the ground of

bona fide requirement, was filed in the year 2004, but the same was withdrawn in the November, 2006 and thus, it was a triable issue to see as to whether the requirement of the petitioner got increased during this intervening period. Further, the respondent had also alleged that the younger son of the petitioner is residing in 4309, Basti Data Ram belonging to his son, and who has been given in adoption. In this regard, the plea of the petitioner was that the said property belongs to Dr. Vinod Kumar. There was nothing placed on record to substantiate this plea. In view of this, it cannot be said that the respondents have not been able to raise any triable issue, which would entitle the petitioner to their straight eviction. They having raised triable issue, cannot be thrown out at the threshold.

3. The Supreme Court in the case of Liaq Ahmed & Other Vs. Habeeb-Ur-Rehman, (2000) 5 SCC 708 held that "from the scheme of the Act, it is evident that if the tenant discloses the grounds and pleads a cause which prima facie is not baseless, unreal and unfounded, the Controller is obliged to grant him leave to defend his case against the eviction sought by the landlord. The inquiry envisaged for the purpose is a summary inquiry to prima facie find out the existence of reasonable grounds in favour of the tenant. If the tenant brings to the notice of the Controller, such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession, the Controller shall give him leave to contest. The law envisages the disclosure of facts and not the proof of the facts". Further, in determining as to whether the

claim is bona fide or not, the Court is under an obligation to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the bona fide of the landlord. A claim founded on abnormal predilection of the landlord cannot be regarded as bona fide. In this regard the observations of the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 can be noted as under:

"Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts should place himself .in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself- whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited .for the purpose; the court would not

in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one. but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against."

4. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of ARC granting the leave to defend to the respondents. The petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

DECEMBER 14, 2012 akb