Delhi High Court
Balbir Singh Rana (Deceased) & ... vs Harcharan Kaur on 21 July, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 302/2014 & C.M.Nos.5614/2014, 5616/2014
% JULY 21, 2014
BALBIR SINGH RANA (DECEASED) & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rajendra Dutt, Advocate.
VERSUS
HARCHARAN KAUR ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. I may first note that there was a provision for second appeal under the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 being Section 39. This provision for filing of
second appeal, and that too only on substantial questions of law, was repealed
by the Act 57 of 1988 w.e.f 01.12.1988. Therefore, second appeals do not lie
against the judgments passed by the Rent Control Tribunal in first appeal under
Section 38. The provision of Article 227 of Constitution of India therefore
cannot be taken aid of as a guise for filing of second appeal under Section 39
which stands repealed. Under Article 227 of Constitution of India, courts will
only be entitled to interfere if there is grave injustice or an act which affects the
CM(M) No. 302/2014 Page 1 of 4
administration of justice. Petition under Article 227, more so as the facts of the
case will show, is not to be filed as if it is a second appeal, when second appeal
itself was on a limited ground of substantial questions of law.
2. The admitted facts are that the respondent/landlady filed an eviction
petition on two grounds against the tenant Balbir Singh Rana (now represented
by the petitioners who are his legal heirs) on the grounds of Sections 14 (1) (b),
(d) and (h) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. Section 14(1)(b) pertains to eviction on the ground of subletting. Section
14(1)(d) pertains to eviction where the petitioners do not reside in the
residential premises for six months prior to filing of the eviction petition.
Section 14(1)(h) provides for eviction of the tenant where the tenant has
acquired vacant possession of an alternative premises.
4. It is not in dispute that all three grounds of eviction stand proved, and
these findings were not challenged even before the first appellate court. The
only challenge before the first appellate court, and which was also urged before
me in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, was that the
respondent/landlady is not the owner of the premises inasmuch as the sale deed
CM(M) No. 302/2014 Page 2 of 4
in her favour of the suit premises has been obtained by her by playing fraud on
the erstwhile owners.
5. Firstly I may note that admittedly no civil suit is filed by the persons who
were the erstwhile owners as per the petitioners, challenging the sale deed in
favour of the respondent/landlady. Once that is so, nothing further requires to
be looked into and a tenant or his legal heirs has/have no locus standi to
challenge a title document in favour of the owner.
6. Another important aspect to be noted is that the counsel for the
petitioners admits that the criminal case of which alleged fraud qua the sale
deed was filed against the respondent was not only dismissed by the court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate, but the appeal against such a judgment was also
dismissed. In view of the above, it is clear that the present petitioners cannot
challenge the ownership of the respondent with respect to the suit premises.
7. Every owner is automatically a landlord because every owner is entitled
to receive rent of the premises. The definition of landlord is provided under
Section 2(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and which specifically states
that any person who is entitled to receive rent is a landlord and since an owner
CM(M) No. 302/2014 Page 3 of 4
is entitled to receive rent, and therefore the respondent being a landlord is also
an owner, because respondent was entitled to receive rent of the suit premises.
8. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioners, though have
suffered eviction on all grounds of subletting, non residence of six months and
having alternative premises, are obdurately refusing to vacate the tenanted
premises, and therefore this petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-,
which shall be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee
within a period of four weeks from today.
9. List before the Registrar General on 20th August, 2014 for compliance of
the order with respect to deposit of costs of Rs.25,000/- with Delhi High Court
Legal Aid Services Committee, and in case the costs are not deposited by the
petitioners, the Registrar General will be empowered to recover the amount as
arrears of land revenue.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
JULY 21, 2014
KA
