Delhi High Court
Smt. Simran vs Shri Ramanand Gupta on 23 July, 2014
9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. 53/2014 & CM 1650/2014
% 23rd July , 2014
SMT. SIMRAN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate
VERSUS
SHRI RAMANAND GUPTA ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated
03.12.2013 by which the leave to defend application filed by the
petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and an eviction order was passed with
respect to the tenanted premises No. 170, Sanjay Enclave, First Floor, LIG
Flats, Jahangirpuri, Delhi.
2. This case came up for admission for the first time about six months
back on 28.1.2014, when on the request of the petitioner adjournment was
granted for today. Today, once again, an adjournment was prayed on the
ground that one counsel Mr. Bedi is not available, however, there is no
reference of Mr. Bedi either in the earlier order dated 28.1.2014 or as per the
Vakalatnama filed on record. I have, therefore, refused to adjourn the case
one more time which has already been adjourned for six months.
3. The case of the respondent-landlord was that tenanted premises are
required for residential user of his son who is living in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
and which place is far away from the office of the son which is situated in
Rohini near the suit premises.
4. The petitioner/tenant contested the petition by stating that the son of
the respondent/landlord was living at B-40, Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad
and which was therefore alternative suitable accommodation. It was also
pleaded by the petitioner/tenant that bona fide necessity petition cannot lie
because of the fact that the premises have come to be owned by the
respondent/landlord only on 1.11.2008, by way of succession after the death
of his father, and the present petition was filed within 5 years on 21.3.2011.
5. So far as the second aspect is concerned, the same is totally baseless
because the bar of five years of filing of eviction petition for bona fide
necessity under Section 14(6) of the Act is only where landlord acquires a
premises by transfer. When a premises is acquired by devolution on account
of death of the predecessor-in-interest, the bar under Section 14(6) of the Act
does not apply. This aspect has rightly been decided by the Additional Rent
Controller in paras 10 to 12 of the impugned judgment and which paras are
read as under:
"10. Section 14 (6) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 reads as
under :-
"Where a landlord has acquired any premises by
transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such
premises shall lie under sub-section (1) on the ground specified
in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years
have elapsed from the date of the acquisition."
In the case of Onkar Singh Vs. Saheb Ditta Mal Kohli
1970 RCR 18, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as
under :-
"It is clear from the language particularly in view of the
background of the object of sub-section (6) that the transfer
must be by a voluntary act of the landlord who transfers. An
acquisition of the property by inheritance can by no stretch of
imagination be said to be such a voluntary transfer even if the
property comes to the heir by means of will. According to the
argument advanced, even in a case where the landlord filed a
petition on the ground of personal bonafide requirement and
died during the pendency of the petition wherein his heirs are
brought on the record as his legal representatives, the petition
will be defeated because the heirs have obtained the property
by transfer and will not have completed the requisite period of
five years after acquisition of the property. In my opinion, the
word "transfer" in sub-section (6) of section 14 of the Act
contemplates only a voluntary transfer by inheritance. That
being so, there is no substance in the objection as to the
maintainability of the petition by the respondent before the
expiry of five years from the date when he acquired the
property by inheritance."
11. Further in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs.
Rajeshwari Pandey 1998 (75) DLT 238, it has been held that
devolution of property does not attract the bar of five years on
seeking eviction.
12. Hence, in the present case also, after applying the
decisions as narrated above, it is clear that devolution of
ownership upon the petitioner by way of survivorship shall not
attract the bar contained in Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act. Hence the present petition is not barred under
Section 14(6) of Delhi Rent Control Act."
6. The second aspect as to whether the son of the respondent/landlord
living at B-40, Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad, U.P. is concerned, the
Additional Rent Controller had held that even if the son of the petitioner is
staying at Ghaziabad, that cannot take away his bona fide need to shift the
son to the suit premises which is near his work place. I completely agree
with this conclusion of the Additional Rent Controller, and, in addition a
very important aspect is required to be noted and which has been missed out
by the Additional Rent Controller and which aspect is that it is an alternative
suitable premises only if such alternative premises are situated in Delhi. It is
now settled law as per the various judgments of this Court that premises
which are situated outside Delhi cannot be considered as an alternative
suitable accommodation for proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Therefore, for this additional reason, the residence of the son of the landlord
at Ghaziabad is irrelevant and has no bearing with respect to the eviction for
bona fide necessity, which otherwise stands established.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 23, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara
