M/S Manak Singh & Sons vs Tara Devi
2017 Latest Caselaw 6542 Del

$~A-
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision: 17.11.2017
+     RC.REV. 481/2016
      M/S MANAK SINGH & SONS                             ..... Petitioner
                   Through  None.
                   Versus
      TARA DEVI                                          ..... Respondent
                   Through
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)

CM No. 36741/2016 (exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

RC.REV. 481/2016 and CM No. 36740/2016 (stay)

1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking to impugn the eviction order dated 05.03.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC) whereby the ARC dismissed the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend and passed the eviction order.

2. The respondent (landlord) filed the eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from the property being one shop on the ground floor of House No. 2967, Gali No. 40, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The property in question was let out vide Rent Agreement dated 02.04.1991. The property was owned by Sh. Prabhu Dayal. He died on 17.02.2006 while his only son Sh. Fateh Singh and his wife had already pre-deceased him. All the

relevant surviving legal heirs of Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal executed relinquishment deed dated 14.08.2006 in favour of the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent is the exclusive owner of the property. The ground floor shop/room is in possession of the petitioner. The respondent and her son are living in one room on the first floor measuring 8'9" x 8'10" and one small kitchen. It is averred that after the death of the husband of the respondent, she brought up her three children. In order to make both ends meet, the respondent had no option but to let out the second and third floor of the property which are still occupied by the tenants. She has two married daughters and one son who is of marriageable age. The respondent is said to be suffering from several old age ailments and has been advised not to climb stairs. Further, the height of the each stairs is more than normal because of the small size of the property. Hence, the respondent finds it difficult to climb to the first floor. She is suffering from heart problem i.e. Dialated R/A and R/V with severe TR with mild PAH and suffers from breathlessness while climbing stairs. It is further urged that the original tenant was Sh.Manak Singh who has already expired and after his death, the suit property has been lying locked for five years and none of the legal heirs is even tendering rent to the respondent. Even the electricity connection was disconnected by BSES on 02.04.2009 for non-payment of electricity bills by the petitioner. Hence, it is urged that the respondent requires the ground floor for her son as he needs a separate room being of marriageable age. The daughters of the respondent also frequently visit her and the respondent requires a separate space for them also.

3. The ARC by the impugned order noted the two defences raised by the petitioner in the application for leave to defend. Firstly, that the respondent

has not impleaded the two other legal heirs of Late Sh. Manak Singh, the original tenant, namely, Billo Singh Talwar and Neelam Bhola and secondly, that though the respondent claims insufficiency of accommodation, she has let out the second floor recently i.e. six months ago at an exorbitant rent. The impugned order rejected the said two contentions.

4. On the issue of landlord-tenant relationship the impugned order held that the petitioner has not disputed the ownership of the respondent and the only contention made was that all the legal heirs of the original tenant Late Sh. Manak Singh have not been impleaded. Hence, the impugned order concludes that there is a relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties.

5. As far as the plea of non-impleadment of the other two legal heirs is concerned, the impugned order concludes that no proof has been filed by the petitioner to show that the said two persons are also the legal heirs of Late Sh.Manak Singh. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohd. Usman vs. Surayya Begum, 1990 (3) Delhi Lawyer 163 to support the proposition that on the death of a tenant, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy rights as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. In case of joint tenancy, where one of the legal heirs is not made a party, the other legal heirs who are joint tenants represent the tenancy.

6. On the issue of bona fide requirement, the impugned order notes that the tenanted premises is required for the residential purpose due to the old age/medical problems of the respondent who has been advised to stay on the ground floor. It also noted that the son of the respondent is of marriageable age and needs a separate room. It is also not disputed that the respondent and her son are staying in a single room on the first floor and the respondent has two daughters who frequently visit her. Regarding the contention of the

petitioner about letting out of the second floor recently, the impugn order holds that the respondent requires the ground floor for her bona fide requirement keeping in view her medical condition and her old age. Hence, the impugned order concluded that the premises are bona fide required by the respondent.

7. On the issue of availability of alternative suitable accommodation, the impugned order notes that the petitioner have made no such averment. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction order was passed.

8. I heard the arguments of Sh.Ranchit Srivastav and Sh.Vineet S.Shrivastava, Advocates on behalf of the petitioner and had kept the matter for orders. As certain clarifications were required, the matter was fixed in court on 08.09.2017 and 22.09.2017. On 13.10.2017, notice was also sent to the learned counsel for the petitioner without filing of process fee. Learned counsel are served but none has appeared for the petitioner today.

9. I may first see the scope of the present petition. The Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr.Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222 described the revisional powers of this court as follows:-

"11....... The phraseology of the provision as reproduced hereinbefore provides an interesting reading placed in juxtaposition with the phraseology employed by the Legislature in drafting Section 115 of the CPC. Under the latter provision the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is circumscribed by the subordinate court having committed one of the three errors, namely (i) having exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (ii) having failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (iii) having exercised its jurisdiction with illegality or material irregularity. Under the proviso to Sub-section (8) of

Section 25B, the expression governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court is 'for the purpose of satisfying if an order made by the Controller is according to law'. The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 25B(8) is not so limited as is under Section 115 C.P.C. nor so wide as that of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re- appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of "whether it is according to law'. For that limited purpose it may enter into re-appraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached that conclusion on the material available..."

10. Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act reads as follows:-

"14. Protection of tenant against eviction.- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-

xxx

(e) That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof , or for any person for whose benefit the

premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;"

11. The essential ingredients which a landlord/respondent is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are (i) the respondent is the owner/landlord of the suit premises (ii) the suit premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself and any of his family members dependant upon him. (iii) the landlord or such other family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.

12. It is manifest that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The respondent is staying with her son in a single room on the first floor. She is suffering from medical problems. Her son is of marriageable age. They need an additional room which is on the ground floor tenanted to the petitioner. Merely because the two rooms on the second and third floor have been let out, does not in any manner affect the requirement of the respondent. The respondent is a widow lady and has let out the upper floors to generate some income for her sustenance. There can be nothing wrong in such action.

13. There are no reasons or grounds made out to interfere with the impugned order.

14. The petition is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.

(JAYANT NATH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 17, 2017 rb