Delhi High Court
Bijender Gupta vs Hardawari Lal on 9 October, 2019
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.10.2019
+ RC.REV. 221/2016
BIJENDER GUPTA ..... Petitioner
versus
HARDAWARI LAL ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajeev Kumar Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. B.K Pandey, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns the order dated 22.12.2015 whereby the eviction
petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 14(1) (a) and 14(1) (e) has
been dismissed returning a finding that the petitioner has not been able to
prove his ownership to the property.
2. The rent controller has dismissed the petition solely on the ground
that the petitioner has sought to place reliance on agreement-to-sell,
General Power of Attorney and other sale documents and there is no sale
deed in favour of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent controller has
not appreciate that the petitioner does not have to establish absolute
ownership vis-a-vis, the tenanted property for maintaining a petition under
Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 but only
has to show that the landlord has a better title than the owner and there is
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
4. It is pointed out that the respondent has himself in his reply to the
statutory notice issued under Section 14(1) (a) admitted the petitioner as the
owner/landlord and has even stated that he had attempted to pay the rent to
the petitioner but the petitioner has declined to accept the same.
5. It is further pointed out that the respondent has been depositing rent
under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act stating the petitioner to be
the owner - landlord of the property.
6. Clearly, the impugned order suffers from infirmity inasmuch as the
rent controller has not appreciated that to maintain an eviction petition
under Sections 14(1) (a) and 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,
the petitioner does not have to show absolute ownership but has to show
better title than the tenant and that relationship of landlord and tenant
exists.
7. Even it is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent under
instructions from the respondent, who is present in Court in person that the
petitioner is the landlord the property.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the rent was
tendered at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month which was the rent at which the
premises were let out however, the petitioner was demanded higher rate as
such rent was not accepted by the petitioner.
9. Since there is no dispute that the relationship of landlord and tenant
exits between the parties and the respondent admits that the Petitioner is the
successor in interest of the erstwhile owner, I am of the view the rent
controller has clearly committed an error in dismissing the eviction petition.
10. Further, it is noticed from the impugned order that the rent controller
has not considered the matter on merits of the eviction petition under
Section 14(1) (a) i.e., default in payment of rent or under Section 14(1) (e)
i.e., bonafide necessity of the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, in view of the above, the impugned order dated
22.12.2015 is set aside. The Eviction Petition is restored to its original
number. The matter is remitted to the Court of Rent Controller to consider
the petition on merits.
12. List the petition before the concerned Rent Controller for directions
on 13.11.2019. The Rent Controller shall expedite the proceedings.
13. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
14. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 09, 2019
Neelam
