Delhi High Court
Jugminder Lal & Ors vs Jasjit Kaur on 27 January, 2020
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.01.2020
+ RC.REV. 252/2017
JUGMINDER LAL & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
JASJIT KAUR ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh Thanai, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Amreek Singh, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 3225/2020 (condonation of delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 50 days in
filing review petition is condoned. The application is allowed and
disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 28/2020
1. Petitioner seeks review of the judgment 20.11.2019 whereby
the revision petition filed by the Petitioner has been allowed and the
eviction petition has been dismissed.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the
eviction petition has been dismissed primarily on the ground that
ground of eviction mentioned in the eviction petition no longer
survives. It is further contended that the Court has erred in not
noticing internal sub para 13 of Para 18(a) and Para 19 of the eviction
petition which read as under:
"18(a) ........
13. That it is further submitted that the children of the
petitioner are young in age and therefore, the
tenanted shop is essential to be evicted for the
requirement of the petitioner."
"19. The Petitioner is more required of the tenanted
premises as per the requirement of his family members
etc"
3. It is further contended that Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 which has been relied upon by this Court while passing the
impugned judgment is not applicable to proceedings under Section
14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act) on the ground of bonafide necessity but are only applicable to
Section 14(1) (c) of the Act.
4. I find no ground to review the judgment dated 20.11.2019.
5. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent contending
that respondent required the tenanted premises for her son, who post
his retirement had taken the profession of law and did not have any
office or chamber in Delhi and as such required the tenanted premises
for the purpose of opening an advocate's office.
6. During pendency of the proceedings, said son expired and
accordingly petitioner had filed an application taking into account
subsequent event i.e. death of the person for whose benefit the
eviction petition had been filed.
7. Taking into account the factum of death of the son of the
respondent, revision petition was allowed and the eviction petition
was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the respondent to file
a fresh eviction petition, if the need of the respondent and other family
members was still there.
8. Paragraph 18(a) of the eviction petition does not specify any
need other than the requirement of the son of the respondent who has
expired. Merely stating one line that the tenanted premises is essential
for the requirement of the petitioner and petitioner is more required of
the tenanted premises does not satisfy the requirement of Section
14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
9. Apart from these two lines, in the entire petition, there is no
other requirement or necessity specified by the respondent either for
herself or for other family members.
10. Taking this into account, this Court had permitted the
respondent to file a fresh petition, if need still existed.
11. The other contention of learned counsel for respondent that
Section 19 of Delhi Rent Control Act, referred to in the judgment, is
not applicable to a petition filed under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act and
applies only to Section 14(1) (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is also
misplaced.
12. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Bare Act published
by M/s Universal in which in Section 19, it is printed ".....in
pursuance of an order made under clause (c) of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 14".
13. There is a misprint in the Bare Act published by M/s Universal
Law Publishing. The correct provision is "clause (e) of the proviso to
sub-section (1) of section 14".
14. Learned counsel seems to have been mislead by the misprint in
the publication.
15. I find no ground to review the judgment dated 20.11.2019. The
review petition is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 27, 2020
'rs'
