Delhi High Court
Salim Khan Since Deceased Through ... vs Rukmani Devi on 15 January, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserved: 18.12.2020
Date of Decision : 15.01.2021
+ RC.REV. 259/2020 & CMs 33399/2020, 33401/2020
SALIM KHAN SINCE DECEASED THROUGH ITS LEGAL
HEIRS RUKSHANA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Ajay Kr. Thakur Adv
versus
RUKMANI DEVI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Rajesh Yadav, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioners-tenants
challenging the Order dated 04.02.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Impugned Order") passed by the learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent
Controller") in case RC ARC No. 5760/16, titled as Rukmani Devi vs.
Salim Khan and Ors., whereby the application seeking leave to
defend filed by the predecessor of the petitioners has been dismissed
and their eviction has been ordered in respect to one room with a front
varandah on the first floor of the property bearing no. WZ-549/A,
Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Suit Property").
RC.REV. 259/2020 Page 1
2. The respondent-landlady filed an eviction petition under section
14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act") against the petitioners claiming to be the owner of the Suit
Property comprising of ground floor and first floor. It was stated that
the Suit Property was let out for residential purpose to one Mr. Salim
Khan (predecessor of the petitioners), who expired during the
pendency of the eviction petition. The petitioners being the legal heirs
of Mr. Salim Khan are since contesting the present petition.
3. The respondent claimed title to the property by virtue of a
registered Sale Deed dated 03.09.2010. The family of the respondent,
as stated in the eviction petition, comprised of three sons, three
daughters-in-law, seven grand-children, one unmarried and two
married daughters, and a brother of her deceased husband. All
members other than the married daughters were stated to be dependent
upon respondent for residence/accommodation. It was further stated
that the respondent required the Suit Property for residential bona fide
use of the family of the respondent and had no alternate suitable
accommodation.
4. In the application seeking leave to defend, the petitioners herein
denied the landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent landlady
and alleged the availability of alternate accommodation with the
respondent.
5. By the impugned order, the learned Rent Controller held that
the respondent was able to prove her bona fide need while fulfilling all
the requisites mentioned in section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
RC.REV. 259/2020 Page 2
6. Challenging the said Order, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained
inasmuch as no documentary proof has been given by the respondent
to show how the family members are dependent on the respondent for
residential accommodation. He submits that infact one of the sons of
the respondent is running business from a different place, while
another son has settled in Bihar. He further submits that presently the
respondent is residing at a property in Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi and
there is no mention in the eviction petition as to why the
accommodation where the respondent is residing is not suitable for
her. He submits that the case of bona fide need set up by the
respondent is a sham and cannot be entertained.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the
respondent has alternate accommodations in Delhi in her name as also
in the name of her legal heirs and therefore the finding of the learned
Rent Controller on non-availability of an alternate suitable
accommodation is erroneous.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners lastly submits that the
Suit property being an undivided property and since it is not known
under whose share the tenanted room would fall into, the respondent
could not seek eviction of the petitioner from the suit property.
9. He submits that petitioners have been able to raise triable issues
and therefore the impugned order should be set aside.
RC.REV. 259/2020 Page 3
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the respondent requires the entire Suit property for bona
fide use of her family and in this regard three eviction petitions were
filed against three different tenants including petitioner- Mr. Salim
Khan. He submits that in the other two eviction petitions, orders of
eviction have already been passed and have attained finality. He
submits that in one of the matters, the tenant challenged the eviction
order before this Court, however, the said revision petition, being RC.
REV. 529/2017, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
20.11.2017, rejecting similar contentions as raised in the present case.
11. He further submits that the extent of the family of the
Respondent and the requirement of members of the family was not
specifically disputed in the leave to defend application filed by the
petitioners and therefore, the petitioners cannot come up with new
plea at this stage.
12. On the issue of availability of alternate accommodation, the
learned counsel for the respondent submits the respondent owns a
small 66 sq. yards of property in Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar and the
non-suitability of the same has been pleaded in the eviction petition as
the same has been given on rent and is also far off from the schools of
the grandchildren. He submits that in any case, it is a settled law that
the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlady and therefore, it is the
choice of the landlady to choose the property to reside with her family
as per her own suitability.
RC.REV. 259/2020 Page 4
13. He submits that as the landlord-tenant relationship has already
been established and the sale deed of the respondent has not been
challenged, the present petition has been filed only to delay the
execution of the eviction order. He submits that in fact, there is a huge
delay in filing of the present petition. He submits that the impugned
order does not suffer from any infirmity and all the contentions have
already been dealt with by the learned Rent controller.
14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties.
15. As far as the ownership and landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties is concerned, the learned Rent Controller has held
the same to be established based on the judgment and order dated
12.08.2013 passed by the learned SCJ/RC, South-West, Dwarka in E-
18/2011 titled Rukmani Devi v. Salim Khan, that was filed by the
respondent against the predecessor of the petitioners under Section
14(1)(a) of the Act. I find no merit in the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners in challenge to these findings.
16. Similarly, the challenge to the locus of the respondent to file the
eviction petition also has no merit. As pointed out by the learned
counsel for the respondent, this court in its order dated 20.11.2017
passed in RC Rev. 529 of 2017, titled Sujit v. Rukmani Devi, had
negatived a similar challenge, holding as under:-
"8. Merely because a third party has challenged the title of the
landlord would not entitle the tenant to contend that the landlord
is barred from invoking the grounds of eviction under the Rent
RC.REV. 259/2020 Page 5
Act. Supreme Court in Shanti Sharma vs. Ved Prrabha (1987) 4
SCC 193 held that the requirement of ownership under Section
14(1 )(e) of the Act is not of absolute ownership but of merely
something more than the tenant. The same view was reiterated
subsequently also by the Supreme Court in Swadesh Ranjan
Sinha vs. Haradeb Banerjee (1991) 4 SCC 572 and Sheela vs.
Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash (2002) 3 SCC 375. There is,
thus no merit in the said contention."
17. As far as the bona fide necessity of the respondent for the
tenanted premises is concerned, the learned Rent Controller has held
as under:-
"12. Respondent has claimed that the petitioner is having other
suitable accommodation like some rooms in the premises in
question and one four storey residential accommodation in Vikas
Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and two floors are lying vacant
there. With regard to the property of Vikas Nagar, it has been
stated by the petitioner that the said property is neither available
nor suitable to the petitioner /dependents of the petitioner because
the said property is not only away from the work place of the
petitioner's son and daughter in law and Moreover, the grand
children of the petitioner are in school which are near to the
tenanted premises in Naraina. The contentions of the petitioner
seems to be genuine and acceptable because the property of Vikas
Nagar is away from the tenanted premises situated in Naraina.
Moreover, the property of Vikas Nagar is not available to the
petitioner as explained by the petitioner in her reply. The
respondent could not file any document on record to prove that
the said property of Vikas Nagar is available to the petitioner.
12.1 The other contention of the respondent that some rooms are
available in the premises i.e. WZ-504A Naraina is also not
acceptable because the petitioner has properly explained
regarding the non availability of room in her petition as well as in
reply to leave to defend application.
RC.REV. 259/2020 Page 6
12.2 So, pleas of respondent regarding alternative suitable
accommodations with the petitioner, are vague pleas."
18. I do not find any merit in challenge to the above finding.
19. Further, the requirement of the premises by the family of the
respondent has been contended by the respondent in its eviction
petition and has also been mentioned hereinabove. Except vaguely
contending that the sons are not dependent on the respondent for
purposes of residence, no substantive defence has been raised by the
petitioners.
20. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same is dismissed.
21. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 15, 2021
RC.REV. 259/2020 Page 7
