Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Rent Control - Revision 590 of 1996

Attorney(S)

Ms. Manmeet Arora and Mr. Mahesh Chibber, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.K Makhija, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshay Makhija, Advocate for the Respondent.

Judges

R.S Sodhi, J.

Acts

SECTION 25 B DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT 1958
Section 14B, 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary: RC-Rev. 590 of 1996 (R.S. Sodhi, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This revision (RC-Rev. 590 of 1996) challenges the Rent Controller's judgment dated 18.3.1996 which rejected eviction petition No. E.63/89 brought under Sections 14B and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove bona fide requirement of the demised premises.

The Rent Controller's factual findings, as set out in the opinion, include:

The respondents occupy one room and a common latrine-cum-bath forming part of premises No. A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi; the premises were originally let by Shri Prem Ballabh in 1961.
The petitioner claims to be the owner, a retired Naib-Subedar, living on the first floor along with his son Devender Pal Singh (to whom the first-floor accommodation belongs), and seeks to live on the ground floor with his wife following an earlier civil order dated 28.5.1976.
The petitioner alleges chronic illness (kidney stone, enlargement of prostate, heart disease) and medical advice not to climb stairs; he asserts no other accommodation except the ground floor and a bona fide need for the ground-floor premises for himself and family.
The respondents were summoned under Schedule III pursuant to Section 25-B; they applied under Section 25-B(4) for leave to contest and were granted leave on 20.2.1991.
The respondents resisted eviction on multiple grounds: that the tenancy had been inherited by several legal heirs of the deceased original tenant (Prem Ballabh), that the demised premises had commercial use (shop with business in front, residence in back), that the room in dispute lacked basic residential amenities and was therefore not suitable for the petitioner, and that the petitioner already had sufficient accommodation in other parts of the building.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner established a bona fide requirement of the demised premises for residential purposes so as to succeed under Section 14B and Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Whether the Rent Controller was correct in rejecting the eviction petition on the basis that bona fides were not proved and that a partition (or partition-like) document was a sham, given the limits of the Rent Controller's powers.
Whether non-joinder of other alleged legal heirs/tenants affected the maintainability of the eviction petition in the circumstances described.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Appellant's) Arguments

The petitioner is the owner of the property and retired from the armed forces (Naib-Subedar).
He requires the ground-floor accommodation for bona fide residential purposes because of his medical conditions (stone in kidney, enlargement of prostate gland, heart disease) and advice not to climb stairs; at his age (71), it is difficult to live on the first floor.
He has no other accommodation except the ground floor and seeks eviction of the respondents to enable his residence there.
Procedurally, the eviction petition was filed in time.

Respondents' Arguments

The premises were let to Shri Prem Ballabh for residential-cum-commercial use; upon his death his legal heirs (including Smt. Bhawani Devi, Shri Harish Chander, Ms. Mohini, Ms. Deepa and Ms. Bachhi) inherited the tenancy as tenants-in-common.
The eviction petition is not maintainable because it was filed only against the widow and son, and not against all legal heirs who inherited the tenancy; a previous eviction petition (E-471/82) impleaded all legal heirs.
The demised premises functions as a shop (front) with residence in the back; after Prem Ballabh's death Harish Chander carried on business there (pan, cigarettes, vegetables, etc.).
The room occupied by the respondents is small and lacks residential amenities (kitchen, toilet, bathroom) and therefore is not suitable for the petitioner to reside in.
The petitioner is not the owner and did not retire as alleged; the petitioner has ample accommodation elsewhere in the building (first and second floors) and thus has no bona fide need for the respondent-occupied room.
The petitioner’s health claims are disputed; if he were unfit earlier he could have occupied other ground-floor accommodation, e.g., the room where the petitioner's son runs a clinic since 1984-85.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kamal Tanan (deceased) by Lrs. v. M.L. Vasishta (deceased) by Lrs., 2001 (9) SCC 263	That the Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to decide questions going to the validity of title/partition (i.e., probing whether a partition is a sham) beyond the statutory remit under the Rent Control Act.	The court relied on this Supreme Court authority to hold that the Rent Controller erred in non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that a partition was a sham, because such a determination is outside the Rent Controller's powers under the Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the evidence and the Rent Controller's findings and proceeded by applying the statutory test under Sections 14B and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act as to bona fide requirement and entitlement to eviction.

The court accepted the Rent Controller's determinations that the petitioner had retired from the armed forces, that the premises had been let by him, and that the eviction petition had been filed in time; these matters were not in dispute.
The central contested issue was whether the petitioner had established bona fide requirement of suitable residential accommodation on the ground floor. The Rent Controller had concluded that bona fides were not made out because the particular room in question was small (10' x 13') and without amenities (water, kitchen, toilet, bathroom) and, based on the petitioner's own testimony, not suitable for residential use.
On reviewing the record the court found that the petitioner had, in fact, established that there existed on the ground floor two rooms, a kitchen and a bathroom. The court reasoned that by creating an entrance to attach the room in dispute to the main house, the accommodation could be used for residential purposes.
The court emphasized that the building was primarily residential and predominantly used as such; this supported the feasibility of adapting the ground-floor accommodation for residence.
As to the petitioner's health, the court observed that nothing in the record rebutted the petitioner's claim of old-age ailments and the medical advice not to climb stairs; therefore, it was not open to the Rent Controller to reject the case by treating the petitioner as hale and hearty without evidence to that effect.
The Rent Controller had also non-suited the petitioner on the ground that a partition was a sham. The court held — invoking the Supreme Court decision in Kamal Tanan — that determining whether a partition is a sham goes beyond the Rent Controller's statutory powers; hence non-suiting on that basis was impermissible.
On the issue of non-joinder of other alleged legal heirs, the court noted that no one contended during the proceedings that Shri Harish Chander (second respondent) was not enjoying tenancy via Smt. Bhawani Devi, nor did any other alleged legal representative seek to intervene during the eviction petition; the court inferred from the record that the absence of other heirs as parties had not manifested into a justiciable prejudice in the proceedings.
Synthesizing these factual findings and legal constraints, the court concluded that the petitioner had established the requisite bona fide need under Sections 14B and 14(1)(e) and that the Rent Controller's hyper-technical approach and improper foray into title/partition issues led to an incorrect result.

Holding and Implications

Core Holding: The revision succeeds: the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 18.3.1996 is set aside and the eviction petition is allowed. An eviction decree is passed under Sections 14B and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Direct consequences and relief ordered:

The respondents are directed to vacate the premises in question within six months.
No order as to costs was made.

Implications beyond the parties: The opinion does not set out or discuss any broader legal doctrine beyond applying the existing principle (as cited) that the Rent Controller may not decide matters that go to title or partition. The immediate effect is the grant of the eviction decree in favour of the petitioner; the judgment does not announce a new precedent beyond applying the cited Supreme Court authority.

Show full summary ...

Prahlad Singh Rekhi Petitioner v. Bhawani Devi & Anr. S

R.S Sodhi, J.:— RC-Rev. 590 of 1996 is directed against the judgment dated 18.3.1996 passed by the learned Rent Controller rejecting eviction petition No. E. 63/89 under Section 14B, 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove his bona fide in respect of the demised premises.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Rent controller, are that:

“the respondents are tenant in respect of one room, common latrine-cum-bath forming part of premises No. A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi. Premises were let out of one Shri Prem Ballabh in the year 1961. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is the owner of the demised property which was let out for residential purposes. The petitioner retired from the armed forces as Naib-Subedar. He has been living on the first floor with his son Devender Pal Singh, to whom the accommodation at the first floor belongs. The petitioner wants to live in his own house on the ground floor with his wife as per orders dated 28.5.1976 passed in Suit No. 75/76 by the court of Shri B.B Chaudhary, then Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi. The petitioner is a chronic patient and has been suffering from other ailments including stone in kidney, enlargement of prostate gland and heart diseases. As per medical advice, he is not supposed to climb the stairs. Otherwise also at the age of 71 years, it is difficult for him to live on the first floor. The petitioner has no other accommodation except the ground floor and bona fide requires the same or his residence and for the residence of his family members. His family consists of himself, his wife, two married sons, two married daughters and grand children. It is claimed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

The respondents were summoned under Schedule-IIIrd as contemplated by the provisions of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the Act). The application under Section 25-B(4) of the Act was moved by the respondents and leave to contest the eviction petition was granted vide order dated 20.2.1991

The respondents resist the eviction petition, inter alia, on the grounds that the premises were let out to Shri Prem Ballabh, husband of respondent No. 1, and father of respondent No. 2, for residential-cum-commercial purposes; Shri Prem Ballabh died on 18.1.1988 leaving behind Smt. Bhawani Devi, Shri Harish Chander, Ms. Mohini, Ms. Deepa and Ms. Bachhi as his legal heirs. All of them inherited the tenancy and became tenants-in-common. The eviction petition is not maintainable, since it has ben filed only against the widow of the deceased tenant and his son. In another eviction petition bearing No. E-471/82, the petitioner impleaded all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, thereby admitting that tenancy rights have been inherited by other legal representatives of the deceased tenants than those impleaded in the petition. The demised premises is a shop, where the tenant was carrying on business in the front portion and using the back portion for his own residence. After his death, Harish Chander has been carrying on the business of Pan, Cigarette and vegetables etc. at the demised property. It has been denied that there is common latrine and bath room which forms part of the tenant premises. It is pleaded that there are five shops on the ground floor of the premises in dispute and there is one common latrine in the service lane of the property which is used by all the tenants of the five shops and there is no bath room on the ground floor. It has been denied that the premises was let out for residential purposes only. It has also been denied that the petitioner is the owner of the property. It has also been denied that the petitioner retired from the armed forces as Naib-Subedar. The respondents deny that the petitioner requires the premises bonafide for his residence for himself as well as for the members of his family. It is pleaded that the petitioner has more than sufficient accommodation in his possession. The five shops on the ground floor, out of which one is in occupation of the respondents. Besides the shops, there are three rooms, kitchen, bath room on the ground floor which are in occupation of a tenant and are used for residential purposes. The entire first floor consisting of six rooms, kitchen and bath room etc. is in occupation of the petitioner. The second floor consisting of four rooms, kitchen, bath room is also in occupation of the petitioner. Thus, he has sufficient accommodation in his possession. It is admitted that there are two sons and two daughters of the petitioner. His daughters are married and living with their in-laws. His son Devender Pal Singh along with his wife and daughter is living at the first floor of the property. He is a doctor by profession. He has a clinic on the ground floor of theaforesaid house, which he started in the year 1984-85. The other son of the petitioner is an engineer and is settled at Bombay permanently with his wife and son. It is pleaded that even otherwise the premises in occupation of the respondent is not habitable. It is a shop of 16×10 ft, without the amenity of kitchen, toilet and bathroom. A person of the status of the petitioner cannot live in that room. It has been denied that the petitioner is a chronic patient and has been suffering from kidney stone, enlargement of prostate gland and heart disease. It has been denied that the petitioner has been advised not to climb stairs and live at the ground floor. The petitioner retired about 14-15 years back and in case he was suffering from the alleged ailments earlier, he should have occupied the room in which he has allowed his son Devender Pal Singh to run a clinic in the year 1984-85. It is claimed that petition under reference has not been filed on the ground of bona fide necessity.”

3. The learned Rent Controller has, while dealing with the provisions of Section 14B of the Act, held that the petitioner was released or retired from the armed forces and that the premises was let out by him and also that the petition for eviction had been moved in time. But as regards the bona fide requirements, the learned Rent Controller was of the view that the bona fides are not made out. It was contended before me that the findings arrived at were not correct inasmuch the Rent Controller has taken a very hypotechnical view of the matter and the premises are required for residence of the petitioner since he is required to vacate the accommodation with him which has now fallen to the share of his son.

4. In order to prove his bona fide requirement, the petitioner examined himself as witness and deposed that he is residing on the first floor along with his son, Devender Pal Singh, as a guest and wants to live independently on the ground floor. He has stated that he has been sick for the last ten years and has been suffering from hypertension, kidney trouble, heart problem and old age and that doctors have advised him not to climb stairs and to stay on the ground floor. In cross-examination he admitted that except for the rooms in occupation of the petitioner, the other rooms on the ground floor are being used for commercial purposes by other tenants. He has also admitted that the room in question is 10′ × 13′ which was further extended by 4 feet during the pendency of the eviction petition.

5. The learned Rent Controller has opined that when other rooms were available than the room in question which is 10′ × 13′ without water, kitchen, toilet or bathroom amenity, cannot be said to be suitable for residential purposes. This he basis on the testimony of the petitioner himself who, in his cross-examination, deposed that the room, as it exists, is not capable of being used as residential accommodation.

6. I have carefully gone through the evidence on record as also the reasoning of the learned Rent Controller. It appears to me that the petitioner has been able to get some accommodation on the ground floor which is two rooms, a kitchen, a bath room and that if this room is attached to the main house by creating an entrance, there is no reason why this room cannot be used for residence purposes. It must not be lost sight of that the house in question is primarily a residential premises and is being predominantly used for residence purposes. It is also not correct to say that the petitioner is hail and hearty and, therefore, is capable of enjoying the existing accommodation with his son. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the petitioner is not an old man suffering from old age diseases and does not need the accommodation on the ground floor. The petitioner has positively stated in his deposition that he needs ground floor for reasons stated therein.

7. The learned Rent Controller has also non-suited the petitioner on the ground that the partition is a sham document. This, with great respect, is not within the purview of the powers vested in the Rent Controller under the Act, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Kamal Tanan (deceased) by Lrs. v. M.L Vasishta (deceased) by Lrs., 2001 (9) SCC 263. The petitioner, according to me, having led ample evidence to prove his bona fide, cannot be non-suited only because he is purportedly in good health. As regards non-joinder of parties, it has been nobody's case that the tenancy is not being enjoyed by Shri Harish Chander, the second respondent, by virtue of his claim through Smt. Bhawani Devi. Nor has any other so-called legal representative sought to have made any complaint to this effect during the pendency of the eviction petition. Surely, it cannot be said that they are unaware of these proceedings.

8. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to establish his case under Sections 14B, 14(1)(e) of the Act. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the judgment under challenge is set aside. An eviction decree under Sections 14B and 14(1)(e) of the Act is passed. The respondents are given six months' time to vacate the premises in question. No order as to costs.

Prahlad Singh Rekhi Petitioner v. Bhawani Devi & Anr. S

Judgment Summary: RC-Rev. 590 of 1996 (R.S. Sodhi, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Appellant's) Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Prahlad Singh Rekhi Petitioner v. Bhawani Devi & Anr. S

Comments