Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

RCR No. 157 of 2010 & CM No. 12556 of 2010

Judges

V.B Gupta, J.

Acts

Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short Act)
provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of Act,
Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — V.B. Gupta, J. (Revision under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958)

Factual and Procedural Background

This revision petition was filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, by the petitioners challenging the Additional Rent Controller's judgment dated 17th September 2009 which allowed the respondent's eviction petition and passed an eviction order against the petitioners.

The respondent (landlord in the trial court) sought eviction of the petitioners (tenants in the trial court) in respect of parts of a building at Rashid Ahmed Building, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, comprising ground floor and first-floor rooms and appurtenant areas. The respondent asserted ownership of the premises, alleging title through a sale deed dated 16.3.1967 in favour of his father (Sh. Ranbir Lal Mehra) and reliance on a civil judgment and decree dated 18.1.1997 which had held Ranbir Lal Mehra to be owner of the suit premises.

The respondent alleged that after his mother's death he became sole owner, sold an adjacent dilapidated house on 27.8.2001 because it was inadequate for his growing family, and was living in rented accommodation from 1.9.2001 paying Rs. 5,100 per month. He claimed bona fide need of the suit premises for his family and lack of other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

The petitioners pleaded lack of maintainability due to alleged contradictory site plans, asserted that the property was residential-cum-commercial (car rentals, sale/supply of motor parts, repair workshop), and claimed title by adverse possession since 1958, denying landlord-tenant relationship. During proceedings the original respondent appellant died and his legal heirs were substituted as petitioners in the revision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the revision petition under Section 25B(8) challenging the eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was maintainable and liable to succeed.
Whether the petitioners had acquired ownership of the suit property by adverse possession (i.e., whether there existed a landlord-tenant relationship).
Whether the premises were let for residential purpose only or for residential-cum-commercial purposes and whether that affected entitlement to eviction.
Whether the respondent (landlord) had a bona fide requirement of the premises for residence and had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The eviction petition was not maintainable because the respondent filed two contradictory site plans of the premises.
The premises were residential-cum-commercial and petitioners were carrying out commercial activities (car rentals, sale and supply of auto/motor parts and a repair workshop), implying different treatment or defenses.
The petitioners had become owners by adverse possession, being in possession of the suit property since 1958, and therefore there was no landlord-tenant relationship.
The respondent had converted and sold the adjoining property (allegedly at a premium) and had been allotted DDA accommodation (as an employee), which suggested the respondent's asserted bona fide need for the suit premises was not genuine.
It was contended that, given the respondent sold the adjacent property shortly before filing eviction proceedings, his asserted bona fide requirement was questionable.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent (landlord) was the owner of the premises: title traced to a sale deed dated 16.3.1967 in favour of his father and reinforced by a civil court judgment and decree dated 18.1.1997 that had held Ranbir Lal Mehra to be owner of the suit premises.
On the death of his mother the respondent became sole owner and bona fide required the suit premises for residence of his family (wife and two children aged 9 and 16), and he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.
The respondent was living in rented accommodation from 1.9.2001 and paying substantial rent (Rs. 5,100 per month), showing real need to occupy his own property for financial and family reasons.
The adjacent property he sold was small and dilapidated and therefore inadequate for his family’s needs, which explained the sale and supports the bona fide requirement of the suit premises.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, III (2008) SLT 553	The decision was cited for the proposition that the word "residential" has been deleted from Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and, therefore, the original "purpose of letting" (i.e., residential purpose) has lost its significance for eviction in bona fide requirement cases.	The court relied on this authority to treat the purpose of letting as no longer decisive in passing an eviction order where bona fide requirement is claimed; consequently the petitioners' claim of residential-cum-commercial use did not prevent eviction on bona fide grounds.
Kailash Chand v. Chand, 1998 RLR 603	Cited for the proposition that if an owner is living in tenanted premises, he is entitled to seek eviction of his tenant and such desire cannot be regarded as imaginary or fanciful.	The court referred to this case to support the position that the respondent, who was living in rented accommodation, was entitled to seek eviction to occupy his own premises.
Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India; Mahendra Raj v. Union of India; Colonel Ashok Puri, JT 1991 (1) SC 417	Applied for the principle that a landlord cannot be denied possession under Section 14B when he is residing in a rented accommodation.	The court used this precedent to reinforce the conclusion that a landlord living in rented premises may legitimately seek eviction to occupy his own house, supporting the trial court's eviction order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis followed the factual and evidentiary findings of the trial court and proceeded in several steps:

Ownership and landlord-tenant relationship:
The trial court found that the petitioners failed to prove title by adverse possession. Evidence and admissions indicated that the petitioners' father had purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed (Ex. AW-1) dated 16.3.1967. Witness admissions reflected uncertainty or lack of documentary proof on the respondents' side, and the certified copy of a prior civil judgment and decree dated 18.1.1997 (Ex. AW-3) had declared Ranbir Lal Mehra the owner. That civil judgment was not challenged and had attained finality. Based on these findings the trial court concluded, and this court accepted, that the petitioners were owners and the respondents were tenants; accordingly a landlord-tenant relationship existed. The revision court reproduced and relied on the trial court's detailed factual findings on this point.
Purpose of letting:
The petitioners claimed the premises were used for both residential and commercial purposes. The trial court found that petitioners had not led any evidence to substantiate that contention. Moreover, the court observed, relying on Satyawati Sharma (III (2008) SLT 553), that the word "residential" has been deleted from Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, so the purpose of letting is no longer significant for eviction orders based on bona fide requirement. Thus even if commercial use had been alleged, it would not necessarily prevent eviction when bona fide requirement is established.
Bona fide requirement and alternative accommodation:
The court examined the respondent's familial circumstances (wife and two children) and the accommodation he had previously owned and sold (a small, dilapidated house on 17 sq. yards). Witness testimony (RW-1 and RW-2) confirmed the small size and old condition of that house and the respondent's sale thereof on 27.8.2001. The respondent's evidence showed he was living in rented accommodation (since 1.9.2001), paying Rs. 5,100 per month, and had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The court held that a respondent who is living in rented accommodation and has available his own accommodation is entitled to occupy his own premises and cannot be compelled to remain in rented accommodation; under the circumstances the respondent's desire to live in his own house was bona fide.
Reliance on precedent:
The court relied on authorities (Kailash Chand v. Chand; Surjit Singh Kalra et al.) to reinforce the proposition that an owner living in rented premises is entitled to seek eviction and that such a requirement should not be treated as fanciful. Applying these principles to the established facts, the court concluded the trial court's eviction order was lawful and justified.
Conclusion on revision:
Having found no illegality or ambiguity in the trial court's findings—specifically on ownership, absence of evidence from petitioners on mixed use, and the respondent's bona fide requirement—the revision petition lacked merit and was dismissed. The court noted that the trial court's findings were supported by admissions, documentary evidence (sale deed and prior civil judgment), witness testimony, and applicable precedents.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The revision petition is DISMISSED.

Direct implications:

The eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 17th September 2009 in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners stands affirmed.
The trial court's factual findings that the petitioners did not prove adverse possession and that the respondent had a bona fide requirement of the premises were accepted and upheld.
The petitioners remain subject to the eviction order; a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the trial court.

Broader legal implications:

The opinion applies established precedents concerning landlords residing in rented accommodation and the relevance of bona fide requirement; it also follows the Satyawati Sharma judgment in treating the purpose of letting as less significant post-decision for bona fide eviction claims. The court did not indicate that it was laying down new law or altering precedent; rather it applied existing authorities to the facts and dismissed the revision as lacking merit.

Order recorded in the opinion: CM No. 12556/2010 — Dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Show full summary ...

Ashok Kumar Mehra, Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Kuldeep Kumar Mehra .

V.B Gupta, J.— This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short “Act”) has been filed by the petitioners against judgment dated 17th September, 2009, passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which respondent's eviction petition was allowed and eviction order was passed in favour of respondent and against the present petitioners.

2. Brief facts are that respondent (Petitioner-Landlord in the trial Court) filed an eviction petition in respect of one room, one verandah, one store, one kitchen, one bathroom, one latrine, one room with asbestos sheet roof in the Court yard, open Court yard on the ground of floor and two rooms, one kitchen, covered terrace on the first floor of the building bearing No. XIV/11152/8, Rashid Ahmed Building, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi; against petitioners (Respondent-Tenant in the trial Court).

3. It is stated that respondent is the owner/landlord of the premises in question. This property was purchased by father of the respondent, namely Sh. Ranbir Lal Mehra on 16.3.1967 Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners along with the petitioners were already in occupation of the building and using the same as tenant for the purpose of residence and by operation of law the said predecessor-in-interests of the petitioners became tenants of the father of respondent, on the same terms and conditions. The ownership of respondent and his mother Smt. Pushpa Mehra over the premises in question, stands conclusively proved by the judgment and decree passed by Mr. D.K Malhotra, Civil Judge, Delhi in suit bearing No. 728/96, decided on 18.1.1997

4. After demise of Smt. Pushpa Mehra on 6.8.2000, respondent being her sole legal heirs has become the sole owner-landlord of the premises in question. Family of respondent comprises of his wife, school going son and daughter of the aged 9 years and 16 years respectively. Respondent along with his family was living in their own house till 27.8.2001, situated adjacent to the property in question only on 17 Sq. yds. bearing No. XIV/11152/7, Rashid Ahmed Building, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110005, having one small room, one store and one latrine and stairs on the ground floor and one room, one bath, covered open space used for kitchen on the first floor of the said building. Said house was very old construction and in dilapidated condition and as the family of the respondent grew and his children required more space and separate rooms for their living and studies, the accommodation in the said building was found to be inadequate they were living in the said house with great discomfort and difficulty. As such, respondent had no advantage to retain the said property and he sold the same to Smt. Manjit Kaur vide registered Sale Deed dated 27.8.2001

5. Thereafter, respondent with his family members shifted to a rented house bearing no. D-173, (Ground Floor), Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085 and is presently living in the said rented accommodation w.e.f 1.9.2001

6. Respondent bona fidely wants to live with his family comfortably in his own house, being the suit premises as respondent has to shell out a substantial amount of Rs. 5100/- per month as rent for his rented accommodation and also it is more suitable financially for comfort of respondent and his family members dependent upon him. Respondent has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

7. During pendency of the proceeding, Sh. Ashok Kumar (who was respondent no. 1 in the trial Court) expired and his legal heirs have been brought on records, who are petitioners in the present petition.

8. In the written statement petitioners took the plea that present petition is not maintainable as respondent has filed two contradictory site plans of the premises. The premises in question is a residential-cum-commercial property and petitioner No. 1 was carrying on the commercial activities of Car rentals and sale and supply of auto/motor parts and repair work shop from the said premises.

9. Relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties was denied stating that petitioners have become owners of the suit property by way of adverse possession, as they are in possession of the suit property since 1958 and are enjoying the uninterrupted possession of the suit property.

10. Petitioners denied that the ad-joining portion of suit property, bearing No. XIV/11152/7, Rashid Ahmed Building, New Rohtak, New Delhi-110005 was constructed only on 17 sq. yds. It is alleged that respondent has converted his said ad-joining portion into a commercial complex and sold the same at a high premium. Now his evil eyes are on the petitioners' property.

11. It is further alleged that respondent has concealed the fact that he has been allotted a residential accommodation by DDA, where he is an employee.

12. It has been denied that respondent is residing at Prashant Vihar in rented accommodation. It has been further denied that respondent is the owner of the property in question and respondent requires the suit property bona fidely for residence for himself and his family members. Had there been a bonafide requirement of the respondent to live in property in question, he would have instead of disposing off and selling the adjoining portion would have decided to club both portions to make a bigger house to live in.

13. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that property in question was never let out by the respondent or his father to the petitioners at any point of time. Petitioners have become owner by way of adverse possession and as such there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, between the parties.

14. Other contention is that respondent was earlier residing in his own property adjacent to the suit property and the said property was sufficient for respondent and his family members. This property was sold by respondent, vide sale deed dated 27th August, 2001, just before filing of the present eviction petition. The said property was sufficient for respondent as he is having his wife, one son and one daughter and as such there is no bonafide requirement for the purpose of residence.

15. The law is well settled that in order to evict a tenant under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of Act, the following ingredients have to be satisfied;

(a) The applicant has to be a landlord;

(b) He has also to be an owner;

(d) The said premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or his family dependent upon him and;

(e) That the landlord or such person dependent upon him has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.

16. With regard to the ownership, case of petitioners is that they have become owner by way of adverse possession and were never the tenant.

17. There is nothing on record to show as to how petitioners became the owners of suit property by virtue of adverse possession. In this regard findings of trial Court which are relevant are reproduced as under:

“However, the respondents have failed to prove on record that they have become the owners of suit property by virtue of adverse possession and petitioner is not the owner/landlord of the suit property. There is no evidence in this regard. Moreover, testimonies of RWs are important in this regard. Although, RW-1 Sh. Vijay Kumar Mehra, in his cross-examination had denied the suggestion that petitioner's father purchased the suit property from its previous owner Smt. Aziza Khatoon vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.3.1967, but by way of voluntary, he has stated that the suit property was purchased by the father of the petitioner and he does not know as to when he purchased the same. He has further stated that he has not seen any title document in favour of the petitioner's father, but by way of voluntary he has stated that his mother has seen it. RW-1 has further admitted in his cross-examination that, “It is correct that petitioner's father purchased the suit property vide registered Sale Dee which is already exhibited as AW-1/1”. In view of aforesaid statement of the RW-1, it is clear that even the respondents admit that the petitioner's father has purchased the suit property vide registered Sale Deed Ex. AW.1

So far the plea of the respondents that they have become the owners of the suit property by virtue of adverse possession, is concerned, the RW-2 has stated in his cross-examination that, “It is correct that I am not in possession of any documentary proof about the alleged ownership of the suit property in the name of Sh. Khushal Chand Mehra”. He has further stated that, “I do not know as to in whose name the suit property stand mutated since 1967 till date,” He has further stated that, “It is correct that neither my father nor we have paid any house tax pertaining to the suit property to the MCD”. Similarly, RW-3, Smt. Usha Mehra has stated in her cross-examination that, “It is correct that we do not have any documentary proof to show that we are the owners of the suit property”. As such, in view of aforesaid statements of RW-2 and RW-3, it stands established that petitioners' father purchased the suit property vide registered Sale Deed Ex. AW-1 and the respondents have failed to prove that they have become the owners of the suit property by virtue of adverse possession.

Moreover, the petitioner has filed the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 18.1.1997 passed by Mr. D.K Malhotra, the then learned Civil Judge, Delhi in a suit for recovery of possession bearing Suit No. 728/1996 titled as “Smt. Pushpa Mehtra and the present petitioner as Plaintiffs v. Smt. Kailash Kumari and the present respondents as defendants as Ex. AW-3, in which it has been held by the learned Civil Court that Sh. Ranbir Lal Mehra was the owner of the suit premises and Sh. Khushal Chand Mehra was the tenant of Smt. Aziza Khatoon and as such Sh. Ranbir Lal Mehra, father of the petitioner was held to be owner of the suit premises. Admittedly, the respondents contested the said suit and there is no dispute regarding the passing of the said judgment as RW-1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he appeared once in the said civil suit, the judgment of which is Ex. RW-1.P-1. Similarly, RW-2 has admitted in his cross-examination that, “It is correct that petitioner and his mother filed a civil suit for recovery in the Court of Mr. D.K Malhotra, the then Civil Judge at Delhi, vide suit No. 728/96 in Re Pushpa Mehra v. Kailash Kutnari It is correct that the said suit has been disposed of”. Now, the said judgment Ex. AW-3 has not been challenged by the respondents and same has attained finality. Hence, when it has been held by the Civil Court that Sh. Ranbir Lal Mehra, father of the petitioner was the owner of the suit property and the respondents inherited the property as co-tenant, the respondents are estopped from challenging the title of the petitioner over the suit property.

In view of aforesaid discussions, the petitioner has established on record that he is the owner of the premises in question and the respondents are the tenants and there exists a relationship of landlord-tenant between the petitioners and the respondents.”

18. Now coming to the letting purpose, case of respondent/landlord is that, the premises were let out to petitioners for residential purpose only. The premise in question was let out to the predecessor-in-interests of the petitioners by the previous owner, Smt. Aziza Khatoon for residential purposes.

19. On the other hand, petitioners in their written statement took the plea that premises in question are being used as residential cum commercial purpose.

20. No evidence with regard to premises being used as residential cum commercial purpose has been led by the petitioners as apparent from the findings of trial Court which states:

“Petitioners have not led any evidence to support their contention that premises in question are being used for residential cum commercial purpose.”

21. Trial Court further observed:

“Moreover, after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, III (2008) SLT 553, the word “residential” has been deleted from the Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act and purpose of letting has lost its significance and is no more a issue in passing an order of eviction in case of bona fide requirement.”

22. Regarding bonafide requirement of respondent, main contention of learned Counsel for petitioners is that respondent sold his adjoining portion to the suit property bearing No. XIV/11152/7, Rashid Ahmed Building, New Rohtak Road, after converting the same into a commercial complex. Had the requirement of respondent being bonafide he would not have sold the same. This shows the truth and exposes the intentions of respondent.

23. In this regard RW-1 categorically stated in his cross-examination that:

“I have personally seen the property No. XIV/11152/7, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which was earlier owned by the respondent and the said property was built on an area of 17 sq. yard and was having ground floor and 1st floor when respondent was the owner and residing there.”

24. RW-1 also admitted that on the ground floor there was one small room, one store and WC and on the first floor there was one room, one bathroom and temporarily covered open space used as kitchen by the respondent and his family and the said construction was an old construction prior to partition in 1947. RW-1 further admitted that respondent had sold the said property to Ms. Manjeet Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 27th August, 2001. RW-1 admits that family of respondent consists of himself, his wife, daughter Shikha, son Rohan and mother of the respondent. To similar effect is the statement of RW-2.

25. In view of the statements of RW-1 and RW-2, there is no dispute with property No. XIV/11152/7, New Rohtak Road, which was earlier owned by the respondent, had been built only on 17 sq. yard. There is no dispute about the family members of the respondent or the accommodation which respondent is having. Petitioners themselves admit that adjoining property purchased by the respondent was in dilapidated condition and is an old construction.

26. Respondent is admittedly living in a rented accommodation and has placed various documents on record. Now if respondent wants to live in his own house, i.e property in question he cannot be compelled to live in rented accommodation when his own accommodation is available even more particularly when he was no alternative accommodation in his possession. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the requirement of respondent to live in his own house is not bona fide or genuine. Respondent who is presently living in a rented accommodation has all the right to shift to his own property.

27. In Kailash Chand v. Chand, 1998 RLR 603, it has been observed that:

“If an owner is living in tenanted premises, he is entitled to seek eviction of his tenant and this desire cannot be held to be imaginary, fanciful or unnatural.”

28. Similarly, in Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of India (UOI) with Mahendra Raj v. Union of India (UOI) and Colonel Ashok Puri, JT 1991 (1) SC 417 the Court observed:

“The landlord cannot be denied possession of his premises under Section 14B when he is residing in a rented accommodation”

29. In the case in hand, the respondent-landlord is living in a rented accommodation and as such the trial Court rightly passed the eviction order in favour of landlord and against the petitioners.

30. There is no illegality and ambiguity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in the present petition and as such the same is hereby dismissed.

31. Copy of this judgment sent to the trial Court.

CM No. 12556/2010

32. Dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Ashok Kumar Mehra, Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Kuldeep Kumar Mehra .

Judgment Summary — V.B. Gupta, J. (Revision under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ashok Kumar Mehra, Since Deceased Through His Legal Heirs & Ors. v. Kuldeep Kumar Mehra .

Comments