- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gopal Kishan Petitioner v. Ram Saroop
Factual and Procedural Background
This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenges the order dated 17th May, 2017 of the Court of Rent Controller (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi, which dismissed the petitioner's application for leave to defend an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The eviction order concerns the petitioner’s tenancy of property no. A-19, Harijan Colony, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar-III, Delhi. The petitioner contested the eviction and sought leave to defend, which was denied by the Rent Controller, leading to this revision petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent/landlord is entitled to maintain a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 despite not having demanded rent from the petitioner/tenant.
- Whether non-mention of the petitioner as tenant in the Sale Deed executed in favour of the respondent affects the landlord’s right to evict.
- Whether an unregistered Family Settlement relied upon by the respondent to demonstrate paucity of accommodation is valid and binding.
- Whether the petitioner/tenant is entitled to leave to defend the eviction petition on the grounds raised, including alleged fabrication of family settlement and dissolution of partnership.
- The extent to which the summary procedure under Section 25B of the Act limits the tenant’s right to defend and cross-examine the landlord.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner/Tenant's Arguments
- The respondent/landlord never demanded rent, nor did the petitioner pay rent, thus the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) is not maintainable.
- The petitioner occupies the property as tenant under a prior owner (Roshni Devi) and the respondent landlord did not give any rent demand notice after acquiring the property.
- The Sale Deed in favour of the respondent does not mention the petitioner as tenant.
- The respondent’s claim of paucity of accommodation is based on an unregistered Family Settlement which is alleged to be fabricated.
- The dissolution of a partnership business by the respondent and his brother is also claimed to be a sham to affect the petitioner.
- The petitioner seeks the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent/landlord as a witness.
Respondent/Landlord's Arguments
- The respondent is the lawful landlord entitled to evict under Section 14(1)(e) irrespective of rent demand, as attornment is presumed by law.
- The petitioner is an old tenant, and the absence of rent demand notice does not bar eviction on the ground of self-requirement.
- The Family Settlement, though unregistered, is valid and binding as per settled legal principles.
- The Memorandum of Family Settlement is a valid record of an oral family settlement and does not require registration as a partition deed would.
- The dissolution of partnership is genuine and not a sham.
- Section 25B’s summary procedure limits tenants’ rights to defend without prima facie proof, and leave to defend cannot be granted merely on the basis of allegations without evidence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sanjay Singh v. M/S. Corporate Warranties Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 204 DLT 12 | Attornment is presumed by law; no act of attornment required for landlord’s right. | Supported the principle that failure to demand rent does not bar eviction under Section 14(1)(e). |
| Harvinder Singh v. Paradise Tower Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 199 DLT (CN) 25 | Same as above regarding attornment. | Reinforced the settled position on landlord’s entitlement despite absence of rent demand. |
| Ambica Prasad v. Mohd. Alam (2015) 13 SCC 13 | Attornment and landlord’s rights under tenancy laws. | Reaffirmed legal position on landlord’s right to evict despite procedural irregularities in rent demand. |
| Vijay Sharma v. Namita Aggarwal (Order dated 6 September, 2017 in RC. Rev. No. 422/2017) | Application of Section 14(1)(e) and leave to defend standards. | Clarified scope of leave to defend in eviction petitions on self-requirement grounds. |
| Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119 | Validity and effect of Family Settlements without strict legal technicalities. | Established that family settlements should be honoured even if unregistered. |
| Shri Satya Pal Gupta v. Shri Sudhir Kumar Gupta (2016) 230 DLT 73 (DB) | Effect of unregistered Family Settlement on property rights. | Upheld binding nature of unregistered family settlements. |
| Vikram Singh v. Ajit Inder Singh (2014) 3 High Court Cases (Del) 627 (DB) | Same as above. | Confirmed legal validity of unregistered family settlements affecting property. |
| B.S Goel v. The Registrar, High Court of Delhi AIR 2007 Del 72 (DB) | Effect of unregistered family settlements. | Reinforced the principle that unregistered family settlements affect property rights. |
| A.K Nayar v. Mahesh Prasad (2008) 153 DLT 423 | Legitimacy of family settlements and locus to challenge. | Held that outsiders lack locus to challenge family settlements among family members. |
| Ashok Kumar v. Harish Chander Sahni 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6647 | Same as above. | Supported principle limiting petitioner’s locus to challenge family settlements. |
| Ram Saroop v. Viney Kumar Mahajan (Judgment dated 24 July, 2017 in RC. Rev. No. 112/2016) | Criteria for granting leave to defend in eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e). | Reiterated standards for tenants to establish prima facie case for leave to defend. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the petitioner’s contentions in light of statutory provisions and settled legal principles. It observed that the absence of rent demand or payment does not bar the landlord’s right to evict under Section 14(1)(e), as attornment is presumed by law and no specific act of attornment is required. The Court found no merit in the argument that non-mention of the tenant in the Sale Deed affects landlord’s rights, as the petitioner himself admitted tenancy.
Regarding the Family Settlement alleged by the petitioner to be fabricated and unregistered, the Court relied on established precedents holding that family settlements must be honoured even if unregistered and that the petitioner lacks locus to challenge a settlement among the landlord’s family members. The Court also found no evidence that the dissolution of partnership was a sham.
On the procedural aspect, the Court emphasized the legislative intent behind Section 25B to provide a summary procedure for eviction petitions on grounds of self-requirement, limiting tenants’ rights to defend without prima facie proof. Mere allegations without evidence do not entitle the tenant to leave to defend or cross-examination rights. The Court relied on its earlier detailed judgment in Ram Saroop v. Viney Kumar Mahajan to support this approach.
Consequently, all pleas raised by the petitioner were found without merit, and the Court dismissed the revision petition.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The Court upheld the eviction order and dismissed the tenant’s revision petition, confirming that the landlord is entitled to evict under Section 14(1)(e) notwithstanding the absence of rent demand or mention of tenancy in the Sale Deed. The Court reinforced the binding nature of family settlements even if unregistered and clarified the limited scope for tenants to obtain leave to defend eviction petitions under the summary procedure of Section 25B. No costs were imposed. The decision directly affects the parties by affirming eviction but does not set any new legal precedent beyond reaffirming established principles.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:— Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
RC. REV. No. 443/2017 and CM No. 34870/2017 (for stay).
3. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order (dated 17th May, 2017 in E. No. 5520/16 (Old E. No. 41/15) of the Court of Rent Controller (North-West), District, Rohini Courts, Delhi) of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioner from property no. A-19, Harijan Colony, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar-III, Delhi - 110 052.
4. The manner in which the counsel for the petitioner/tenant has argued, does not require this Court to, in this order, deal with the contents of the petition for eviction, leave to defend and reply thereto.
5. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that the respondent/landlord has never demanded rent from the petitioner/tenant and the petitioner/tenant has never paid rent to the respondent/landlord and the respondent/landlord was thus not entitled to maintain the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
6. On enquiry, as to in what capacity the petitioner/tenant is in occupation of the property, the counsel for the petitioner/tenant states that though the petitioner is in possession as tenant but under Roshni Devi who sold the property in the tenancy of the petitioner and the property, after change of several hands, has now been acquired by the respondent/landlord vide Sale Deed dated 16 December, 2010 but the respondent/landlord after acquiring the property vide the said Sale Deed did not give any notice to the petitioner/tenant to pay rent as he should have.
7. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/tenant, under which provision is a purchaser of immovable property required to demand rent and if does not do so, loses the right to evict the tenant therefrom.
8. No answer has been forthcoming. In this regard it may be noted that the petitioner/tenant is an old tenant in the premises and the counsel for the petitioner/tenant is not even able to tell the rate of rent which was earlier being paid by the petitioner/tenant.
9. When the rent paid by such an old tenant is miniscule and when the expense in collection thereof is more, the landlords of such properties are often found to be not taking steps to demand or recover rent. However the said fact would not disentitle them from seeking eviction on the ground of their requirement for the premises. Even otherwise, it is the settled position in law (See Sanjay Singh v. M/S. Corporate Warranties Pvt. Ltd…. Respodent (2013) 204 DLT 12; Harvinder Singh v. Paradise Tower Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 199 DLT (CN) 25; Ambica Prasad v. Mohd. Alam (2015) 13 SCC 13 and judgment dated 6 September, 2017 in RC. Rev. No. 422/2017 titled Vijay Sharma v. Namita Aggarwal) that attornment is under the law and no act of attornment is required.
10. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant has then contended that in the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent/landlord also, the petitioner/tenant is not shown as a tenant.
11. I have however enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/tenant, whether the petitioner/tenant claims himself to be a tenant in the property purchased by respondent, or not.
12. The answer is in the affirmative.
13. Once that is so, non-mention even if any of the name of the petitioner as tenant in the Sale deed vide which the respondent/landlord has purchased the property will not be of any avail.
14. There is thus no merit in the contention, of the respondent being not landlord, to be entitled to invoke Section 14(1)(e).
15. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant, is that the petitioner/tenant in his leave to defend application gave particulars of a large number of properties available with the respondent/landlord and the respondent/landlord has merely pleaded that in a Family Settlement the said properties have gone to the share of other family members. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that the said Settlement is not registered and has been fabricated only to create paucity of accommodation.
16. A Family Settlement, it was held as far back as in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119, is to be viewed without the technicalities of law and to be honoured.
17. Thus, there is no merit in the plea of the same being not registered. It has been held expressly in (i) Shri. Satya Pal Gupta v. Shri. Sudhir Kumar Gupta (2016) 230 DLT 73 (DB), Vikram Singh v. Ajit Inder Singh (2014) 3 High Court Cases (Del) 627 (DB) and B.S Goel v. The Registrar, High Court of Delhi AIR 2007 Del 72 (DB) that a family settlement, even if unregistered, affects the property settled thereby.
18. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant has next contended that the respondent/landlord on the one hand has taken the plea of an oral family settlement and on the other hand produced the copy of a Memorandum of Family Settlement.
19. If the document recording division of properties is not a record or memorandum of an earlier oral Family Settlement, it would take the colours of a Partition Deed and require stamping and registration, putting a substantial financial burden on the family members. There is thus a widespread practise to record oral Family Settlement in a Memorandum. There is thus no inconsistency in the stand of the respondent/landlord, as argued.
20. It is not the case of the petitioner/tenant that the persons who have executed the Memorandum of Family Settlement are not members of the family of the respondent/landlord or do not exist. Once that is so, it is not the locus of the petitioner/tenant to challenge the Family Settlement arrived at between the members of the family of the respondent/landlord. Reliance in this regard may be placed on A.K Nayar… v. Mahesh Prasad…. (2008) 153 DLT 423 and Ashok Kumar v. Harish Chander Sahni 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6647.
21. I have recently in order dated 20.9.2017 in RC. Rev. No. 439/2017 titled “SUSHMA KHANNA v. RAJWANT KAUR” held that though in certain circumstances a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) can be defeated if it is demonstrated that the landlord has created artificial paucity of accommodation but the facts pleaded in the leave to defend this case do not fall in the said category.
22. Similar is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant with respect to the dissolution of partnership business earlier being carried on by the respondent/landlord and his brother. It is contended that the dissolution has also been created only for the purposes of affecting the petitioner/tenant.
23. The petitioner/tenant has not pleaded anything to show that the Dissolution Deed is a sham.
24. The aforesaid pleas also do not entitle the petitioner/tenant to any right to trial.
25. The last contention of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant is, that if the respondent/landlord were to come in the witness box, the petitioner/tenant would have an opportunity to cross-examine.
26. The legislative intent behind Section 25B of the Act being to provide a prescribed summary procedure for petitions for eviction on the ground of self requirement of the premises, the same parameters as of a written statement cannot apply and the tenant cannot be granted leave to defend for the asking and without the tenant placing before the Rent Controller even a semblance of proof of what is pleaded, leave to defend cannot be granted.
27. I have in judgment dated 24 July, 2017 in RC. Rev. No. 112/2016 titled Ram Saroop v. Viney Kumar Mahajan, on the basis of past precedents, dealt in detail on the pleas which entitle the tenant to grant of leave to defend and need to reiterate the same herein is not felt.
28. There is thus no merit in the petition.
29. Dismissed.
30. No costs.
Alert