IMPORTANT POINT
When an application for eviction u/s 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Controller can grant the tenant leave to contest the application for eviction only if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground of personal requirement as provided in Section 14(1) Proviso (e) or under Section 14A.

Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14D read with Section 25B-Eviction petition by widow-Ground, bona fide own occupation-Application for leave to defend denying averments in eviction petition and also denying tenant landlord relationship-Refusal of leave to defend and eviction order-On facts, justified-Purpose of Section 14D explained-Scope of Section 25B elucidated explaining when leave can be granted.
       Section 14D is in the nature of a special provision, meant for the benefit of a widow who requires the premises for her own residence. The provision also vests a right in a widow who has let out more than one premises to choose any one of them for her occupation. Section 25B makes provision regarding the special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. Where a petition for eviction is filed under Section 14D, such petition shall be dealt with in accordance with the special procedure prescribed under Section 25B. From the provisions in sub-sections (4) and (5), it is manifest that the Controller can grant the tenant leave to contest the application for eviction only if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground of personal requirement as provided in Section 14(1) proviso (e) or under Section 14A. Sub-section (8) of Section 25B bars an appeal or second appeal against an order for recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller under the Section. The Proviso to sub-section (8) vests a supervisory jurisdiction in the High Court for satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under that section is according to law. (Paras 9 & 10)
       From the aforementioned statutory provisions, the legislative intent is clear that if an application for eviction of a tenant is filed by a widow to recover the premises in question for her self occupation, the Controller shall pass an order for eviction of the tenant from the premises with utmost expedition. The provision is intended to serve the social need to help a widow in getting possession of the premises required for her personal occupation. To subserve that purpose she has been included in the special class of landlords who are entitled to recover possession of the premises let out by them when they require the same for self-occupation and special provision has been made in Section 25B providing for a enquiry by the controller following a summary procedure to satisfy himself that the plea of self-occupation taken by the widow-landlady as a general and bona fide one and not a mere pretence to get the tenant evicted from the premises. For that reason, heavy burden is placed on the tenant to satisfy the Controller by filing an affidavit stating such facts which, if believed, will sufficiently prove that the plea of need of personal occupation by the petitioner-widow is nothing but a pretence. Whether leave to defend will be granted to the tenant in a case depends on the facts and circumstances of the case as emanating from the averments in the eviction petition filed by the landlord and the affidavit filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula can be laid down for judging the question. It is to be kept in mind by the controller and the courts that the petition for eviction filed by a widow under Section 14D should not be frustrated by granting leave to the tenant to raise any plea denying/refuting the case pleaded in the eviction petition. Unless a real and substantial case is made out on the averments made in the affidavit filed by the tenant in support of the petition filed under Section 25B of the Act, the proceeding should not be dragged on unnecessarily and should be disposed of with due expedition. A balance has to be maintained between the general object of the statute which is to provide protection to the tenants against arbitrary action of the landlords for their eviction and the assistance to be referred to the special class of landlords including a widow to recover possession of premises let out by her for self-occupation. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. The appellant who is in occupation of the ground floor of the building K 37-C, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, as a tenant has filed this appeal assailing the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court dismissing his Revision Petition and confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, directing his eviction from the premises.

3. The respondent No. 1 who is a widow and her son (respondent No. 2 herein) filed a petition under Section 14D read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for eviction of the appellant from the premises in question on the ground of personal requirement. In the petition it was stated, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 is an aged lady, aged about 62 years, and she is suffering from various ailments including arthritis; that the widowed mother of the respondent No. 1 who is aged about 90 years is also residing with her and she is also suffering from various ailments including arthritis; that both these ladies have difficulty in climbing up the stairs to reach the first floor of the building. It was further averred in the eviction petition that the only son of respondent No. 1 who is aged about 27 years is to get married and, thereafter, the couple will occupy the first floor and the two old ladies will need the ground floor for their occupation. It was also stated in the petition that the respondent No. 1 has three married daughters who visit her from time to time and her two married sisters who reside in the United States of America also come to see her occasionally. On these averments, the respondents sought immediate eviction of the tenant from the ground floor of the house following the special procedure laid down in Section 25B of the Act.

4. The tenant who was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the suit, filed an application for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition generally denying the averments made in the eviction petition. He questioned the validity of the notice served on him. He also questioned the plea of personal requirement of the petitioner for immediate occupation of the first floor of the building. He denied that the petitioner-landlady resides at Delhi and asserted that she stays in her Flat No. 802 in Natasha Manor A Building, 52, Hill Road, Bandra (W), Bombay. He also denied that she suffers from any ailment including arthritis. He alleged that the petitioner had gone abroad for about 9 months in 1995-96. He also questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the eviction petition.

5. The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, considering the case pleaded in the eviction petition filed by the respondents and the averments made in the petition for leave to defend filed by the appellant and the documents like ration card, papers relating to her treatment in the hospital etc. found that the petitioner herself aged about 62 years is suffering from arthritis. She has been able to prove the requirement of the ground floor for her personal occupation and thus a case for eviction of the tenant under Section 14D of the Act has been made out. The Additional Rent Controller also found that the appellant has not been able to plead a case which, if believed, will non-suit the respondent and, therefore, declined to grant him leave to defend the eviction petition.

6. In the Revision Petition, filed by the appellant, the learned Single Judge considered the two contentions raised before him on behalf of the petitioner; that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the requirement of the petitioner was not bona fide as she was not residing at Delhi, and rejected both the contentions. With regard to the stand of the petitioner that the respondent was residing at Bombay, the learned Single Judge took note of the rent agreement produced by the respondent showing that the flat at Bombay was under the tenancy of Tatas. He also took note of the ration card of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document