Back
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 2935 of 1981, D/- 26-8-1987.
Smt. Shanti Sharma and others, Appellants
Versus
Smt. Ved Prabha and others, Respondents.
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) – Public Premises Act, 1971 - Landlord - Tenant - Order For Eviction - Respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction before Rent Controller, on various grounds - Rent Controller who heard petition of respondent rejected petition on other grounds but only granted an order for eviction premises were bona fide required by respondent-landlord for their own residence - Whether this question could be raised at this stage and also as to question of estoppel - Whether tenant has a right to challenge title of landlord, as quoted from two documents which are basis of all this controversy if are carefully examined, it appears to be certain that a notice for determination of lease appears to have been issued by DDA – Held, Document which is Purporting to be a notice shows that this notice is issued showing cancellation of lease and subsequent letter from. DDA addressed to legal representatives of original allottee i.e. present respondents indicates that on their representation DDA is working out penalties and details of payment which have to be recovered and on payment being made and Indemnity Bond being filed restoration of lease will be considered and no further steps are being taken either for dispossession of allottee or for any other purpose - In view of these two documents what appears to be clear is that although there were some proceedings for cancellation of lease but at present it could not be contended that lease has come to an end - It is also clear that no steps have been taken for dispossession and second document which has been quoted above clearly shows that only formality of depositing penalties which are being worked out in Office of DDA and filing of Indemnity Bond remains, thereupon lease will be restored in name of legal representatives - Under these circumstances at best what could be contended is that so far as plot is concerned some shadow was cast on its title - That shadow also appears to be very thin - Apart from it subsequent letter from DDA indicates that what remains is only a formality of depositing penalties and Indemnity Bond - It is also clear that so far as structure in building is concerned it is not disputed that that is one, of ownership of respondent - It is also not in dispute that premises mainly stand on plot No. 34 about which there is not even a shadow of doubt about its title either of property or of land and in this view of matter, on basis of two documents put together in context of circumstances as they stand it could not be said that respondent-landlord has ceased to be owner thereof, in view of broad meaning of term owner as has been discussed and considered above - In our opinion, it could not be said that landlord is not owner of premises and therefore court see no substance in contention advanced by learned counsel for appellant – Appeal Dismissed.
Judgement
OZA, J.:- This appeal has been filed after grant of special leave in this Court by the tenant-appellant challenging a decree for eviction.
2. It appears that the respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller, Delhi on various grounds. The Rent Controller who heard the petition of the respondent rejected the petition on other grounds but only granted an order for eviction under S. 14(1)(e) i.e. the premises were bona fide required by the respondent-landlord for their own residence. It is not disputed that these premises are residential and the Courts below, the trial Court and the appellate Court both came to the conclusion that the respondent-landlord has established his bona fide requirement and on these findings the order of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under S. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been maintained.
3. Before the Tribunal a contention was advanced that the appellant-tenant had come to know that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA for short) has cancelled the lease in favour of the respondent-landlord and therefore the respondent ceased to be the owner of the property and as such is not entitled to a decree for eviction under S. 14(1)(e). The landlord-respondent, on the other hand, contended that as a small portion of the premises in occupation of the appellant-tenant is on another plot which under the conditions of the DDA was meant for non-residential purposes and in this view of the matter a notice for cancellation of the lease was given but on representation made by the respondent-landlord the DDA has stayed further action and it therefore could not be contended that the lease has been terminated by the DDA or that the respondent has ceased to be the owner of the property in question. The learned Tribunal therefore repelled the contention advanced by the tenant-appellant before it and maintained the order of the Rent Controller for eviction.
4. Before the High Court the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was that as the lease of the plot on which the building stands is cancelled by the DDA the landlord i.e. the respondent ceases to be the owner thereof and in this view of the matter, it was contended that the requirement of S. 14(1)(e) of the Act is not satisfied and therefore the respondent is not entitled to the decree for eviction.
5. The High Court after considering circumstances and the affidavit filed by one of the appellants that the lease was cancelled but the proceedings for taking possession have been stayed on a representation made by the landlord, considered the question and felt that the landlord whose lease has been terminated but is in possession as possession has not been taken, he continues to be a tenant holding over and on that basis came to the conclusion that it could not be held that he ceases to be the owner and did not accept the contention advanced by the appellant and maintained the decree for eviction.
6. Before us on the basis of language of S. 14(1)(e) the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in order to get a decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement the landlord must establish that he is the owner of such property and learned counsel attempted to contend that where the property is built up on a plot of land taken on lease from the Delhi Development Authority it could not be said that the landlord is the owner of the property and on this basis an attempt was made to contend that no eviction could be sought on the ground of bona fide requirement. Although learned counsel had to concede that in the Act itself the word owner has not been defined and in the modern context it could not be contended that merely because the property situated on a plot of land taken on long lease that the landlord could not be said to be the owner. The other contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was that as there was a notice from the DDA cancelling the lease of the respondent-la
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
