Back
2002 Supreme(Del) 1531
High Court Of Delhi
PUSHPA BAJAJ - Appellant
Versus
JUGAL - Respondent
Civil 619 of 1993
Decided On : 09/27/2002
DIPAK KHADARIA
Headnote:Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) — Bona fide requirement — ownership — Respondent was inducted by petitioner — Although cannot be said to be the owner of the property — Would be a landlord in relation to the respondent — Estopped and precluded from raising a contention that the latter is not his landlord.
Held:
ownership is a bundle of rights. The term owner has not been defined in the said Act. It, however, stands admitted that the respondent herein was inducted by the petitioner. It may be that whereas agreement of sale was executed in favor of the petitioners, two sons, both General Power of Attorney and Special Power of Attorney were executed in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner, although cannot be said to be the owner of the property in terms of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or the Indian Registration Act, she would be a landlord in relation to the respondent as he had been inducted by her. If the respondent was inducted by the petitioner, the former will be estopped and precluded from raising a contention that the latter not his landlord in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Section 14(1)(e) — Bona fide requirement — Total accommodation available in the entire house is three bed-rooms and three drawing rooms — Out of which one bed-room and one drawing room besides kitchen and bathroom is under the tenancy of the respondent for residential purpose, which is not in dispute — Second floor can be used only upon crossing through the drawing room of the first floor — Matter to be considered afresh.
The family members of the petitioner are herself, two sons, one of whom was married and the other was of marriageable age (since married). Three married daughters who, being settled in Delhi, frequent the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner is said to be missing. The building in question consists of two independent units, each having one bed-room and one drawing room. The said two units were on the first floor and second floor respectively. The petitioner resides at the ground floor as she is not in a position to climb up the stairs. It is further borne out from the records that the respondent is occupying the first floor of the premises. The total accommodation available in the entire house is three bed-rooms and three drawing rooms out of which two bed-rooms and one drawing room besides kitchen and bathroom are under the tenancy of the respondent for residential purposes.
If the sons are married, admittedly, they would like to have privacy and thus unless there are two bed-rooms with attached bathrooms, it may not be possible to maintain their privacy. It is the contention of the petitioner that the second floor can be used only upon crossing through the drawing room of the first floor in which the staircase through the ground floor leads to the second floor. Even according to the petitioner, for seeking permission for an independent ladder from outside her own house to the balcony in the first floor, a prayer was made in the civil suit pending in the court of Shri K.S. Pal that the petitioner be permitted to put an independent ladder to the balcony of the first floor so that they may have an independent access to the second floor without crossing the drawing room of the first floor under the tenancy of the respondent.
( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against a judgment dated 28th August 1993 passed by Shri A. S. Yadav, Additional Rent controller, Delhi in Suit No. E-33/91 whereby and whereunder an eviction petition filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity "the Act" for short) for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises, was dismissed.
( 2 ) THAT the fact of the matter as stated in the eviction petition is as under : -
" (1) That the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the suit property-bearing no. AA-29, Shatimar Bagh, Delhi-52, which consists of one bed-room alongwith one drawing room at the ground floor, besides kitchen and bathroom, and similar accommodation is available at the first floor, as well as on the second floor of the suit property. Besides this, there is a Barsati at the top floor, so as to use it for special purposes of dumping goods which are not in common use, or not in use.
(2)THAT the family members of the petitioner consist of herself, two sons-out of whom one is married, and the other is of the age of 21 years, and is also of a marriageable age. Besides this, there are two married daughters, who are settled in delhi, and frequently visit the petitioner/landlady. The husband of the petitioner is missing, and his whereabouts are not known till now. Besides there is a servant in the house.
(3)THAT the petitioner/landlady constructed these independent units, each having one bedroom and one drawing room, so that each of her son may have their accommodation at the first floor and the second floor independently, and the petitioner/landlady may reside at the ground floor bedroom. The visiting daughters-with their respective families may come and slay either at the first floor or at the second floor to suit their convenience. The total accommodation available in the entire house is three bedrooms and three drawing rooms; out of which one bedroom and one drawing room besides kitchen and bathroom is under the tenancy of the respondent for residential purpose, which is not in dispute.
(4)THAT it is also an admitted fact on record that during the pendency of the petition, the eldest son of the petitioner got married, and his wife is not staying with her husband, because of the paucity of the accommodation.
(5)THAT it is also an admitted fact on record that the petitioner cannot use the second floor without crossing through the drawing room on the first floor, in which the staircase from the ground floor leads to the second floor.
(6)THAT it is also an admitted fact on record that the petitioner made an application in a civil suit pending in the court of Shri. K. S. Pal, the then S. J. I. C: delhi, where the petitioner/landlady was permitted to put an iron ladder from outside her house to the balcony of the first floor, so that the family of the petitioner may have an independent access to the second floor, without crossing through the drawing room at the first floor under the tenancy of the respondent, vide his Order dated 8th August, 1991, during the pendency of the present eviction petition. The second floor cannot be used by the petitioner/landlady, who is suffering from obesity of high magnitude, and she is not in a position to climb the iron ladder, which is on the Municipal land, and the M. C. D. is threatening to remove it, or face the prosecution in a competent Court of law. "
( 3 ) THE learned court below, keeping in view the fact that no registered document was executed in favour of the petitioner, inter alia, held that she being non-user of the property, was not entitled to obtain a decree as prayed for.
( 4 ) MR. Deepak Khadaria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that a General Power of Attorney and a special Power of Attorney having been executed, the same would constitute a clear proof of ownership of the premises in quest
