Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 670
High Court Of Delhi
GURDIP KAUR - Appellant
Versus
SHI KARTAR SINGH KHURANA - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 212 of 1995
Decided On : 08/31/1995
H.S.Dhir, V.M.ISSAR
A landlord's widowhood and handicap are not relevant to the issue of eviction under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - LEAVE TO CONTEST - GROUNDS - WIDOWHOOD AND HANDICAP OF LANDLORD - ALLEGED AGREEMENT WITH TENANT - COMMERCIAL USE OF PREMISES - REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CONTEST - EVICTION ORDER PASSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a widow and handicapped person, filed an eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent, seeking eviction from the ground floor of a property for her own residence. The respondent contested the petition, claiming that he was a joint tenant along with his son, that the rent was enhanced by a written agreement, and that the premises were commercial. The Additional Rent Controller granted leave to contest the eviction petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Additional Rent Controller erred in granting leave to contest the eviction petition. The court held that the petitioner's widowhood and handicap were not relevant to the issue of eviction, and that the alleged agreement was forged. The court also found that the premises were not purely commercial, as evidenced by a clause in the conveyance deed prohibiting the use of the premises for any purpose other than residence without the consent of the vendor. The court rejected the respondent's application for leave to contest the eviction petition and passed an eviction order in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's widowhood and handicap were relevant to the issue of eviction under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 2. Whether the alleged agreement between the petitioner and the respondent was valid. 3. Whether the premises were purely commercial.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner's widowhood and handicap were not relevant to the issue of eviction under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The court reasoned that the provision was intended to ensure recovery of immediate possession of premises to a widow, and that the petitioner's widowhood was not a ground for granting leave to contest the eviction petition. 2. The court held that the alleged agreement between the petitioner and the respondent was forged. The court noted that the agreement was not supported by any evidence of payment of rent, and that the respondent had not attorned to the petitioner as a tenant. 3. The court held that the premises were not purely commercial. The court relied on a clause in the conveyance deed prohibiting the use of the premises for any purpose other than residence without the consent of the vendor.
Final Decision: The court rejected the respondent's application for leave to contest the eviction petition and passed an eviction order in favor of the petitioner.
( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 28th March, 1995 whereby the Additional Rent Controller granted leave to contest the eviction petition filed under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for eviction of the respondent from the ground floor of property No. 23 / 16, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The premises was let out to the respondent in the year 1958 by the erstwhile owner. The property was purchased by Smt. Sukhwant Kaur, mother of the petitioner along with her husband, i. e the father of the petitioner on 26th June, 1962. Accoring to the petitioner, she alongwith her daughter respondent No. 2 inherited the property from Smt. Sukhwant Kaur by virtue of a registered will dated 16th April, 1982. The property already stands mutated in the name of the petitioner and her daughter, respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner is a widow. She is a handicapped person. Both her legs have been amputated above the knees. The petitioner along with her unmarried daughter, respondent No. 2 is residing on the first floor of the property in suit. With the, advanting age of the petitioner coupled with her handicap, it has become all the more difficult for the petitioners to climb the state to reach the first floo and ,therefore the petitioner requires tne ground floor premises which is in the tenancy. the respondent No. 1 for her own residence. ?
( 2 ) IN his application for leave to contest, the respondent No. 1 did not dispute the tact that the petitioner is a widow, the relationship or landlord and tenant was denied. It was pleaded that Surinder pal singh , son of the, respondent was accepted as a joint tenant along with respondent No. 1 by the mother of the petitioner, i. e. , Smt. Sukhwant kaur by way of oral agreement, it was further pleaded that in April 1989 on the asking or Smt. Sukwant Kaur, rent of the suit premises was enhanced from Rs. 82. 50 to Rs. 125 per month, for this, a wntien agreement was executed between Smt. Sukhwant Kaur and respondent No. 1. The daughter of respondent No. 1, Smt. Sunita Manajan was admitted as a joint tenant m the, suit premises with right to reside in a portion thereof. The son of respondent No. 1 Surrendered his joint tenancy. A copy of the alleged agreement dated 22nd May, 1989 purportedly bearing the; signatures of its executants, has been placed on record. It was further pleaded that the tenancy premises is totally commercial and was being used as such.
( 3 ) IN reply, the petitioner denied the alleged agreement dated 22nd May, 1989. She denied that Sunita Mahajan daughter of respondent No. I Was ever taken as a joint tenant in the tenancy premises or that the rent was enhanced from Rs. 82. 50 to Rs. 125 per month. According to the petitioner, the. alleged agreement is a forged document. It was denied that the premises to suit is commercial and was let out for commercial purposes. It was also denied that the son of respondent No. 1 was ever ajoint tenant in the premises. The petitioner reiterated the fact that she along with respondent No. 2 are the owners of the property in suit and the premises is required by the petitioner in view of her handicap and old age because of which the effect of the handicap has become more unbearable.
( 4 ) THE Additional Rent Controller granted leave to contest on the following grounds:
(A) The petitioner had not stated as to when she became a widow; (b) The date on which the petitioner became a handicap person has not been disclosed; (c) The rent agreement dated, 22nd May, 1989 set up by the respondent No. 1 and denied by petitioner requires evidence.
( 5 ) THE. FOLLOWING observations of the Additional. Rent Controller in the impugned order are. worth nothing
"particularly. as -observed above. when. petitioner is silent as about her state of widowhood. as. to -when iit occured to her. . and particularly silent about her state of handicapped as. to. when she suffered amputation of both legs,,
