Back
High Court Of Delhi
MILK FOOD LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
KIRAN KHANNA - Respondent
Civil 504 of 1988
Decided On : 05/04/1993
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - SECTION 14 (1) (E) - OWNERSHIP, ADVERSE POSSESSION, AND REASONABLE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the eviction order granted to the respondent-landlady under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming that she was not the owner of the premises and had other reasonable suitable accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent-landlady was the owner of the premises, having acquired title through a gift deed and perfected her title by adverse possession during the pendency of the proceedings. The court also found that the respondent-landlady did not have any other reasonable suitable residential accommodation, as she was occupying a flat on rent from her sister under compelling circumstances.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent-landlady was the owner of the premises. 2. Whether the respondent-landlady had other reasonable suitable residential accommodation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "owner" under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, holding that it means something more than a tenant and that the respondent-landlady, being in possession of the premises and letting it out to the petitioner, was the owner vis-a-vis the petitioner. 2. The court held that the respondent-landlady had perfected her title to the premises by adverse possession, as she had been in possession for more than 12 years and had claimed ownership on the basis of a gift deed. 3. The court found that the respondent-landlady did not have any other reasonable suitable residential accommodation, as she was occupying a flat on rent from her sister under compelling circumstances and there was no evidence that their relations were strained or that the sister would institute litigation to take back possession of the flat.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the eviction order granted to the respondent-landlady.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been tiled against theorder dated 16. 7. 1988 passed by Shri V. K. Jain, Additional Rent Controller,delhi whereby he has allowed the eviction petition of the respondent-landlady for bonafide requirement under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ).
( 2 ) THE relevant facts set out in the pleadings of the parties necessaryfor determining the point in controversy are that the respondent, who hasstated herself to be the owner of Flat No. 6-B, Raj Hans, 33-Prithvi Raj Road,new Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the premises), let out these premises tomilk Food Ltd i. e. , the petitioner-tenant for the residence of its Managingdirector Shri K. S. Jaiswal at a monthly rent of Rs. 2. 000. 00 plus Rs. 600. 00 forfixtures (in all Rs. 2. 600. 00 per month ). The respondent s husband, viz. , Majorsatish Khanna who had been in military services was getting subsidiary fromthe Government under the rules of Military services for the accommodation;he and the respondent were living in a house in Delhi on rental basis while inmilitary service. However, the respondent s husband had been retired andrelieved from military service w. e. f. 30. 11. 1980 and his accommodation inthe military service stands withdrawn. The respondent, therefore, requiredthe premises for occupation as residence for herself and for the members ofher family dependent upon her. According to the respondent-landlady, shehas no other accommodation in Delhi except her own house/flat in dispute inwhich the petitioner-tenant is residing.
( 3 ) THE petitioner-tenant has not disputed that the premises were letout to it for use for residential purposes but not for the residence ofmr. K. S. Jaiswal only by the respondent-landlady. However, it has beenemphatically denied that she is the owner of the premises and according torecords of the L. and D. O. Shri R. K. Gupta, father of the respondent, is theowner of the premises. According to the petitioner. Shri R. K. Gupta hadsimilar accommodation in Flat No. 4-A, where the respondent was residing,but in the name of another daughter, namely, Miss Savitri Gupta as per then. D. M. C. records. The husband of the respondent was not dependentupon the respondent and it could not be said that she required the premisesbonafide for occupation as residence for herself and the members of herfamily dependent upon her. The petitioner has also denied that the respondent-landlady did not have any other reasonable suitable accommodation.
( 5 ) THE respondent-landlady, in order to succeed, has to prove: (i) thatshe is the owner of the property; (ii) that the premises in question were letout only for residential purposes; (iii) that she requires the premises bonafide for occupation as a residence for herself or for any member or herfamily dependent upon her; and (iv) that she has no other reasonable suitableresidential accommodation.
( 6 ) MR. L. R. Gupta, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has endeavoured to assail the impugned order/judgment of the Additional Rent Controller on two counts- (i) that the respondent-landlady has not proved thatshe is the owner of the premises; and (ii) that she has no reasonable suitableresidential accommodation.
( 7 ) I will deal with first the argument of the learned Counsel for thepetitioner-tenant on the question whether or not respondent-landlady hasbeen able to prove/establish that she is the owner of the premises in dispute.
( 8 ) ACCORDING to Mr. L. R. Gupta, no doubt the respondent appearingas AW 1 has deposed that she is the owner of the property in dispute throughagift deed-Ext. CW 1/1 (objected to), made by her father on 26. 3. 1974. but the same is an unregistered deed. According to him, the gift deed shouldbe registered and since the present gift deed is an unregistered one, the samecannot be looked into for establishing the. ownership. According to L and D. O. and other records the owner his Shri R. K. Gupta, the
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
