Back
High Court Of Delhi
CHAMAN LAL PANDBI AND SONS,HUF - Appellant
Versus
PRIMO DEPARTMENTAL STORES - Respondent
Civil 246 of 1984
Decided On : 04/03/1986
LANDLORD-TENANT - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY - TENANT'S LOCUS STANDI TO CHALLENGE OWNERSHIP - HUF PROPERTY - JOINT FAMILY MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTION - ASSESSMENT AS HUF PROPERTY - EARLIER EVICTION PETITION BY HUF - COMPROMISE - SUBSEQUENT CHALLENGE TO OWNERSHIP BY TENANT - VALIDITY OF WILL - COLLUSIVE PARTITION DECREE - BENAMI TRANSFER - SHAM TRANSACTION - SALE DEED AS PAPER TRANSACTION - FINDING OF FACT - INTERFERENCE BY APPELLATE COURT - GENUINE NEED OF LANDLORD - ACCOMMODATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS IN DISPUTED PREMISES - SUFFICIENCY OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION - INTERPRETATION OF RENT CONTROL ACT - BALANCING INTERESTS OF LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought eviction of respondents from the disputed premises, alleging bona fide requirement for the residence of Prem Pandhi, a member of the joint Hindu family (HUF) petitioner No. 1, who retired as Chairman of Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. and was asked to vacate the company-provided premises. The respondents contested the petition, denying the ownership of the property by the HUF and challenging the bona fide requirement.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court found that the disputed property was owned by the HUF, not by Rattan Pandhi, as claimed by the respondents. The HUF was formed in 1961, and all members contributed funds to construct the house on the plot leased to Rattan Pandhi. The property was assessed as HUF property from the beginning, and an earlier eviction petition filed by the HUF was compromised. 2. The court held that the respondents, as tenants, had no locus standi to challenge the ownership of the landlord, particularly when Rattan Pandhi was also a petitioner in the eviction petition. The court cited several judgments supporting this view. 3. Regarding the bona fide requirement, the court found that Prem Pandhi had a genuine need for the disputed premises as he had to vacate the company-provided accommodation upon retirement. The court rejected the Rent Controller's finding that the ground floor and barsati floor of the house, occupied by Prem Pandhi's sister's sons, were sufficient for his residence, considering his status and the expectation of privacy.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents, as tenants, had the locus standi to challenge the ownership of the landlord. 2. Whether the disputed property was owned by the HUF or by Rattan Pandhi. 3. Whether Prem Pandhi had a bona fide requirement for the disputed premises.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that tenants generally do not have the locus standi to challenge the ownership of the landlord, as it is a matter to be agitated by the co-sharers or heirs of the property. This principle was supported by several judgments cited by the court. 2. The court found that the evidence on record, including the formation of the HUF, the contribution of funds by all members, and the assessment of the property as HUF property, established that the disputed property was owned by the HUF, not by Rattan Pandhi. 3. The court held that Prem Pandhi had a genuine bona fide requirement for the disputed premises, considering his status, the need for privacy, and the fact that the ground floor and barsati floor of the house were occupied by his sister's sons.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of the Rent Controller, and granted eviction of the respondents from the disputed premises within six months.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the order dated 8. 6. 1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition for eviction filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
( 2 ) ORIGINALLY petitioner No. I had filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute namely first floor of C-315, Defence Colony, New Delhi. On an objection in the application for leave to defend regarding petitioner No. 1, not being the owner of the property, the petition was amended and petitioner No. 2 was impleaded as a party. In paragraph 18 (a) of the petition, it was alleged:-
"the premises were let out to respondent no. 1 for residential purpose and the same are required by the petitioner bona fide for the residence of Shri Prem Pandhi and his family members who is also karta of HUF petitioner No. 1. since Prem Pandhi has retired w. e. f. 1. 1. 1981 as Chairman of M/s. Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. After his retirement he has been asked by the company to vacate the premises 5, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi which were given to him by the company as Chairman of the company. More so, the landlord of the said premises 5, Amrit Shergil Road, New Delhi has also filed an eviction - petition on the ground of bonafide necessity against M/s. Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of 5, Amrita Shergil Road, New Delhi which is pending in the court of Shri V. B. Gupta, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. Mr. Prem Pandhi does not own anyother premises in Delhi. Mr. Prem Pandhi s sister s son Ravi Chopra-is residing on the aforesaid floor and on the second floor another son of the some sister of Prem Pandhi Shashi Chopra with his family is residing for the last two years. Prem Pandhi s sister s husband, who was superintendent of Police, was killed during communal riots at Lahore in August, 1947 and Shri Prem Pandhi and his father Chander Pandhi. had brought up these two children Ravi Chopra and Shashi Chopra as their children (Ages in 1947 were approximately 8 and 6 years respectively ). The petitioner is the owner of the premises".
( 3 ) THE petition was contested by the respondents. Various pleas were taken but for the present petition, I am concerned only with two main plea which were the subject matter of arguments before the Rent Controller as also before me. The first plea being that the premises were not owned by any joint Hindu family i. e. petitioner no. 1. It was pleaded that the property was mutated and stands in the name of Col. Ratten Pandhi who is owner of plot of land and the super-structure constructed on the plot of land. It was further pleaded that in any event the ownership of the super-structure goes with the plot of land. The second plea being that there was no bona fide requirement of peitioner no. 1.
( 4 ) THE petitioners filed their replication wherein they denied the allegations in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the petition.
( 5 ) ON consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 was not the owner of the property in dispute and it was petitioner No. 2 who was the owner. The Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that there was noting to show that the ground floor and the barsati floor of the house in question which were occupied by Shashi Chopra and Ravi Chopra were not enough for the residence of Prem Pandhi and as such there was no bona fide requirement for which the respondent could be evicted. Consequently the petition was dismissed by Judgment and order dated 8th June, 1984.
( 6 ) IN this revision petition I have been taken through the entire evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that the plot on which the house in question was constructed was leased out to Ratten Pandhi by the President of India in 1957. The case of the petitioners all alon
AI
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
