Back
1982 Supreme(Del) 128
High Court Of Delhi
RAMESH CHAND SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
R.S.AGGARWAL - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 453 of 1980
Decided On : 04/27/1982
A.C.Mittal, MAEHSVAR DAYAL, S.L.Bhatia, Virender Mehta
The Controller and the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord was entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, even if a title suit relating to the suit property is pending in the civil court.
Headnote:
LANDLORD-TENANT - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - OWNERSHIP - BENAMI TRANSACTION - RELEASE DEED - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 68 - INCOME-TAX ACT, SECTION 281A - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, SECTION 14 (1) (E).
Fact of the Case:
Tenant challenged an eviction order passed against him under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the grounds that: (i) the dispute regarding ownership of the suit property was pending in a civil court; (ii) the release deed relied upon by the landlord was not duly proved; (iii) the landlord's wife, who was the ostensible owner, was a necessary party to the eviction proceedings; (iv) all heirs of the landlord's wife should have been impleaded as parties; (v) the eviction proceedings were barred by Section 281A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; and (vi) the landlord had sufficient accommodation and his sons were not dependent on him.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Controller and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to try and decide the eviction application despite the pendency of the title suit in the civil court. 2. The release deed in favor of the landlord's wife was duly executed and registered, and the marginal witness requirement under Section 68 of the Evidence Act was not applicable. 3. The landlord's wife was not a necessary or proper party to the eviction proceedings. 4. The landlord, as a co-owner, had the right to institute the eviction application in his own name. 5. Section 281A of the Income-tax Act was not applicable as the benami nature of the transaction ceased to exist upon execution of the release deed. 6. The finding of bona fide requirement was based on evidence and could not be interfered with in second appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Controller and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to try and decide the eviction application during the pendency of the title suit in the civil court. 2. Whether the release deed in favor of the landlord's wife was duly proved. 3. Whether the landlord's wife was a necessary or proper party to the eviction proceedings. 4. Whether all heirs of the landlord's wife should have been impleaded as parties. 5. Whether the eviction proceedings were barred by Section 281A of the Income-tax Act. 6. Whether the landlord had sufficient accommodation and his sons were not dependent on him.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Controller and the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord was entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, even if a title suit relating to the suit property is pending in the civil court. 2. The release deed is not required to be attested under any law, and therefore Section 68 of the Evidence Act is not applicable. 3. The landlord's wife is not a necessary or proper party to the eviction proceedings as she has no interest in the suit property. 4. The landlord, as a co-owner, has the right to institute the eviction application in his own name. 5. Section 281A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable as the benami nature of the transaction ceased to exist upon execution of the release deed. 6. The finding of bona fide requirement is based on evidence and cannot be interfered with in second appeal.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant was granted three months to vacate the premises. The respondents 2 to 7 in the amended eviction petition were directed to file in writing that they had no objection to the passing of the eviction order against the appellant. The eviction order was to be for the benefit of all the heirs of the landlord's wife.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th October, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 11th March, 1980 of the Rent Controller passing an order of eviction against the appellant under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act and holding further that if he deposits all arrea s of rent at Rs. 100 per month with effect from 1st January, 1976 within one month from the date of the order the appellant wotild be deemed to have availed the benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are R. S. Aggarwal, respondent on 19th January, 1979 filed an application for eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 1st June, 1970 at Rs. 100 per month in spite of notice of demand. The other ground of eviction was that the premises were let for residential purposes, the same were required by him for occupation for himself and for members of his family dependent on him, that he was the owner of the premises and that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He pleaded that he was a Divisional Accounts Officer and was occupying Government allotted quarter No. 1085 Sector VIII R. K. Puram, New Delhi consisting of three bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining hall, two verandahs, one Kitchen bath room. Latrine, toilet etc. and that he had retired and the Government had asked him to vacate the quarter. The appellant in the written statement pleaded that the respondent was not the owner-landlord and the property was ownd by Smt. Ganga Devi widow of J. N. Gupta. He also pleaded that in a suit filed by Smt. Ganga Devi against present respodent and others she was claiming ownership of the suit property and the respondent was claiming the property on the basis of a Deeded of Relinquishment allegedly executed by J. N. Gupta, deceased husband of Smt. Ganga Devi in favour of respondent s wife, that the controversy as to who was the owner of the suit property was being vigorously contested in the civil court. In replication the respondent pleaded that he was the owner-landlord of the suit property, that J. N. Gupta, husband of Smt. Ganga Devi executed a Relinquishment deed. The Controller and the Tribunal held that the respondent was ownerlandlord, that J. N. Gupta executed a Release deed in favour of respondent s wife, that the agreed rent was Rs. 100 per month and considering the family of the respondent and the fact of his retirement and occupation of the Government accommodation by him it was held that the need of the respondent was bona fide. Hence this second appeal.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant-tenant submits that a dispute as to who was the owner of the suit property between the respondent and Smt. Ganga Devi widow of J. N. Gupta ostensible owner has been pending in the civil court and therefore the Controller and the Tribunal ought not to have passed the order of eviction but should have awaited the decision of the Civil court. Ex. A. W. 11 is the Release Deed dated 12th May, 1969 executed by Jagdish Narain Gupta (J. N. Gupta) son of Shri Ram Pershad in favour of Smt. Santosh Kumari wife of the respondent. This document states that the plot of land of the suit property at 110a, Krishan Nagar, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi was purchased by the respondent s wite in his name as a benamidar from the previous owner by means of a registered sale deed dated 21st September, 1961, that after purchase the respondent s wife put up construction on the said plot, that the property had been in possession of different tenants including the appellant, that he was managing the suit property as a benamidar for and on behalf of the respondent s wife, J. N. Gupta relinquished all his rights, interest and titled in favour of Smt. Santosh Kumari further delcaring that he has no right, title or interest in the suit property wh
