Back
High Court Of Delhi
LAXMI KANT MUKT - Appellant
Versus
JITENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 221 of 1979
Decided On : 01/12/1980
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT - S. 14 (1) (E) - OWNER'S BONA-FIDE REQUIREMENT - EVICTION OF TENANT - LANDLORD'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AS WITNESS - ADVERSE PRESUMPTION - PARTIAL EVICTION - S. 14 (1) (K) - LEASE DEED NOT EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF LANDLORD - ACADEMIC QUESTION.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal under S. 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, on the grounds that the landlord was not the owner of the demised premises, that the landlord did not appear as a witness to prove his bona-fide requirement, that the eviction petition sought partial eviction, and that the ground of eviction under S. 14 (1) (k) was not attracted as the lease deed of the land was not executed in favor of the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the landlord was the owner of the demised premises, that the landlord's bona-fide requirement was proved, that the eviction petition did not seek partial eviction, and that the ground of eviction under S. 14 (1) (k) was not relevant as the eviction order was passed under S. 14 (1) (e).
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord was the owner of the demised premises? 2. Whether the landlord's bona-fide requirement was proved? 3. Whether the eviction petition sought partial eviction? 4. Whether the ground of eviction under S. 14 (1) (k) was attracted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlord was the owner of the demised premises based on the findings of the Rent Control Tribunal and the concurrent findings of the lower courts in a previous suit for recovery of rent. 2. The court held that the landlord's bona-fide requirement was proved based on the evidence that the landlord had only one room and garage in his exclusive possession, that his family consisted of his wife and six children who had no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi, and that the tenant admitted in his written statement that the landlord required the premises bona fide. 3. The court held that the eviction petition did not seek partial eviction as the plan attached to the petition correctly showed the premises in occupation of the tenant and the tenant had not raised any objection in the Trial Court regarding the non-supply of the plan. 4. The court held that the ground of eviction under S. 14 (1) (k) was not relevant as the eviction order was passed under S. 14 (1) (e).
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's appeal and upheld the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal.
( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the tenant seeking reversal of the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, passed on March 15, 1979 dismissing the appeal of the tenant but allowing the appeal filed by the landlord, and directing the tenant s eviction under S. 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
( 2 ) THE first question required to be decided at the threshold is whether the respondent is the owner of the demised premises? If he is not, his requirement of those premises even if proved to be bonafide cannot be made the ground for tenant s eviction. Admittedly, the respondent herein had been held to be the landlord as also the owner of the demised premises in an earlier suit which he had filed for recovery of Rs. 5. 000. 00 on account of arrears of rent against the present appellant, by the trial court which finding was affirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. The tenant s second appeal (R. S. A. No. 105 of 1969) was dismissed on September 30, 1975, by. Avadh Behari, J. While upholding the concurrent Avadh Behari J. had expressed no opinion on the question of ownership and observed thus :
"there is a concurrent finding that the plaintiff is the owner of this property. The Courts below have held that this is a joint Hindu family property, that there was a partition and that there was a rearrangement by reason of which the ground-floor of the property came to the share of the respondent-plaintiff. In my opinion, it is not necessary to go into this question at all. I have not asked the appellant s therefore, express any opinion on the question of ownership. "
( 3 ) THE said judgment of this Court is on the record of this case as Exhibit R. 6. Avadh Behari J , while affirming the decrees of the Courts below, had further observed in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment that "in the plaint the case of the plantiff was that he was the landlord and the defendant was his tenant. I have decided this appeal on this main ground. In the replication the questions of ownership, joint Hindu family, partition, re-arrangement were all set out. The Courts have decided those questions also in favour of the plaintiff. But in my opinion the suit could have been decided on this other ground. "
( 4 ) IT is obvious from the judgment (Exhibit R. 6) that the concurrent findings that the respondent herein was not only the landlord but the owner as well, had not been varied by this Court The said appeal was decided on a narrow ground that Shri Jatinder Kumar being the landlord of the demised premises was entitled to she recovery of the rent as claimed. However, as no opinion had been expressed by this Court on the aspect of the ownership, the learned Tribunal went into this question. After analysing the evidence in detail, it found that the respondent was the owner of the premises in dispute. It has been held by the learned Tribunal that the premises, namely House No. 30, Block No. 61, Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was a joint Hindu family property; that there was a partition between members of the joint Hindu family; and that there was rearrangement between them by which the ground-floor of the property came to the share of the respondent.
( 5 ) MR. Dhir, learned counsel for the appellant, challenges these findings. His objections are :
(1) The award (Exhibit A 4) recognizing the shares in which the property had been earlier partitioned and also the decree (Exhibit A 5) making the said award a rule of the Court, were a nullity as they had not been executed on a stamp paper and had not been compulsorily registered. (2) The re-arrangement between the members of the joint Hindu family by which the ground-floor came to the share of the respondent, is illegal being in contravention of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
( 6 ) ON facts the learned Tribunal has found that the partition admittedly took place in the year 1958 and the Income Tax Officer vide his assessment order (Exhibit A. W. 2/2) passed on 2. 1. 1961 had accept
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
