Back
High Court Of Delhi
KAMAL KISHORE CHOPRA - Appellant
Versus
O.P.DWIVEDI - Respondent
Civil 719 of 1976
Decided On : 04/15/1977
RENT CONTROL ACT - OWNERSHIP - DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT - WHETHER HIRER IS AN OWNER UNDER THE ACT - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE (E) OF THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 14 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the eviction order passed against him by the Additional Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord, the respondent, had filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide personal necessity. The petitioner raised three objections: (1) the notice was invalid; (2) the need of the landlord was not bona fide as he wanted to increase the rent; and (3) the landlord was not the owner of the property, but the Delhi Development Authority was the owner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first two objections were vague and mala fide and did not entitle the petitioner to obtain leave to contest the eviction petition. On the third objection, the court held that the petitioner was not a tenant of the Delhi Development Authority and that Authority did not claim or exercise any rights of ownership or landlord against the petitioner. The court further held that the respondent was the landlord and owner of the property, since he was not holding it for the benefit of any other person.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice served by the landlord was invalid? 2. Whether the need of the landlord was bona fide? 3. Whether the landlord was the owner of the property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the objection regarding the invalidity of the notice was vague and did not specify any invalidity. The court further held that merely negative or vague pleas to put the landlord on proof are not enough and if they are allowed to merit the grant of leave, the whole object of the summary procedure would be defeated. 2. The court held that the objection regarding the bona fide need of the landlord was extremely vague and mala fide and was raised to gain time. The court further held that this plea has rightly been rejected by the trial Controller and it does not entitle the petitioner to obtain leave to contest the eviction petition. 3. The court held that the question about the ownership of the premises is certainly of importance in the instant case. The court further held that the scheme of the Regulations is that the property constructed by the Delhi Development Authority is intended to be conveyed to the parties on hire-purchase basis. The court also held that the hirer holds the property as a tenant for the hire-purchase period and he is bound to pay the rent. The court further held that the hirer is debarred from making or permitting to make any alteration or addition to the property without prior permission of the local authority concerned. The court also held that the hirer shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any portion of the said property without previous consent in writing of the owner which it shall be entitled to refuse in its absolute discretion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition with no order as to costs. The order for eviction was not to be executed till 31st May, 1977.
( 1 ) THIS civil revision has been filed under subsection (8) of section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). It has been filled by the tenant and is directed against the order of the Additional Controller dated 18th October, 1976, by which he has refused the petitioner leave to contest the eviction, petition and has passed an order for eviction against the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in respect of the premises in dispute. On 4th June 1976 the respondent instituted a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal necessity specified in clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. The petition had to be tried according to the summary procedure prescribed by section 25b of the Act. On service of the summons the petitioner filed an application for leave to contest the eviction petition. The petitioner raised the following objections : (1) the notice was invalid ; (2) the need of the landlord was not bona fide as he wanted to increase the rent ; and (3) the landlord was not the owner of the property, but the Delhi Development Authority was the owner. The Addl. Controller has refused the leave to contest the eviction petition and has in accordance with the provisions of law passed an order for eviction. Mr. R. P. Sharma, Advocate, appearing to support the petitioner, has assailed the order and reiterated the aforesaid three conventions.
( 3 ) SO far as the invalidity of the notice is concerned, the plea raised was wholly vague and no invalidity has been pointed out. As held in V. L. Kashyap v. R. P. Puri, ILR (1977) I Delhi 22 (1), the tenant is required to state facts, which will disentitle the landlord from obtaining eviction. Merely negative or vague pleas to put the landlord on proof are not enough and if they are allowed to merit the grant of leave, the whole object of the summary procedure would be defeated. The first objection of the petitioner has no force and has rightly been rejected by the Addl. Controller.
( 4 ) SO far as the second contention is concerned, it is again extremely vague and has been raised mala fide to gain time. This plea has rightly been rejected by the trial Controller and it does not entitle the petitioner to obtain leave to contest the eviction petition. The contention has no force and is rejected.
( 5 ) THE question about the ownership of the premises is certainly of importance in the instant case. I would have been inclined to grant leave and set down the petition for trial on this issue, but for the fact that the question raised is only of law and no disputed question of fact is involved in the matter and so remand to the Controller is unnecessary. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length and have perused the relevant record and am in a position to return a finding.
( 6 ) THE material facts on this question are that the Delhi Development Authority had agreed to sell the property, which contains the premises in dispute to the respondent under a hire-purchase agreement. The property had been sold under Delhi Development Authority (Management and disposal of housing estates), Regulations, 1968, which had been framed under clause (1) of sub-section, (1) of section 57 of the Delhi Development Act, 61 of 1957. The hire-purchase agreement has got a statutory form, which is prescribed. It is admitted by both the parties that the statutory provisions have been complied with in the case and there is no disputed question of fact arising and so the question can be determined as a matter of law.
( 7 ) THE scheme of the Regulations is that the property constructed by the Delhi Development Authority is intended to be conveyed to the parties on hire-purchase basis. The rules and the procedure are prescribed. The agreements are entered into between the hirer and Some part of the purchase money is paid by him instantly a
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
