Imperfectness of the landlord's title does not affect his rights as the owner to recover the premises. Bonafide need for the premises for running a business can be established even if the person intending to run the business has no prior experience in that business.

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The impugned order dated 31.01.2012 had decreed the eviction petition filed by the landlord; the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been declined.

2. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Rajinder Kumar against his tenant Sant Lal; disputed premises are a shop forming part of property bearing No. 8489, Ward No. 15, Arya Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi measuring approximately 10”X10”; rate of rent was Rs.35/- per month excluding electricity charges. Bonafide need has been disclosed in the eviction petition as the need for the petitioner for himself as also for his daughter and his wife for the purposes of running a business; contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner and landlord of the aforenoted premises; he had purchased it from Ram Devi wife of Ram Chander vide document dated 13.10.1986 and since then the tenant has attorned to him and has been paying rent to him; the plaintiff has two sons and two daughters one of whom is unmarried. His elder son Akash is running a general store from the back portion of the property No. 8489, Arya Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. The petitioner is unemployed; shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself as also for the need of his wife and daughter for running a business. The petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation to run his business which he proposes to carry on; his wife and daughter are also dependent upon him. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

3. Leave to defend has been filed. Various contentions had been noted. The only two arguments urged before this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the disputed premises; admittedly the original owner of the property was Ram Devi who although had sold this property to the present petitioner vide a document dated 13.10.1986 yet this document create no interest in the property as this is only an agreement to sell and as such the petitioner is not the lawful and legal owner of the suit property. There is however no dispute that the tenant right from 1986 attorned in favour of the landlord and has been paying rent to him and as noted supra before this date never questioned the title of the landlord as owner.

4. The triable issue sought to be raised by the petitioner qua the status of the landlord as owner has no merit. There is no doubt that the word ‘owner’ has been used under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA but the concept of ownership as construed and understood under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA is not an owner in the strict sense of the word. The imperfectness of the title of the landlord would not affect the rights of the landlord in his capacity as owner to recover the suit premises and on this ground alone, a triable issue does not arise.

5. The Apex Court in various judgments have an occasion to consider the concept of ownership in proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA.

6. In (1987) 4 SCC 193 Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors.

“The word 'owner' has not been defined in this Act and the word 'owner' has also not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant appears to be is that ownership means absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereupon. Ordinarily, the concept of ownership may be what is contended by the counsel for the appellant but in the modern context where it is more or less admitted that all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some term from the Govt. or the authorities constituted by the State and in this view of the matter it could not be thought of that the Legislature when it used the term 'owner' in the provision of Section 14(1)(e) it thought of ownership as absolute ownership. It must be presumed that the concept of ownership only will be as it is understood at present. It coul