Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1414
High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH
Ghanshyam Dass
Versus
Shakuntla Bakshi & Others
RC. Rev. No. 346 of 2012 & CM No. 12793 of 2012
Decided on : 28-10-2013
For the Petitioner:Manoj Sharma with Kapil Kaushik, V.K. Khurana, Ankur Saini, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Ratan Kr. Singh with Nikhlesh Krishnan, Saurav Sumkan, Shashi Bhushan, Jaipratap, Advocates.
The landlord has the right to assess their own residential requirement, and the tenant is estopped from disputing the landlord's title.
Headnote:
DRC Act - Eviction Petition - Section 14(1)(e), Section 25-B(8) - The judgment discusses the bonafide requirement of the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It also addresses the jurisdictional error and the limited scope of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Act. The court emphasizes the landlord's right to assess their own residential requirement and the tenant's estoppel from disputing the landlord's title.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, claiming bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for her and her large family. The tenants contested, disputing the landlord's ownership, her medical condition, and the suitability of the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord established her bonafide requirement within the provisions of the Act. The tenants' submissions were deemed vague and contrary to law and facts.
Issues: The key issues were the landlord's bonafide requirement, the tenants' dispute of ownership and medical condition, and the suitability of the premises for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the landlord's right to assess their own residential requirement and the tenant's estoppel from disputing the landlord's title. It also clarified the limited scope of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Act.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, granting the tenants six months to vacate the premises.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The petitioner (respondent No.2 in the eviction petition) has filed the abovementioned revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, called the “DRC Act”) against the order dated 28th February, 2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition bearing No.E-216/09 whereby the eviction order was passed against the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 6 herein by dismissing the application for leave to contest in favour of respondent No.1, directing the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 6 to vacate the ground floor, South-East portion forming part of property bearing No.18/1, Mehrauli, New Delhi, shown in red colour in site plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Premises”).
2. Brief facts are that the respondent No.1 filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act against the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 6 on the ground of bonafide requirement. The respondent No.1 is the owner/landlady of the property bearing No.18/1 which is a two storeyed house. The petitioner and respondents No.2 to 6 are the tenants in the suit premises. The said property was originally purchased by Sh.Ram Dayal in public auction from competent Officer,
Rehabilitation Department, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi on 21st March, 1958. The certificate of sale was issued on 4th November, 1963. Said Sh.Ram Dayal sold vertical half portion of the said two-storeyed house consisting of ground and first floor to the husband of respondent No.1, Late Sh.J.N. Bakshi vide agreement to sell and other sale documents.
3. The suit premises was let out to Mr.Ram Kumar, father of the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 6. The rate of rent of the suit premises was Rs.7.50/- per month. The case of the respondent No.1 was that the tenants have not paid the rent for the last 20 years.
4. Sh.J.N.Bakshi expired on 4th April, 2003 and after the demise of Sh.J.N.Bakshi, the aforesaid property was mutated in the name of the respondent No.1, as other legal heirs of Sh.J.N.Bakshi relinquished their respective shares in the property in the name of the respondent No.1 vide registered Relinquishment Deed dated 20th August, 2004. Presently, the respondent No.1 is aged about 76 years and is residing on the first floor of the aforesaid property along with her family. The first floor comprises of two bed rooms, one drawing room, one bathroom and one WC toilet, two kitchens, one verandah and balcony. The second floor is having one small asbestos temporary shed which is being used as store room.
5. The family of the respondent No.1 consists of herself, two married sons namely Sh.Virender Bakshi and Sh.Sanjay Bakshi and two married daughters namely Smt.Chander Prabha and Smt.Renu Grover. The family of Sh.Virender Bakshi comprises of his wife and two sons namely Himanshu Bakshi aged about 19 years and Gaurav Bakshi aged about 14 years. The family of Sh. Sanjay Bakshi comprises of his wife and one son namely Akshit Bakshi aged about 10 years and one daughter namely Yamini aged about 9 years. The married daughters are residing at their respective matrimonial houses.
6. Out of the two bed rooms presently available with the respondent No.1, one room is occupied by her elder son who stays in the same with his wife and the second room is occupied by her younger son who resides there with his wife. The respondent No.1 who is suffering from several ailments as alleged in the petition is compelled due to lack of accommodation to live and reside in the drawing room along with her grand children including Himanshu Bakshi who is studying in B.Sc. IInd Year and requires a separate room for residence as well as for studies.
7. It is also the case of the respondent No.1 is that due to various ailments, she is not at all in a position to move or walk on her own as fingers of the respondent No.1 have bent due to Rheumatoid Arthritis and she is totally depende
