The broader meaning of dependency under S.14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the presumption in favor of the landlord's need, and the revisionary powers of the High Court under various rent control acts.

V.K. Shali, J.:-

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/revisionist against the order dated 06.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC), East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi rejecting the review petition filed by the revisionist and upholding the order dated 13.08.2014 by virtue of which the Ld. ARC dismissed the petitioner’s application for leave to defend and passed the order of eviction.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is the landlady of the premises bearing No. 603/2 B-1, Bazar Gali, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. A shop situated at the ground floor of the aforesaid premise was let out to the petitioner on 16.11.1988 at the rent of Rs. 800/- p.m. (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premise) to be increased at 5% every year. The respondent in August, 2012 filed an eviction petition stating therein that the premises are required for the settlement of her daughter in law as her son who is engaged in the family business and is unable to meet the requirements of his family which includes two minor children.

3. The Ld. ARC vide order dated 13.08.2014 dismissed the petitioners application seeking leave to defend and passed an order of eviction in favor of the respondent herein. Aggrieved the petitioner herein sought a review and the same was dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2015. Leading to the present revision petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner/revisionist is primarily two folds. Firstly it has been contented that the daughter in law will not constitute as dependent on the respondent according to the scheme of S.14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It has been argued that even though the word ‘dependent’ has not been defined in the Act, in common parlance, it means and connotes a person who is dependent either on account of being minor or on account of having been incapacitated. Admittedly, the daughter in law does not qualify either of the criteria so as to make her dependent on the respondent for the purpose of the eviction proceedings under S. 14(1) (e) of the Act. In furtherance of the aforesaid argument the petitioner/ revisionist has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Honorable Sikkim High Court in Paul Sangay v. Mahabir Prasad Agarwalla; AIR 1980 Sikkim 13 wherein it has been observed that a requirement for occupation of any person other than landlord himself can be a ground of ejectment there under only if such person, whether a wife or a son or a daughter is “dependent” on the landlord. It was further observed that mere desire on the part of the landlord is not enough but the landlord must also prove a genuine bonafide requirement.

5. Secondly the learned counsel for the petitioner has questioned the title of the respondent/landlady with respect to the tenanted premise on account of discrepancies in the documents relied upon by the respondent in this regard. It is alleged that the GPA dated 03.01.1996 executed in favor of one Ms. Vidyawati was in respect of a premise ad-measuring 150 sq yards whereas the sale deed dated 20.02.1996 executed by her in favor of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma which was later purchased by the respondent/ landlady in 2006 ad-measured only 50 square yards. On the basis of the aforesaid it is argued that the property, ad-measuring 150 square yards was not partitioned by meets and bounds and late Vidyawati was appointed attorney for the entire property and therefore, it is suspicious as to how a part of the same being 50 square yards, presently constituting the tenanted premises, came to be sold to Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma and later to the respondent/landlady, thereby raising doubts on the title of the respondent/ landlady. It is further argued that had the respondent been the landlady the rent with respect to the tenanted premises could not have been received by Mr. Yogender Verma who is the husband of the respondent and in wh