Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 2292
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Asiya Jamil - Petitioner
Versus
Canara Bank - Respondent
RC.REV. 604 of 2015
Decided On : 17-07-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ms. Sana Ansari, Ms. Manisha Mehta
The main legal point established is that a co-owner can file an eviction petition individually, and the landlord's need for the premises does not require detailed disclosure of the business to be conducted.
Headnote:
Revision Petition - Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 14(1)(e), Section 25B - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, particularly Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B, and their interpretation in the context of granting leave to defend in an eviction petition. The court emphasized the requirements for eviction based on bona fide need and the rights of co-owners to file eviction petitions individually.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent/tenant to start her own business due to insufficient rental income. The respondent contested the eviction, citing non-disclosure of relevant facts and vague bona fide requirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a co-owner, had the right to file the eviction petition individually and that the respondent's objections did not disentitle the petitioner from an eviction order.
Issues: Non-disclosure of co-ownership and vague bona fide requirement were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a co-owner can file an eviction petition individually and that the landlord's need for the premises does not require an elaborate description of the business to be conducted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the respondent's application for leave to defend and granted an eviction order in favor of the petitioner.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. This Revision Petition is filed under section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking to challenge the order dated 1.8.2015 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC) under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the DRC Act granting leave to the respondent/tenant to defend the present eviction petition.
2. This matter was heard on 20.10.2016 when I had heard learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Zubeda Begum and learned counsel for the respondent Sh. Prashant Kumar Mittal and the matter was kept for orders. However, as certain clarifications were required the matter was fixed for further arguments/clarifications on 05.07.2017. On that date Ms. Zubeda Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared. As none appeared for the respondent, the matter was kept for subsequent dates but none appeared for the respondent.
3. The brief facts are that the property in question being (Ground Floor) part of property 2378-82 Chashma Building, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006 was let out to M/s. Lakxmi Commercial Bank at a rent of Rs.240/- per month. The bank has subsequently merged with the respondent bank. The petitioner states in the petition that she is a middle aged lady who is having no business or work of her own. She seeks to carry out some respectable business in order to meet her livelihood in a decent and respectable manner. At present it is stated that she is dependent upon the meager rental income from her tenants of properties and this income is not sufficient for the petitioner to live comfortably in a respectable manner. She further states that there is nobody to look after her financial needs.
4. The respondent/tenant filed an application under section 25B(4) of the DRC Act seeking grant of leave to contest the petition. In the application it was urged that on 16.1.1988 the petitioner and Ms. Atiya Rehman had requested the respondent bank that the other co-sharers of the property had gifted the said suit property to the petitioner and Ms. Atiya Rehman on 10.12.1983 according to Muslim Personal Law and they have become the sole owners of the property. It is urged that in the present eviction petition the petitioner is claiming exclusive ownership on the basis of relinquishment deed dated 8.9.2006. Prior to the present petition it is urged that no such fact was brought to the notice of the respondent and till date the rent is being received in the joint names of the petitioner and Ms. Atiya Rehman. It was also urged that the stated requirement of the petitioner is vague as there is no disclosure as to what business the petitioner seeks to do or wants to do. She has also not stated about her experience/knowledge of business which she is planning to do. It was also pointed out that the eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner against a school being run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated condition. The said school is on the first floor of the aforesaid building from where the respondent bank is operating. Hence, it is urged that the grounds of the petition are self contradictory.
5. The ARC by the impugned order has granted leave to defend to the respondent on the following salient grounds:-
(i) first triable issue that arises is about non-disclosure of relevant facts inasmuch as in the letters written in 1980s the petitioner has claimed herself to be the joint owner of the property with one Ms. Atiya Rehman. However, in the Eviction Petition she claims to be the sole owner and despite the objections raised by the respondent the petitioner has not clarified the fact (ii) the second triable issue that arises is with regard to the bona fide requirement projected. It is further stated that the rental income is nowhere stated. The petition is vague and lacks clarity with regard to the need of the petitioner.
6. Based on the above two grounds the ARC has granted le
