The legislative intent behind Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 emphasizes the need for tenants to present proof of their claims in summary eviction proceedings.

CM No.34871/2017 (for exemption).

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

RC.REV. No.443/2017 and CM No.34870/2017 (for stay).

3. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order (dated 17th May, 2017 in E.No.5520/16 (Old E.No.41/15) of the Court of Rent Controller (North-West), District, Rohini Courts, Delhi) of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioner from property no.A-19, Harijan Colony, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar-III, Delhi – 110052.

4. The manner in which the counsel for the petitioner/tenant has argued, does not require this Court to, in this order, deal with the contents of the petition for eviction, leave to defend and reply thereto.

5. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant is that the respondent/landlord has never demanded rent from the petitioner/tenant and the petitioner/tenant has never paid rent to the respondent/landlord and the respondent/landlord was thus not entitled to maintain the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

6. On enquiry, as to in what capacity the petitioner/tenant is in occupation of the property, the counsel for the petitioner/tenant states that though the petitioner is in possession as tenant but under Roshni Devi who sold the property in the tenancy of the petitioner and the property, after change of several hands, has now been acquired by the respondent/landlord vide Sale Deed dated 16th December, 2010 but the respondent/landlord after acquiring the property vide the said Sale Deed did not give any notice to the petitioner/tenant to pay rent as he should have.

7. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/tenant, under which provision is a purchaser of immovable property required to demand rent and if does not do so, loses the right to evict the tenant therefrom.

8. No answer has been forthcoming. In this regard it may be noted that the petitioner/tenant is an old tenant in the premises and the counsel for the petitioner/tenant is not even able to tell the rate of rent which was earlier being paid by the petitioner/tenant.

9. When the rent paid by such an old tenant is miniscule and when the expense in collection thereof is more, the landlords of such properties are often found to be not taking steps to demand or recover rent. However the said fact would not disentitle them from seeking eviction on the ground of their requirement for the premises. Even otherwise, it is the settled position in law (See Sanjay Singh Vs. M/s. Corporate Warranties Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 204 DLT 12; Harvinder Singh Vs. M/s. Paradise Tower Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 199 DLT (CN) 25; Ambica Prasad Vs. Mohd. Alam (2015) 13 SCC 13 and judgment dated 6th September, 2017 in RC. Rev. No.422/2017 titled Vijay Sharma Vs. Namita Aggarwal) that attornment is under the law and no act of attornment is required.

10. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant has then contended that in the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent/landlord also, the petitioner/tenant is not shown as a tenant.

11. I have however enquired from the counsel for the petitioner/tenant, whether the petitioner/tenant claims himself to be a tenant in the property purchased by respondent, or not.

12. The answer is in the affirmative.

13. Once that is so, non-mention even if any of the name of the petitioner as tenant in the Sale deed vide which the respondent/landlord has purchased the property will not be of any avail.

14. There is thus no merit in the contention, of the respondent being not landlord, to be entitled to invoke Section 14(1)(e).

15. The next contention of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant, is that the petitioner/tenant in his leave to defend application gave particulars of a large number of properties available with the respondent/landlord and the resp