The mandatory nature of Section 14(2) of the DRC act and the landlord's remedy to file a civil suit for possession when the tenant denies the landlord-tenant relationship.

JUDGMENT

amit Bansal, J. - The present petitions under article 227 of the Constitution of India impugn the judgment dated 2nd February, 2019 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter 'Tribunal') in RCT aRCT Nos. 3/2018 and 4/2018, whereby the appeals filed on behalf of the respondents (hereinafter 'tenants') against the judgments dated 23rd December, 2017 passed by the Rent Controller, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter 'Rent Controller') have been allowed.

2. Notice was issued in the present petitions on 3rd July, 2019.

3. Vide the judgments dated 23rd December, 2017, the Rent Controller had allowed the eviction petitions filed on behalf of the petitioner (hereinafter 'landlord') under Section 14(1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control act, 1958 (hereinafter 'DRC act') and had further observed that the benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC act cannot be given to the tenants in these cases. The said judgments of the Rent Controller were challenged by the tenants by way of appeals before the Tribunal to the limited extent of the denial of benefit of Section 14 (2) of the DRC act to the tenants and the said appeals have been allowed by the impugned judgment.

4. CM(M) 964/2019 is in respect of the mezzanine floor and CM(M) 965/2019 is in respect of the ground floor of the property bearing No.HS-8, Kailash Market, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter 'demised premises'). Since both the petitions arise from the same impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the same are being taken up together.

5. arguments of the counsels were heard on 14th January, 2022 and both the parties were directed to file their written submissions/judgments relied upon by them. The counsel for the landlord has filed judgments relied upon by the landlord and the counsel for the tenants has filed a note distinguishing the said judgments.

6. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present petitions are set out below:

6.1 The demised premises were let out by the deceased landlady, Lt. Smt. Indira Kumari by way of rent deed dated 7th October, 1968 in favour of Sh. Manmohan Singh Sarna, the deceased husband of Lt. Smt. Bimla Rani at a rent of Rs.100/- per month.

6.2 after the death of Sh. Manmohan Singh Sarna in 1995, the tenancy devolved upon Lt. Smt. Bimla Rani and other legal heirs of Sh. Manmohan Singh Sarna.

6.3 Since rent in respect of the demised premises was not paid by the tenant to the landlady with effect from July, 1995, a legal notice dated 29th January, 1996 was served by the landlady upon the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Manmohan Singh Sarna. The said notice was duly replied vide reply dated 19th March, 1996 wherein the factum of tenancy was admitted.

6.4 On 3rd September, 1997 the deceased landlady filed eviction petitions before the Rent Controller under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC act against the legal heirs of Sh. Manmohan Singh Sarna.

6.5 The said eviction petitions were contested by the tenants by filing written statements to the petitions, wherein defence was taken on behalf of the tenants that the landlady had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the demised premises and therefore, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

6.6 In 1998, the deceased landlady filed a criminal complaint being FIR no. 38/98 against the tenants and chargesheet in respect thereof has been filed before the competent Court. In the said criminal proceedings, the police also filed report of the FSL which shows that the signature of deceased landlady has been forged on the agreement to sell and other documents relied upon by the tenants.

6.7 The tenants also filed a suit for specific performance which has been adjourned sine die at the request of the tenants.

6.8 The Rent Controller vide judgments dated 23rd December, 2017 allowed the eviction petitions filed on behalf of the landlord under Section 14(1) (a) of the DRC act holding that:

(i) Smt. Indira Kumari was the owner of the property and after h