The High Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing that the eviction petition was not time-barred, properties acquired by the tenant could constitute the basis of an eviction petition, and there was no evidence of the petitioner residing in the tenanted premises.

JUDGMENT

1. Eviction Petition E-477598/2016 was preferred by the respondent Mandhir Sachdeva, seeking eviction of the petitioner Kushal Anand from the premises located at R-875, New Rajender Nagar Delhi (hereinafter "the tenanted premises") invoking, for the said purpose, clauses (d) and (h) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the DRC Act"). For the sake of convenience, the provisions would be referred to, hereinafter, as Sections 14(1)(d) and 14(1)(h) respectively.

2. It is not in dispute that the tenanted premises were allotted to Jai Singh Sachdeva, the grandfather of the respondent, by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, vide letter dated 10th April, 1954 and that Jai Singh Sachdeva inducted Surinder Nath Anand, the now deceased husband of the petitioner Kushal Anand, as a tenant in the first floor of the tenanted premises in 1960. The tenancy was for residential purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 175, excluding water and electricity charges. The respondent contended, in his Eviction Petitions that, after Jai Singh Sachdeva expired on 27th December, 1968, his parental uncle Jagdish Singh, as one of the co-owners who had succeeded to the ownership of the tenanted premises as a legal heir of Jai Singh Sachdeva, terminated the tenancy of the petitioner vide notice dated 6th January, 1970, with effect from 31st January, 1970.

3. It was further contended that Surinder Nath Anand had acquired eight immovable properties, including three in Rajender Nagar. Of the eight immovable properties so acquired by Surinder Nath Anand, the respondent contended that Surinder Nath Anand shifted, in 1974, to one of the said properties, situated at A-42, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, which was acquired by him vide registered Sale Deed dated 5th August, 1972. After Surinder Nath Anand died, the petitioner, contended the respondent, further acquired premises located at K-228, Sainik Farms, New Delhi, where she was residing with her daughters.

4. Consequent to the death of Jai Singh Sachdeva, and the execution of relinquishment/release deeds in the respondent's favour by the remaining co-sharers who had succeeded to ownership of the tenanted premises, the respondent contended that he came into ownership of the said premises by way of Conveyance Deed dated 15th November, 2011 issued by the Land and Development Office ("the L&DO").

5. Alleging that (i) electricity to the tenanted premises stood disconnected with effect from 19th October, 2003, and (ii) the petitioner was, even otherwise, residing at K-228, Sainik Farms, New Delhi and had also succeeded to ownership of the immovable properties acquired by Surinder Nath Anand during his lifetime including the property situated at A-42, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, the respondent, vide the aforesaid Eviction Petition E-477598/2016, sought eviction of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(d) and Section 14(1)(h) of the DRC Act¹ .

6. The eviction petition came to be allowed by the learned Additional Rent Controller ("the learned ARC") under Section 14(1)(d) as well as Section 14(1)(h) of the DRC Act, vide judgment dated 18th June, 2020.

7. The petitioner appealed to the learned Rent Controller vide RCT 41/2020. The judgment dated 20th May, 2022, of the learned RCT, dismisses the said appeal.

8. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction vested in this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Mr. Sishodia submits, at the outset, that he is not raising the issue of existence or non-existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner, or disputing the ownership of the respondent over the tenanted premises, though these issues had been raised before the learned ARC and the learned RCT. He restricts his challenge to the impugned order to three contentions.

10. The first is that Eviction Petition E-477598/2016 was barred by time. For his purpose, Mr. Sishodia relies on Ganpat Ram Sharma v. Smt. Gayatri Devi [AIR 1987 SC