Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, J.
Nisar Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Agya Pal Singh – Respondent
RC.REV. 367 of 2018, CM APPL. 13453 of 2023 & CM APPL. 22041 of 2023
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Mr. Rajat Aneja and Mr. Ajay Saroya, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.A. Niyazi and Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Ms. Anamika Ghai, Ms. Kirti Bhardwaj, Ms. Nehmat Sethi and Mr. Arquam Ali, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the bonafide requirement for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act is primarily determined by the availability of suitable alternate accommodation for the landlord and his dependents, and the financial status or business aspirations of the landlord or his dependents are not decisive factors.
Headnote:
Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e), Section 25-B
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition seeking possession of the tenanted premises for bonafide use by himself and his dependent family members for business purposes. The petition was dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller-I, which was challenged by the landlord in the revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eviction petition was maintainable before the learned ARC and that the tenant's contentions regarding jurisdiction were rejected. The court also held that the landlord's financial status and the nature of his daughters' business aspirations were not relevant for determining bonafide requirement.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the eviction petition, relevance of landlord's financial status and daughters' business aspirations in determining bonafide requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the availability of suitable alternate accommodation for the landlord and his dependent daughters was the key factor for determining bonafide requirement, and the landlord's financial status or his daughters' business aspirations were not relevant considerations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the eviction petition, directing the tenant to vacate and hand over the tenanted premises to the landlord.
JUDGMENT
Najmi Waziri, J.
RC.REV. 367/2018 & CM Nos. 13453/2023 & 22041/2023
1. By this revision petition, the petitioner/landlord impugns the dismissal of his eviction petition bearing No. RE-23/15, against the respondent/tenant by the judgment dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller-I (ARC), Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
2. Eviction of the tenant was sought under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') on the ground that: (i) the tenanted premises was required for bonafide use by the landlord and his dependant family members for business purposes, (ii) they had no suitable alternate accommodation available, (iii) the landlord's two married daughters were unemployed but they were well educated and had commercial aspirations, therefore the bonafide need for space, for which they were dependent upon their father-the petitioner. The elder daughter: Ms. Sufia Ikhlas is a graduate from Lady Sri Ram College and the younger daughter: Dr. Noris Nisar has an MBA degree and has earned a Ph.D too. The petitioner says that he is a senior citizen and suffers from many ailments: he has had a brain-hemorrhage, has neurological problems; is hypertensive; has difficulty in climbing stairs because his knee joints are not functioning well, therefore, there was a need for him to conduct his business from the ground floor.
3. The petitioner is Mutawalli of a Wakf-ul-aulad which includes the tenanted premises: being Shop no. 1344 (Ground Floor), Star Building, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 (Suit Property). The eviction petition apropos the said property was initiated on 24.07.2009. It was first dismissed by an order of the learned ARC on 26.05.2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The said order's dismissal was impugned before this court in RC.Rev. 377/2011 and was set aside by order dated 11.02.2015. The case was remanded to the learned ARC for determination on the aspect of bonafide requirement and to consider the application for leave to defend. A SLP bearing No. 13204/2015 against the order dated 11.02.2015 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 07.05.2015.
4. Leave to defend was granted to the tenant; evidence was led. The eviction petition was dismissed primarily on the ground that bonafide requirement had not been established. The petitioner submits that the said impugned dismissal is erroneous, both on facts and in law; it suffers from material irregularity and patent illegality, therefore, it is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this court.
5. At the outset, the respondent has questioned the maintainability of the eviction petition before the learned ARC on the ground that under section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 only the Wakf Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to eviction of a tenant of a Wakf property, section 85 of the said Act bars jurisdiction of other courts in respect of the matters which the Wakf Tribunal is empowered to decide, therefore, the eviction petition could not have been decided or entertained by the learned ARC. Reliance is placed by the respondent upon the following judgments: Rashid Wali Beg vs Farid Pindari, (2022) 4 SCC 414; Syed Amir Ali vs Anjuman-e-Maidan, [CM(M) 521/2021 decided on 02.12.2021 by High Court of Delhi; and Mehnish Adil vs Delhi Wakf Board, 2002 (286) DLT 654.
6. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram vs Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf, (2010) 8 SCC 726, which while dealing with an eviction petition prior to the amendment of section 83 of the Wakf Act in November, 2013 held that an eviction petition against a Wakf property would also be maintainable before a Civil Court. In Rashid Wali (supra) the Supreme Court held as under:
"....45. Interestingly, the basis of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram was removed through an amendment under Act 27 of 2013. As we have stated elsewhere, Ramesh Gobind
