Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Vijay Kumar Farshwal - Appellant
Versus
Shri Kishan Lal & Ors. - Respondents
RC.Rev. 540of 2018 and CM Appl. 47976 of 2018; RC.Rev. 541 of 2018 & CM Appl. 47984 of 2018; RC.Rev. 603 of 2018 & CM Appl. 52585 of 2018; RC.Rev. 608 of 2018 & CM Appl. 52814 of 2018; RC.Rev. 611 of 2018 & CM Appl. 52874 of 2018; RC.Rev. 612 of 2018 & CM Appl. 52879 of 2018; RC.Rev. 613 of 2018 & CM Appl. 52881 of 2018; RC.Rev. 622 of 2018 & CM Appl. 53341 of 2018; RC.Rev. 623 of 2018 & CM Appl. 53343 of 2018; RC.Rev. 625 of 2018 & CM Appl. 53465 of 2018; RC.Rev. 16 of 2019 & CM Appl. 1217 of 2019.
Decided On : 04-10-2023
Eviction - Delhi Rent Control Act - Section 14(1)(e), Section 14(1)(g) - 31.10.2017, 05.03.2018, 17.04.2018, 04.12.2017, 27.09.2017 - The court upheld the eviction orders and decreed eviction for the tenanted premises based on the landlord's bona fide need for setting up a Management-cum-Higher Education Institute for a family member dependent on him. The court held that the need fell within the parameters of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, and there was no bar in law prohibiting the landlord from carrying out construction or alteration to the demised premises to make it suitable for his bona fide need.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the owner and landlord of certain premises, sought eviction of the respondent, who paid a meagre rent, to accommodate a family member's educational institute. The respondent failed to file a leave to defend application, and the eviction order was passed in favor of the petitioner. The respondent filed a review application, challenging the correctness of the eviction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the review orders and upheld the eviction orders, decreeing eviction for the tenanted premises. The court held that the landlord's need fell within the parameters of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, and there was no bar in law prohibiting the landlord from carrying out construction or alteration to the demised premises to make it suitable for his bona fide need.
Issues: The main issue was whether the landlord's need fell within Section 14(1)(e) or Section 14(1)(g) of the DRC Act. Other issues included the scope of review, power of the ARC to condone delay in review, and the maintainability of review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's need for the premises for setting up a Management-cum-Higher Education Institute for a family member dependent on him fell within the parameters of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The court also emphasized that there was no bar in law prohibiting the landlord from carrying out construction or alteration to the demised premises to make it suitable for his bona fide need.
Final Decision: The court set aside the review orders and upheld the eviction orders, decreeing eviction for the tenanted premises. The petitioner-landlord was not entitled to obtain possession of the demised premises before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the order.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J.
RC.REV. 540/2018
1. This is a petition seeking setting aside of the order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned ARC, wherein the review application filed by the respondent was allowed and the eviction order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned ARC earlier was set aside.
Connected Petitions:
2. In RC.REV. 541/2018, the impugned review order is dated 12.09.2018, setting aside the eviction order dated 05.03.2018, concerning the tenanted premises bearing property No. 9328, Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi - 110006, for which the respondent pays rent of Rs. 20/- per month for a total area of 272 sq. feet approximately under his tenancy.
3. In RC.REV. 603/2018, the impugned review order is dated 11.09.2018, setting aside the eviction order dated 17.04.2018, concerning the tenanted premises bearing property No. 9336, Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi - 110006, for which the respondent pays rent of Rs. 15/- per month for a total area of 272 sq. feet approximately under his tenancy.
4. In RC.REV. 608/2018, the impugned review order is dated 11.09.2018, setting aside the eviction order dated 04.12.2017, concerning the tenanted premises bearing property No. 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi - 110006. The said property is a katra, having common municipal number 9340 and having multiple tenements occupied by tenants including the respondent. The respondent pays rent of Rs. 12/- per month for a total area of 480 sq. feet approximately under his tenancy.5. In RC.REV. 611/2018, the impugned review order is dated 12.09.2018, setting aside the eviction order dated 17.04.2018, concerning the tenanted premises bearing property No. 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi - 110006. The said property is a katra, having common municipal number 9340 and having multiple tenements occupied by tenants including the respondent. The respondent pays rent of Rs. 25/- per month for a total area of 600 sq. feet approximately under his tenancy.
6. In RC.REV. 612/2018, the impugned review order is dated 13.09.2018, setting aside the eviction order dated 27.09.2017, concerning the tenanted premises bearing property No. 9329, Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi - 110006. The respondent pays rent of Rs. 20/- per month for a total area of 176 sq. feet approximately under his tenancy.
7. In RC.REV. 613/2018, the impugned review order is dated 13.09.2018, setting aside the eviction order dated 17.04.2018, concerning the tenanted premises bearing property No. 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi - 110006. The said property is a katra, having common municipal number 9340 and having multiple tenements occupied by tenants including the respondent. The respondent pays rent of Rs. 100/- per month for a total area of 780 sq. feet approximately under her tenancy.
8. In RC.REV. 622/2018, the impugned review order is dated 11.09.2018, setting aside the eviction order dated 17.04.2018, concerning the tenanted premises bearing property No. 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi - 110006. The said property is a katra, having common municipal number 9340 and having multiple tenements occupied by tenants including the respondent. The respondent pays rent of Rs. 10/- per month for a total area of 920 sq. feet approximately under his tenancy.9. In RC.REV. 623/2018, the impugned review order is dated 12.09.2018, setting aside the eviction order dated 17.04.2018, concerning the tenanted premises bearing property No. 9340, Katra Ganga Bishan, Bagh Raoji, Gaushala Marg, Kishanganj, Delhi - 110006. The said property is a katra, having common municipal number 9340 and having multiple tenements occupied by tenants including the respondents. The respondent No. 1 pays rent of Rs. 50/- per month for a total area of 688 sq. feet approximately under his
The court upheld the eviction order, confirming the landlords' bona fide need for the tenanted premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, despite the tenants' claims of independent tenancy.
The court emphasized the landlord's right to eviction through summary proceedings and the tenant's obligation to provide evidence to support claims at the stage of seeking leave to contest.
The landlord's discretion in choosing eviction grounds and the relevance of the premises' use after vacation were central to the court's decision.
Bona fide requirement for eviction is assessed as on the date of filing the petition. A landlord's subsequent death does not extinguish the need or vitiate the decree; legal heirs may enforce the ord....
The Rent Controller cannot condone any delay in filing a leave to defend application, and a corporate entity can maintain an eviction petition for its bona fide need.
Right to property, though not a fundamental right is still a constitutional right. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authorit....
The burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish a genuine and bona fide requirement for possession of the premises, and the tenant must prima facie make out a case that disentitles the landlord....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
