Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Girish Kathpalia, J.
Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan - Appellant
Versus
Satvinder Kaur & Anr. - Respondents
RC.REV. No. 223 of 2023, CM APPL. No. 51003 of 2023 and 40894 of 2023
Decided On : 18-01-2024
Partition - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e), Section 25B - The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which govern eviction proceedings and the requirement of leave to contest. The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case at the stage of seeking leave to contest and the limited scope of appellate scrutiny under Section 25B(8) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government organization, contested an eviction order by the landlords claiming ownership of the subject premises based on a partition among the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. The landlords sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, citing bonafide requirement of the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of the alleged partition and the discovered letter addressing the partition claim was not submitted in a timely manner. The court upheld the eviction order, emphasizing the lack of foundation for the partition claim and the genuineness of the registered Conveyance Deed.
Issues: The main issue was the alleged partition of the estate and its impact on the jural relationship of tenancy between the parties. Additionally, the bonafide requirement of the landlords and the availability of suitable alternate accommodation were considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the tenant to establish a prima facie case at the stage of seeking leave to contest and highlighted the limited scope of appellate scrutiny under Section 25B(8) of the Act. The court also stressed the importance of timely submission of relevant evidence and the genuineness of documents.
Final Decision: The court upheld the eviction order, dismissing the revision petition and emphasizing the lack of foundation for the partition claim and the genuineness of the registered Conveyance Deed.
JUDGMENT
Girish Kathpalia, J. - The petitioner has assailed order dated 11.04.2023, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in RC/ARC No. 34/2021, whereby application of the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to contest the eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was dismissed and consequently, eviction order in favour of the present respondents/landlords, was passed in respect of a portion admeasuring 300 sq. yards comprising of 04 rooms, 02 bathrooms, 01 kitchen, 01 garage and open space of the premises situated at 1/124, Janpath Lane, New Delhi-110001 (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") as depicted in the site plan. On notice, the respondents/landlords entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Briefly stated, the factual matrix set up by the petitioner/tenant is as follows.
2.1 In the year 1952, late Shri Pratap Singh, predecessor of the present respondents, inducted the petitioner (a government organization) as tenant in the subject premises. Shri Pratap Singh passed away on 15.04.1966 and the present respondents are his legal representatives.
2.2 In the year 2006, Smt. Sushil Kaur, the now deceased wife of late Shri Mohinder Singh (one of three sons of Shri Pratap Singh) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act against the present petitioner, claiming herself to be the owner and landlady of the subject premises. The said eviction petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 11.03.2008. Thereafter, on 07.09.2008, Shri Kamaljeet Singh, son of late Shri Mohinder Singh and late Smt. Sushil Kaur wrote a letter to the petitioner informing about death of Smt. Sushil Kaur and requesting for issuance of rent cheque in the joint names of himself, Shri Gurpreet Singh and Shri Jasjit Singh as the legal representatives of late Smt. Sushil Kaur and late Shri Mohinder Singh. On 18.03.2010, the present petitioner paid rent for the period from October 2008 to February 2010 by way of cheque in the sum of Rs. 4,468.50 in the names of the said three persons. On 26.09.2012, the said three legal representatives of late Shri Mohinder Singh and late Smt. Sushil Kaur issued a legal notice to the present petitioner, calling upon it to handover vacant possession of the subject premises, to which the petitioner filed a reply dated 31.10.2012.
2.3 Thereafter on 02.04.2021, the present respondents Smt. Satvinder Kaur and Smt. Gurjeet Chopra issued a legal notice to the present petitioner demanding arrears of rent of Rs. 42,300/- alongwith property tax and electricity/water charges as well as the enhanced monthly rent. The petitioner sent a reply dated 13.04.2021 to the said legal notice. On 02.12.2021, the present respondents filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in which, by way of the impugned order, application of the petitioner for leave to contest was rejected and the impugned eviction order was passed.
2.4 According to the petitioner/tenant, after death of Shri Pratap Singh, there was a partition among his legal representatives, including the present respondents, whereby the subject premises fell to the share of Smt. Sushil Kaur, so there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the present respondents and the petitioner. Therefore, leave to contest was wrongly denied to the petitioner.
2.5 During these proceedings, the petitioner also filed an application (CM No. 51003/2023) seeking permission to place on record additional documents/evidence in support of its case, pleading that while preparing the tabular chart, the petitioner found letter dated 15.05.2003 written to it by the respondents/LRs of late Shri Pratap Singh, according to which the larger property was partitioned amongst the LRs of late Shri Pratap Singh and the subject premises fell in the share of late Smt. Sushil Kaur so the rent ought to be paid
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the tenant to establish a prima facie case at the stage of seeking leave to contest under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control....
In summary eviction proceedings, the landlord need only establish a title better than that claimed by the tenant, and the court must balance the rights of the landlord and the tenant.
The landlord's bona fide requirement should not be doubted, and the tenant must make out a case showing that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an eviction order.
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.
Tenancy and Land laws - Eviction - There is nothing that petitioners have been able to bring forth to indicate that finding has been arrived at by a misreading of facts or omitting relevant evidence ....
The legal point established is that the landlord retains ownership rights until physical possession is taken over by the government, and the burden is on the tenant to show how they came into possess....
The court highlighted the importance of timely filing of application for leave to contest, valid reasons for extension, and the need for a substantial case for consideration of the application.
A tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord, and genuine need for premises must be established without alternative accommodation for eviction to be warranted. Adverse possession claims require ....
Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act clearly reveals that grounds for landlord for eviction, but he/she is under obligation to establish on record that grounds sought to be raised for eviction a....
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
