An Agreement to Sell or Power of Attorney does not constitute valid ownership transfer under property laws; the landlord retains rights to evict tenants based on bona fide needs.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The instant revision petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is directed against the Order dated 28.10.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in R.C. No.19/2020, dismissing the application for leave to defend filed by the Petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenant') and consequently evicting the Tenant from the property bearing Shop No.1133/1, Khasra No.52-53, Haibat Pura, Main Market, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenanted premises').

2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the instant petition are as under:

i. It is stated that the father of the Respondent herein, Sh. Chanan Lal, purchased the tenanted premises in 1964 by way of a public auction. In the year 1980, Sh. Chanan Lal gave the tenanted premises to the Petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') on rent from where the Tenant is currently running a business in the name and style of M/s. Lovely Steels. After the death of Sh. Chanan Lal, the tenanted premises was mutated in the name of the mother of the Respondent herein, namely, Smt. Somawati.

ii. It is stated that the Respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Landlord') became the absolute owner of the tenanted premises vide a relinquishment deed dated 03.11.1998, which was executed in his favour by his mother.

iii. It is stated that on 28.10.2016, the Respondent herein executed an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Possession Letter and Will in favour of his son, Kapil Rishi, for a total consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- qua the tenanted premises.

iv. It is stated that rent in respect of the tenanted premises was paid by the Tenant till October, 2016.

v. It is stated that on 18.01.2017, Kapil Rishi, sent a legal notice to the Tenant demanding rent. It is further stated that Kapil Rishi filed an eviction petition, being Eviction Petition No.15/2017. The said petition was sought to be withdrawn by Kapil Rishi on the ground that there are some technical defects in the petition and liberty was sought to file a fresh petition with the same cause of action. The said eviction petition was disposed of as withdrawn on 24.07.2018 and liberty was granted to Kapil Rishi to file a fresh petition with the same cause of action.

vi. It is stated that the second petition, being RC ARC No.33/2018, was filed by Kapil Rishi. The said petition was also sought to be withdrawn on the grounds of technical defects and liberty was sought to file a fresh petition with the same cause of action. On 04.02.2019, the said petition was also disposed of as withdrawn and liberty was granted to Kapil Rishi to file a fresh petition with the same cause of action.

vii. It is stated that Kapil Rishi filed a third petition, being RC ARC No. 5/2019, by stating that he had become landlord/owner of the tenanted premises on the basis of a General Power of Attorney dated 28.10.2016 and some other documents executed in his favour, and the tenanted premises was bona fide required by him. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the said petition vide Order dated 12.03.2019 on the ground that the said petition was barred by Section 14 (6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as per which if a person has acquired any premises by transfer then no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under sub-section (1) of the Act on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years has lapsed from the date of acquisition. The learn