RC.REV.No.313/2014

Page 1 of 6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ RC.REV. 313/2014 & C.M.Nos.15566/2014 (Stay), 15567/2014

(Exemption), 15568/2014 (for permission)

19^th September, 2014

MS.REKHA RANI @ REKHA ..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.M.S.Mukherjee with Ms.Shreya

Mukherjee and Mr.Prashant Singh,

Advocates.

Versus

SH.ADITYA SARAF

..... Respondent

Through

Mr.T.R.Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugning the judgment of the

Additional Rent Controller dated 13.1.2014 by which the leave to defend

application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and the

bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act

has been decreed with respect to the suit/tenanted premises being northern

portion admeasuring 140 sq. yds. of the property no. 17, East Punjabi Bagh,

New Delhi.

2014:DHC:4853

RC.REV.No.313/2014

Page 2 of 6

2. The bonafide necessity eviction petition was filed by the

respondent/landlord essentially stating that his family comprises besides

himself of his wife and a minor son, and that they are living presently with

the parents of the respondent but the respondent wants to shift to his

independent accommodation and does not want to stay with his parents.

3. In a bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e)

of the Act, three aspects are required to be shown by the landlord in order to

succeed. Firstly that the eviction petition is filed by the owner/landlord of

the property, secondly the petition must be filed for the bonafide need of the

landlord and/or his family members, and thirdly the landlord must not have

any other alternative suitable premises.

4. In the present case so far as the second and third aspects are

concerned, the same have to be held in favour of the respondent/landlord

because it is settled law that any person cannot be forced to continue to stay

in a premises which is not owned by him even if the premises where he is

staying belongs to his own father. Every person is entitled to set up his

independent residence in a property which he owns and a tenant cannot

dictate that the landlord should continue to live in a house which is not

owned by him. Therefore, the bonafide need is clearly established in the

2014:DHC:4853

RC.REV.No.313/2014

Page 3 of 6

facts of the present case, and I note that is not the case of the

petitioner/tenant that the respondent/landlord owns any other alternative

suitable accommodation.

5. Two main arguments have been urged before this Court on behalf of

the petitioner/tenant. Firstly it is pleaded that the respondent is not the

owner/landlord of the premises. Secondly, it is urged that the

petitioner/tenant is the owner of the property because there exists in favour

of the father of the petitioner/tenant, the original tenant Dr.H.R.Kanwal

before the Additional Rent Controller below, a registered Will dated

25.5.1995 executed by Sh.Hira Lal, and therefore the eviction petition had to

be dismissed.

6. Both the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant are totally

frivolous and without any substance. The trial court in the impugned

judgment dated 13.1.2014 in terms of the following observations has rightly

held the respondent to be the owner/landlord of the suit/tenanted premises:-

“ 13.3 The petitioner has filed on record the copy of the entire chain

of the titled documents as regards the tenanted premises including the

last sae deed dated 24.11.2004 vide which the property in question

has been purchased by the petitioner for total sale consideration of

Rs. 5 Lakhs.

13.4 Moreover, the responden