CM(M) 681/2022

Page 1 of 11

$~69(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 681/2022 & CM No.31182/2022, CM No.31183/2022

KUSHAL ANAND

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Manu Sishodia, Adv.

versus

MANDHIR SACHDEVA

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.

N.P.Singh,

Mr.

Mohit

Singh Gulia and Mr. Shantanu Dubey, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

%

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

18.07.2022

1.

Eviction Petition E-477598/2016 was preferred by the

respondent Mandhir Sachdeva, seeking eviction of the petitioner

Kushal Anand from the premises located at R-875, New Rajender

Nagar Delhi (hereinafter “the tenanted premises”) invoking, for the

said purpose, clauses (d) and (h) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“the DRC Act”). For the sake of

convenience, the provisions would be referred to, hereinafter, as

Sections 14(1)(d) and 14(1)(h) respectively.

2.

It is not in dispute that the tenanted premises were allotted to Jai

Singh Sachdeva, the grandfather of the respondent, by the Ministry of

Rehabilitation, vide letter dated 10^th April, 1954 and that Jai Singh

Sachdeva inducted Surinder Nath Anand, the now deceased husband

of the petitioner Kushal Anand, as a tenant in the first floor of the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002679

CM(M) 681/2022

Page 2 of 11

tenanted premises in 1960. The tenancy was for residential purposes

at a monthly rent of ₹ 175, excluding water and electricity charges.

The respondent contended, in his Eviction Petitions that, after Jai

Singh Sachdeva expired on 27^th December, 1968, his parental uncle

Jagdish Singh, as one of the co-owners who had succeeded to the

ownership of the tenanted premises as a legal heir of Jai Singh

Sachdeva, terminated the tenancy of the petitioner vide notice dated 6^th

January, 1970, with effect from 31^st January, 1970.

3.

It was further contended that Surinder Nath Anand had acquired

eight immovable properties, including three in Rajender Nagar. Of the

eight immovable properties so acquired by Surinder Nath Anand, the

respondent contended that Surinder Nath Anand shifted, in 1974, to

one of the said properties, situated at A-42, Kailash Colony, New

Delhi, which was acquired by him vide registered Sale Deed dated 5^th

August, 1972. After Surinder Nath Anand died, the petitioner,

contended the respondent, further acquired premises located at K-228,

Sainik Farms, New Delhi, where she was residing with her daughters.

4.

Consequent to the death of Jai Singh Sachdeva, and the

execution of relinquishment/release deeds in the respondent’s favour

by the remaining co-sharers who had succeeded to ownership of the

tenanted premises, the respondent contended that he came into

ownership of the said premises by way of Conveyance Deed dated 15^th

November, 2011 issued by the Land and Development Office (“the

L&DO”).

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002679

CM(M) 681/2022

Page 3 of 11

5.

Alleging that (i) electricity to the tenanted premises stood

disconnected with effect from 19^th October, 2003, and (ii) the

petitioner was, even otherwise, residing at K-228, Sainik Farms, New

Delhi and had also succeeded to ownership of the immovable

properties acquired by Surinder Nath Anand during his lifetime

including the property situated at A-42, Kailash Colony, New Delhi,

the respondent, vide the aforesaid Eviction Petition E-477598/2016,

sought eviction of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(d) and Section

14(1)(h) of the DRC Act¹.

6.

The eviction petition came to be allowed by the learned

Additional Rent Controller (“the learned ARC”) under Section

14(1)(d) as well as Section 14(1)(h) of the DRC Act, vide judgment

dated 18^th June, 2020.

7.

The petitioner appealed to the learned Rent Controller vide RCT

41/2020. The judgment dated 20^th May, 2022, of the learn