CM(M)/21/2016 of GAURI & ANR Vs VISHWANATH & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CM(M) 21/2016 & CM No.1029/2016 (stay)

GAURI & ANR..... PetitionersThroughMs.Rashmi Jain & Ms.Usha Singh,Advocates

versus

VISHWANATH & ORS..... RespondentsThroughNone.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R R%03.01.2017

1.By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia, the petitioners seek to impugn the order dated 02.12.2015 by whichthe Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RCT’) dismissedthe appeal of the petitioners seeking to challenge the order of evictionpassed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the‘DRC Act’).

2.The respondents filed petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRCAct regarding the property No.1454, Block-E, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. Thepetition was allowed on 02.06.2014 by which order the ARC held that therespondents have proved the ingredients of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act.On 23.08.2014 the ARC concluded that the benefit of Section 14(1)(a) of theDRC Act cannot be granted to the petitioners and passed an order of evictionagainst the petitioners.

3.Before the appellate court the main argument which was urged by thepetitioner was that the property was allotted to Sh.Gokul, father-in-law ofpetitioner No.1 as licensee. The wife of Sh.Gokul, Smt. Laxmi who is alsothe mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 is said to have sold the property to oneSmt. Nanda. It is urged that such sale was wholly illegal and no such sale ispermissible as it isa leased property. Reliance is also placed on theinformation received under RTI in this regard. The RCT however held thatin view of the registered sale deeds which were exhibited as Ex.AW1/2 andAW1/3, Smt. Laxmi, mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 had entered into anAgreement to Sell with Smt.Nanda. Thereafter, Smt.Nanda inductedSh.Laxmi and Sh.Bhim, late husband of petitioner No.1 as tenants andhence, the said Smt.Nanda was said to have better title than Smt.Laxmiand Sh.Bhim. The appeal was hence dismissed.

4.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.5.The learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated her submissionsas above.

6.The admitted facts are that Sh.Gokul was allotted the property in1976. He expired in 1990. In 1999 his son Sh.Bhim who is also the husbandof petitioner No.1 executed relinquishment deed in favour of the motherSmt.Laxmi. Smt.Laxmi sold the property in 2006 to Smt.Nanda vide anAgreement to Sell. She has died in 2009.

7.In the light of the above facts and considering as rightly held by theRCT, the present petition cannot be converted into title suit pending betweenthe petitioners and other family members and all that is required of therespondents landlord was to have better title than the petitioners.

8.The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons &

Anr. vs. Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors. JT 2016 (1) SC 256, held asfollows:-

“19.It is also now settled principle of law that the conceptof ownership in landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rentcontrol laws has to be distinguished from the one in title suit.Indeed, ownership is relative term, the import whereofdepends on the context in which it is used. In rent controllegislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner if he isentitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and onbehalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retaincontrol, hold and use the premises for himself. What maysuffice and hold good as proof of ownership in landlord-tenantlitigation probably may or may not be enough to successfullysustain claim for ownership in title suit. (vide Sheela & Ors.vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375).”

9.Similarly, this court in the case of Puran Chand Aggarwal vs. LekhRaj, 210 (2014) DLT 131 held as follows:-

“34. It is settled law that in the context of the Act what appearsto be the meaning of the term "owner" is that à the tenant theowner should be something more than the tenant. The positionin law is that the "ownership" of the landlord for the purpose ofmaintaining petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is notrequired to be an absolute ownership of the property, and that itis sufficient if the landlord is person who is collecting the renton his own behalf. The imperfectness of the title of thepremises can neither stand in the way of an eviction petitionunder Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, nor can the tenant be allowedto raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in thelandlord and that too when the tenant has been paying the rentto the landlord. The tenant inducted by landlord is estopped andcannot dispute the title of his landlord in view of the provisionsof Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act without there beingany subsequent change in the situation. This aspect has beendiscussed in the following judgments:

i.Shanti Sharma vs. Smt. Ved Prabha, AIR 1987 SC20282028

ii.Zahid Hussain thr. LRS vs. Aenul Haq Qureshi thr.LRS, 2005 (1) RCR 323LRS, 2005 (1) RCR 323

iii.Ram Chander vs. Ram Pyari, 109 (2004) DLT 388

iv.Mukesh Kumar vs. Rishi Prakash, 174 (2010) DLT6464

iv.Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Smt. Leela Wati& Ors., 155 (2008) DLT 383& Ors., 155 (2008) DLT 383

v.Meenakshi vs. Ramesh Khanna & Anr., 60 (1995)DLT 524DLT 524

vi.Tej Pal Gupta vs. Rattan Singh, 160 (2009) DLT 726

vii.Kamla Rani & Ors. vs. Texmaco Ltd., 139 (2007)DLT 61DLT 61

ix.Keshar Lal H. Pardeshi vs. Vithal S. Patole, (2005) 10SCC 249SCC 249

x.Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450

xi.M.M. Quasim vs. Manohar Lal Sharma, (1981) 3 SCC3636

xii.B.R. Anand vs. Prem Sagar, 2002 (1) RCR (Rent) 234xiii.D. Rani Puri vs. Chanan Lal, 65 (1997) DLT 313xiii.D. Rani Puri vs. Chanan Lal, 65 (1997) DLT 313

xiv.Shree Ram Sharma vs. Mohd. Sabr, 178 (2011) DLT11

xv.Bharat Bhushan Vij vs. Arti Teckchandani,153(2008) DLT 247(2008) DLT 247

xvi.Jiwan Lal vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors., 57 (1995) DLT262”262”

10.Accordingly, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.The petition is dismissed. All the pending applications are also dismissed.11.Admittedly, the eviction order already stands executed.The petition is dismissed. All the pending applications are also dismissed.11.Admittedly, the eviction order already stands executed.

JANUARY 03, 2017/v

JAYANT NATH, J.