No 80 of 2015 respectively, whereby a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi has allowed the revision petitions filed by the respective tenants and has reversed the similar orders dated 21.11.2014, as passed in eviction petitions bearing Nos. In the petition bearing No 02 of 2011, the appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant with the averments that the respondent was inducted as tenant by her predecessor in the year 1995 at the rent of Rs. Petitioner resides in a joint family which comprises of her husband’s real brother (=Brother in law), his wife, 2 unmarried daughters, 1 married daughter and 1 son and she considers family of her brother in law as her own family. Further, the construction of the whole premises is very old and in dilapidated condition and needs urgent repairs and during the rainy season, the petitioner and her family has to suffer immense hardship as there is water logging on the ground floor and life of the petitioner and her family is thrown out of gear.
C- 586/587, Gall No 12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033 comprises of only ground floor and is having 2 bed rooms, 1 drawing room, 2 kitchens, 2 latrine/bathroom, 2 small store rooms, 1 pooja room and one court yard and petitioner is presently having the aforesaid accommodation in her possession. As stated above, family of petitioner comprises of her husband’s real brother, his 2 unmarried daughters, 1 married daughter and 1 son and petitioner considers family of her husband’s brother as her own family. It was also averred that the petition did not fall under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, particularly when the appellant did not disclose all the facts concerning possession of other properties bearing No 588, Gali No 12, Majlis Park; No C-603, Gali No 13, Majlis Park; and No E-591, Gali No 12, Majlis Park. It is also correct that my brother in law Prem Kumar Sharma sold the said property to Smt. Geeta Sharma is owner of property bearing No C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. Geeta Sharma was also the owner of property bearing No C-600, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/constitutionality-of-lotteries-regulation-act-1998/
The tenant Ghansar Singh is tenant in one room on first floor and one room on second floor.
In the order dated 21.11.2014, after thoroughly examining the material on record, the learned Rent Controller observed that the appellant was residing in a joint family consisting of her brother-in-law and the wife, two unmarried daughters and son of her brother-in-law and proceeded to hold that the assertions about bona fide requirement of the appellant were duly established.
The bonafide requirement of the landlord cannot be confined to the landlord alone and it includes the requirement of the family member of the petitioner, which includes his brother-in-law, his wife, son and daughter of brother-in-law as well. Three children of brother-in-law of petitioner require at least two bedrooms if two out of three share one bedroom. Charu Sharma wants to open play way to sustain herself and her family and she requires at least two rooms with toilet, kitchen and veranda for opening a play way.
The tenant has failed to bring on record any document during trial that petitioner is the owner of other properties No C-603 and E-591, Majlis Park, Delhi. 588, whereas in para no.18(a)(1), the devar of the petitioner has been shown the owner of property no. Thus, the owner-ship of property No C-587 also stands clarified to the effect that his devar’s wife property No C- 587 is a part of the suit property.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/validity-of-tamil-nadu-land-acquisition-acts/
2.
It may be pointed out at this juncture that the other eviction petition bearing No 03 of 2011 was filed by the appellant in relation to the other tenant who was having two rooms on rent, each on the first and second floor of the same property. The aforesaid two revision petitions before the High Court against the aforesaid orders dated 21.11.2014 proceeded on similar grounds and came to be accepted by the High Court with almost identical orders. A perusal of the eviction petition presented before the additional rent controller would show that the respondent had described herself as a resident of ground floor of property No.C- 586, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110033, the tenanted portion in possession of the petitioner having been described as one room in middle on the first floor, in the rear portion of the property. For clarity, it may be added here that there was no reference to property No.C-587 in the site plan, the impression thereby created being that the entire structure/accommodation depicted therein relates to property No.C-586 only.
The argument raised against the above backdrop has been that the site plans (Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6) depict a common building constructed over two adjoining plots, they bearing No.C- 586 and C-587.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/restriction-on-project-wise-insolvency-resolution-process/
On the contrary, in the averments in the petition it was depicted a clear case of the respondent/landlady that the tenanted portion forms part of property No.C-586, which is depicted in the said site plan filed therewith. The respondent/landlady cannot be allowed to make out a new case beyond her own pleadings. Learned counsel would submit that the expressions “family” and “dependent”, for the purpose of the Act of 1958, and particularly the bona fide requirement, deserve to be construed broadly and liberally so as to include the relatives of the landlord and not strictly to include wholly dependent persons only.
It has been contended that the findings of the High Court are in accord with the material available on record which the Rent Controller had totally omitted to consider. The appellant-landlord is said to have acquired title to the property in question on being transferred by her brother-in-law; and has sought eviction of the respective tenants from suit premises on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by her for use and occupation of herself and the other members of her joint family. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “premises let for residential purposes” include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;” 13. The said Section 25-B provides special procedure for disposal of the applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and the revision petition in such matters is governed by Sub-section (8) thereof. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. Only in terms of the proviso to Section 25-B(8), a limited window is allowed to the extent that the High Court may call for the record, for the purpose of satisfying itself that the order had been passed in accordance with law. A comprehensive look at the pleadings taken by the appellant along with the site-plan attached to the petition makes it evident that the appellant gave out a detailed description of the extent of accommodation available in the suit property as also the accommodation presently in her occupation and the nature and extent of her requirement. The appellant further made the position clear in her cross-examination that the building in question was constructed on Plot Nos.586 and 587 jointly and she and her sister-in-law were residing in the same building as one family. It would, of course, appear from the material placed on record that the appellant as also her brother-in-law and the other referred members of the family might be having title or interest in some other properties too but, such an aspect would hardly operate against the appellant, when her prayer for eviction had been accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with cogent reasons.
Case Title: KUSUM LATA SHARMA Vs. ARVIND SINGH (2023 INSC 429)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003111-003111 / 2023
