* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% RC. REV.No. 101/2009
+ Date of Decision: 5th September, 2011
# GURPREET SINGH & ORS. ...Petitioners
! Through: Mr. Amarjeet Sahni , Advocate
Versus
$ SMT. MUNNI DEVI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. M.G Dhingra & Ms. Geeta
Dhingra, Advocates
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? (No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)
ORDER
P.K BHASIN,J:
This petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958
is against the impugned order dated 5.09.09 passed by the learned Additional
Rent Controller whereby the petitioners’ application for grant of leave to
RC Rev. 101/2009 Page 1 of 5
defend the eviction petition in respect of the shop no .3, in the property no. F-
14/38 ,Model Town -II , Delhi, filed against them by their landlady(respondent
herein) under Section 14-D has been dismissed and eviction order has been
passed.
2. The brief facts are that deceased father of the petitioner no.1 was a tenant
in respect of shop in question under the original owner of the property F-14/38
from whom the respondent’s deceased husband had purchased it. After the
death of her husband the respondent claimed to have become the owner of the
said property. She then filed the eviction petition against the petitioners for
their eviction by invoking Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
which is a special provision for the benefit of widows seeking eviction of
tenants in their premises for their residence.
3. The petitioners sought leave to contest the eviction petition primarily on
the ground that the eviction petition under Section 14-D was not maintainable
since the shop in question had been let out to him neither by the respondent nor
by her deceased husband but, in fact, he was already in occupation of the shop
in question as a tenant under the original owner from whom the respondent’s
husband had purchased it.
RC Rev. 101/2009 Page 2 of 5
4. The learned Additional Rent Controller while rejecting the objection
raised by the petitioners regarding the very maintainability of the eviction
petition under Section 14-D observed as under in para nos. 7 and 8 of the
impugned order:-
7. “xxxxxxxAt this stage it is relevant to mention here that the
scope and ambit of provisions of section 14-D and that of section 14(1)
(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 are different from the bare reading of those
provisions it is clear that section 14-D of the DRC Act does not talk
about any residential premises. Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act
envisages that the premises are let for residential purposes. Now, by
the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Satyawati Sharma v. Union of
India by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, the word „residential‟
stands deleted from section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act. However, under
the provisions of section 14-D, the purpose of letting is not mentioned
and it is simply mentioned that where the landlord is a widow and the
premises let out by her or by her husband are required by her for her
own residence, she may apply to the controller for recovering the
immediate possession of the said premises. Admittedly, the petitioner
is widow as well as landlady and the premises let out to respondents
are allegedly required by her for her own residence. The counsel for
the respondents argued that at the time of the property in question was
purchased by the husband of the petitioner the respondent was already
a tenant in the suit property and it was submitted that, therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to obtain the possession u/s 14-D of the DRC
Act. On the other hand the counsel for the petitioner submitted that at
the time of purchase of property the petitioner was not a widow and
the petitioner, therefore, is entitled to obtain the possession of the
premises as she became widow after the purchase of the property. I
find force in the contention of the petitioner since it is logical that in
case the widow herself purchase a property in the capacity of widow
and at the time of purchase there is a tenant in the said property then
she may not be able to claim the possession of the premises u/s 14-D of
the DRCT Act. However, in case the property is purchased when there
is already a tenant in the property and subsequently the petitioner
becomes widow then it is no bar for widow for obtaining the
possession u/s 14-D of the DRC Act.
RC Rev. 101/2009 Page 3 of 5
8. The requirements of law u/s 14-D of the DRC Act, 1958 are
fulfilled in the present petition. In such cases the respondent/tenant
has practically a very limited or no defence.”
5. The view taken by the learned Additional Rent Controller that even if the
shop in question had not been let out to the petitioners’ father either by the
respondent or by her deceased husband the eviction petition under Section 14-D
would be maintainable is clearly contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta“, (2005) 2
SCC 271 wherein it had been clearly held that for a petition under Section 14-D
of the Delhi Rent Control Act to be maintainable the premises in question
should have either been let out by the widow herself or by her deceased
husband and by none else. This decision has been followed recently by the
Supreme Court in “Rafiquen vs. Husana Bano”, 2010 (IX) SCC 23.
Therefore, in the present case, since admittedly the shop in question had been
let out to the father of the three petitioners, late Shri Harpal Singh, by the
previous owner of the property from whom the respondent’s husband had
purchased it the eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control
Act was not maintainable. Consequently, not only the leave to defend
application filed by the petitioners should have been allowed but the eviction
RC Rev. 101/2009 Page 4 of 5
petition itself should have been rejected as being not maintainable under Section
14-D. That kind of order was passed even by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Nathi Devi’s case (supra) by observing that it would be futile to remit the matter
to the trial Court for granting leave to defend to the petitioner – tenant since the
eviction petition itself was not maintainable.
6. This revision petition is accordingly allowed and while reversing the
impugned eviction order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller the
eviction petition of the respondent – landlady itself is also dismissed as being
not maintainable. It is, however, clarified that the respondent – landlady would
still be at liberty to file a fresh eviction petition against the petitioners on any of
the other grounds mentioned in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
which may be available to her for seeking their eviction.
P.K. BHASIN,J
SEPTEMBER 05, 2011
sh
RC Rev. 101/2009 Page 5 of 5