* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% RC.REV.No. 95/2011
+ Date of Decision: 13th October, 2011
RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA ...Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Mr. Pushti
Gupta & Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advs.
Versus
$ SHEELA DEVI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jai Gopal Garg, Advocate
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 revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act,1958(‘the Act’ in short) is at the instance of a tenant who has
been directed by the Additional Rent Controller to vacate the premises
RC Rev. 95/2011 Page 1 of 7
under his tenancy after rejecting his application filed for getting leave to
contest the eviction filed against him by his widow-landlady under Section
14-D of the Act .
2. The respondent-landlady had sought the eviction of the petitioner-
tenant by pleading the following facts in para no.18 of her eviction petition
which was filed in August, 2010:
“18(a) (1) the petitioner and her Jethani Smt. Rattan Devi
purchased a piece of land measuring 200 sq. Yds and constructed 4 shops
on the front portion of the premises towards Mandoli Road. The premises
bears Municipal no. 1/2321, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
Out of these four shops two shops came into share of the petitioner and
two shops in the share of Smt. Rattan Devi as per verbal family settlement
made about 40 years back. As per verbal settlement made between the
petitioner and her Jethani Late Smt. Rattan Devi had constructed their
houses on their respective piece of land/portion.
(2) That presently sons of late Smt. Rattan Devi are residing with their
family mebers in their portion of 100 sq. Yds. and are in the possession of
their two shops.
(3) That out of total four shops, two shops came into share of the
petitioner, one was let out by the petitioner to the respondent in the year
1992………………………………………………………………………………….
.(5) That the husband of the petitioner expired on 16th May, 2008 due
to his illness. During the life time of her husband petitioner has sold her
residential accommodation constructed on 80 sq. yds to her elder
daughter-in-law Smt. Geeta Garg wife of Shri Rajendra Kumar Garg, on
5th day of January 2007 vide registered Sale Deed duly registered before
Sub-Registrar, Nand Nagri Delhi to meet out the medical expenses of her
husband and other necessary expenses. The petitioner has also sold her
one shop to her younger daughter-in-law Smt. Meena Devi wife of Shri
Ravinder Kumar Garg, on 8th October, 2008 under compelling
circumstances to meet out the outstanding dues incurred by the petitionerRC Rev. 95/2011 Page 2 of 7
for the treatment of her Late husband, vide registered Sale Deed duly
registered before Sub-Registrar, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
(6) That after the death of the husband of the petitioner the
atmosphere in the house has changed considerably the son and dauther-
in-law of the petitioner has started neglecting and hearing to the
petitioner which has made the life of the petitioner very miserable and in
fact it has become difficult with the petitioner to live along with her elder
son and his wife. Towards the end of the life the petitioner wants to live in
peace, which is not possible with her elder daughter-in-law and son.
(7) That the petitioner has no other residential or non-residential
accommodation for her living except of the tenanted premises shown in
red colour in the site plan attached with this application let out to the
respondent. The petitioner wants to live separately from her son and
daughter-in-law, in her own accommodation to pass her peaceful life. The
younger daughter-in-law and son are living in a rented accommodation
and has no sufficient accommodation to keep the petitioner with her/him.
The premises shown in red colour in the site plan attached with this
application was let out by the petitioner to the respondent is required by
her for her own residence.
3. As required under Section 25-B(4) of the Act the petitioner-tenant
sought leave to contest the eviction petition but the same was declined by
the Additional Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 22 nd December,
2010. The main plea raised by the petitioner tenant for getting the leave to
contest the eviction petition as noticed by the learned Additional Rent
Controller in the impugned order was that the alleged sale transactions
between the respondent-landlord and her two daughters-on-law were not
genuine transactions. The relevant portions from that order where this
RC Rev. 95/2011 Page 3 of 7
pleas of the petitioner-tenant has been, dealt with and rejected are re-
produced below:-
“6. ……… Though the respondent has called the registered sale deeds
dated 05.01.2007 and 08.10.2008 as mere paper transactions, he has not
questioned the veracity of these documents. These two registered sale
deeds show that Smt. Sheela Devi is not the owner of the residential
accommodation and one shop.The expenses incurred on the treatment of
the husband of the petitioner is ignored, it cannot be denied that on the
day of filing of the present petition, the petitioner was the owner of the
tenanted shop only. Now she wants to live separately in peace in the
tenanted premises as she is no longer in good terms with her elder son and
daughter in law. The court concurs with the argument that it is for the
petitioner to decide in what manner she must use her property.
8. It has been argued that the husband of the petitioner died on
16.05.2008. The sale deeds in respect of the residential accommodation
and one shop were executed by the petitioner on 05.01.2007 and
08.10.2008. The present petition was filed on 16.08.2010. Contrary to the
contention of the respondent, it goes on to show that the respondent did
not exploit the factum of her becoming a widow to evict the respondent,
until it became necessary for her to do so…………………………………
9. The respondent has failed to show that the plea of self occupation put
up by the landlady is a mere pretense or an arbitrary demand. The
application of the respondent for grant of leave to defend the eviction
petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner is entitled to an eviction
order forthwith.”
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-tenant has knocked the doors of
this Court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court conferred
under Section 25-B (8) of the Act. It was contended by the learned counsel
for the petitioner-tenant that the learned Additional Rent Controller has
crossed to a great extent the limited jurisdiction vested in him under
RC Rev. 95/2011 Page 4 of 7
Section 25-B(5) of the Act for disposal of tenants’ applications for leave to
contest the eviction petitions filed by special category of landlords
including a widow-landlady by rejecting the pleas raised by the petitioner-
tenant for reasons which could be given only after the landlady’s bona
fides had been tested during evidence on behalf of the tenant by cross-
examining her.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – landlady
supported the impugned order of the learned Additional Rent Controller
and contended that the same could not be faulted and no interference in the
same is called for in this revision petition.
6. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions and going through the reasons given by the learned Additional
Rent Controller for rejecting the plea of the petitioner – tenant that the sale
transaction between the respondent – landlady and her two daughters-in-
law were sham transactions I find that the same cannot be sustained. The
observation of the learned Additional Rent Controller that the petitioner –
tenant had not questioned the veracity of the sale deeds is contrary to the
facts pleaded by the petitioner – tenant in his leave to contest application a
RC Rev. 95/2011 Page 5 of 7
perusal of which shows that he had clearly challenged the veracity of the
sale deeds relied upon by the respondent – landlady. The question
whether those sale deeds were, in fact, genuine or sham transactions could
only be decided after recording evidence and giving an opportunity to the
petitioner – tenant to establish that those were not genuine transactions.
In case the petitioner – tenant succeeds in establishing that the two sale
transactions between the respondent – landlady and her two daughters-in-
law were sham transactions the respondent – landlady would become
disentitle to claim eviction of the petitioner – tenant from the tenanted
premises on the ground of her bona fide requirement since in that event it
will have to be held that the requirement of the tenanted premises in the
occupation of the petitioner – tenant was self created only to make a
ground for his eviction who admittedly is a tenant for over ten years. In
this regard, a useful reference can be made to a judgment of the Supreme
Court in “Devi Dass vs. Mohan Lal“, (1982) Vol. I SCC 495 wherein also
the aggrieved tenant had sought to challenge the genuineness of the sale
deed relied upon by his landlord but he was not permitted to do so by the
trial Court as well as the High Court. The Supreme Court, however, came
to the conclusion that the tenant had a right to establish his claim that the
RC Rev. 95/2011 Page 6 of 7
sale deed being relied upon by his landlord to establish his ownership of
the tenanted premises was a sham transaction.
7. This petition, therefore, is allowed. The impugned order passed by
the learned Additional Rent Controller is set aside. The matter is
remanded back to the trial Court for trial in accordance with law. The
parties shall appear before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 29th
October, 2011 at 2 p.m.
P.K. BHASIN,J
October 13, 2011
RC Rev. 95/2011 Page 7 of 7
