JUDGMENT
S.C. Jain, J.
(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition as are apparent on the record are that Rakeshwar Narain (deceased) predecessor- in-interest of the petitioners, herein, was inducted as tenant in the suit premises by Devi parshad for residential purpose. In 1960, Devi parshad orally gifted the entire property 2086, Pipal Mahadev, of which suit premises form part to Smt. Sarla Sarin, his daughter-in-law. Thereafter, Smt. Sarla Sarin got her name mutated in the Municipal record i.e. the survey register and house tax register and started paying house tax. (Ex AW1/2,AW1/3,AWI/14-15 are the house tax receipts and bills. AW1/10 is the copy of survey report. She also started receiving rent of the suit premises as landlady/owner of the premises from the tenant. (Ex AWI/4 to 6 are the counterfoils of rent receipts and AW1/7 and AW1/9 are the money order coupons).
(2) In the year 1981, Smt. Sarla Sarin filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against Rakeshwar Narain, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner herein for getting the suit premises vacated on the ground Of bonafide requirement. Shri Rakeshwar Narain contested the eviction petition and filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that Sarla Sarin is neither the landlady nor owner of the premises.During the pendency of the petition, Rakeshwar Narain died and the present petitioners were imp leaded as his legal representatives.They also contested the eviction petition denying the ownership of Sarla Sarin qua the suit premises. Addl. Rent Controller vide his detailed judgment dated 4.7.1991, accepted the eviction petition and passed an order of eviction against the petitioner herein qua the disputed premises under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, six months time was given to vacate the premises. Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners herein. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that Smt. Sarla Sarin is neither landlady nor owner of the suit premises. According to him the gift is oral and Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, provides that for the purpose of making gift of immoveable property, transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested at least by two witnesses. He contended that it is not a valid gift and as such she is not the owner of the suit premises. Regarding payment of rent to Sarla Sarin, it has been admitted that arrears of rent of Rs.1120.00 were paid vide cheque No. 249491 dated 30-11-1980 in favor of Sarla Sarin and also he gave another cheque No. 249492 dated 3-12-1980 for Rs.1155.00 as arrears of rent to Sarla Sarin, but according to the counsel, these cheques were issued in the name of Saria Sarin at the instance of Devi Parshad landlord as marriage of the daughter of Saria Sarin was going to be solemnised. It has been further contented that merely by entering one’s name in the inspection book of the M.C.D. and by paying house tax one does not become owner of the premises. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Gauhati High Court in Tilokanta Phukan Vs. Lalit Chandra Borbaruah and others. 1985(2) R.C.J. 440..
(3) A landlord/landlady will be entitled to an other of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) if he/she is able to prove that (a) premises in question were let out for residential purpose, (b) that he/she is the landlord/landlady and owner of the suit premises; (c) the premises are required bonafide by him/her for occupation as residence for himself/herself or any member of his family dependant on him/her for residence and for any person for whom the premises are held and (d) the landlord/landlady or such person has no other suitable residential accommodation. The judgment of the Addl. Rent Controller has been assailed before me on two grounds, i.e. ownership and existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The word “owner” has not been defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act. The owner is also not defined under Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that ownership means absolute ownership. I cannot make myself agreeable with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the purpose of Section 14(l)(e) of the Act a person may not be absolute owner of the property. Delhi High Court while interpreting the word “owner” occurring in Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in T.C. Rekhi vs. Usha Gujral, 1971 Rcj 322 at page 326 observed as under:-
“THE word ‘owner’ as used in this clause has to be construed in the background of the purpose and object enacting it. The use of the word owner in this clause seems to me to have been inspired by definition of the word landlord as contained in Section 2(e) of the Act which is wide enough to include a person receiving or entitled to receive the rent of any premises on account of or on behalf or or for the benefit of any other person……..”.
(4) This interpretation of the word “owner” has been accepted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma and others vs. Smt. Ved Prabha and others– . Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the word “owner” occurring in clause (e) of the provision to Section 14(1) is not used in the sense of absolute owner. It is only used in contradistinction with a landlord as defined, who is not an owner but holds the property for the benefit of another person. A landlord as defined, who is holding the property for himself and for his own benefit and not for the benefit of another person is certainly the owner/landlord. This is the view which has already been taken by this court in Kanwal Kishore Chopra vs. O.P. Dwivedi and others-.
(5) In this case, it is on record that Smt. Sarla Sarin is holding, the property in her own right since the year 1960 when her father-in-law Devi Parshad gifted it to her. Neither Shri Devi Parshad the donor nor any one of his heirs or representatives challenged the ownership of Saria Sarin after 1960. Even Shri Rakeshwar Narain predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners paid rent to Sarla Sarin for the period after 1960. Their saying now that they paid rent of the period after 1960 to Smt. Sarla Sarin at the asking of Devi Parshad the previous landlord leads the petitioners no where. Smt. Sarla Sarin accepted the rent as the owner/landlady of the suit premises in her own right and pot on behalf of Devi Parshad. Her continued possession for the last more than 30 Years claiming herself to be the owner of the property cannot be said to be permissive. It was adverse to the interest of Devi Parshad the original owner and his heirs. In this case, though the gift of immoveable property is oral and is hit by the provisions of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, but the fact that she has been in continuous possession for more than 12 years in her own right and has been paying house tax of the property and receiving the rent from the tenants without any objection either from the donor or from any one else establishes that she has become owner of the premises by adverse possession. The decision of Madras High Court in Venkatrayudu vs. Subbamma and Others-1903 Madras Law Journal Reports Vol. Xiii Page 302 may be Quoted with advantage in this case..
(6) The Addl. Rent Controller has correctly reached the conclusion that Smt. Sarla Devi is the owner/landlady of the suit premises. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Addl. Rent Controller and I confirm the same. The impugned judgment calls for no interference and I dismiss the revision petition.