Gurpreet Singh and Others vs Smt. Munni Devi

P.K. Bhasin, J.—This petition u/s 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 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) u/s 14-D has been dismissed and eviction order has been passed.

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.

The Petitioners sought leave to contest the eviction petition primarily on the ground that the eviction petition u/s 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.

The learned Additional Rent Controller while rejecting the objection raised by the Petitioners regarding the very maintainability of the eviction petition u/s 14-D observed as under in para Nos. 7 and 8 of the impugned order:

xxx At 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.

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.

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 u/s 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, wherein it had been clearly held that for a petition u/s 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 " Smt. Rafeeqan (Dead) by Lr. Vs. Smt. Hussan Bano, 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 u/s 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 petition itself should have been rejected as being not maintainable u/s 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.

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.