GURPREET SINGH Vs. MUNNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 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 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.