RAKESHWAR NARAIN DECD Vs. SARLA SARIN

JUDGEMENT

(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 impleaded 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 favour 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:-