UJJAGAR SINGH Vs. IQBAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the Judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, (hereinafter referred to as 'ARC') Delhi in a Petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control (hereinafter referred as DRC ) Act, 1958. The judgment is lucid, well reasoned and has dealt with all the relevant questions that have arisen in these proceedings.

(2.) The facts are that the Appellant's tenancy commenced on permission being granted under Section 21 of the DRC Act. The Petition had been filed by Smt. Lajwanti Devi, the mother of the Respondent Smt. Iqbal Kaur. The uncontrovertable assumption that can be immediately drawn is that late Smt. Lajwanti Devi was the owner of the premises since this factor cannot be assailed by the tenant as he had been placed in possession of the demised premises by her. Secondly, it must also be assumed that the premises were let for residential purposes only. If the purpose of letting was subsequently changed it must necessarily be expressed in a written document, which in the present case, admittedly does not exist. This argument was raised by Mr. Chandiok, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner on these questions. The ARC has rejected the tenant's argument in the original proceedings, and in my view correctly so. Once the title of late Smt. Lajwanti Devi cannot be assailed because of the provisions of the Evidence Act, all her legal heirs would become co-owners. In the present case the legal heirs, i.e. the Petitioner's brother Inderjeet Singh, and her sister Daljit Kaur and Harbhajan Kaur have executed a Relinquishement Deed in her favour. Considerable effort was made to assail the legal efficacy of the Relinquishement Deed. This question loses of significance if it is borne in mind that any one co-owner is as entitled to seek the eviction of the tenant. Therefore, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Relinquishement Deed should be ignored, the Petition is still maintainable. Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act specifically enables only the owner of residential property, in contradistinction to its mere landlord, to seek the eviction of the tenant for the owner's bona fide residential need. Attention should be drawn to the following passage from the Apex Court's decision in Shanti Sharma & Others vs. Smt. Ved Prabha and others, AIR 1987 SC 2028:

(3.) It would also be relevant to mention that in cases where the ownership of the Petitioner, in proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, was questioned by the tenant, it has been opined in a series of judgments that all that is required is the existence of some vestige of ownership. The important factor which must exist in favour of the Petitioner in such proceedings is that the Petitioner is something more than a mere landlord. In the present case, it cannot be overlooked that the mutation of the premises has been effected in the name of the Petitioner, namely Ms. Iqbal Kaur. The argument raised on behalf of the tenant in this Petition, are accordingly, rejected.