RAM DEVI Vs. RAJ RANI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the "Act ) is directed against the order dated 2.5.2012 of Addl. Rent Controller (North), whereby the leave to defend application filed by the respondents, was allowed.

(2.) The respondents are the tenants under the petitioner in respect of two rooms with covered verandah etc. on the ground floor of property No. 4325, Basti Data Ram, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. Their eviction was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the petitioner for herself and for her family members. The respondents filed application for leave to defend, which was allowed by the learned ARC vide impugned order. The same is under challenge in the instant petition. From the averments of the leave to defend application and the reply, the learned ARC recorded that there is a dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant as also the ownership of the suit premises. The respondents had claimed ownership in the suit premises. The issue of ownership earlier arose when a suit was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the year 1992 being Suit No. 28/1992 before the learned Judge Small Cause Courts wherein the issue regarding the ownership, was framed. Eventually, when the petitioner failed to prove her ownership, the said suit was dismissed on 7.11.1996, and the application for review of that order was also dismissed on 23.2.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises having purchased the same by sale deed in October, 2006. The respondents had categorically denied the petitioner having become the owner of the suit premises by way of registered sale deed. The respondents have claimed to be the owners in possession of the suit premises by virtue of a settlement arrived at in the year 1992. Undisputedly, the suit premises was also being assessed to house tax in their names since then. The petitioner also admitted that there was no attornment in her favour till date. With these kind of averments, the learned ARC recorded, and rightly so, this to be a triable issue as to whether the respondents are the tenants in the suit premises under the petitioner or they are the owners by virtue of compromise of the year 1992. It was also observed by the learned ARC, and rightly so, that earlier a petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act, seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, was filed in the year 2004, but the same was withdrawn in the November, 2006 and thus, it was a triable issue to see as to whether the requirement of the petitioner got increased during this intervening period. Further, the respondent had also alleged that the younger son of the petitioner is residing in 4309, Basti Data Ram belonging to his son, and who has been given in adoption. In this regard, the plea of the petitioner was that the said property belongs to Dr. Vinod Kumar. There was nothing placed on record to substantiate this plea. In view of this, it cannot be said that the respondents have not been able to raise any triable issue, which would entitle the petitioner to their straight eviction. They having raised triable issue, cannot be thrown out at the threshold.

(3.) The Supreme Court in the case of Liaq Ahmed & Other Vs. Habeeb-Ur-Rehman, 2000 5 SCC 708 held that "from the scheme of the Act, it is evident that if the tenant discloses the grounds and pleads a cause which prima facie is not baseless, unreal and unfounded, the Controller is obliged to grant him leave to defend his case against the eviction sought by the landlord. The inquiry envisaged for the purpose is a summary inquiry to prima facie find out the existence of reasonable grounds in favour of the tenant. If the tenant brings to the notice of the Controller, such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession, the Controller shall give him leave to contest. The law envisages the disclosure of facts and not the proof of the facts". Further, in determining as to whether the claim is bona fide or not, the Court is under an obligation to examine, evaluate and adjudicate the bona fide of the landlord. A claim founded on abnormal predilection of the landlord cannot be regarded as bona fide. In this regard the observations of the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 6 SCC 222 can be noted as under: