AMARJIT KAUR KOHLI Vs. NEETA KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 4.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing respondent's petition filed u/s. 14 -D read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act'). The property in question was owned by Sh. R.N. Kapoor, father -in -law of the respondent. Sh. R.N. Kapoor died in on 24.3.1973 leaving behind the following legal heirs:

(2.) SMT . Savitri Devi widow of Sh. R.N. Kapoor also died on 30.4.1978 leaving behind her two sons and four daughters named above. Sh. S.N. Kapoor the husband of the respondent was occupying ground floor of the property. It appears that there was some dispute between the brothers and sisters as to the extent of their shares in the property and also regarding its user. Eventually a suit No. (1050/78) was filed in this court seeking partition of the said property. The suit was filed by Sh. Narender Nath Kapoor and four sisters against Surender Nath Kapoor, the husband of the respondent. This suit was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 5.2.85 in view of family settlement dated 30.1.85 (Ex. AW -1/3). Under the said settlement, the first floor i.e. the premises in question in occupation of the tenant petitioner fell to the share of Sh. S.N. Kapoor, husband of the respondent. However, since he was already occupying the ground floor the rental income from the first floor was agreed upon to be enjoyed by the other brother Sh. Narender Nath Kapoor and four sisters. In the said settlement Sh. S.N. Kapoor, husband of the respondent was to shift to the first floor within one month of its vacation by the tenant. Clause 26 of the said settlement stipulates that for evicting any of the tenants, occupants, trespassers, the parties together shall take steps either through the agency of the first party or as may be agreed upon but none of the party shall oppose the eviction of any tenant/occupant/trespassers or appear as a witness for the said tenant/occupant/trespasser. Sh. S.N. Kapoor, husband of the respondent died on 18.10.86. As already stated the first floor had fallen to the share of her husband by virtue of family settlement. Sh. Narender Nath Kapoor along with four sisters filed an eviction petition being No. E -121/98 against Sh. Ravinder Singh Kohli under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner's predecessor -in -interest on the ground that the demised premises i.e. first floor was required bonafide for the purpose of residence of the respondent. During the pendency of the said eviction petition, the petitioners therein namely Sh. Narender Nath Kapoor and four sisters sold their undivided share in the property in favour of Smt. Priya Chandna and her husband Sh. Ravi Chandana who are the daughter and son -in -law of the respondent. Naturally they lost interest in the eviction petition No. 121/98 which was eventually dismissed for non -prosecution on 16.8.2001. The present eviction petition under section 14 -D read with section 25 -B of the Act was filed by the respondent on 8.8.2001.

(3.) SH A.S. Chandhiok, learned Sr Advocate, appearing on behalf of petitioners has challenged the impugned order passed under section 14 -D of the Act mainly on the ground that in a recent decision in the case of Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta, : 2004 (10) Scale page 550, Supreme Court has taken the view that recourse to section 14 -D can be had by only those widows who had themselves inducted the tenant or the tenant was inducted by her husband. In the present case, admittedly, the tenancy was created by Sh. S.N. Kapoor, late father -in -law of the respondent. Therefore, in view of the decision of Nathi Devi (supra), section 14 -D of the Act is not available on the landlady. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to draw a distinction because the case of the Nathi Devi (Supra) relates to the case of a widow who acquired the title by transfer and not by succession. However, the observations made by the Supreme Court leave no room for doubt on this score. After considering several decision of various High Courts and Supreme Court, the Apex Court in para 28 of the judgment observed as under: