SATWIR KUMAR Vs. SUBHASH KUKREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired Government servant a classified landlord, filed a petition under Section 14(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act). The respondent herein sought leave which was granted by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same the present petition has been preferred, inter alia, on the ground that the Additional Rent Controller (for short the ARC) by misconstruing the License Deed held that in view of the license deed there exist dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant which is triable issue hence granted leave. According to the petitioner, the learned ARC went by the label of the document instead of its substance. The learned ARC also ignored the fact that the petitioner having already retired on 29th February, 1996 and having been served with notice from the Estate Officer to vacate the accommodation has been forced by pay the market rent. Hence needed bona fide the house for her residence.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge tO the impugned order, the relevant and brief facts are that the petitioner was employed as Deputy Chief Director (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation), Ministry of Agriculture. She was allottee flat No. 32, Block A, Pandara Road, Delhi. She has been occupying the said flat allotted by the Government. She owns the house in question bearing No. 17-C, Block AN (2nd floor), Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. She let out this house to the respondent herein for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. l,600.00 .She after her retirement had to vacate the Government accommodation. Her allotment was cancelled by the Estate Officer. Accordingly she applied for the vacation of her house by the respondent on 18th July, 1996. The respondent herein sought leave to defend, primarily on the ground that he was not a tenant but alicensee: Moreover, the petitioner was not the landlady of the premises. That the petition had not been properly signed and verified, the material facts and the circumstances had not been disclosed. The petitioner was still in service. She had not been superannuated. This respondent challenged the superannuation of the petitioner and hence her bona fide needs. According to him, she sought ejectment in order to harass the respondent so that she could increase the rent. The learned ARC by the impugned order granted leave on the ground that since possession was given to the respondent as licensee, therefore, dispute regarding relationship of the parties. To prove the intention that it was a lease and not license, evidence was required and held it to be a triable issue.

(3.) The law is now well settled that the Court in order to decide the controversy whether the document is a lease or license has to see the dominant purpose of the relationship which parties created while entering into the agreement. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Didi Modes Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Hind Trading & Manufacturing Co., AIR 1996 Delhi 321 laid down the test which the Courts are to follow in order to find out whether the document is a lease or a license. Those are: