Delhi High Court
Jadish Chander Gulati vs Ram Chand Lakram on 11 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: 45(1991)DLT660, 1991(21)DRJ319
JUDGMENT S.C. Jain, J.
(1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Shri Jagdish Chander Gulati and Smt. Bimla Rani Gulati, petitioners herein, agreed to purchase the house in dispute bearing No. 6/22, East Patel Nagar New Delhi from its owners Shri R.N. Sethi, B.N. Sethi and Smt. Kaushalaya Devi and an agreement to sell was duly executed on 13.1.78 and the sale consideration was settled at Rs- l,50,000.00 On payment of Rs. 75.000/ towards part of the sale consideration possession of the ground floor and barsati was handed over to them. The petitioners thus acquired the possession of the ground floor and barsati of these premises on 13.1.1978 The first floor remained in possession of the respondent Ram Chand Lakram Ralwani, who was the tenant under the previous owners. The sale deed was not executed in favor of the petitioners, which led them to file a suit for specific performance and this Court vide order dated 29.9.1983 passed a decree for specific performance in suit No. 838/80 directing the previous owners to execute the sale-deed of this property in favor of the petitioners subject to the petitioners paying the balance amount of sale consideration before the Sub Register. The sale deed was thus executed on 29.12.86.
(2) In the year 1987, the petitioners filed a petition for eviction against the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act on personal bonafide requirement. The ownership of the petitioner was, however, disputed by the respondent. The Rent Controller found that the decree of specific performance was passed on 29.9.1983 and sale deed was executed in 1986 and the eviction petition was filed in 1987, i.e. before the expiry of five years from the date of acquisition of the property and in view of provisions of Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act tho eviction petition was held to be not maintainable and it was dismissed as premature.
(3) Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.
(4) The ground of bonafide requirement as contained under Section 14(1)(e) is controlled by Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which read as under:-
"WHEREa landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under sub-Section (1) on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years has elapsed from the date of the acquisition."
(5) In this case, it is apparent from the record that the petitioners got possession of the ground floor and barsati of the house in question on 13.1.78 in pursuance to the agreement of sale by payment of part sale consideration. The first floor remained in possession of the respondent as tenant. The respondent had occupied the first floor as tenant under the previous owners. The main contention of the petitioner is that the period of five years as postulated under Section 14(6) has to be calculated from the date when the property is acquired by the purchaser. According to him, is this case, the property was acquired on 13.1.78 and the eviction petition was filed after more than 5 years and therefore, the bar as contained under Section 14(6) cannot be made applicable In this case. According to him, the decree in the suit for specific performance and the execution of the sale deed is immaterial. He drew my attention towards two decisions of this Court reported as 1966 Dlt 306 B.K. Khanna v. M.R. Batra, and Begam Hamid Ali Khan v. B.H. Saidi in support of his contention that the language of Section 14(6) shows, that a person must become the landlord by acquisition of the premises before this sub-Section would be attracted. According to the learned Counsel the Rent Controller has passed the impugned judgment which is clearly contrary to the law and has wrongly held that the eviction petition is premature.
(6) The legislative intention underlying Section 14(6) is that a landlord who is himself unable to evict a tenant for some reason should be deprived of the temptation of transferring the premises to another person who would not be prevented. Section 14(6) applies only when the person becomes the landlord of the premises in question by virtue of transfer itself. The words used under Section 14(6) are''has acquired" any premises by transfer. The petitioners have acquired the possession of these premises on 13.1.78 in part performance of the agreement of sale and since then for all intents and purposes the petitioners are in physical possession of the ground floor and barsati and in notional possession of the first floor, which has continued to be in possession of the respondent as a tenant. The language of the Section 14(6) shows that the person must become landlord by acquisition of the premises before this sub-Section can be attracted. It cannot be said that the petitioner became landlord by acquisition of the premises by transfer on 29.12.1986 when the sale deed was executed. He became landlord on 13.1.1978 when the agreement of sale was executed and he got the symbolic possession of the suit premises. In this case there is no escape from the conclusion that Section 14(6) will not stand in the way of the petitioners landlord from asking for recovery of the premises in dispute under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Even otherwise now more than five years have passed when the decree for specific performance and execution of sale deed was passed on 29.9.1983.
(7) In these circumstances, I accept this revision petition and remained the case back to the Court of the Rent Controller with the direction to give a fresh decision on merits of the eviction petition No. E-164/87 titled Jagdish Chander Gulati v. Ram Chand Lakram Relwani The parties are left to bear their own costs. The parties are directed to appear before the Court of the Rent Controller on 3.12.1991. Record of the lower Court be sent back immediately.