Delhi High Court
Krishna Chopra & Another vs Smt. Raksha & Others on 13 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999VIAD(DELHI)51, 82(1999)DLT360
ORDER Vijender Jain, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 10th October,1995, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. It has been pending in this Court since 1996.
2. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The size of the family of the respondent is not disputed. The family of respondent consists of herself and her grown up son who is 29 years old. The extent of accommodation available with the respondent is only one room on the ground floor. There is no dispute with regard to the purpose of letting. However, the petitioner has disputed the relationship of tenant and landlord. Respondent brought on record a Will in favour of the respondent executed by the father of the respondent. It was contended before the Additional Rent Controller that there may be other brothers and sisters of the respondent and, therefore, respondent was not the absolute owner of the property in question. Mr. Vijay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit bringing on record an advertisement which was published in the Hindustan Times on 20th December,1992, prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The said advertisement was for the sale of the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the basis of the aforesaid advertisement, it is manifestly clear that the sole intention of the respondent was to sale and dispose of the property. Therefore, the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the premises were required bona fide by the respondent on the basis of the record was untenable. In support of the advertisement an affidavit of one property broker has also been filed by the petitioner in this Court. I have carefully gone through the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties.
3. At the outset, I must say that the petitioner cannot dispute the ownership of the respondent. The petitioner cannot plead that under the will respondent has no right and there are other successors of the father of the respondent. It is not open to a tenant to dispute the contents of the Will. The law is well settled. The Will may be challenged by other heirs or successors of person making the Will. In any event of the matter, the respondent filed a suit to obtain probate of the said Will. Probate in favour of the respondent has been granted. In view of grant of Probate, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the ownership of their respondent. That brings me to the question of bona fide requirement.
4. The present revision petition was filed aggrieved by the order of the Additional Rent Controller not granting leave to contest the eviction petition. Nothing was urged before me on the basis of leave to defend application filed by the petitioner before the Additional Rent Controller. Legislature in its wisdom has provided Summary Trial under Chapter-III of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act procedure has been provided as to how to deal with the petition under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. From the service of the notice on the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act fifteen days time is granted to the tenant to file the leave to defent application and to plead all such grounds which if proved, would disentitle a landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. In view of such a stringent procedure laid down by the Parliament, is it open for this Court which is not even exercising an appellate jurisdiction as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, to allow a tenant to say that at the time of filing of leave to defend application certain facts were not available to him and same can be brought to the notice of this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In view of expressed provisions of the Statute, in my considered opinion while exercising the revisional jurisdiction emanating under the Act it is not permissible. As I have heard Sh. Gupta on merit, therefore, I have considered the advertisement placed on record as well as the affidavit of the property broker in support of the advertisement. The affidavit which has been filed by the broker at the instance of the petitioner does not inspire any confidence even if it is assumed that the respondent was interested in selling the property, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the advertisement was issued on 20th December, 1992. The petition for eviction was filed in the year 1994. It cannot said that when the petition was filed, the requirement of the respondent was not bona fide. In any event of the mater, Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides an answer. If a landlord abuses the process of the Court, obtains an order of eviction, subsequently lets out the property or sells the same, the tenant can also apply for restitution under Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
5. No ground to interfer.
6. Dismissed.