Delhi District Court
Smt. Sharda Devi vs Sh. Prithvi Raj on 2 December, 2016
1
In the Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
CCJ Cum Additional Rent Controller1 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. E 40/16 (Old No.) 80437/16 (New No.)
Unique I.D. No. 02401C0130662016
In the matter of :
Smt. Sharda Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o 6306, First and Second Floor,
Block No06, Gali No. 4, Dev Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi ...........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Prithvi Raj
S/o Sh. Jai Ram Dass Phulwaria
Shop No. 6306, Ground Floor,
Block No. 6, Gali No. 4,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ......... Respondent
ORDER
02.12.2016
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application moved by respondent for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner u/s 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred Page 1 of 5 Sharda Devi Vs. Prithvi Raj No. 40/16 2 to as 'the Act'].
2. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt Sharda Devi against the respondent Sh. Prithvi Raj for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., Shop on the ground floor of property No. 6306, Block No. 6, Gali No. 4, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No. 6306, Block No. 6, Gali No. 4, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the respondent was inducted as tenant with respect to ground floor shop of the suit property. That the petitioner is a widow lady having no source of income and therefore, she wants to start her business from the said shop for earning her livelihood. That no rent agreement has been executed between the respondent and the petitioner regarding the extension of tenancy.
On the above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises.
4. Summons were served upon the respondent who filed the leave to defend application on the grounds that the petitioner is not the owner / landlord of the premises in question and that the petitioner is running her clinic under the name and style of Sharda Bharti Acupuncture Health Page 2 of 5 Sharda Devi Vs. Prithvi Raj No. 40/16 3 Centre on the first floor of the premises in question. It is further averred that the site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct.
5. Reply to the application for leave to defend has been filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has denied all the averments made by the respondent in his leave to defend application stating that she is landlord by Gift Deed executed by Sh. Deepak being the son of the petitioner in whose favour will was executed by his grandfather in respect of premises in question. Copy of the will is annexed herewith. It is submitted that the respondent has failed to state if the petitioner is not the owner then who else is the owner of the property. It is further submitted by the petitioner in reply that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by her for herself and her son to set up their business.
6. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the documents.
Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958. i. Petitioner is the owner in respect of the tenanted premises; ii. He requires the premises bonafidely for himself or for family members dependent upon him;
iii. He has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
7. It is averred by the petitioner that she is the owner of the shop in question being mother of Sh. Deepak in whose favour will was executed by his grandfather with respect to the premises in question. The Page 3 of 5 Sharda Devi Vs. Prithvi Raj No. 40/16 4 petitioner has filed on record the Gift Deed dated 17.07.2015 allegedly executed by Sh. Deepak in favour of the petitioner wherein it has been mentioned that Sh. Deepak became owner of the property by virtue of will dated 06.05.1996 duly executed by grandfather of Sh. Deepak. Thus, it means that Sh. Deepak became the owner of the property by virtue of will dated 06.05.1996 and thereafter, executed the Gift Deed dated 17.07.2015 in favour of his mother, i.e., petitioner in the present case. Thus, the petitioner had no right, title or interest in the property in question prior to 17.07.2015 since Sh. Deepak was the sole and absolute owner of the property in question by virtue of Will dated 06.05.1996. That being the case, the petition is clearly barred under Section 14(6) of DRC Act as the same has been filed prior to expiry of five years since the date of deriving the title by the petitioner over the premises in question. Thus, the petition being prematured is not maintainable at this stage. Under Section 14 (6) of the DRC Act, it has been clearly stated that "where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under subsection (1), on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years have elapsed from the date of the acquisition."
Further, it is submitted by the petitioner that she is already running a clinic on the first floor of the premises in question under the name and style of Sharda Bharti Acupuncture Health Centre and thus, it remains unexplained as to for what bonafide requirement the present premises is required by the petitioner at this stage. It has nowhere been stated by the Page 4 of 5 Sharda Devi Vs. Prithvi Raj No. 40/16 5 petitioner in her petition that the tenanted premises is also required for the business of her son and therefore, it is an after thought made by the petitioner in order to cover up the business already carried on by herself. Even otherwise, since the petition is premature having been filed within the five years of acquiring the title of the property in question by way of Gift Deed dated 17.7.2015, hence, present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Thus, in view of provision under Section 14 (6) of the DRC Act, the present petition is dismissed as being premature with liberty to file a fresh petition.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
nd
on 02 Day of December, 2016 CCJ cum ARC1 (Central)
[This order contains 5 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 5 of 5 Sharda Devi Vs. Prithvi Raj No. 40/16