EVICTION OF TENANT - 'GENUINE NEED OF LANDLORD' - HELD, VALID

A revision petition (under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) was filed by the legal heirs of one Late Mohd. Sharif before the Delhi Court challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Rent Controller-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts whereby the eviction petition filed by one Sh. Miraj Ahmed was allowed.

The Delhi High Court (in the said matter of R.C.REV.428/18) by its Order dated 4th June 2021 concluded that if the Rent Controller finds that the landlord is in bona fide need of the premises it would not be appropriate for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the finding.

The said eviction petition was filed by Sh. Miraj Ahmad on 15.9.1988 contending to the effect that he was the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises which had been purchased by him in the year 1965. It had been the contention of the petitioner of the eviction petition that he had a large joint family comprising of 18 persons and that he himself had been living in a tenanted premises.

 It was the contention of the petitioner of the eviction petition that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation and thus sought the eviction of the respondents to the eviction petition. The respondent to the eviction petition had sought to contend that he had become the owner of the tenanted premises by prescription and adverse possession and that the petitioner of the eviction petition had other properties available which could be used by him for residence and though the respondent had also denied that the petitioner.

In para 14 of the judgment dated 20.5.2000 of the learned Additional Rent Controller, it was held that Sh. Girdhari Lal had given the highest bid of Rs.4300/- qua the property bearing No. XI/848(New), Haveli Azam Khan, Delhi of which he was declared a purchaser of the same w.e.f. 12.5.1964. The execution of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/1 by Sh. Girdhari Lal in favour of Miraj Ahmad, the petitioner of the eviction petition was also not challenged by the respondent to the eviction petition in the course of proceedings in E-222/88 and the execution of which sale deed was thus deemed to be admitted as correct by the respondent.

The petitioner of the eviction petition was also indicated to have paid house tax vide a receipt Ex.PW-1/15 and it was held thus that the petitioner of the eviction petition was the owner of the property in question.

The learned Additional Rent Controller vide the impugned judgment vide paragraphs 38 to 39 & 41 had observed to the effect:

"38. From the documents Ex. PW-1/1, Ex. PW-1/X4, PW-2/X13, PW-2/X14 and PW-2/X15, it is evident that Sh. Girdhari Lai had purchased the tenanted premises and became its owner. Thereafter, he executed sale deed Ex. PW-1/1 in favour of the petitioner. Execution of the sale deed and its registration has also not been challenged during cross-examination and is deemed to have been admitted as correct. The petitioner has also been paying house tax of the tenanted premises which is evident from the document Ex.PW-1/15. 

39. The court is of the view that the petitioner has successfully proved that he purchased the tenanted premises from Sh. Girdhari Lai and became its owner.

41. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner Sh.Miraj Ahmed was the owner and therefore landlord of the tenanted premises and was competent to have filed the present eviction petition." 

Furthermore, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents - Sh.Miraj Ahmed- to the present petition placing reliance on the verdict Carona Limited Vs. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons [2007 (2) RLR 481], to submit to the effect that the basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of the institution of the suit and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar V. Kesha Ram [AIR 1992 SC 700], the normal rule is that the issue of bona-fide need of the landlord has to be considered on the date of the filing of the eviction petition and only a cautious cognizance should be taken of subsequent events, thus submitting to the effect that at the time when the eviction petition had been filed in 1988, the need of the petitioner for the accommodation in the form of the tenanted premises was bona fide and necessary.

In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is thus held that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 20.3.2018 holding the existence of the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties to the eviction petition and thus of the petitioner of the eviction petition being the owner of the premises in question.

As has rightly been contended on behalf of the respondents to the present petition i.e., the petitioners of the eviction petition, the needs of the landlord qua the tenanted premises have to be essentially considered on the date of institution of the petition as is instituted.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chaman Prakash Puri vs. Ishwar Dass Rajput and Another [1995 Supp (4) SCC 445] has held that if the Rent Controller finds that the landlord is in bona fide need of the premises it would not be appropriate for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the finding.