9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether it is sufficient for the landlord to merely state in the petition that he required the premises for his own bona fide occupation without also averring that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation as stated in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 2. Whether the exclusive occupation of a close relation of the tenant, like a brother, can be inferred as parting with possession under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Detailed Analysis: 1. Sufficiency of Landlord's Pleading Under Section 14(1)(e): Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, requires the landlord to prove three conditions for eviction: 1. The landlord is the owner of the premises. 2. The requirement of the premises for occupation is bona fide. 3. The landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The Tribunal had noted that the landlord did not specifically state he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. The landlord's simple assertion of bona fide need was deemed insufficient. The judgment emphasized that the statutory conditions must be strictly complied with, and the absence of a specific averment that the landlord had no other suitable accommodation rendered the eviction application unsustainable. The court referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Attar Singh v. Inder Kumar, which confirmed that the landlord must plead and prove the lack of other suitable accommodation. 2. Parting with Possession Under Section 14(1)(b): The Tribunal found that the second appellant (tenant's brother) was in exclusive possession of the premises, implying parting with possession by the tenant. However, the judgment clarified that mere exclusive possession by a close relation, like a brother, without more, does not constitute parting with possession under Section 14(1)(b). The legal possession must be transferred, and the tenant must divest himself of both physical possession and the right to possession. The court referenced several cases, including Hazari Lal v. Giani Ram, which established that parting with possession requires the tenant to give up legal possession, not just physical presence. The judgment concluded that the mere presence of the tenant's brother did not amount to parting with possession, as there was no evidence of legal transfer or subletting. Conclusion: The court reversed the decrees of the lower courts, holding that: 1. The landlord's failure to specifically plead the lack of other suitable accommodation under Section 14(1)(e) was fatal to the eviction application. 2. The mere occupation by the tenant's brother did not amount to parting with possession under Section 14(1)(b). The eviction application was dismissed with costs throughout.
|
