LexM/S RAHABHAR PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD. versus RAJENDRA K. TANDON
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MIS RAHABHAR PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD.
v
RAJENDRA K. TANDON
.,,..
~
MARCH 26, 1998
B
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Rent Control and Evidence-Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act.
>- ~
I 988-Sections I 4C, I 4(J)(e)-Eviction petition-By retired Central
Government employee-Held, landlord to establish bonafide requirement-
c Tenant cannot be evicted on a false plea of requirement.
Section 25B-Application by classified landlord-Held, tenant to seek
{eave to defend-Procedure for disposal of application is the same as that
of other petitions.
D
The Respondent's father originally let out the premises in dispute to
the employee of Appellant. The respondent before his retirement, field an
"'<"
eviction petition under Section 14C of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
E-
(Amended in 1988). The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller as
also the Revision. On appeal, this Court remanded the matter for fresh
E
consideration. On remand the appellant moved an application for leave to
defend under Section 258(4) & (5) of the Rent Ci;ntrol Act, which was
dismissed and they were directed to deliver vacant possession. The Revision
field by the appellant was dismissed.
On appeal before this Court, it was contended by the appellant that an
F
order for eviction of the tenant cannot be passed by the Rent Controller
under Section 14C of the Act unless it is found, as a fact, that the premises
were bonafide required by the landlord for his own use and occupation, that
_... -
the law does not allow the Rent controller or the High Court to act
mechanically on the application of the landlord and grant him the relief of
eviction merely on his asking, that the discretion of the Rent Controller and
G that of the High Court to allow or not to allow the eviction petition against
a sitting tenant cannot be taken away by any legislative measure and that
unless "bona fide requirement" of the landlord is established the application
cannot be allowed and the tenant cannot be evicted.
The Respondent contended that in proceedings under Section 14C of
H the Act "bonafide requirement" is not required to be established by the
470
j
RAllABHAR PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD. v. R.K. TANDON
471
landlord as the words do noi occur in the Section, that absence of these words A
in Section 14C indicates the legislative intent to obviate the difficulty oLa
landlord by enabling him to get immediate possession of his premises in
occupation of a tenant.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELO : I. In Section 14(1)(e) as also Section l4C of the Delhi Rent
Control Act it is the requirement of the landlord which con~titutes the basis
for tenant's eviction. No landlord, not even a landlord under Section l4C, can
B
be permitted to come to Court for eviction of the tenant for his requirement
which is not real, genuine or bonafide. The tenant cannot be evicted on a false
plea of requirement or "feigned requirement". The omission of the words C
"bona fide "therefore, does not make much of a difference.
(477-H; 478-A-8)
Ram Das v. lshwar Chander & Ors., 11988) 3 SCC 131 and Amarjit
Singh v. Khatoon Qamaraini, (1986) 4 SCC 736, referred to.
2. Integrating the two factors viz., the right of the landlord to recover
immediate possession and the right available to a tenant to raise pleas in
defence to indicate that the premises, inspite of retirement or likely
retirement of the landlord, are not required by him, what emerges out is that
while the landlord has to establish his "requirement", which means "real"
D
and not "feigned", the tenant can show that it is not so. [480-81
E
Surjit Singh Kalra v. UO. I, (199112 SCC 87; E.MC. Steel Ltd Calcutta
v. UO.I. & Anr., [1991) 2 SCC 101; Anand Swaroop Vohra v. Shim Sen Bahri
& Anr., [1994) 5 SCC 372; V. Rajeshwari v. Bombay Tyres Intl. Ltd, (1995]
Suppl. 3 SCC 172 and JD Hingorani v. Ashok Kharbanda & Anr.,(1995)
Supp. 3 sec 185, referred to.
F
3. The provisions in Section 258 of Delhi Rent Control Act indicates
a uniform procedure for disposal of the applications filed either under
Section 14(l)(e) or by the "classified" landlords under any of the sections
namely, l4A, 148, 14C or 140. [479-C]
4. The pleas put forth by the appellant in his affidavit filed before the G
Rent Controller for leave the defend, do not disentitle the landlord from
recovering possession of the premises in question. The choice and sufficient
reasons having been indicated by the respondExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.