Dismissed

Urmila Mehra v. Dalpat Singh

Delhi HC5 Aug 2011RC.REV./140/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revisional petition challenging an eviction order under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed. The court held that a petitioner must prove bonafide requirement for premises, noting the petitioner's alternative accommodation and intent to reconstruct the property.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Alternative prayer to expedite trial court disposal was accepted.

Urmila Mehra Vs Dalpat Singh — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2011)

¶1

Signature Not Verified RC.REV. 140/2011 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.

¶2

tenants in the buildingare requiredto be evicted. Whereas,the petitioner has nottakenany steps for evictionof other tenants. Therefore,it raises a triable issue as to whether the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafidely or not."

¶3

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the evictionpetitionwas filed under Section14-D of the Delhi Rent ControlAct and, therefore, the question of her being in possession of any other alternative accommodation was irrelevant and all that was required to be shown by the petitionerwas that she was a widow and that the tenantedpremiseshad been let out either by herself or by her deceased husband and both these facts in the present case being not disputed by the respondent - tenant there was no justification in giving leave to the respondent - tenant to contest the eviction petition by the trial Court.

¶4

I am, however, not in agreement with the afore-said submission of the learned counsel for the petition for the reason that even in an eviction petition filedby a widowunder Section 14-D it hasto be shownthat the tenantedpremises are required bonafide by the widow - landlady. In the present case, the facts narrated in detail by the learned AdditionalRent Controller in the impugned order which have been extracted already, make it clear that the requirement of the petitioner- landlady,prima facie, cannot be saidto be bonafide. In fact, all that she desires is to construct residential apartments after getting the premises in occupationof the respondentvacated. Presently,her childrenand grandchildren are admittedly living in UAE and the petitioner herself is also admittedlystaying in NDSE, a posh locality of New Delhi of which she is a co-owner with her children who are in UAE and it appears to be quite improbable that she would leave that posh area to settle down in JeewanNagar, Ashram.

¶5

I, therefore, do not find any perversity in the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller justifying interference by this Court in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶6

AUGUST 05, 2011 sh RC.REV. 140/2011

¶7

P.K. BHAS

¶8

vase 4 of 4/ feviW IXS'Q.ol| (7^ ^0 toll

¶9

¶10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

RC.REV. 140/2011

URMILA MEHRA

Petitioner

Thi'ough: Mr. H. Devrajan, Mr. Satylcam Saini & Mr. Asholc Rajagopalan, Advocates

versus

DALPAT SINGH

Respondent

Tlirough: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN

ORDER

21.09.2011

CM APPL. 17230/2011

Exemption as prayed for is granted subject to all just exceptions. This application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

REV. PETITION 525/2011

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.

¶29

Learned counsel for the review petitioner has argued that while rejecting the revision petition this Court had observed that even in an eviction petition filed by a widow under Section 14 (D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 she has to show the bonafides ofher requirement|ui respectofthe tenantedpremiseson the basis of which she seeks eviction of a tenant, in fact, is an observation on a misconceptionof law and that is a good ground for review of the order dated s"' August, 2011. In support of this argument leai'ned counsel has cited one judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors.AIR 2005 SC 592. Another judgment of the Supreme Court in "V. Rajaswari Vs. Bombay Tyres Intl. Ltd.", 1955 Supp (3) see has also been cited by the learned counsel while contending that in the said judgment the Supreme Court has categorically held that in a case under Section

¶30

Page 1 of 2

¶31

RC.REV. 140/2011

¶32

14 (D), the tenant has practicallyno defencewhatsoever.Accordingto the learned counsel, the order passed by this Court on 5"^ August, 2011 deserves to be reviewed. Alternative submission made is that in case this Court is not inclined to entertain this review petition then at least the learned Additional Rent Controller should be directed to dispose of the petition at the earliest possible consideringthe fact that petitioner-landlady is over 80 years of age.

¶33

After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlady,I do not find any groundto entertainthis reviewpetitionand the same is, therefore, rejected. As far as the alternative prayer is concerned, it is ordered that the trial Court should malce all possible efforts to dispose of the eviction petition as early as possible by giving short dates keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner-landlady is over 80 years of age.

¶34

P.K. BHASIN, J

¶35

SEPTEMBER 21, 2011/pg

¶36

RC.REV. 140/2011

¶37

Page 2 of 2

Urmila Mehra v. Dalpat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Mehra v. Dalpat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harsh Vardhan Nayyar Vs Om Parmar

Ap Shankar Vs Vinay Kumar Sehgal

Union Bank of India Vs Manju Pandey

UOI Vs Pratap Singh & Ors.

Urmila Mehra Vs Ashok Kumar

Ravinder Singh Vs Maya Devi & Ors.