eviction under Rent control Act section 14(1)(e)
kk
(Querist) 04 July 2009
This query is : Resolved
Respected sir(s)
I am an senior citizen , running a shop from last 50 years in walled city delhi.before that my father was running from 1948.MY landlord was not accepting rent (Rs.51 permonth)from last several years and i deposited the rent in court.Now the land lord have filled a case under DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT Section 14(1)(e).pls tell me the strength in this case.My father got this property from CUSTODIAN AFTER PARTATION.pls reply.
Thankyou
kk
(Querist) 05 July 2009
PLS. ANSWER MY QUERY I WILL BE VERY GREATFUL TO YOU
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 11 July 2009
hello Sir,
since u r a senior citizen i ve full sympathy with u.
very frankly speaking Sir....howsoever long is the tenancy, it does not give the title to ownership to a tenant.
tenant remains tenant unless he purchases the property.
in ur case the petition has been filed under S. 14 (1) (e) of the DRA which runs as under:-
(e) That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;
Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, "premises let for residential purpose" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes
Bonafide necessasity or personal necessity is a best ground available to a landlord for getting the property vacated.
the current legal interpretations run in favour of landlord.......it is the choice of land lord which has to be considered and not the hardship of a tenant....landlord is better judge of his own needs even though he might be in possession of no. of other properties.
though u may prove lack of bonafide on his part...but still in the end he remains the landlord and u remain the tenant.
landlords have better case on the ground as taken in ur case.
my sincere advice to u is pls dont waste ur time and money on litigation...its not merely a case of acceptance and non acceptance of rent.
better compromsie the matter with ur landlord.......though u may ve to loose the possession probably he may compensate u...which otherwise he is not legally bound to do.
at this age, dont put ur precious energy and money in litigation and dont make it clash of egos as well...pls understand he is a landlord, he has the rights in the property as an owner.
my words my be bitter or unacceptable to u, but Dear Sir, this is the reality.
Regards,
Kiran
