Sec 14(1)(e) of delhi rent control act,1958
CA Vijay Kumar
(Querist) 04 February 2013
This query is : Resolved
Hi Dears
I am looking better solution for the following questions
A tenant is living in let out property by paying rent Rs. 2000 PM for last 20 years with his wife and 3 adults child in small room situated at 2nd floor of the property and neither he nor his family members has alternative of residential house for living. First floor is also let out by landlord and this tenant of first floor is for 3 or three years. Now landlord of the property which was acquired from the lady in 1987 allotted under The Displaced Persons (Compensation And Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, has filed a petition u/s 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with stating that:
1 His married daughter can live on second floor to ease for going to Noida for her work place and cab facility would be available to nearest this house for up down from this place to noida.
2. He, landlord, has a house built up to 3rd floor where he lives with his joint family and married brothers and their wives and childrens. He also pleas that as per Hindi tradition and ritual, married daughter can’t stay with her parents.
Now I need the solution of the following
1 who has better need.
2. Landlord can file a petition after 20 years under Limitation Act
3. Deemed ownership would be applicable for tenant under Transfer of Property Act, or As per Income Tax Act, or Wealth Tax Act.
4 This petition can stand under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
5 This property can fall under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
6. Why he has not made evicted to tenant of 1st floor of suit premises.
7. Can tenant of 2nd floor plea to shift 1st floor as per law to make bona fide requirement of landlord
8.What are favourble to tenant keep in mind that he or his family member does not hold any alternative premises for residence
9. Pls suggest favourble case laws to the tenant
Please Reply
Regards
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 04 February 2013
1. The Married Daughter going to work premise is feeble, eviction can be ordered for 'bona fide requirment' of either the landlord or his dependants. I don't see the daughter being a dependant here.
2. Having a sufficiently good alternative accomodation always disentitles the landlord.
3. Yes once a landlord always a landlord - he can file the eviction matter at any length of time. Tenant whether pays rent or not is a tenant and does not become the owner by long permissive possession. I feel you are hinting at adverse possession, not a strong plea considering the bent of judicial opinion.
3. Can't answer about deeemed ownership, not really aware of it.
4. Yes since the rent is under 3.5 and in Delhi DRC is prima facie attracted.
Good Luck !
Bharat Chugh
www.facebook.com/advocatebharatchughonthelawsofindia
CA Vijay Kumar
(Querist) 04 February 2013
What are favourble to tenant keep in mind that he or his family member does not hold any alternative premises for residence
ANKUSH
(Expert) 05 February 2013
a) Sec. 14(1)(e) only talks abt. bonafide requirement of landlord & not tenant so even if tenant's need is more bonafide - its not considered under 14(1)(e) DRC Act
b) Similarly ownership of alternate property must be held by landlord, it doesn't matter whether tenant has a alternate property or not. Rather in case he has a alternate (residential) property, its another ground to get eviction u/s 14(1)(h) of DRC Act
c) As per recent judgements of HC & Apex court & ongoing trend, its the prerogative of landlord to decide how to use his own property."Neither courts nor tenant can dictate to landlord how to use his own property"
d) If tenant is paying rent to petitioner than respondent/ tenant is estopped from
challenging the ownership of the petitioner qua the suit premises by virtue of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act.
e) As Bharat suggested if rent is less than 3500 than same is covered under DRC Act.
f) If daughter is dependent on father for her residential needs father can always ask for his daughter (even if daughter) as law doesn't differntiate btw son & daughter.
Trust this clarifies
CA Vijay Kumar
(Querist) 01 March 2013
in continuation, as per Sale deed, landord was mentioned as owner of gound floor and first floor while tenant was residing on second floor, then there is favourable point for tenant.
