Unfortunate That Tenancy Litigation In India Takes More Than A Decade To Fructify: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is unfortunate that the litigation in India, especially the tenancy litigation under the rent control legislation, takes more than a decade to fructify.Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition filed by various individuals, claiming themselves to be owners...
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is unfortunate that the litigation in India, especially the tenancy litigation under the rent control legislation, takes more than a decade to fructify.
Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observation while setting aside an order passed by the Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition filed by various individuals, claiming themselves to be owners of premises bearing two ground floor shops, against the tenant “after a full dress trial.”
The court said that it is commonly seen that the tenant, not desirous or not able to use the tenanted premises, would keep the same locked in order to arm-twist the landlord into offering money to vacate.
“Such practices are severely detrimental to the desired effects of the rent control legislations and must be curtailed,” the court said.
It added that the scope of proceedings under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is extremely limited and does not permit the High Court to venture into re-appreciation of evidence. But, it said, where the view taken and reasoning advanced by the Rent Controller suffers the vice of perversity, the High Court cannot but intervene.
The court noted that one of the petitioners, with his family, was residing in India while the remaining petitioners were residing abroad.
It said that there is no serious dispute through pleadings and evidence on record that the children of the petitioners were grown-up adults while they themselves were aged 60 years or more.
“In such circumstances, desire of the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 to return home and spend rest of their life in their land of birth cannot be looked down with suspicion. It is often seen that Indians spending their life abroad develop strong urge to take last breath in the place where they were born. Such strong emotional requirement cannot be downgraded to a simple whim or an ordinary desire,” the court said.
It did not find any force in the reasoning of the Rent Controller that the petitioners failed to provide any evidence to show their intent to get their children married and settled in India.
Furthermore, the court said that mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of the occupation of the tenanted premises is real and genuine.
It added that the tenant has to submit the necessary pleadings as well as cogent evidence to prove his plea.
“Going a step deeper, even where the landlord permanently residing abroad desires to occasionally visit India, she or he cannot be deprived of her or his right to claim stay in her or his own house and in such case, the tenant cannot claim better right,” the court said.
Allowing the plea, Justice Kathpalia said that he found no reason to doubt the genuineness of the requirement of the premises in question, as set up by the petitioners, that they want to return home and settle down here after getting their children married in India, the country of their birth.
“Going by the size of families of the three petitioners coupled with their grown-up children, whose respective families also would grow in short span, the overall space available to them in the said larger premises would certainly be insufficient, and that justifies their plan to re-construct the same, therefore, their requirement of the subject premises is certainly bona fide,” the court said.
Title: SATPAL SINGH SARNA & ORS v. SATYA PRAKASH BANSAL
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 516