Registration Of Family Arrangement Necessary Only If Terms Are Reduced Into Writing, Not Where Arrangement Is Oral: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that registration is not necessary where family arrangement is oral and that the same is necessary only if the terms of the arrangement are reduced into writing.

"It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable" Justice Najmi Waziri reiterated.

Relance was placed on Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by two individuals challenging the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller granting the respondent tenant the Leave to Defend. The development had ensued in the petitioner's application seeking the tenant's eviction under sec. 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Since 1983, the tenant was in occupation of the tenanted premises. The son and daughter-in-law of petitioner no.1 were professionals. Since 2009 the son was a practicing advocate in Delhi, his wife was a Chartered Accountant. They were dependent upon petitioner no. 1 for their office accommodation.

According to them, there could be no other place more suitable, convenient and a more prestigious, address than the tenanted premises which was present in the heart of New Delhi, i.e. Connaught Place.

There was no dispute qua the existence of landlord or tenant relationship. The petitioners landlords had brought on record documents to show their right and title in the property.

The sole reason why the leave to defend was granted was that the tenants had made out a triable case apropos the petitioners landlords having alternate accommodation in the vicinity.

In the leave to defend application, the respondent tenant had argued that the leave to defend had rightly been granted because the landlord was seeking additional accommodation whereas, he was already in possession of alternate vacant space in the same building which was earlier occupied by the bank, now stood vacated.

In the eviction petition, the petitioners landlords had elaborately explained the reason why the shop on the ground floor, albeit larger in size, than the tenanted premises, was not suitable.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioners landlords submitted that the two shops which were said to be available with them were so small that a table and a chair could barely be fitted into it, let alone the same being used as an office for consultation by a lawyer or a Chartered Accountant.

Furthermore, it was argued the said shop did not have and there was no scope for constructing a toilet nor did it have any conference room or waiting room or a space for office staff, pantry and other amenities, which were necessary for a modern day law office and/or a CA office.

"It is settled law that apropos suitability of tenanted premises for the landlords' bona fide need, the landlord is the best judge. It is the prerogative of the landlord to determine the suitability of the land/space available with him for the need espoused. The tenant cannot dictate to or instruct a landlord as to how and which property of the latter should be used for which purpose," the Court said.

The Court noted that the need of the landlord was a commercial one and that the property was used for residential purpose and it could not be put to commercial use. Therefore, the Court said that ex-facie the said property could not be considered as being alternate accommodation available with the landlord.

The Court also took note of the comprehensive family arrangement which had been made apropos residential and commercial properties owned by the family and was subsequently crystallised and registered.

"A family arrangement may be even an oral arrangement, in which case, no registration is necessary. It is only necessary if the terms of family arrangement are reduced into writing," the Court said.

The court was thus of the view that the impugned order had erred in granting leave to defend because there was no triable issue raised by the tenant, which needed determination.

"The petitioners had fairly disclosed all properties owned by them and the fact that of all those properties none of it was available nor suitable as alternate accommodation," it added.

While allowing the petition, the Court however added that in terms of sec. 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the order shall not be executable for a period of six months.

Case Title: DR. SANJIV GUPTA & ANR. v. SH. S.S. VERMA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 390

Click Here To Read Order