Case Note & Summary
The appeals arise from similar orders dated 17.04.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RC. REV. No. 78 of 2015 and RC. REV. No. 80 of 2015. The High Court allowed revision petitions filed by the respective tenants and reversed the eviction orders dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Court of ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, North District, Rohini, Delhi in eviction petitions bearing Nos. 02 of 2011 and 03 of 2011. The appellant-landlord had sought eviction of the tenants on the ground of her bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller had accepted the petitions, but the High Court reversed the decision essentially on the ground that the appellant-landlord had not been forthright in description of the property in question and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner about the facts concerning right, title and interest of the wife of his brother-in-law in the property and about the fact that the building was constructed on two adjoining plots as a common superstructure. The Supreme Court considered the appeals together and found that the High Court had misread the pleadings and reversed the eviction orders without proper appreciation of the facts. The Court held that the landlord's requirement was bona fide and restored the eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Eviction - Misleading Pleadings - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) - Landlord sought eviction on ground of bona fide requirement; High Court reversed on finding that landlord was not forthright in property description and about rights of brother-in-law's wife - Supreme Court held that High Court misread pleadings and reversed without proper appreciation of facts - Held that landlord's requirement was bona fide and eviction orders were restored (Paras 3-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the eviction orders on the ground that the landlord had not been forthright in describing the property and had taken misleading pleadings about the right, title and interest of the wife of his brother-in-law.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; impugned orders of the High Court set aside; orders of the Rent Controller restored.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement
- Eviction of tenant
- Misleading pleadings
- Rent control
- Property description
