Acquisition of premises via Gift Deed from a spouse does not constitute "transfer" under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.

The petitioner, a widow and partially paralyzed business owner, filed eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) for bona fide requirement of premises to start a business for herself and her daughters

The property was originally owned by Smt. Raj Kumari Verma, then Ashok Kumar Verma, who bequeathed it via Will to the petitioner’s husband, Anil Gupta, in 2005

Following Anil Gupta’s death, the petitioner became the owner via a registered Gift Deed executed by her husband on July 18, 2022

On April 28, 2023, the Rent Controller (RC) dismissed the petitions as non-maintainable, holding they were barred by Section 14(6) of the DRCA, which prohibits eviction filings within five years of acquiring property by "transfer"

The petitioner challenged these orders via revision petitions

The court primarily applied Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which restricts landlords who acquire premises by "transfer" from filing eviction petitions under the ground of bona fide requirement for five years

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent *V.N. Sarin v. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai*, which established that the object of Section 14(6) is to prevent "strangers" from using transfers as a device to evict tenants, and does not apply where the landlord had a prior title or interest (e.g., partition)

It further considered *Dr. R.C. Sakhuja v. R.P. Kholi*, which held that devolution by succession (testamentary or non-testamentary) is not a "transfer" under this section

and *Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Prakash Chand Gupta*, which exempted inter-family gift deeds from the statutory bar

The Court reasoned that the legislative intent of Section 14(6) is to curb mala fide transfers intended to circumvent tenant protections, not to obstruct genuine devolution within a family

Applying this to the facts, the Court observed that the petitioner is a Class I legal heir of her deceased husband

Even in the absence of the Gift Deed, she would have acquired rights in the property through inheritance/succesion, which is legally exempt from the definition of "transfer" under Section 14(6)

The Court noted that the petitioner was not a "rank outsider" or "stranger" to the title, but an individual with a subsisting legal interest through lineage and marriage

Therefore, the formal execution of a Gift Deed by the husband in favor of the wife does not constitute the type of "acquisition by transfer" envisioned by the legislature to trigger the five-year waiting period

The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated April 28, 2023, holding that the petitions were not premature

The revision petitions were allowed, and the matters were restored and remanded to the Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, for fresh adjudication on merits