Acquisition of property 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, filed eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) for bona fide requirement to start a business for herself and her professional daughters

The property was originally owned by Smt. Raj Kumari Verma, then gifted to Ashok Kumar Verma, who willed it to the Petitioner’s husband, Anil Gupta, in 2005.

Following Anil Gupta’s death, the Petitioner acquired full title via a registered Gift Deed dated 18.07.2022 executed by her late husband shortly before his demise

The Rent Controller (RC) dismissed the petitions as non-maintainable, holding they were barred by Section 14(6) of the DRCA because five years had not elapsed since the "acquisition" of the premises via the 2022 Gift Deed

The Petitioner challenged this by way of revision

Whether the acquisition of tenanted premises by a wife from her husband via a Gift Deed constitutes a "transfer" under Section 14(6) of the DRCA, thereby attracting the five-year bar on filing eviction petitions.

The Court primarily applied Section 14(6) of the DRCA, which prohibits a landlord who "acquired any premises by transfer" from filing a bona fide requirement eviction petition for five years from the date of acquisition

It relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in V.N. Sarin v. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai, which established that the object of Section 14(6) is to prevent "strangers" or "purchasers" from using transfers as a tool to evict tenants; it does not apply where the claimant had a prior interest or title

It further applied Dr. R.C. Sakhuja v. R.P. Kholi, which clarified that "transfer" excludes devolution by succession (testamentary or non-testamentary)

and Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Prakash Chand Gupta, which held that transfers inter se between family members/lineal heirs do not attract the 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 penalize genuine intra-family devolution

The Court observed that the Petitioner is a Class I legal heir of her deceased husband and therefore possessed a "vested legal right" in the property prior to the execution of the Gift Deed

Unlike a "stranger" or a "purchaser" who has no prior link to the title, the Petitioner’s acquisition via a gift from her husband was akin to a family settlement or inheritance

The Court distinguished Ashok Kumar v. Ram Avtar Gupta, noting that in the present case, the Petitioner was not a "rank outsider" acquiring the property for the first time

Furthermore, the Court noted that had the husband died intestate, the Petitioner would have inherited the right to sue regardless; thus, the Gift Deed did not create a "new" right of a character that the legislature intended to bar

The Court answered the issue in the negative, finding the Petitioner's suits were not premature

The High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Rent Controller, restored the eviction petitions, and remanded the matters back to the Trial Court (SCJ-cum-RC, Tis Hazari) for disposal on merits