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

The petitioner, a widow and partially paralyzed individual, filed eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA), 1958, claiming bona fide requirement for her and her daughters’ professional use

The property’s title history involved a series of transfers: from the original owner to her son (1995), then via Will to the petitioner’s husband, Anil Gupta (2005), who became the absolute owner upon the testator's death in 2021

Anil Gupta subsequently executed a registered Gift Deed in favor of the petitioner on 18.07.2022

The petitioner filed for eviction on 06.12.2022

The Rent Controller (ARC) 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 by transfer" via the Gift Deed

The court primarily applied Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which restricts a landlord who "acquired any premises by transfer" from filing an eviction petition on grounds of bona fide requirement 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 clarified that the object of Section 14(6) is to prevent "strangers" or "purchasers" from using transfers as a device to evict tenants, and does not apply where the claimant had a pre-existing interest (like partition)

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

The Court reasoned that Section 14(6) was enacted to check the "mischief" of landlords transferring property to third parties merely to circumvent eviction restrictions

In this case, the petitioner is the wife and a Class I legal heir of the donor (her late husband)

The Court observed that even in the absence of the Gift Deed, the petitioner would have inherited a right in the property by operation of law upon her husband's demise

Therefore, she cannot be classified as a "rank outsider" or a "stranger" who had no prior title

The Court distinguished between a voluntary commercial transfer to a stranger and a conveyance within a family where the recipient already possessed a vested legal interest through lineage or succession

Consequently, the Gift Deed was viewed as a formalization of her existing status rather than a "transfer" intended to be barred by the statute

It answered the issues by stating that the petitioner was not a stranger to the title and thus the five-year embargo was inapplicable

The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 27.03.2023, restored the eviction petitions, and remanded the matter to the CCJ-cum-ARC for a fresh decision on merits