Facts
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
Source reference: p. 2-3The 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
Source reference: p. 2Anil Gupta subsequently executed a registered Gift Deed in favor of the petitioner on 18.07.2022
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner filed for eviction on 06.12.2022
Source reference: p. 4The 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
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
1. Whether the acquisition of tenanted premises by a wife from her husband through a Gift Deed constitutes a "transfer" under Section 14(6) of the DRCA so as to bar an eviction petition for five years.
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 6-72. Whether a person who is a Class I legal heir can be considered a "stranger" to the property for the purposes of the embargo under Section 14(6).
Source reference: p. 14 / para. 15Law Applied
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
Source reference: p. 7It 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)
Source reference: p. 8-9It 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
Source reference: p. 12-13Reasoning
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
Source reference: p. 8In this case, the petitioner is the wife and a Class I legal heir of the donor (her late husband)
Source reference: p. 14The 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
Source reference: p. 14-15Therefore, she cannot be classified as a "rank outsider" or a "stranger" who had no prior title
Source reference: p. 11, 14The 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
Source reference: p. 11-12, 15Consequently, the Gift Deed was viewed as a formalization of her existing status rather than a "transfer" intended to be barred by the statute
Source reference: p. 15Holding
The Court held that a Gift Deed executed in favor of a spouse/legal heir does not fall within the definition of "transfer" under Section 14(6) of the DRCA
It answered the issues by stating that the petitioner was not a stranger to the title and thus the five-year embargo was inapplicable
Source reference: p. 14-15The 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
Source reference: p. 15Original Court PDF
Preeti Gupta v. M/S Bikram Traders (and connected petitions) [RC.REV. 297/2023]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in