Acquisition of Property via Gift Deed from Spouse Does Not Attract Section 14(6) DRC Act Bar

The petitioner, a widow and partially paralyzed, filed eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) for bonafide requirement of premises for herself and her daughters.

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

Anil Gupta subsequently executed a registered Gift Deed in favor of the petitioner on July 18, 2022.

The eviction petitions were filed on December 6, 2022.

The Trial Court (ARC) dismissed the petitions as non-maintainable, holding they were barred by Section 14(6) of the DRCA, which prohibits eviction filings by a transferee landlord for five years from the date of acquisition.

The Court primarily applied Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which restricts a landlord who acquired premises by "transfer" from filing an eviction petition under the ground of bonafide requirement for five years.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *V.N. Sarin v. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai*, which established that the legislative intent 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 prior interest (like partition).

Further, it applied *Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Rajeshwari Pandey* and *Dr. R.C. Sakhuja v. R.P. Kholi*, which clarified that devolution by succession (testamentary or non-testamentary) is not a "transfer" within the meaning of the Act.

The Court reasoned that the five-year bar is intended to curb mala fide transfers to outsiders who might otherwise lack the standing to evict.

In the present case, the petitioner is 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 eventually inherited the property by law or Will, meaning she possessed a "vested legal right" and was not a "rank outsider" or "stranger".

Following the logic in *V.N. Sarin*, the Court determined that since the title did not pass to a complete stranger but remained within the immediate family (husband to wife), it did not constitute a "transfer" aimed at circumventing the Act.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s status as a family member distinguishes this from commercial transfers.

The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated March 27, 2023, restored the eviction petitions, and remanded the matter to the ARC for fresh adjudication on merits.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.