Acquisition of tenanted premises via gift deed from a spouse does not attract the five-year bar under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The petitioner, a widow suffering from partial paralysis, filed eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) for bona fide commercial requirements for herself and her 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 the property via a registered Gift Deed executed by him on 18.07.2022

The Rent Controller (RC) dismissed the petitions as premature, holding that since the property was acquired via "transfer" (Gift Deed) in 2022, the five-year statutory bar under Section 14(6) of the DRCA applied

The petitioner challenged this, arguing that the transfer from a husband to a wife/legal heir does not constitute a "transfer" intended to be barred by the Act

Whether the acquisition of tenanted premises by a wife from her husband through a registered Gift Deed constitutes a "transfer" within the meaning of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, thereby barring an eviction petition for five years.

The court primarily applied Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which prohibits a landlord who "acquired any premises by transfer" from filing an eviction petition under the ground 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 established that the legislative intent of Section 14(6) is to prevent "strangers" or "purchasers" from using transfers as a device to evict tenants, rather than cases where the person had a prior interest or title (e.g., partition)

Further, it applied the principle from *Dr. R.C. Sakhuja v. R.P. Kholi*, which held that devolution by succession or testamentary disposition is not a "transfer" under Section 14(6)

The Court reasoned that the term "transfer" in Section 14(6) must be interpreted in light of its legislative purpose: to curb mala fide transfers intended to circumvent tenant protections

The Court observed that the petitioner is a Class I legal heir of her deceased husband, Anil Gupta

It held that because the petitioner possessed a vested legal right in the property through lineage and inheritance laws even prior to the execution of the Gift Deed, she cannot be classified as a "stranger" or a "rank outsider" to the title

The Court distinguished this from a commercial sale to a third party, noting that the husband would have been entitled to file the petition himself, and his death/the gift to his wife did not create a "new" right to evict meant to be hit by the five-year moratorium

Therefore, a gift deed within the family (husband to wife) is akin to a family settlement or succession rather than a "transfer" as envisaged by the bar

The High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 28.04.2023, restored the eviction petitions, and remanded the matters back to the learned RC for a fresh decision on the merits

The petitions were allowed