Delhi District Court
Ravi Chand Garg vs Sh. Anil Arora on 7 September, 2013
1
In the court of Sh. Vivek Kumar Gulia
CCJ cum Additional Rent Controller1(Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. E184/13/10
Unique ID No. 02401C0171052010
In the matter of :
Ravi Chand Garg
S/o late Sh. Gyan Chand,
R/o 3384, Gali Tabela Bala Parsad,
Bazaar Sita Ram, Delhi110006. ............Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Anil Arora
2. Sh. Sunil Arora
Both sons of Sh. Gopal Arora and
R/o 5B, Radha Swami Road,
Lawrance Road, Amritsar, Punjab.
3. M/s D.C. Krishna & Co.
Through its partner:
Sh. Krishan Gupta,
1563A, Bhagirath Palace,
Delhi110006. ........Respondents
Page 1 of 9 E-184/13/10
2
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14 (1) (a) & (b) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
Date of Institution: 27.04.2010
Final arguments heard/case reserved for Judgment: 17.08.2013
Date of Judgment: 07.09.2013
Decision: Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT:
1. This is an eviction petition filed by the petitioner u/s 14 (1) (a)&(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [in short "the Act"]. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition, are that the tenanted premises, i.e., one shop on the first floor of property bearing municipal number 674, private No. 24, Katra Hira Lal, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006, as shown in red colour in site plan filed alongwith petition, was let out to father of respondents no. 1 and 2 late Sh. Gopal Arora vide rent agreement dated 26.05.1966 and after his death both the respondents became tenants of petitioner by operation of law. The rate of rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 18 per month exclusive of other charges and both the respondents neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.1998 despite service of demand notice dated 24.02.2004. it is also mentioned that father of respondents no. 1 and 2 had sublet, assigned and parted with Page 2 of 9 E-184/13/10 3 possession of the tenanted premises to respondent No. 3 through its partner without prior written permission of the landlord / owner. It is further mentioned that the statutory permission of Competent Authority (Slum) has been obtained by the petitioner before filing the present eviction petition vide order dated 17.03.2010. In view of above, prayer is made for passing eviction order against respondents in respect of tenanted premises.
2. Summons was served upon all the respondents, however, respondents No. 1 and 2 opted not to contest the case and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.10.2010. Respondent no. 3 filed written statement to the effect that respondent firm is lawful subtenant of respondents No. 1 and 2 and it is in possession of tenanted premises since prior to 1950. It is further stated that the tenant late Sh. Gopal had sublet the tenanted premises to respondent firm with the consent of owner / landlord and later on Sh. Bal Kishan Dass (since deceased), one of the partners of the respondent firm, served a notice about creation of subtenancy on then owner / landlord in May 1959. It is also mentioned that after death of Sh. Gopal, petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 have colluded to evict the respondent No 3 from the tenanted premises. With these submissions, prayer is made for dismissal of eviction petition. Page 3 of 9 E-184/13/10 4
3. Petitioner filed replication to the written statement of respondent No. 3 whereby the facts mentioned in the petition were reasserted and the pleas raised by respondent were denied.
4. Petitioner himself stepped into the witness box as AW1 and deposed on the lines of petition. Further, he relied upon following documents:
a. The original letters of respondent
No. 1 and 2 : Ex. AW1/1 & Ex. AW1/2
b. The original envelope : Ex. AW1/3
c. Notice dated 24.02.2004 : Ex.AW1/4
d. Postal & UPC receipts : Ex. AW1/5 to Ex. AW1/8
e. The unserved registered
cover envelope : Ex. AW1/9 & Ex. AW1/10
f. Acknowledgment card : Ex. AW1/11
g. Order of competent authority : Ex. AW1/12
h. Site plan : Ex. AW1/13
5. On his turn, respondent No. 3 stepped into witness box as RW3 and deposed on the lines of written statement.
6. I have heard Sh. Mohd. Ali, Ld. counsel for petitioner and Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ld. counsel for respondent no. 3. The judicial record is also perused.
7. The cause of action for eviction on the ground of nonpayment of Page 4 of 9 E-184/13/10 5 rent u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act consists of the following facts:
(a) relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(b) existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the date of notice of demand;
(c) Service of notice of demand in the manner provided u/s 106 of TP Act; and
(d) failure of tenant to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within 2 months of the date of service of notice u/s106 of TP Act.
8. In order to prove landlordtenant relationship, AW1 has testified that father of respondents No. 1 and 2 namely late Sh. Gopal was inducted as tenant by previous landlord / owner vide rent note dated 26.05.1966 Ex. AW1/R2. Further, the original letters Ex. AW1/1 & Ex. AW1/2 sent by tenant Sh. Gopal to petitioner for making payment of rent and the demand notice dated 24.02.2004 Ex. AW1/4 have also placed on record alongwith the postal and UPC receipts Ex. AW1/5 to Ex. AW1/8 and returned registered covers Ex. AW1/9 and Ex. AW1/10 with the report of refusal. The respondents No. 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte and did not come forward to present their defence. Thus, the testimony of AW1 and documents relied upon by him remains uncontroverted. Furthermore, no positive evidence was led by respondents No. 1 and 2 in order to challenge the testimony of AW1 or to raise any doubt on the genuineness of documents placed on record by the petitioner. In view of above, it is held that petitioner has been able to prove the landlordtenant Page 5 of 9 E-184/13/10 6 relation between petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2, further that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were in arrears of rent w.e.f. April 1998 and they failed to clear the rent despite service of demand notice Ex. AW1/4 within statutory period. Thus, first default on the part of respondents No. 1 and 2 in making payment of arrears of rent has been proved. Thus, all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act have been established on record, however their eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act shall be subject to compliance of order under Section 15(1) of the Act.
9. On perusal of the file, it is found the order under Section 15(1) of the Act has not been passed till date. Vide demand notice Ex. AW1/4, respondents No. 1 and 2 were called upon to clear the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.1998 @ Rs. 18 per month and further were asked to enhance the rate by 10% and to pay interest @ 15% per annum. Finding as to landlordtenant relationship between petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 has already been given. The rate of rent is not disputed on record. In view of this, respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit arrears of rent w.e.f. May 2007( three years prior to filing of present petition) till August 2013 at the enhanced rate of Rs. 19.80 per month alongwith interest @ 15% per annum within one month from this day.
10. For succeeding in a petition for eviction filed under Section 14 (1) Page 6 of 9 E-184/13/10 7
(b) of the Act, the petitioner is required to prove :
i) That the tenants have sublet, assigned or otherwise, parted with possession of the whole or any part of the tenanted premises; and
ii) subletting was done on or after June 1952 and it was done without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord.
11. It is admitted fact that respondent No. 3 is in possession of tenanted premises. It is also not disputed that no permission / consent in writing of previous landlord / owner was taken by the tenant in this case. Thus, the real issue is as to whether respondent No. 3 is a lawful sub tenant or not and to determine it, this court is required to see as to when the subtenancy was created. The respondent No.3 has alleged that he is a subtenant since prior to 1950 whereas it is the case of petitioner that the subtenancy was created after 26.05.1966.
12. AW1 has placed on record the rent agreement dated 26.05.1966 Ex. AW1/R2 executed by the old tenant (father of respondents No.1 and
2). On the other hand, respondent No. 3 has admitted that father of respondents No. 1 and 2 was the tenant and he sublet the tenanted premises in favour of respondent No. 3 firm with the prior consent of the then landlord / owner. However, respondent No. 3 has not been able to place on record any evidence to show that father of respondents No. 1 Page 7 of 9 E-184/13/10 8 and 2 was inducted tenant prior to 1950 in order to rebut the case of petitioner that he was inducted tenant for the first time in 1966 by way of aforesaid rent agreement. Furthermore, though it is alleged by respondent No. 3 that one of the partners, Bal Kishan Das (since deceased) of the respondent No. 3 firm, served a notice in 1959 about creation of subtenancy to then landlord / owner, however, no such notice has been placed on record. It is also found that respondent No.3 has also not filed any rent receipt on record to show that he was a subtenant prior to 1950. During cross examination, RW3 replied that their partnership firm is in existence since 1943 but no document pertaining to 195066 has been placed to show that possession of the firm in the tenanted premises is prior to 1966. It is also noteworthy that though RW3 replied that his firm is registered but the registration certificate is not filed on record. Further, RW3 deposed that the firm used to pay rent through cheques and money orders sometimes and that it is registered with sales tax but no document placed on record in support of these pleas. In view of above, it emerges that apart from raising bald and baseless allegation that subtenancy is lawful, not even an iota of evidence has been produced by respondent No. 3 before the court to substantiate their case. Thus, it stands proved on record that sub tenancy was created after 26.05.1966 without prior permission / consent of the petitioner or the previous landlord / owner in writing. Accordingly, it Page 8 of 9 E-184/13/10 9 is concluded that petitioner has proved his case of unlawful subtenancy under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.
13. In light of discussion made above, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for eviction of all the three respondents from the tenanted premises, i.e., one shop on the first floor of property bearing municipal number 674, private No. 24, Katra Hira Lal, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006, as shown in red colour in site plan filed alongwith petition, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. For ascertaining the entitlement of respondents No. 1 and 2 for the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act, separate inquiry would be conducted.
Announced in open Court (Vivek Kumar Gulia) on 7 Day of September, 2013. CCJ cum ARC1 (Central) th [This judgment contains 9 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
.
Page 9 of 9 E-184/13/10