Delhi District Court
Vinod Kumar vs Dalip Gupta Ors on 23 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI SINGH
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SOUTH
DISTRICT COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
RC ARC. 54/2014
CNR No.
Sh. Vinod Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Lala Ram,
R/o 84, Yusuf Sarai,
Gautam Nagar, New Delhi-110016
...............Plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Dalip Gupta
S/o Sh. BD Gupta
R/o 54, Behind Mandir Wali Gali,
Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-110016
And
Sh Sanjeev Aggarwal,deceased, through LR's:
Mrs. Shail Aggarwal
W/o Late Sh Sanjeev Aggarwal
&
Mr. Saurabh Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal
Both resident of, 19/1
Yusuf Sarai Market,
Near Green Park Metro Station,
Gate no.4, New Delhi-110016
.......Defendants
Date of Institution : 23.08.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2024
Decision : Eviction Allowed.
RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 1 of 10
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.12.23
16:43:53
+0530
EVICTION PETITION U/S 14 (1) (e) READ WITH 25B OF DELHI RENT
CONTROL ACT
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Succinctly, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of 84, Yusuf Sarai, Gautam nagar Road, New Delhi, total area ad measuring 120 sq Mtrs with built up area of 67 sq Mtrs, which includes shop no.4 (hereinafter called the suit property). As per the petitioner, the suit property consists of 4 small rooms, ad measuring 19 ft * 9 ft; 9 ft * 9 ft; 9 ft * 12 1/2 ft; 9 ft * 12 1/2 ft, which are depicted in the site plan/ Ex PW-1/A as room no.1, 2, 3 and 5 respectively. He further submits that there are two shops in the suit property as measuring 9 ft * 12 1/2 ft and 9 ft * 10 ft, depicted as shop no. 4 and 6 along with one kitchen, one toilet, one bathroom on the ground floor of the suit property and 5 small rooms, 2 toilets, 1 bathroom and 1 open kitchen on the first floor. The petitioner has claimed the ownership over the suit property on the basis of a registered sale deed executed by his mother and his brother in his favor. The petitioner has explained that the suit property was originally in the name of Sh Kishori Lal, who was the landlord and grandfather of petitioner and the property was transferred to his mother, Smt Jai Shree, which was later sold to him. It is alleged that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in somewhere in the year 1991 at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-, which was eventually raised till Rs. 1,000/- and no written tenancy agreement was executed. It is averred on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have not been paying the rent and the suit premises are kept locked from last several years.
2. The petitioner has further explained that at the time of institution of the petition, he was working at M/s Raj Mahal Jewellers, South Extension, New Delhi and drawing a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month and he requires the suit property as he is of marriageable age and is looking for prospects. It is also averred that the petitioner has a joint family which includes his father, mother and four brothers, RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 2 of 10 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.23 16:44:04 +0530 three of whom are married and two of them have one kid each and one brother is unmarried. It is further stated that out of his 4 brothers, three are unemployed and his father is retired and they all together require 6 rooms but as of now, they are in possession of 4 rooms. As per the petitioner, the two shops, one of which is the suit property is required to be vacated and they will be converted into residential rooms/ guest rooms/ pooja room and he has already filed a separate eviction petition against the tenant of the other shop. The petitioner has additionally stated that he and his brother are sharing a room in the premises where suit property is situated and after marriage, they both will require separate rooms and except the said premises, he and his family have no other property in Delhi or outside Delhi, which thereby shows his bona fide requirement. The petitioner has also clarified that earlier, an eviction petition was filed by his mother against respondent no.1 wherein respondent no.2 was impleaded as a party after he said that he is also the tenant and allowed by the Court but since the said petitione was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, he has now impleaded respondent no.2 in this petition also. The petitioner has prayed that eviction order be passed for the suit property i.e shop no.4 in view of his bona fide requirement.
3. Summons of the petition were issued upon the respondents and respondent no.1 was served by way of publication and since he failed to appear, he was proceeded ex parte. On the other hand, respondent no.2 appeared before the Court and filed his leave to defend application and vide order dated 14.05.2019 leave to defend application was allowed on the following grounds only, namely:
a) Whether petitioner is the owner of the suit property and thereby landlord.
b) Whether the respondent no.1 and 2 are the tenants of petitioner.
c) Whether the petitioner has a bona fide requirement of the suit property.RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 3 of 10
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.23 16:44:16 +0530
4. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 wherein the averments made in the petition were denied. It is contended on behalf of respondent no.2 that the actual owner of the suit property was Late Sh. Kishore Lal, who died intestate leaving behind 4 sons and 4 daughters, who allegedly have dispute among themselves qua inheritance of suit property and therefore the claim of the mother of the petitioner is disputed. He further submitted that the petitioner tried to sell the suit property to one lady who eventually backed out from the sale due to the dispute in property, which would show that the petitioner is neither the landlord nor the owner of the suit property. As per respondent no.2, the actual tenant was Ram Avtar & Sons to whom the suit property was rented @ Rs. 200/- per month and he is still alive yet, the petitioner did not join him deliberately. The respondent no.2 explained that Ram Avtar and sons was later changed to Charlin Enterprise and subsequently to Aggarwal Gift Emporium and the partners are Rajeev Kumar and respondent no.2 and therefore, Rajeev Kumar is also a necessary party and should have been joined. For the bona fide requirement of the petitioner, the respondent no.2 said earlier, in the petition filed by the mother of petitioner, she alleged that the requirement was that the suit property is to be given to two of her unemployed sons to run their grocery shop and also, the petitioner has an alternate accommodation thus, the requirement of suit property for accommodation is mala fide. He has also alleged that previously, the mother of the petitioner got another shop in the premises where suit property is situated vacated by mutual consent and later, demolished the same and the intent of the petitioner is also the same. He further denied that the rent was raised from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1,000/- and said that the petitioner raised a wall inside the suit property due to which he could not use the same.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE:
5. In order to prove his case, the petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e Ex. PW1/A, wherein he reiterated RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 4 of 10 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.23 16:44:25 +0530 the contents in the petition. He also relied upon and tendered in evidence certain documents which are as under :
a) Ex.PW1/1 i.e Site plan of ground floor of premises of Suit property.
b) Ex.PW1/2 i.e Site plan of first floor of premises of Suit property.
c) Ex.PW1/3 (OSR) i.e registered sale deed dated 09.07.2009.
6. PW1 was never crossexamined as respondent no.1 and LR's of respondent no.2 were proceeded ex parte.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
7. Before adverting to the facts of the present case I deem it to reproduce Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which reads as follows:
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction : (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provide that the Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:
(e) that the premises let for residential purpose are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation."
8. The essential ingredients which a landlord is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bonafide need are:
a) The petitioner is the landlord/owner of the suit premises.RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 5 of 10
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.23 16:44:33 +0530
b) he suit premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself and any of his family members dependent upon him.
c) The landlord or such other family members has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
9. Vide order dated 14.07.2019, the respondent was granted leave to defend on the following grounds, namely:
a) Whether petitioner is the owner of the suit property and thereby landlord.
b) Whether the respondent no.1 and 2 are the tenants of petitioner.
c) Whether the petitioner has a bona fide requirement of the suit property.
10. For the first objection raised by the respondent no.2 i.e whether the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises, the petitioner has relied upon Ex PW-1/3 (OSR). Since respondent no.1 is proceeded ex parte and LR's of respondent no.2 are also proceeded ex parte, the said document remains unchallenged and stands proved. As per this document, the mother and brother of petitioner sold the suit premises to the petitioner. The document is a registered sale deed and certified copy obtained from the concerned department and therefore, admissible as secondary evidence. An objection was raised in the WS that the suit property is the intestate property of the actual owner, Sh Kishori Lal who is the grandfather of petitioner and all his children, which includes the mother of the petitioner are heirs and have dispute among themselves. The said averment was denied by the petitioner in his reply to the WS. The same submission was made by the petitioner in Ex PW-1/A and since the said averment has gone unrebutted, it stands proved.
11. "The word 'owner' has not been defined in this Act and the word 'owner' has also not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot be doubted that the term 'owner' has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. This Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But at the same time it has provided that the landlord RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 6 of 10 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.23 16:44:42 +0530 under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bona fide requirement is one of such grounds on the basis of which landlords have been permitted to have eviction of a tenant. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant.
12. In this case, the petitioner has alleged that he is also the landlord as he purchased the suit property and therefore stepped into the shoes of landlord. He also explained that Late Sh. Kishori Lal is his maternal grand father and his mother and brother sold the suit property it to him. Respondent no.2 admitted this fact that the grand father of petitioner was the actual owner and he was paying rent of Rs. 200/- per month to him. The said admission shows that respondent no.2 is claiming himself to be the tenant of grand father of the petitioner. Further, the respondent no.2 also said that the petitioner tried to sell the suit property to a third party but the buyer backed out as allegedly, the suit property was in dispute among the heirs. As no evidence was lead by the respondent no.2 to prove the same, the said submission shows that the petitioner had the authority to sell the suit property and when the same is read with Ex PW-1/3 (OSR), which as mentioned above has been proved, the allegation of the respondent that petitioner is not the landlord remains a conjecture and rather, his admission in WS indicates that his title was not more than that of a tenant. Further, respondent no.2 raised a question that actual tenant was Ram Avtar and Sons, which later changed its name to Charlin Enterprise and then to Aggarwal Gift Emporium and said that respondent no.1 is a fictitious person and necessary parties have not been joined. Respondent no.1 is proceeded ex parte and so were LR's of respondent no.2 but if the documents filed by respondent no.2 are appreciated, he had filed few rent receipts to show that he is the tenant and he also said that he is one of the partner of Ram Avtar and Sons. These receipts including the copy of receipts filed by the petitioner would shows that the name of the tenant mentioned is Ram Avtar and Sons and in the column of property owner, petitioner has signed. When these RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 7 of 10 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.23 16:44:52 +0530 facts are seen with the admission of respondent no.2 in WS that he was paying rent of Rs. 200/- and it was never raised to Rs. 1,000/- and that, the petitioner raised a wall inside the suit property due to which the suit property could not be used, shows that the status of respondent no.2 is not more than a tenant of the suit property. The allegation of respondent no.2 that respondent no.1 is a fictitious person was to be proved by him and since no evidence was lead, the deposition of the petitioner stands proved.
13. So far as the assertion of the respondent that the mother of the petitioner had no power to sell the suit property as she had a dispute with her siblings, it is settled law that for the purpose of Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership over the premises. He is only required to prove that he has a claim on the premises better than that of the tenant. In B. K. Gupta Vs. Sh. Sudershan Chaudhary 82 (1999) DLT 1925, the petitioner U/Sec.14 (1) (e) was a licensee in a premises and created a tenancy in the same. The tenant therein pleaded that since the petitioner therein had no right to create tenancy, the petitioner could not be said to be the owner of the property withing the meaning of Section 14(1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rejected the claim of the tenant therein and held that for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioner therein was the landlord/owner. Applying the same logic in the present case, the petitioner has derived his right from the original owner and since the said averment has gone urebutted, I see no reason to hold that he is not the owner/landlord of the suit premises for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) DRC.
14. Coming to the Bona fide requirement of the landlord, the submission of the petitioner is that he needs the property in question as the space at the premises for the entire family falls short. He has explained the number of rooms in the premises; the number of family members and the requirement. The respondent no.2 on the other hand said that the reason for requirement are mala fide as it is RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 8 of 10 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.23 16:45:15 +0530 contradictory to the earlier eviction petition filed by the mother of the petitioner. The averment of the petitioner was reiterated by him in Ex PW-1/A and he also denied the submission of the respondent no.2 in his reply. Thus, the onus to prove that the requirement alleged by the petitioner is mala fide was on the respondent no.2. As stated above, since respondent no.1 and LR's of respondent no.2 were proceeded ex parte, the averment of the petitioner remains unchallenged and there is no reason for which this Court should not believe upon it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(1998) 8 SCC 119 held that:-
"14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
15. Further, in Balwant Singh v. Sudarshan Kumar (2021) 15 SCC 75, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that:
"12. On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the earlier eviction proceeding, the vacant shops concerned under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed, but the case of the landlord is that the premises/space under their possession is insufficient for the proposed furniture business. ....On consideration of the above RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 9 of 10 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2024.12.23 16:45:24 +0530 aspects, the genuine need of the appellants to secure vacant possession of the premises for the proposed business is found to be established. According to us, the adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate."
16. The above law and the facts of this clearly show that the petitioner has established his version as his testimony has gone unchallenged and accordingly, his bona fide requirement cannot be disputed. Consequently, both the respondents are directed to vacate the suit premises i.e shop no. 4, 84, Yusuf Sarai, Gautam nagar Road, New Delhi.
17. The petition stands decided and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court (SHILPI SINGH)
on 23.12.2024 ACJ-CCJ-ARC/South,
Saket Court/Delhi
RC ARC 54/2014 Vinod Kumar vs Dilip Gupta Page 10 of 10
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2024.12.23
16:45:32
+0530