Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand Chhabra, Shyam Chhabra ... vs Radhey Govind Rohatgi S/O B.K.D. ... on 19 November, 2015
Author: V.K. Shali
Bench: V.K. Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. Revision No.340/2015 & C.M. No.17274/2015
Decided on: 20th November, 2015
SUBHASH CHAND CHHABRA, SHYAM CHHABRA BOTH S/O
U.M. CHHABRA ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate with
Mr. Lalit Vohra, Advocate
Versus
RADHEY GOVIND ROHATGI S/O B.K.D. ROHATGI... Respondent
Through: Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed in E-56/2014 titled Radhey Govind Rohtagi v. Sh. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. by virtue of which leave to defend application of the present petitioner-tenant was dismissed and an order of eviction was passed in respect of a shop measuring 8 ft. x 12 ft., ground floor, RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 1 of 13 situated at property No.1/11700A, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The detailed facts are given in the impugned order. Suffice it would be here to mention that the respondent-landlord is claiming himself to be the owner of the aforesaid property situated on a 400 sq. yds. plot of land on the basis of the Sale Deed purported to have been executed by one Smt. Shashikanta in his favour on 14.11.2012 which is stated to be duly registered with Sub-Registrar IV, Seelampur, Delhi.
2. It is the case of the respondent-landlord that before the purchase of the suit property a school is being run in the name of K.D. Field School since 1996 at the premises in question by a trust known as Shri Mannu Lal & Smt. Surajwati Charitable Society. The said school is also being run on an adjoining plot of land measuring 350 sq. yds. The respondent-landlord is working as a Secretary of the Society which is running the school and is also designated as a Manager. Since he is the owner of the property, he is receiving rental income from the school although quantum of rent is not disclosed. So far as the duties of the respondent-landlord as a RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 2 of 13 Manager of the School are concerned as to whether he is receiving any remuneration for the same is also not disclosed but it is averred that the respondent-landlord is under a duty and obligation to take all the necessary steps and to provide all facilities for the purpose of effective utilization and functioning of the school. It has been stated that in the present times it is almost a practice of all the schools to have a store room and a book shop in the school premises itself and, therefore, the respondent-landlord wants to create such a facility for the purpose of the school. It has also been stated that the respondent-landlord would also use the said premises that is the shop measuring 8 ft. x 12 ft. which is under the occupation of the present petitioner-tenant for the purpose of running a stationery shop which will give him some employment instead of making him sit idle at home. The respondent-landlord has also stated that his financial position would be eased and his mental hardship would also be reduced. It was alleged by the respondent-landlord that the petitioner-tenant is occupying the shop and running a godown for storing the medicines which is of no RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 3 of 13 help for the purpose of running a school as it is a godown for storing the medicines.
3. The petitioner-tenant filed his leave to defend application and contested the claim of the respondent-landlord. He challenged the identity of the property. It was contended by him that the Sale Deed which is sought to be relied upon by the respondent-landlord is reflecting the property number as 1/11700 while as in the Claim Petition he has given the property number as 1/11700-A. It is disputed by him that the respondent-landlord is the owner of the property. It has been stated by him that the respondent-landlord had filed a suit for possession against the present petitioner which came to be decided by one Shri G.N. Pandey, learned Additional District Judge, North-East bearing Suit No. 22/2009 in which the learned ADJ had dismissed the claim of the respondent-landlord with regard to his ownership of the suit property. The appeal was taken by the respondent-landlord to the High Court, however, curiously enough the same was also withdrawn and not pursued by the respondent-landlord. It has been stated that these facts have not RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 4 of 13 been revealed by the respondent-landlord purposely so as to mislead this Court with regard to the ownership of the suit property. The existence of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent that of tenant and landlord was also disputed. It was stated that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by one Smt. Shashikanta who too had filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner bearing No.E-132/1999 which also came to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid averments made in the application seeking leave to defend it was contended that the petitioner-tenant has been able to raise triable issues with regard to the existence of relationship between the parties and the question of ownership of the respondent-landlord qua the suit property as well as the bona fides of the respondent-landlord in seeking eviction of the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Rent Controller, (ARC) Ms. Bhawani Sharma, after hearing the arguments and referring to the various judgments of the Apex Court observed that the plea of the RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 5 of 13 petitioner-tenant challenging the ownership of the respondent- landlord as being inchoate is of no consequence because for the purpose of getting the eviction of the petitioner from the suit property, the respondent-landlord need not prove that he is the absolute owner, all that he is required to prove is that he has a better title to the suit property than that of the petitioner-tenant.
6. Regarding existence of relationship of tenant and the landlord between the parties, it was observed that this argument is not tenable by the petitioner-tenant. With regard to the number of the suit property it was observed that the identification of the property is not in dispute and the numbers have been given to the suit property as 1/11700-A is the new number while as the old number was 1/11700 and nothing muster on the same. The factum of concealment was also denied and it was stated that the finding returned by the learned ADJ with regard to the ownership was not conclusive and would not result in prohibiting the respondent- landlord from seeking eviction of the petitioner. With regard to the bona fides of the respondent-landlord the impugned order is silent RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 6 of 13 and the learned ARC after referring to various pronouncements of the Apex Court and the High Court has rejected the leave to defend and ordered eviction of the present petitioner.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the impugned order. Although, no fault can be found with the judgments which have been relied upon by the learned ARC, however, one fact needs to be observed very boldly and loudly that the learned ARC has mis-applied the principles of law in the instant case. The learned ARC has not only returned the erroneous findings which is not sustainable in the eyes of law but also the fact that no reasonable person would arrive to the same conclusion. It may be mentioned that the respondent-landlord is claiming himself to be the owner of the suit property. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Courts including the Apex Court that the ownership of the suit property for the purpose of satisfying the requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is not absolute. The landlord is considered to have satisfied the RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 7 of 13 said requirement in case he is able to show to the Court that his title to the suit property is better than that of the petitioner-tenant. This better title can be shown by way of Agreement to Sell or the property having been inherited by testamentary succession or having succeeded to the suit property by intestate succession or otherwise. Further, in the instant case before filing of the eviction petition, the respondent-landlord had filed a suit for possession wherein an issue was framed as to whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of possession. This suit filed by the respondent-landlord was dismissed meaning thereby he was not entitled to possession of the suit property which he was claiming to be the owner. Thus, the proof of ownership was a pre-condition for getting of the decree of possession. Respondent-landlord had filed the appeal against the said dismissal of the suit for possession passed by Shri G.N. Pandey, the learned ADJ, but that was also dismissed as withdrawn and therefore that finding with regard to the respondent- landlord being the owner of the property was also not established RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 8 of 13 fully and it raises a triable issue for which the petitioner was entitled to leave to defend which has been denied to him.
8. The second point is with regard to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. In this regard the moment a person purchases the property either he or the seller would give a notice to the tenant occupying the property in question which has been transacted indicating that henceforth the rent be paid to the perspective purchaser or the new purchaser. In the instant case no such notice was ever given either by the seller or by the purchaser nor the petitioner of his own had given rent at any point of time to the respondent-landlord. Thus, the existence of relationship of tenant and the landlord between the parties does not get establish and curiously, the learned ARC observed that this question of relationship between the parties is of no consequence or is not of much importance because respondent-landlord has purchased the property. This, in my view is not the correct application of the law and the existence of relationship has to be proved by the respondent-landlord who is seeking eviction of the person in RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 9 of 13 occupation of the premises. This can be proved either by attornment or otherwise. Therefore, this question in itself becomes a triable issue.
9. The learned ARC has also fallen into error by observing that the title of the respondent-landlord inchoate but it is better than the petitioner-tenant and, therefore, rejected the leave to defend and passed an eviction order. As a matter of fact the respondent's title is not at all established but was inchoate this is on account of the fact that there is a judgment passed by Shri G.N. Pandey, learned Additional District Judge, North-East in a suit for possession where his title has not been established and the suit was dismissed. The appeal was also curiously withdrawn by the respondent-landlord. For this reason, I feel that this was a fit case where a triable issue was raised by the petitioner-tenant and the petitioner ought to have been given leave to defend. This has not been done and therefore, the impugned eviction order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
10. The next question is with regard to the bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord. The respondent is not seeking eviction of the RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 10 of 13 petitioner for his own benefit. He is seeking eviction of the present petitioner for the purpose of setting up a stationery shop. The stationery shop is provided to facilitate the school and the children as in today's world every secondary school has its own stationery shop within its premises to facilitate the students. It is incidental that the respondent-landlord states that he is sitting idle at home and it will also ease his financial position. Thus, the requirement of the respondent-landlord is admix with the requirement of the school. The requirement of the school cannot be considered under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Moreover, the respondent- landlord is making contradictory averment. On the one hand he says that he is sitting idle and that the stationery shop will supplement his financial position, but on the other hand he admits that he has let out the premises to the school from which he is realizing rentals. If his financial position is being ameliorated then he ought to have disclosed what was the amount of rent he was receiving from the school, ought to have disclosed. If he was sitting idle and it would improve his employment in the sense he RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 11 of 13 would run the stationery shop then how it would reconcile this fact which he states that apart from receiving the rental, he is functioning as Secretary as well as the Manager of the school for the purpose of running school.
11. Further, it is not in dispute that there is a school which is being run at the premises in question and that there is a portion which is lying locked on the ground floor which was being used as a bathroom. The respondent-landlord states that he wants to evict the petitioner- landlord from the shop in question for the purpose of providing a book shop and store on the same premises for the effective functioning of the school. If that be so, then it is essentially the requirement of the school for whose benefit the eviction is sought. This is not the purport of law under Section 14 of the DRC Act irrespective of the premises being residential or commercial, the individual must show his bona fide requirement with regard to either of them. In case it is an institution, society or any other body corporate then in such an event a petition would lie independently under Section 22 of the DRC Act. On this count also, I feel that RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 12 of 13 the evidence ought to have been permitted to be adduced by the learned ARC.
12. On these two counts, I feel that the order of the learned ARC is erroneous and simply by referring to number of cases one does not deny the leave to defend by wrong analysis of the evidence. I accordingly, set aside the order rejecting the leave to defend of the petitioner and passing of an eviction order.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner-tenant is directed to file written statement within 30 days from today with an advance copy to the respondent, who may file response thereto within three weeks thereafter.
14. Pending application also stand disposed of.
15. The parties to appear before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 10.12.2015.
16. The learned ARC is expected to expedite the trial.
17. A copy of the order be sent to the learned Additional Rent Controller.
V.K. SHALI, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2015/vk RC. Rev. No.340/2015 Page 13 of 13