Delhi District Court
Ashok vs . Narender K. Anand & Ors. on 12 March, 2010
Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN KR. SAHRAWAT
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER, DISTT. NORTH: DELHI.
E No. 417/09
Date of institution: 14/07/2009
Date of decision : 12/03/2010
SH. ASHOK
S/o Late Sh. Dwarka Prasad,
R/o H. No. 10307, 2nd floor,
Tokriwalan, Azad Market,
Delhi110007. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. SH. NARINDER K. ANAND
S/o Sh. Jagdish Lal Anand
R/o H. No. 87, Vivekanand Puri,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi110007.
2. SH. DEEPAK KR. ANAND
S/o Sh. Jagdish Lal Anand
R/o H. No. 76, Vivekanand Puri,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi110007.
...Respondents.
O R D E R
12.03.2010 This is an eviction petition U/Sec. 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as DRC Act).
E no. 417/09 Page 1 /16
Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
By this order, I shall dispose of an application made U/s 25B of the D.R.C. Act for seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition.
(1). Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the petition are that petitioner is the landlord and respondents are the tenants in respect of one shop admeasuring 12'X17' in the property bearing no. 10307 (GF) Tokri Walan, Azad Market, Delhi110007 (herein referred to as 'premises').
The premises were let for residential purposes to the respondent @ Rs. 150/ p.m. exclusive of other charges. (2). Petitioner has shown his bonafide requirement of the tenanted shop for the use and occupation of himself and his family members dependent upon him, as he has got no other reasonably suitable accommodation. With these submissions, petitioner has prayed for grant of an eviction order against the respondents. (3). In the application for seeking leave to defend, it is submitted that there are some triable issues in this case, E no. 417/09 Page 2 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
which , if proved, would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of eviction in respect of the tenanted premises against the respondents. Thus, the respondents prayed for grant of leave to contest the present eviction petition.
(4). I heard the arguments and perused the other material placed on record.
(5). Before I advert to the respective contentions of Ld. Counsel appearing for either parties, let us discuss the essential ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act on which the petitioner may be entitled to an order of eviction, as under:
1. That petitioner is a landlord and an owner of the tenanted premises,
2. The premises in question were let for residential purposes.
3. The premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for use and occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held; and E no. 417/09 Page 3 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
4. That the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
1. That petitioner is a landlord and an owner of the tenanted premises:
(a). Though the respondents have disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties however, in para no. 14 of their application of leave to defend, it is stated that the petitioner has not been receiving the monthly rent @ Rs. 150/ p.m. since 01/05/2008 onwards till date despite tendering the same month by month by the respondents. Thereafter, the rent was sent through money order which was also refused by the petitioner and finding no alternative, the rent has been deposited by the respondents for the period w.e.f. 01/05/2008 to 31/12/2009 in the court of Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ld. R. C. (North)/ Delhi.
(b). From the above, it is apparent that the respondents have admitted that there existed a relationship E no. 417/09 Page 4 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents. Now, having admitted the petitioner to be the landlord, the respondents are estopped from denying the title of the petitioner to the property in question as per Section 116 of Evidence Act. Reference in this context may be made to the judgments in Amar Kaur v. Naresh Kumar 97 (2002) DLT 772 and Rital Lal v. Raj Kumar Singh (2002) VIII AD (SC) 43. Also in a recent ruling of Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi 157(2009) DLT 450, our own Hon'ble High Court has specifically held that:
"It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as to owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act , neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the E no. 417/09 Page 5 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect."
(C). Moreover, the respondents have failed to disclose the name of the person who according to them is the owner of the suit premises, it therefore, cannot be said that that any triable issue qua the ownership of property has been raised. Here, I am fortified with the case law of Meenakshi v. Ramesh Khanna & Anr. 60(1995) DLT 524, in which it was held as under: "Mere denial of ownership is no denial at all. It has to be something more. For this, first and foremost thing which has always been considered as a good guide is does the tenant say who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner? In the present case, the tenant does not say anything except denying petitioner's ownership. The tenant is completely E no. 417/09 Page 6 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
silent on this aspect. Merely by saying that the petitioner is not the owner, the tenant is trying to ensure that the case drags on for years for trial. If leave is granted on the basis of such vague plea, it will encourage the tenants to deny ownership of the petitioners in every case. The tenants are well aware that once leave to contest is granted, the cases go on for trial for years. Their purpose is achieved. Keeping this in mind, the Controllers should rather have positive approach in such matters so as to discourage such vague and frivolous pleas which are most of the time false to the knowledge of persons raising them."
(d).In the light of abovecited case authorities, I observe that the plea of the respondent with regard to the ownership of the premises in question is untenable, hence rejected.
(e). It is further contended that after demise of erstwhile landlady Smt. Gulab Devi, her rights have been inherited by all her L.Rs and the petitioner has got no exclusive rights in the property and he was collecting the rent from the respondents on behalf of all other L.Rs. Again, I do not find strength in the contention of Ld. counsel for respondent as it is a settled law that even a co owner of the premises in dispute can file an eviction E no. 417/09 Page 7 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
petition against the respondent. Here, I take support by a case law of K.C. Agarwal v. Hardip Singh 2005(1)AD (Delhi) 587; wherein it was held that "coowner is owner and deemed to be landlord for the purpose of D.R.C. Act."
(f). In the light of above discussion,I observe that the petitioner is the landlord and owner of the suit premises under the provisions of D.R.C. Act.
2. That premises in question were let for residential purposes:
(a). This issue in controversy has been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent leading case of Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India and Anr. 2008(5) SCC 287 wherein it was held that the premises let out either for residential or commercial purposes can be got vacated by the Landlord for bonafide requirements.
3. The premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for use and occupation for himself or for any member of his E no. 417/09 Page 8 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
family dependent upon him or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held;
(a). Petitioner has claimed his bonafide requirement for the premises on the ground that his family comprises of himself, his wife, eldest son aged 25 years, daughter aged 22 years, 3rd son aged 20 years and 4th son aged 19 years and youngest daughter aged 16 years. But the petitioner is having second floor temporary shed and he has no kitchen, bathroom, toilet in the said accommodation and leading a very miserable life. Petitioner and his family members, have to cook food in the said room, take bath in the said shed and use the common lavatory meant for public on the ground floor. All sons of petitioner are of marriageable age and grown up. Younger brother of the petitioner is on the first floor consisting of only one room measuring 16'X12'. Petitioner needs separate bed room for himself and his wife, while other sons also need separate bed room for their own use and also one room for guests and relatives oftenly visiting him.
E no. 417/09 Page 9 /16
Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
(b). On the other hand, in the application for leave to defend, it is stated that petitioner does not require the said premises bonafidely as he has more than sufficient accommodation. It is alleged that the petitioner is occupying the remaining property i.e. first floor, second floor and third floor where he is residing along with his family members comfortably. Suit premises are only commercial shop on the ground floor situated in purely commercial area and requirement of the petitioner to use the suit premises on the ground floor for residential purpose is totally false. Since the petitioner does not need any property either for residence or for commercial purpose for himself or his alleged dependent family members, as after acquiring the said shop as vacated by the previous tenant who was running the general store, petitioner would not have relet the same to M/s Nikhil Telecom Centre. Besides, it is alleged that first and second floor of the suit property are with the tenants. ( c ). On the other hand, petitioner denied that he has relet another shop near the premises in question to E no. 417/09 Page 10 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
anyone namely M/s Nikhil Telecom Centre. Infact the said accommodation below the staircase measuring 4' 6", the front shutter 10' in length and 2' 6" which is the back wall below the staircase was let out to a tenant namely Sh. Rakesh Kumar who has sublet the same to M/s Nikhil Telecom Centre about a year back and the petitioner is taking appropriate steps against the original tenant.
(d). It is further submitted that it is not in the knowledge of the petitioner about the rent being paid by M/s Nikhil Telecom Centre to the original tenant. As per the petitioner, the said subletting is without the consent of the petitioner and there is no tenant either on the first floor or on the second floor. The first floor only consists of one room while the second floor consists of one Khaprail which are not worthwhile living. It is denied that the petitioner does not require the property in question for residential purposes for himself and for his family members dependent upon him. There is no question of reletting aforesaid portion to M/s Nikhil Telecom Centre. E no. 417/09 Page 11 /16
Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
(e). On hearing the submissions, I am not in agreement with the contention of Ld. counsel for respondent as the petitioner specifically asserted in his reply that he had let out another shop to Sh. Rakesh kumar who sublet the same to M/s Nikhil Telecom Centre about a year back and he is taking appropriate steps against the original tenant. On this, respondents have failed to place any document or other material on record to substantiate their allegations that another shop has been let out to M/s Nikhil Telecom Centre directly by the petitioner. It is settled law that bald allegation without any material on record to substantiate the same could not be looked into as the same is not enough for grant of leave to defend. I take support by the case law of Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Leelawati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383, wherein our own Hon'ble High Court held that "Leave to defend not to be granted to tenant on the basis of false affidavit and false averments and assertions only those averments in affidavit are to be considered by Rent Controller which have some substance in it and are supported by some material."
E no. 417/09 Page 12 /16
Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
(f). Further, composition of the family of petitioner has not been disputed by the respondent. Marriageable age of his children has also not been disputed. Besides, the respondent has not filed any counter Site Plan to controvert the statement of petitioner with regard to accommodation available in the property. Thus, in the absence of any counter Site Plan, allegations of the respondents are not worthy of serious consideration, hence rejected.
In the light of above discussion, I find that the petitioner has bonafide requirement of the premises for himself as well as for his family members dependent upon him.
4. That the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
(a). It is alleged that petitioner has not disclosed all his other properties as he has owns another property in transyamuna. On the other hand, as per the petitioner, he E no. 417/09 Page 13 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
has absolutely no property in his name except the property in question and there is no question of the petitioner owning any property in transyamuna area. Having heard the contentions of Ld. counsel for the opposite parties, I find no cogency in the submissions of respondent as he has not disclosed the details of any of the alleged properties including transyamuna area. In the absence of details of any other property or any document/material in support of the allegations, this plea of the respondents is not tenable, hence rejected.
In the wake of above, it is established that petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
(b). It is further alleged that the petitioner after getting the tenanted premises vacated, wants to build a multiple storeyed commercial complex. In reply, it is submitted that the dimension of the premises in question is too short to allow construction of multiple storeyed commercial complex. I find no force in the contention of E no. 417/09 Page 14 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
Ld. counsel for respondents. Here, I am supported by a case law of case of Bachan Singh v. Rajender Prasad 1984 RLR 706, wherein our own Hon'ble High Court held that:
"Controller cannot give leave to defend on the mere arising of triable issues. Leave can be given only if the affidavit of tenant discloses such facts as would prima facie disentitle landlord from obtaining eviction order. A small houseowner cannot be blindly wants dubbed as a greedy landlord. Bare assertion (without facts) that landlord wants to enhance rent carries no credence."
(6). In the wake of above, I observe that respondent has failed to raise any triable issue in the application for leave to defend which, if proved, might disentitle the petitioner from getting an order of eviction in his favour. Thus, the present application for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Hence, an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one shop admeasuring 12'X17' in the property bearing no. 10307 (GF) Tokri Walan, Azad Market, Delhi110007. However, as per Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. E no. 417/09 Page 15 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
Act, this order shall not be executable till the period of six months from the date of this order. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 12th March 2010.
Tarun Kr. Sahrawat A.R.C.(North)/Delhi (1+2 separate copies are attached) E no. 417/09 Page 16 /16 Ashok Vs. Narender K. Anand & Ors.
E No. 417/09 ASHOK VS. NARINDER K. ANAND 12/03/2010.
Present: Parties in person.
Vide my separate order of even date, the present application for seeking leave to contest the eviction petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Hence, an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one shop admeasuring 12'X17' in the property bearing no. 10307 (GF) Tokri Walan, Azad Market, Delhi 110007. However, as per Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act, this order shall not be executable till the period of six months from the date of this order. File be consigned to Record Room.
Tarun Kr. Sahrawat A.R.C. (N)/ Delhi.
E no. 417/09 Page 17 /16