Delhi District Court
Asha Rani vs Rajender Singh Juneja on 30 October, 2023
In the Court of Ms. Neetu Nagar, Additional Rent
Controller-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
ARC No: 481023/16
E - 174/16
Smt. Asha Rani
W/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o 2084, Street No: - 5,
Chuna Mandi Paharganj,
New Delhi- 110055
.......Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Rajender Singh Juneja
R/o 2526, Gali Nalwa,
Chuna Mandi Paharganj,
New Delhi- 110055
Also At:
21/14, 3rd Floor,
Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110055
......Respondent
(NEETU NAGAR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
30.10.2023 Page No.1 of 29
*********
Date of filing of petition : 20.12.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 26.10.2023
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 30.10.2023
Decision of petition : Allowed
*********
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 14 (1) (a) (c)
(h) (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises situated at Municipal No. 2526, Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
FACTS OF THE PETITION
2. It is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted premises were let to the respondent in the year 1996 by the erstwhile landlord Bawa Jagjit Singh without any agreement for residential purposes. The respondent/ tenant had been residing at the tenanted premises along with his family members since commencement of the said tenancy but later on, they shifted therefrom to their newly purchased house at (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.2 of 29 21/14TF, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 110008 in the year 2003 and since then the tenanted premises is being used for commercial purposes.
2.1 The tenanted premises comprises of two rooms, one open veramada, one toilet and one bathroom but later on the respondent/ tenant destroyed/ damaged the original structure of the house and converted rooms into one big hall and the open veramada has also been covered by him apart from putting a shutter at the entrance.
2.2 It is submitted that the rate of rent was Rs.1000/- per month, excluding electricity and water charges, as was fixed at the time of commencement of tenancy, which was enhanced from time to time with the consent of tenant.
2.3 It is further submitted that the tenant/respondent has neither paid nor tendered the whole of arrears of rent legally recoverable from him despite several reminders and legal demand notice dated 27.01.2014 which has been duly served to the respondent vide which the petitioner has demanded outstanding arrears of rent from the date of purchase of the property w.e.f. 01.08.2010 @ Rs. 5,000/- per month.
2.4 It is averred that the premises were let for use as a residence and neither tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein since 2003 and the premises are being (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.3 of 29 used for commercial purpose as respondent/tenant has been using the same as office for sale and storage of fire extinguisher cylinders without consent of petitioner and same is not allowed in residential areas.
2.5 It is pleaded that the respondent has acquired various properties residential as well commercial after commencement of the said tenancy in the year 1996.
2.6 Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that an eviction order may be passed against the respondent.
FACTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. Written Statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by the petitioner praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with costs. 3.1 In his Written Statement, the respondent has submitted that the respondent is a tenant in respect of tenanted premises/shop having area 10'x 30' which was let out by Bawa Jagjit Singh to him for commercial use in the year 1997 at rentals of Rs.185/- per month. The rent of the tenanted property was increased from time to time and last paid rent was @Rs.225/- per month.
3.2 It is stated that the the rent of the tenanted premises was paid to Shri Jagjit Singh Bawa on 10.02.2009 and rent @ Rs.225/- per month was paid upto 14.02.2009.After demise of Bawa Jajgit Singh in the month of November 2009, his legal heirs never demanded the rent of the tenanted premises from (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.4 of 29 the respondent.
3.3 It is averred that tenanted premise is being used by the respondent for commercial purposes since the inception, in the life time of Bawa Jagjit Singh and till date. As on date the tenanted premises is being used for office purposes by the respondent.
3.4 It is stated that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. No ownership document of the tenanted shop/office has been provided/shown by the petitioner to the Respondent till date. In the absence of any letter of attornment from the side of the petitioner as well as from the side of the legal heirs of Bawa Jagjit Singh, the respondent is not in a position to accept the petitioner as owner of the tenanted premises. 3.5 It is submitted that M/s S.R. Cool Enterprises is proprietorship concern of the respondent. It is submitted that the concerned department of the MCD issued registration certificate of shops/commercial establishment to the respondent for using the tenanted premise as commercial purpose. The necessary conversion charges along with interest has been paid to MCD. The respondent is also paying electricity and the electricity meter is installed in the name of the respondent and same is non-domestic. 3.6 It is also submitted that the present petition is not maintainable being barred by Section 3 (c) of DRC Act as the petitioner is claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.5 of 29 Rest of the contentions of the petition have been denied in toto and it has been prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
REPLICATION
4. Replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the written statement of the respondent. The averments made in the petition for eviction have been reiterated by the petitioner whereas the defence taken by the respondent in his written statement are traversed.
4.1 It is reiterated that tenanted premises was given on rent to the respondent for residential purposes only like other tenants residing in the same Katra under ownership of the same landlord and accordingly, the premises had its original structure consisting of two interconnected rooms, one toilet, one bathroom with open veramada having domestic electric meter installed thereat uptill the year 2003 since commencement of tenancy but thereafter the respondent damaged the original structure of the premises and got it converted into a store room with one office without any consent and knowledge of the landlord. The electric connection was also got changed from domestic to non domestic on the basis of forged documents. 4.2 It is stated that the rent of the premises was being enhanced from time to time with consent of the tenant and by the month of July 2010 when the premises was purchased by the petitioner from its owner then the existing rent was Rs.1000/- per month.
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.6 of 29 4.3 It is submitted that the respondent was duly informed about acquired ownership of the tenanted premises by the petitioner by way of purchasing the same from the legal heirs of Late. Sh. Jagjit Singh Bawa through sale deed dated 27th July 2010. A legal notice to that effect was also sent to the respondent which was duly served to the respondent.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
5. The petitioner examined her husband Sh. Balbir Singh as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon following documents i.e. Exhibit/Mark Document Ex. PW-1/A SPA dated 04.08.2016 Ex. PW-1/B Site pan Ex. PW-1/D List of properties of respondent acquired during the course of tenancy Ex. PW-1/F Copy of complaint dated 01.10.2015 Ex. PW-1/G Copy of reply dated 19.10.2015 by DSES Yamuna Power Ltd.
Ex. PW-1/H Copy of legal notice
Mark A Police enquiry report bearing diary
No.649LC/SHO Pahar Ganj dated
12.03.2016
Mark B Letter written by respondent dated
26.12.2011
Mark C Copy of reply dated 12.04.2014 of legal no-
tice
5.1 PW2 ASI Sanjay, No. 5018/C, PS Pahar Ganj,
(NEETU NAGAR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
30.10.2023 Page No.7 of 29
Delhi brought official records pertaining to Diary
No.649LC/SHO Pahar Ganj dated 12.03.2016 which includes Enquiry report dated 02.06.2016 by ASI Farjuddin No. 3010-D pertaining to the complaint submitted by Ms. Asha Rani to P.S. Pahar Ganj, Delhi which is Ex.PW2/1, photo copy of complaint dated 12.03.2016 by Ms. Asha Rani is Mark A, complaint of Ms. Asha Rani, dated 07.06.2016 is Ex. PW2/1(OSR), Copy of complaint of petitioner dated 12.03.2016 vide dairy no.649LC which is Ex.PW2/2(OSR), copy of complaint to the Manager (RPG) Pahar Ganj Division BYPL, Aram Bagh, New Delhi is Ex.PW2/3 (OSR), Copy of statement of Mr. Rajender Singh Juneja given before ASI Farjuddin, PS Pahar Ganj along with copy of records produced by the respondent is Ex.PW2/4.
5.2 PW3 Sh. Munish Kumar, Office Associate, Division Pahar Ganj, Aram Bagh, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Delhi brought the summoned record, i.e. copy of complaint by the petitioner vide dairy no. 796 dated 11.04.2016 which is Ex.PW3/1(OSR) along with photo copy of sale deed produced by the petitioner which is Mark A. He did not bring the summoned record pertaining to complaint while receiving no.698 dated 11.10.2015 as the same is not traceable from the available records.
5.3 PW4 Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, LDC, North MCD Building Department, City SP Zone, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.8 of 29 brought the summoned record, ie. adhoc registration certificate dated 31.12.2006 Ex.PW4/1, details of informations submitted by the respondent at the time of deposit of conversion charges Ex.PW4/2, MCD conversion application by respondent is Ex.PW4/3, affidavit of respondent dated 20.01.2016 is Ex.PW4/4 and electricity bill in the name of respondent dated 18.12.2015 is Ex.PW4/5. He did not bring document attached along with Ex.PW4/1 which includes rent agreement and election card which are not available with the department as per him.
5.4 Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 27.11.2021.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT
6. RW-1 Sh. Rajender Singh Juneja tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and relied upon following documents i.e. Exhibit/Mark Document Ex. RW-1/1 (OSR) Rent receipt dated 15.07.2003 Ex. RW-1/2 (OSR) Rent receipt dated 10.02.2009 Ex. RW-1/3 (OSR) Electricity bill for billing period February 2014, regarding CA no. 100458709 Ex. RW-1/4 (OSR) Electricity bill for billing period January 2017, regarding CA no.100458709 Ex. RW-1/5 Receipt of one time conversion charge dated 21.01.2016 vide receipt no.64111 (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.9 of 29 6.1 Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed vide order dated 16.08.2023.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard the arguments at length. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of both the parties and their contents are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity and shall be dealt in reasoning part. I have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
8. Let us deal with the grounds one by one.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING
9. It is necessary at this stage to take note of relevant clauses invoking which the present eviction case has been filed. Section 14 of DRC Act, to the extent relevant, reads as under:
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction. (1) 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 any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.10 of 29 Provided 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, namely: X X X
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the day on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served of him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882).
XXX
(c) that the tenant has used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let-
(i) if the premises have been let on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord; or
(ii) if the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining his consent;
XXXX (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.11 of 29
(h) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted a residence;"
(j) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises;"
10. Let us discuss the grounds of eviction raised by the petitioner in the present eviction petition one by one.
SECTION 14 (1) (a) OF DRC ACT
11. The following are the ingredients of section 14(1) proviso (a) DRC Act :-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
(ii) There should be non-payment or tendering of whole arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of service of legal notice upon the tenant given by the landlord.
12. Let us first discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)
(a) D.R.C. Act as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.12 of 29
(i). RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT:-
13. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner and landlady of the tenanted premises which was originally owned by Bawa Jagjit Singh by purchasing the same from his sole legal heir namely Pawanjit Singh Bawa by dint of sale deed dated 27.07.2010. The photocopy of the registered sale deed Mark A was produced by PW-3 which was filed by the petitioner along with her complaint to BSES vide Ex. PW-3/4. Moreover, the intimation regarding purchase thereof has been clearly provided to the respondent vide legal notice Ex. PW- 1/H which has been replied by the respondent vide Mark C wherein it is mentioned that ownership is not admitted and it is stated that no ownership document has been filed and there is no letter of attornment issued from the petitioner as well as legal heirs of Bawa Jagjit Singh. There is no dispute by the respondent that Pawanjit Singh Bawa is the legal heir of Bawa Jagjit Singh. There is no averment in the reply to legal notice Ex. PW-1/H that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is null and void or obtained fraudulently. Further, RW-1 has admitted during his cross-examination that he got the information about the purchase of property in dispute i.e tenanted premises in the year 2012 from the petitioner. He deposed in the next breath that the petitioner has never shown any title document to him. He has admitted that the petitioner has orally intimated to him (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.13 of 29 about the purchase of the property i.e. tenanted premises only once in the year 2012 and did not tell the same thereafter. Hence, the respondent was duly made aware about the transfer of the tenanted premises in favour of the petitioner. Undisputedly, the respondent is a tenant in the tenanted premises.
14. Further, if the transfer of the landlord's title is valid, and even if the tenancy is not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease continues. It is trite law that a transferee of the landlord's rights, steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy.
15. It was argued vehemently by learned counsel on behalf of the respondent that the letter of attornment was never issued to the respondent by anybody after purchasing the property in question. It is well settled that on transfer of title of the property in occupation of a tenant, the transferee under the law becomes the landlord and no overt act of attornment is required. To my mind, it was not required for the petitioner or the erstwhile owner to issue letter or notice of attornment.
16. It has been held in Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman (2002) 6 SCC 1, Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta Vs. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul (1997) 5 SCC 329 and Mohar Singh Vs. Devi Charan (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.14 of 29 (1988) 3 SCC 63 that on transfer of tenanted premises by the landlord, the transferee automatically becomes the landlord of the tenant by operation of law and the coming into being of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and tenant is not dependent upon any overt act on the part of the tenant.
17. Hence, the petitioner has discharged the initial onus to prove that she is the owner of the tenanted premises and has better title than the respondent. Therefore, the onus to prove otherwise was on the respondent i.e to prove that the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and that the respondent was not their tenant but there is nothing on record to prove the same. Moreover, there is estoppel under the provisions of section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act as the tenant cannot challenge the title of the owner /landlord however defective it is, but herein the petitioner is having a registered sale deed in her favour. Reliance can be placed on case law titled as Atyam Veerraju v.Pechetti Venkanna (1996) 1 SCR 831, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted with approval the judgment of the Privy Counsel in Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, wherein it was observed as follows:
"A tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlords title, however defective it may be, so long as he has (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.15 of 29 not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord."
18. In the case titled as Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagan Nath & Ors 1976 AIR 2335, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed :-
"the relationship between the parties being that of landlord and tenant,only the landlord could terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord Under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The tenant can not deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between the landlord and tenant question of title to the leased property is irrelevant."
19. Furthermore, in the case titled as Subhash Jain vs. Ravi Sehgal in RC Rev. No. 292/2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under :-
"The other objection of the petitioner is also without any force that the sale deed dated 29th March, 1993 is a sham document. The petitioner cannot object the history of ownership of the suit property in view of the provisions of the Section 116 f the Indian Evidence Act."
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.16 of 29
20. Similarly, in the case of Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and Shanti Sharma vs. Ved Prabha, 1987 RLR 526 SC, it was held that it is not the concern of the tenant as to how the landlord acquired the property.
21. Hence, the respondent has denied the title of the petitioner on technical and untenable ground and without an iota of evidence as the principle attracted herein is once a tenant always a tenant. The tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord or his successor-in-interest. Since the father of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had inducted the respondent as a tenant, the respondent is estopped from challenging the title of the petitioner, in view of the provisions of section 116 of the Evidence Act as discussed above.
22. Hence, the petitioner established the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent herein.
II. SERVICE OF LEGAL DEMAND NOTICE
23. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was not paying the rent to the petitioner and as such she got served legal notice dated 27.01.2014 Ex. PW-1/H. Admittedly, the said legal notice has been duly received as well as replied vide reply dated 12.04.2014 Ex. PW-1/RX2 (Mark C). It was next alleged that the present petition is barred as the rent therein is demanded at the rate of rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. Same (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.17 of 29 has been clarified by the petitioner in the replication that the rent at the time of purchase was Rs. 1,000/- per month which is further deposed by him in his deposition. Hence, even if the demand is made at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month the same will not render the legal notice as defective.
24. As such, service of legal demand notice Ex. PW-1/H as stipulated under section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act is also proved.
III. NON-PAYMENT OF RENT
25. The respondent has admitted during his cross- examination that he had taken on rent the property in question from Bawa Jagjeet Singh in the month of December, 1997. No rent agreement was executed between them at the time of commencement of tenancy. He deposed further that no agreement for amount of monthly rent was reached between them and since 2003 he used to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 185/- per month to the landlord Bawa Jagjeet Singh uptill March, 2003.
26. He has deposed that no rent receipts was issued to him by the landlord Bawa Jagjeet Singh from the year 1997 till March, 2003. Then he has voluntarily deposed that the final receipt is in his possession when the arrears of rent was cleared by him in the year 2003. He has proved the said final receipt vide Ex. RW-1/1.
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.18 of 29
27. As per the respondent, both the receipts Ex. RW-1/1 and Ex. RW-1/2 had been issued to him by Bawa Jagjeet Singh and both bear his signatures only. He deposed that the receipt Ex. RW-1/2 has been reduced into writing by one person who used to come along with Bawa Jagjeet Singh whose name he did not know and Ex. RW-1/2 is in the handwriting of that person and same is signed by Bawa Jagjeet Singh. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the respondent forged and fabricated both the receipts Ex. RW-1/1 and Ex. RW-1/2 but except for suggestions, there is nothing on record to prove the same. It was next argued that the receipt Ex. RW-1/2 does not exist in the original receipt book of the landlord being issued to other tenants but there is nothing on record to prove the same.
28. Further, the respondent has clearly admitted during his cross-examination that he has not paid the rent to anyone after the year 2009. He deposed in the next breath that Bawa Jagjit Singh did not come to take the rent and he died in the month of November, 2009 and nobody came to take the rent. He did not go to give the rent to any person related to Bawa Jagjit Singh. He did not know about the LRs of Bawa Jagjeet Singh at that time. He has deposed that he did not know about the LRs of Bawa Jagjeet Singh till date but he got to know about one litigation pending in the family of Bawa Jagjeet Singh. He has deposed that he did not know the complete information about the family of Bawa Jagjeet Singh.
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.19 of 29 Hence, it is amply clear from admission of RW-1 that he had no intention to clear the arrears of rent else he would have resorted to section 27 DRC ACT but no such remedy was availed by the respondent.
29. It is well settled that it is the duty of respondent to prove that he has paid or tendered or deposited the rent upto date and there is no outstanding rent. But in the present case, no document has been placed on record to prove the same. No rent receipt has been placed on record.
30. As far as rate of rent is concerned, a perusal of testimony of PW1 shows that he is not aware about the rate of rent as he has deposed that he did not know that at the time of letting out the property in present case, the rent was @ Rs. 185/- per month. He did not know that last paid rent by the respondent to Bawa Jagjit Singh was @ Rs. 225/- per month. He did not know that the respondent paid the rent to Bawa Jagjit Singh @ Rs. 225/- per month upto 14.02.2009. In the next breath, he deposed that when he purchased the property, it was told by Pawanjit Singh Bawa S/o late Bawa Jagjit Singh that the rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 1,000/- per month. He has also not examined Pawanjit Singh Bawa in order to prove the same. He did not even remember during his further cross-examination whether respondent paid rent to Sh. Pawanjit Singh Bawa. In the next breath he deposed that the previous owner Sh.Pawanjit Singh Bawa told him that he was (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.20 of 29 getting rent @ Rs. 1000/- per month from the respondent qua the suit property. Hence, it is amply clear that the petitioner is not at all aware of the rate of rent and his evidence to that regard is based on hearsay. Hence, the rate of rent has to be taken as Rs. 225/- per month as admitted by the respondent.
31. The petitioner has proved the site plan Ex. PW1/B. It was contended that site plan Ex. PW1/B is not as per the exact position of the tenanted property. However, no counter site plan has been placed on record by the respondent. Reliance can be placed in this regard on decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Satish Kumar Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal, 2012 SCC Online Del 4447 (SLP © No. 27341/2012)", wherein it has been held that "if a tenant does not file his site plan showing the site plan filed by the owner is incorrect, then, the site plan filed by the owner would be assumed to be true. In the present matter also, no such site plan has been filed by the respondent. Therefore, he has no right to question the site plan filed by the landlord to be incorrect. Hence, in view of the judgments and observations made above, this contention of the respondent is vague and untenable."
32. As such, it is clear that all the ingredients under section 14 (1) (a) of D.R.C. Act are totally satisfied.
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.21 of 29
33. Hence, the present petition being filed on 20.12.2016 as such under law the petitioner is entitled to the rent for the period from three years preceding the date of filing the petition till date as per law.
SECTION 14 (1) (c) OF DRC ACT
34. The law on the question of proof of letting purpose particularly in the context of disputes under DRC Act is well settled. Primarily, the purpose of letting is to be seen from the agreement whereby the tenancy is created. In the absence of a lease deed, the terms of letting may also be reflected in documents in the nature of rent receipts, correspondence exchanged etc. In cases where there is no written contract or document indicating the letting purpose, inferences are to be drawn from the surrounding circumstances, which would include the nature of the premises, the purpose for which it was constructed or its predominant use, locality where the premises is situate etc. Undoubtedly, continued user of the premises since inception for commercial purposes to the knowledge of the landlord, particularly when there is no exception taken, would lead to the inference that the letting purpose was nonresidential. But then, in case where there is no sufficient or clear evidence adduced as to since when the use of the premises for business was commenced, stray documents indicating its address being utilized for purposes of correspondence will not result in a (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.22 of 29 conclusion in favour of the tenant claiming commercial tenancy.
35. In the case of M/s Precision Steel and Engg. Works Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal decided on 7 October, 1982 [1982 AIR 1518] in the context of Section 14(1) (e) DRC Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent of observing that the expression "the premises let out for residential purposes" should be construed liberally and not technically or narrowly. It was held that so long the purpose and dominant purpose of letting is residential, merely because there had been mixed user of the premises or user of the part or incidental or ancillary user of the premises was permitted for activities other than residential, the purpose of letting would not cease to be residential.
36. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the tenanted premises was let out for the use of residential purpose but the respondent started using the same for commerical purposes and thus, changed the purpose of tenancy. Per contra, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that since the inception of the tenancy in the tenanted property, the respondent is using the same for commercial use.
37. The onus to prove that the tenanted premises was initially let out for residential purposes was on the petitioner.
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.23 of 29
38. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is using the tenanted premises presently as commercial/office purposes. The petitioner himself deposed during his cross examination that he did not know since when the respondent is using the tenanted premises as commercial. He deposed in the next breath that respondent got the conversion of the tenanted property in 2016 without his consent. Admittedly, the petitioner never let out the tenanted property to the respondent but it was let out by previous owner Bawa Jagjit Singh. It is also admitted that the electricity meter installed in the tenanted property is in the name of the respondent and the same is for non-domestic use i.e. for the commercial purpose. It was deposed by PW1 that when the respondent took the tenanted property on rent there was a residential meter and that he made complaint to BSES and Police because the respondent has got the electricity meter on forged and fabricated document. The petitioner has relied upon photocopies of two documents i.e. the statement dated 12.03.2016 of respondent made by him in PS Pahar Ganj and one complaint dated 26.12.2011 made by the respondent and same are Mark A and B. It was urged that meter connection was obtained on basis of forged and fabricated document. But the petitioner neither placed on record those forged and fabricated documents nor proved the same. Mere averment in this regard without any evidence to support the same is not suffice. Furthermore, the petitioner did not know whether the said non-domestic meter has been (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.24 of 29 installed since the life time of previous owner of Bawa Jagjit Singh. Hence, the petitioner is totally unaware in this regard.
39. Whereas, it was deposed by the respondent that when he took the tenanted premises from Bawa Jagjeet Singh the same was rented out to him as commercial and there was commercial meter therein. He has deposed next that Bawa Jagjeet Singh himself got the meter commercial and gave it to him. He has deposed that he never moved any application for making the meter commercial before BSES. He was not not aware if complaint was moved by the petitioner in PS Pahar Ganj regarding the misuse of property from residential to non residential and in response thereto, the IO had called him and recorded his statement in diary no.649. He has deposed that the statement was not recorded by the police from him. Clearly, the respondent is not speaking the truth in this regard. It is clear from the testimony of PW-2 ASI Sanjay who has proved the statement of the respondent made before ASI Farjuddin along with copy of records produced by respondent vide Ex. PW-2/4. No suggestion is given to the said witness if no such statement of the respondent was recorded by the police.
40. However, it is evident from enquiry report proved by PW-2 vide Ex. PW-2/A wherein it has been concluded that the meter was installed by Bawa Jagjit in the year 2003 and the same was in the name of respondent Rajender singh Juneja and (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.25 of 29 the same is not illegal. Hence, the petitioner failed to prove if the non-domestic meter was installed without consent of erstwhile owner Bawa Jagjit Singh.
41. Admittedly, no rent deed has been executed between the erstwhile landlord and the respondent. The petitioner has not examined any person from the katra to prove that the entire katra is being used for residence. The petitioner also failed to examine Pawanjit Singh from whom he purchased the tenanted premises if the purpose of tenancy was residential. Merely for the reason that electricity meter has been connected from domestic to non-domestic cannot be taken as a proof when the petitioner himself could not prove the purpose of tenancy as the same was used for commercial since the time of his purchase. Hence, the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (c) DRC Act are not proved by the petitioner.
SECTION 14 (1) (h) OF DRC ACT
42. As far as the provisions of Section 14(1) (h) of the DRC Act is considered, the petitioner has to prove that the respondent/tenant has acquired alternative accommodation for the purpose of residence. This clause applies to those premises which are let out for residential purposes. It has no application to premises let for non-residential purposes or for composite purposes i.e for residential and non-residential purposes.
43. Since the petitioner failed to prove that the tenanted premises were let out for residential purpose, hence, this clause (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.26 of 29 will not be applicable. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove ingredients of section 14 (1) (h) of DRC Act.
SECTION 14 (1) (j) OF DRC ACT
44. As far as the provisions of Section 14 (1) (j) of the DRC Act is considered, the petitioner has failed to prove that the tenanted premises comprised of two rooms, one open veramada, one toilet and one bathroom but later on the respondent/ tenant destroyed/ damaged the original structure of the house and converted rooms into one big hall and the open veramada has also been covered by him apart from putting a shutter at the entrance.
45. In view of the same, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the ingredients of section 14 (1) (j) of DRC Act.
CONCLUSION
46. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled proposition of law, this court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has satisfied all the ingredients of Section 14(1)
(a) of D.R.C. Act in respect of the tenanted premises situated at Municipal No. 2526, Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi as shown red in the site plan. However, the petitioner failed to prove the ingredients of section 14 (1),
(c), (h) and (j) DRC Act and hence, the present petition stands dismissed to that extent.
(NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.27 of 29
47. Perusal of the record shows that order dated 24.04.2017 under section 15 (1) D.R.C. Act was passed in the present case vide which the respondent was directed to pay the entire arrears of rent @ Rs. 225/- per month for three years preceding to the filing of petition within one month from the date of the said order and he was further directed to pay or tender or deposit the future and subsequent rent at the aforesaid rate on or before the 15th day of each succeeding English calendar month during pendency of the present petition.
48. As such, in view of the material on record and discussion as earlier, order under section 15 (1) D.R.C. Act is modified directing the respondent to pay or tender or deposit rent @ Rs. 225/- per month for three years preceding to the filing of petition w.e.f 20.12.2013 along with interest @ 15% per annum within one month from the date of this order and he is further directed to pay or tender or deposit the future rent with the petitioner at the same rate on or before the 15 th day of each succeeding English calendar month.
49. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate file for the consideration of benefit under section 14 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Nazir is also directed to file his report on 07.02.2024 regarding compliance of order passed by this court today.
50. Miscellaneous file be prepared for ascertaining (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.28 of 29 the benefits under section 14 (2) of the D.R.C. Act.
51. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2023.10.30 17:08:47 +0530 (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court on 30.10.2023) (This judgment contains 29 pages) (NEETU NAGAR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 30.10.2023 Page No.29 of 29