Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Subhash Chand Goel vs M/S Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd on 5 March, 2010

                                  ­  1 ­

 IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL: ARC: CENTRAL:
                   TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI


                               E­420/09


1. Sh. Subhash Chand Goel
  S/o Late Lala Ram Chander
  R/o 5, Under Hill Lane, 
  Civil Lines, Delhi
2. Sh. Satish Chandra Goel
  S/o Late Lala Ram Chander
  R/o 2747, Gali Arya Samaj, 
  Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi
3. Smt. Rani Goel Wd/o Sh. Kamal Chand Goel
  R/o  2747, Gali Arya Samaj, 
  Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi
4. Sh. Pradeep Chand 
  S/o late Sh. Suresh Chandra
  R/o E­5, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi
                                              ...... Petitioners 
                             Versus


  M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
  having its Registered Office at
  4634, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi
                                              ...... Respondent.
                                           ­  2 ­

       Eviction Petition u/s 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act


       Date of Institution of the case                 :       14.08.2003
       Date of Judgment reserved                       :       10.02.2010
       Date of Judgment pronounced                     :       05.03.2010


JUDGMENT:

­

1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose of an eviction petition filed by the petitioners u/s 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent on the ground of sub­letting , assigning or parting with possession of the suit premises .

2. Brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioners are the owner of the property bearing no. 4634, Ward no. 7, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and a portion of the ground floor of the aforesaid property was let out to M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. long ago by the predecessor­in­interest of the petitioners and the said company amalgamated with the respondent and as such the said company is no more in existence and is not in possession of the premises in dispute and by amalgamation all the interests and rights of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. have been transferred to the respondent and as such the tenant M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent without obtaining the consent in writing of the petitioners or their predecessor­in­interest and the respondent is an unauthorized sub­tenant/ assignee in the premises in dispute. Hence, the present petition has been filed and it has been prayed that an ­ 3 ­ eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of suit premises.

3. The respondent has contested the present petition and filed the written statement in which it is stated that the respondent is the tenant in a portion of the property No. 4634, inside Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi which forms part of the huge property bearing Municipal No. 4614­4641 and it is not clear as to which portion of this entire property bears which Municipal Number. It has been denied that any portion of the entire property, which is stated to be bearing Municipal No. 4614 to 4641 is in the tenancy of any of the companies/firms/concerns of Sh. Hanraj Gupta under all the four persons as petitioners and it is stated that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Sh. Ram Chand Goel who was stated to be owner of the entire property and the entire property had been partitioned by metes and bounds and the family members of Sh. Hansraj Gupta and their companies/firms/concerns who were tenants in the property were asked to attorn to the respective legal heirs exclusive of other in whose portion, the portion of tenanted premises had fallen and, therefore, the present petition is bad for mis­joinder of parties and causes of action. It has been denied that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in the entire premises as shown in red colour in the site plan and it is stated that the present petition lies against a tenant only and the petitioners have in the title of the petition shown M/s Hansraj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. as the person against whom the petition for eviction is filed and as such the petitioners have admitted that the said M/s Hansraj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. to be the tenant in the premises with respect to which the ­ 4 ­ petition is filed and the petitioners are now estopped from taking a stand that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in the premises. It has been further denied that the premises in suit were let out to M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and it is stated that the property was initially let out to Lala Hans Raj Gupta and payment of rent was made by different companies/concerns of Lala Hans Raj Gupta as per convenience and there was never any demarcation as to which portion of the property was in the tenancy of which concern/company of Lala Hans Raj Gupta. It is averred that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was a tenant in a portion of the property but there was no demarcation of the portions in the tenancy of the various concerns/companies/firms founded by Lala Hans Raj Gupta who had taken the property on rent and as per convenience the rent was being paid from different companies/concerns/firms founded by him. It is further averred that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with the respondent under the law enacted by the Parliament of India in the year 1971 and the present petition instituted more than 30 years of the said amalgamation on the grounds of said amalgamation, is barred by time. It is further averred that the rent has been accepted in all this time from the respondent and the respondent has been treated as the tenant. It has been admitted that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was one of the companies of Lala Hans Raj Gupta in which family members of Lala Hans Raj Gupta were shareholders and directors and as per the law enacted by the Parliament of India, the same was merged with M/s Hansraj Gupta and Co. Pvt. Ltd. which is another company founded by Sh. Hansraj Gupta and in which again the members of the family of Lala Hans Raj Gupta were shareholders and directors and which is ­ 5 ­ already a tenant in the premises. It has been denied that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. does not exist and it is stated that the shareholders and directors of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. were the members of the family of Lala Hans Raj Gupta and were carrying on business. It is contended that the entire property is situated in a slum area and without obtaining the permission of the Competent Authority, the present petition is barred by Section 19 of the Slum Areas Act. The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. The petitioner has filed replication to the written statement filed by the respondent in which it has been stated that at no point of time before filing the written statement the respondent ever disclosed that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. has been merged with the respondent in 1971. It is further stated that the petitioners had filed a suit for Permanent Injunction against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. on 17.11.1971 and a written statement on behalf of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was filed on 27.11.1971 and nowhere in the said written statement it was ever disclosed that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. has ceased to exist or that the same has been merged with the respondent and the said litigation came to an end only on 20.08.1999. It is further stated that another suit was filed against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. on 28.02.1977 for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction and in the written statement filed by M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. also it was never disclosed that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. has ceased to exist or that it has merged with the respondent and the said suit was contested fraudulently in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.

­ 6 ­ which also came to an end on 01.02.2000 and in the said proceedings it was admitted that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. is the tenant in a portion of the property bearing No. 4634, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. It is further stated that the petitioners are the landlords of the premises in dispute, although there was a partition but so far as the tenancy of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, it continued to be one qua all the landlords and the alleged family of Sh. Hans Raj Gupta has nothing to do with the tenancy rights. It is further stated that tenancy rights remained vested in M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Hans Raj Gupta never had any concern with the tenancy rights qua the property in dispute in his individual capacity at any time. It is further stated that the petition for eviction can also be maintained against a person or Company to whom the property has been subletted, assigned or parted with possession. It is further stated that the respondent itself is a tenant in respect to a portion of the first floor under a separate tenancy under Sh. Satish Chandra Goel (HUF) @ Rs. 322/­ and a separate receipt was being issued to him. It is further stated that permission from Slum department is not required against a sub­tenant. The other contents of the petition are re­iterated and re­affirmed and those made in the written statement have been denied and controverted.

5. Thereafter, in order to prove his case, the petitioner no. 1 has examined himself as AW­1 and has filed his evidence by way of affidavit in which he has deposed more or less on the similar lines as stated in the petition. He has produced the documents on record such as site plan as Ex. A­1, the certified copy of the plaint of the suit for Permanent Injunction filed against M/s Delhi Iron ­ 7 ­ Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. in 1971 as Ex. A­2, certified copy of the written statement as Ex. A­3, certified copy of the replication as Ex. A­4, the certified copy of the plaint of the suit for Perpetual Injunction filed against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. in 1977 as Ex. A­5, certified copy of the written statement as Ex. A­6, certified copy of the statement of Sh. P.K. Jain, Advocate as Ex. A­7 and the certified copy of the order of the Court as Ex. A­8. He has also placed on record the certified copy of the plaint of the suit filed against the respondent and Sh. Desh Raj Gupta which is Ex. A­9, certified copy of the written statement filed by Sh. Desh Raj Gupta is Ex. A­10 and affidavit of Sh. Desh Raj Gupta is Ex. A­11, the copy of the site plan filed in the said suit is Ex. A­12, the order of the Court in that suit is Ex. A­12A, certified copy of his statement is Ex. A­13, certified copy of the statement of Sh. Kalka Prasad Aggarwal is Ex. A­14, certified copy of the statement of Sh. J.C. Bhardwaj, the counsel for Sh. Desh Raj is Ex. A­15 and the certified copy of the statement of Sh. Shiv Raj Gupta, Director of the respondent is Ex. A­16. The counter foils of rent receipts issued in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1988­89, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2003 are Ex. A­17 to Ex. A­25 and the counterfoils of rent receipts issued to the respondent in respect of the portion on the first floor are Ex. A­26 to Ex. A­29.

6. On the other hand, the respondent has examined one of its Directors Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta as RW­1 who has filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. RW­1/A. He has produced the documents on record as Ex. RW­1/1 to Ex. RW­1/50 which are vouchers.

­ 8 ­

7. The respondent has also examined Sh. Data Ram, Jr. Technical Asstt. from Registrar of Companies as RW­2 who has brought the record pertaining to Hans Raj Gupta & Co. and same is Ex. RW­2/A (Colly.).

8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9. Ground U/s 14(1)(b) of DRC Act Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act reads as under:­ That the tenant has on or after the 9th day of 1952 sub let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord.

10. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in respect of the suit premises under the petitioner and the said company amalgamated with the respondent in the year 1971 and as such the said company is no more in existence and by amalgamation all the interests and rights of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. including the lease hold rights and tenancy rights have been transferred to the respondent and it amounts to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the suit premises as same has been done without the written consent of the petitioner. He has further argued that there have been various litigations between the parties, but in none of the litigation it was disclosed that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. has merged with the respondent and all the litigations were being contested in the ­ 9 ­ name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. He has further argued that permission from Slum Authority for filing a petition against a sub­lettee is not required. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has further vehemently argued that once M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. got amalgamated with the respondent it amounts to sub­ letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the premises as per Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act. He has relied upon the authorities titled as South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. S. Anup Singh & Ors., Kailash Chand (Deceased) Through his LRs Vs. Ganpat Rai 38 (1989) DLT 318, M/s General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M.A. Khader, AIR 1986 SC 1218 and Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan Chadha & Ors., 113 ( 2004) DLT 80 (SC) and M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chander Malhotra 1997 (1) RCR 493.

11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the present petition is barred by limitation as amalgamation took place in the year 1971 and the present petition has been filed in the year 2003 i.e. after 31 years. He has further argued that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was one of the company of Lala Hans Raj Gupta who was owning several companies including the respondent and it is the family arrangement of the companies of Lala Hans Raj Gupta whose family members were major shareholder and controlling the affairs of several companies and, therefore amalgamation does not amount to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the premises. He has further argued that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was one of the company of Lala Hans Raj Gupta among other companies and these companies were quasi partnerships of ­ 10 ­ Lala Hans Raj Gupta headed and controlled by the family of Lala Hans Raj Gupta and, therefore, the Court must pierce the veil to know who were the actual shareholders of these companies and managing the affairs of these companies and whether it amounts to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the premises as contemplated u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act. He has further argued that the suit property has been divided by metes and bounds between the owners/landlords and, therefore, single petition for eviction is not maintainable. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has further argued that Lala Hans Raj Gupta was working under different names of companies/ firms/trusts and it was all a family business and M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the respondent is one firm and therefore, amalgamation does not change anything to the companies belonging to Lala Hans Raj Gupta before and after amalgamation. He has relied upon the authorities titled as J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., AIR 2006 Delhi 317 and Telesound India Ltd.

12. Let us first discuss the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of the present petition on the ground of limitation.

13. The case of the petitioner is that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in the suit premises and it was amalgamated with the respondent long ago, but the respondent has concealed the factum of amalgamation and there were several litigations between the parties, but the factum of amalgamation has not been disclosed by the respondent in any of the litigation ­ 11 ­ and these civil suits were contested in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of the suit for Permanent Injunction filed against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. in 1971 as Ex. A­2 and certified copy of the written statement as Ex. A­3. Similarly, another suit for Perpetual Injunction was filed by the petitioner against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. in 1977 and the certified copy of the same is Ex. A­5 and certified copy of the written statement filed on behalf of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd is Ex. A­6. A perusal of these civil suits filed by the petitioner shows that the same were filed against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and the written statement was filed on behalf of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. despite the fact that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was no more in existence as it was amalgamated long ago with the respondent in the year 1971. There is no dispute so far the fact that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. got amalgamated in the year 1971 as RW­1 Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta who is son of Lala Hans Raj Gupta has stated in the examination in chief itself that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with the respondent w.e.f. December 31, 1970. Although, it has been stated by RW­1 in his evidence that a notice of the amalgamation was given in the newspapers and also in the public gazette, but in the cross­examination, RW­1 has categorically stated that they did not inform. Again, he stated that he does not remember if the intimation was ever sent to the petitioner regarding amalgamation. He further states that he is aware of only one suit filed by the landlord against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. but he does not remember when the said suit was filed. He further categorically states that the said suit was contested on behalf of ­ 12 ­ M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. A specific question was put to RW­1 by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that when the said suit was contested, whether M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was in existence and RW­1 replied that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. is a part of M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and was in existence. Another question was put to the witness that did he inform the Court at any time that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. has been amalgamated with the respondent and further that whether the earlier suit has been contested by the respondent to which he replied that he does not remember whether the petitioner was informed and further that he does not remember that whether the information was given to the court or not. Similarly, the RW­1 avoided to answer the question that suit was contested in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. by concealing the fact of amalgamation.

14. In view of above, it is clear that there has been various litigations between the parties since 1971 by filing the civil suits by the petitioners against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and these civil suits were contested by the respondent in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. despite the fact that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd was no more in existence and it has already got amalgamated in the year 1971 with the respondent. It has also come on record that no such information was given to the petitioner regarding amalgamation and, as such, when the respondent itself was contesting the civil suits filed by the petitioners against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. despite the fact that the said M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. is no more in existence, it ­ 13 ­ amounts to concealment of fact of amalgamation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was in the knowledge of amalgamation and the present petition is barred by limitation as petitioner was never in the knowledge of the said amalgamation upto the year 2000. Moreover, it is a settled law that law of limitation does not apply for filing the petition u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act. It has been held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Mohd. Sageer Vs. Prakash Thomas that, "Limitation Act, Section 5 ­ Sub­letting without consent of landlord­ No period of limitation prescribed for filing a Rent Control petition on the ground of sub­ letting." In view of above, there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that present petition is barred by limitation.

15. Now, let us take another contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the entire property had been partitioned among the owners/landlords by metes and bounds and, therefore, single petition for eviction is not maintainable.

16. Admittedly, Sh. Ram Chand Goel, was the owner of the entire property and the entire property was partitioned by metes and bounds among the LRs of late Sh.Ram Chand Goel who are petitioners herein in the array of the parties. In the cross­ examination, the PW­1 has also admitted that all the suit property has been divided between the petitioners by metes and bounds and no part of it is common of any of the petitioners. By way of voluntarily, he has stated that the tenancy remains the one. Moreover, RW­ 1 could not deny the fact in his cross­examination that the rent of the premises in dispute was paid in the name of ­ 14 ­ the petitioners jointly and he only stated that he has already filed the rent receipts received by him and the record will show whether they were issued jointly or single. Therefore, when the rent is being paid in the name of petitioner jointly, it stands proved that the tenancy under the petitioners remained one and it hardly matters that the property has been partitioned between the petitioners by metes and bounds and it cannot be said that the present petition is bad for non­joinder of parties. As such, even if the property is divided between the petitioners by metes and bounds, but the tenancy remains the one and it is not the case of the respondent that tenancy has also been bifurcated and therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the single petition for eviction is not maintainable.

17. The respondent has also taken an objection in the written statement that permission from Competent Authority (Slum) has to been taken by the petitioners before filing the present petition as suit property falls in slum area. In this regard, law is well settled that for filing an eviction petition against the sub­tenant, permission from slum authority is not required. Reliance may be placed upon 38 (1989) DLT 318 in which it has been held that , "Permission u/s 19 is not necessary to evict a sub­ tenant, whether lawful or unlawful."

18. The respondent has also taken a plea that the petitioners have filed the present petition against M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and as such the petitioners have admitted the said M/s Hansraj Gupta & Co, Pvt. Ltd. to be the tenant in the premises and ­ 15 ­ the petitioners are now estopped from taking a stand that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in the premises and had the petitioners treated M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. to be the tenant in the premises, the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. would have found mentioned in the title of the petition. Again, there is no merit in this contention because if tenant is ceased to exist, the petition for eviction is maintainable against a person or a company to whom the property has been sub­let, assigned or parted with possession. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Anup Singh that, "Orders for ejectment against all person in occupation must have been contemplated so that the landlord might without further trouble recover possession. In such a case where the tenant assigning the leases becomes extinct, the court would be fully justified in passing order for recovery of possession against the assignee alone."

19. The respondent has also taken a plea in the written statement that there was no Municipal numbers when the premises were originally occupied by Lala Hans Raj Gupta and the municipal numbers were given subsequently and it has been denied that the entire portion shown in red colour in the annexed site plan was earlier in the tenancy of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and it is stated that the respondent is the tenant in a portion of the property No. 4634, inside Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi which forms part of the huge property bearing Municipal No. 4614­4641 and it is not clear as to which portion of this entire property bears which Municipal Number and from time to time the premises in the tenancy of the respondent in this entire ­ 16 ­ property are described as being part of the property No 4634 and it has been denied that the portion with respect to which the petition is filed forms part of the property bearing municipal No. 4634 or that it is situated in Ward No. 7.

20. While, the specific case of the petitioner is that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in respect of a portion of the ground floor of property bearing no. 4634, Ward no. 7, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, which is shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. A­1. In the cross­examination also PW­1 was given a suggestion by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that municipal No. 4616 to 4641 are given to the entire property and no specific numbers are given to any portion of it, which was denied by PW­1 and by way of voluntarily he has stated that different number have been allotted to different portions/premises. The PW­1 was also suggested that suit property does not form part of Ward no. 7 as on the date of the petition, which was again denied by him.

21. Although, the respondent has disputed the description of the suit property and has alleged that the entire property bears No. 4616 to 4641and there is no specific sub­division of numbers thereunder and, therefore, no specifically delineated property falls under the municipal No. 4634, but a perusal of the civil suit filed by the petitioner against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. vide Ex. A­2 reveals that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was shown to be tenant in respect of the portion of the premises bearing No. 4634 on the ground floor, forming part of the property bearing Municipal Nos. 4614 to 4641 situated at Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. In the written statement filed by the respondent in the name of ­ 17 ­ M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. vide Ex. A­3, the aforesaid fact was not disputed. Similarly, in another civil suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction filed by the petitioner against M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. vide Ex. A­5, it has been stated that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. is the tenant in respect of a portion of the premises bearing Municipal No. 4634 on the ground floor forming part of the property bearing Municipal No. 4616 to 4641 situated at Bazar Ajmeri, Gate, Delhi, and in the written statement filed by the respondent in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. vide Ex. A­6, the said fact was not disputed. The statement of Sh. Shiv Raj Gupta who is son of Lala Hans Raj Gupta and director of the respondent was also recorded in the said civil suit Ex. A­5 on 14.11.2003 and certified copy of the same is Ex. A­16 and in the said statement, the said Sh. Shiv Raj Gupta also admitted the description of the tenanted premises as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint forming part of the Municipal No. 4634, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. As such, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to dispute the description of the suit premises in the present petition as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. A­1 when in the earlier litigations, the respondent has not disputed the tenancy of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. in respect of suit premises.

22. Furthermore, the counter foils of rent receipts issued in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. which are Ex. A­17 to Ex. A­25 show the description of the suit premises as part of property No. 4634. RW­1 has also admitted in his cross­ examination that Ex. RW­1/P­1 which is rent receipt issued in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. pertains to the part of ­ 18 ­ the portion area. He also admitted that the companies which are in possession of the ground floor of 4634 are mentioned in rent receipts Ex. RW­1/P­1 to Ex. RW­1/P­4 and a perusal of the rent receipt Ex. RW­1/P­1 shows that same was issued in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. who was in possession of the part of the property No. 4634, Main Bazar, Ajmeri Gate.

23. Apart from this, although the RW­1 has taken a plea in his evidence that the suit property does not fall in ward No. 7 and it falls in Ward No. 112, Quassab Pura, but in the cross­ examination he categorically stated that he does not know when Ward No. 122 Qassab Pura came into existence. He further states that he has never seen the boundaries of ward No. 112. He further categorically states that he does not know whether the property falls in ward No. 7 or Ward No. 112. He further states that he is not in possession of any record to show that the property in dispute is situated in ward No. 112. The aforesaid testimony of RW­1 shows that only a vague objection has been raised by the respondent that the suit property does not fall in ward No. 7 and it falls in ward No. 112.

24. In view of aforesaid discussions, there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that the entire property bears No. 4616 to 4641 or that there is no specific sub­division of numbers thereunder and, therefore, no specifically delineated property falls under the municipal No. 4634.

25. The RW­1 has also stated in his affidavit that the suit property that had fallen to the share of Sh. Suresh Chand Goel had ­ 19 ­ been sold by him to Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta. But, in the cross­ examination RW­1 has stated that he had learnt that the property in question has been sold to Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, but he has not seen any sale document. He further states that he does not remember the person who had informed him about the said fact. As such, again this contention of the respondent does not carry any weight that the property in question has been sold to Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta.

26. Now, it has to be seen whether the amalgamation of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. with the respondent amounts to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the suit premises u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act which is the case of the petitioner.

27. The facts of the case are within narrow compass. The case of the petitioner is that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in the suit premises and it was amalgamated with the respondent in the year 1971 and with this amalgamation all the interests and rights of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. including the lease hold rights and tenancy rights stands transferred to the respondent and it amounts to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the suit premises. While the case of the respondent is that the property was initially let out to Lala Hans Raj Gupta and he was working under different names of companies/concerns/firms and M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was one of the companies of Lala Hans Raj Gupta in which family members of Lala Hans Raj Gupta were shareholders and directors and the same was merged with M/s Hansraj Gupta and Co. Pvt.

­ 20 ­ Ltd. which is another company founded by Sh. Hansraj Gupta in which again the members of the family of Lala Hans Raj Gupta were shareholders and directors and which is already a tenant in the premises and as such it was all a family business and M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the respondent is one firm in which family of Lala Hans Raj Gupta are the shareholders and directors and they are managing and controlling the affairs of the said firm and, therefore, amalgamation does not amount to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the suit premises . It is also the case of the respondent that there was never any demarcation as to which portion of the property was in the tenancy of which concern/company/firm of Lala Hans Raj Gupta and payment of rent was made by different companies/firms of Lala Hans Raj Gupta as per convenience.

28. In view of above, there is no dispute that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was a tenant in a portion of the property which has also been admitted by the respondent in para 18 (a) of the written statement. Therefore, as it is admitted fact that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant under the petitioner, the said M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. is no more in existence because it has got amalgamated with the respondent in the year 1971. So far the contention of the respondent that there was no demarcation of the portions in the tenancy of the various concerns/companies/firms founded by Lala Hans Raj Gupta and rent was being paid by the different concerns/companies/firms of the Lala Hans Raj Gupta as per convenience, is concerned, the petitioner has categorically stated in his evidence that M/s Delhi ­ 21 ­ Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in respect of a portion of property bearing No. 4634, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and in this regard the rent receipts have also been proved by PW­1 as Ex. A­17 to Ex. A­25 which were issued in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and description of the tenanted premises has been shown as portion of property No. 4634, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi in the aforesaid rent receipts Ex. A­17 to Ex. A­25. Further, a perusal of the rent receipts Ex. A­26 to Ex. A­29 shows that same were issued in the name of M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the respondent and this firm was having the tenanted portion of upper floor to that of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd.

29. In the cross­examination, a question was put to PW­1 by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that rents for various portions of properties forming part of 4616­1641 is being paid by Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd, M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. & Delhi Hardware Store to which the PW­1 has categorically stated that in some portion of this building these companies are the tenants. By way of voluntarily, he has stated that Delhi Hardware is the tenant in 4633 & 4635 and Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. is the tenant in the front portion of the first floor of property No. 4634, Hansraj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. is the tenant of the first floor in the rear portion of 4634 and Delhi Iron Syndicate pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in the ground floor of 4634 and the rent are paid by these companies separately. He denied the suggestion that the said companies were under the control of Lala Hansraj Gupta. By way of voluntarily he stated that they are separate entities. Again, a suggestion was put to PW­1 that the property was initially let out to Lala Hansraj Gupta and payment of ­ 22 ­ rent was made by different companies/concerns of Lala Hansraj Gupta as per convenience or that there never was any demarcation as to which portion of the property was in the tenancy of which concern/company of Lala Hansraj Gupta, which was denied by the witness. The PW­1 has further stated that he does not know whether the M/s Hansraj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Ltd. were the family companies of Hansraj Gupta. He denied the suggestion that both these companies were in the nature of quasi partnerships of Hansraj Gupta and sons. By way of voluntarily, he has stated that they are private Ltd. companies. The PW­1 has further denied the suggestion that the usual practise was that the rent of all the properties under the tenancy of Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd, M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. & Delhi Hardware Store was paid by one source and a common receipt was given. By way of voluntarily, he stated that this was never happened. He further denied the suggestion that no specific portion were given to any of these companies or that they acquired space as convenient to them from time to time or as decided by the family of Hansraj Gupta.

30. In view of aforesaid testimony of PW­1, it was for the respondent to prove that suit premises was initially let out to Lala Hans Raj Gupta who was working under different names of concerns/ companies/firms and there was no specific portion under the tenancy of different companies/firms of Lala Hansraj Gupta and rent was paid by any of the companies/firms of Lala Hansraj Gupta as per convenience. In this regard, as stated herein above, the rent receipts Ex. A­17 to Ex. A­25 reveals that rent ­ 23 ­ receipts have been issued in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and rent receipts Ex. A­26 to Ex. A­29 shows that same have been issued in the name of the respondent and these firms were having different tenanted portion. Moreover, although the respondent has taken a plea that portion were allocated by Lala Hansraj Gupa as per convenience, but in the cross­examination RW­1 has stated that he cannot tell the portion specifically which were in possession of aforesaid companies. Although, he stated that total rent was paid by Hansraj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. but he cannot tell the rent which was paid by those firm/companies separately. The RW­1 has further stated in his cross­examination that the tenancy of Delhi Hardware was much before 1960 and he does not remember the date. He further stated that when he joined in 1960, he does not know the constitution of Delhi Hardware. He further states that he does not know the present constitution of Delhi Hardware. He further states that he has no concern with Delhi Hardware. He further states that he does not know if Delhi Hardware is in existence at present. The RW­1 has further stated that he does not remember as to when the portion of premises as shown in red in Ex. A­12 was let out to Rampur Engg. Co. Ltd. He further states that he also does not remember the rate of rent of said portion and further that when the said premises was occupied by Rampur Engg. Co. Ltd.

31. In view of aforesaid testimony of RW­1, as the case of the respondent is that the aforesaid companies namely Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd, M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. & Delhi Hardware Store were the family concerns of Lala Hansraj Gupta, but RW­1 who is none other than ­ 24 ­ the director of M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and son of Lala Hansraj Gupta, does not know whether the said companies namely Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. & Delhi Hardware Store are in existence or not. He also does not know the constitution of the said companies. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that these companies are family concerns of Lala Hansraj Gupta does not hold much water. The stand of the respondent that these companies were the family concerns of Lala Hansraj Gupta and were in the nature of quasi partnership is further falsified when a question put to RW­1 in his cross­examination that whether Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. is the tenant of landlord in any of the premises which are shown without colour in Ex. A­12 and he replied that he does not know but part of premises is in their occupation i.e not shown in red in the site plan Ex. A­12. Meaning thereby, RW­1 who is director of M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. has no concern with the other companies and as such the claim of the respondent that all these companies are family concern of Lala Hansraj Gupta becomes hollow.

32. Further, the respondent has also tried to make out a case that M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. was making the payment of rentals of other companies under one head and in this regard the respondent has placed on record the vouchers Ex. RW­1/1 to Ex. RW­1/50 to prove the said fact. But, these vouchers have not been proved by the respondent as RW­1 admits in his cross­ examination that the vouchers Ex. RW­1/1 to Ex. RW­1/50 are not in his hand writing and same also does not bear his signatures. He also could not answer the question in whose favour the receipt referred in Ex. RW­1/1 to Ex. RW­1/50 were issued and for which ­ 25 ­ portions the said receipt were issued and he stated that rent receipts are in front of the Court and can verify the same from the record and again a question was put to RW­1 that he cannot tell the names of the tenants without seeing or verifying the original documents, which he has brought to which he replied that the rent receipts are in the name of various companies and he does not remember the name of all the companies now. Again, a question was put to the RW­1 that whether he can tell which company was in possession of any particular portion and the witness replied that the entire portion was given to Lalaji and he allocated various areas depend on each occupants. By way of voluntarily, he stated that area was allotted to different companies at different time. Similarly, in reply to a question that tell which portions are in separate occupation of different companies at present, he replied that there is no demarcation till today.

33. A perusal of Ex. RW­1/1 to Ex. RW­1/50 reveals that same have been issued by one Sh. Radhey Shyam and in the cross­ examination RW­1 has stated that he thinks that he has seen Sh. Radhey Shyam and he has seen him many years back. He further states that he has never seen Sh. Radhey Shyam writing or signing any document. As such,when RW­1 examined by the respondent has never seen Sh. Radhey Shyam writing or signing any document nor the vouchers Ex. RW­1/1 to Ex. RW­1/50 are in his handwriting and same also does not bear his signatures, the respondent has failed to prove the said vouchers Ex. RW­1/1 to Ex. RW­1/50 and that the rentals were paid by M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. for the other companies under one head to show that these companies are family concerns of Lala Hansraj Gupta and ­ 26 ­ not the separate legal entities.

34. On the other hand, the petitioner has established that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in a portion of the property bearing No. 4634, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi on the ground floor among other tenants in the name of Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd, M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. & Delhi Hardware Store and in this regard the petitioner has placed on record the rent receipt Ex. RW­1/P­1 in the name of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. showing the tenanted portion of ground floor in the property No. 4634, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, rent receipt Ex. RW­1/P­2 in the name of M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. showing the tenanted portion on the first floor in rear side which is above to the tenanted portion of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., rent receipt Ex. RW­1/P­3 in the name of Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. showing the tenanted portion in the said property on the first floor in front side and rent receipt Ex. RW­1/P­4 in the name of Delhi Hardware Store who is tenant in shop No. 4634. The RW­1 has also admitted in his cross­ examination that the rent receipts are in favour of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. & Delhi Hardware Store. The RW­1 has also admitted in his cross­examination that the companies which are in possession of the ground floor of 4634 are mentioned in rent receipt Ex. RW­1/1 to Ex. RW­1/P­4. Although, he states that he does not agree with the suggestion that Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. was the tenant in respect to a portion of first floor above the portion let out to the M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and by way of voluntarily he stated that Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

­ 27 ­ was also part of ground floor, but the rent receipts Ex. RW­1/P­2 belies this statement of RW­1 which shows that rent receipts have been issued in the name of Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. in respect to the first floor portion which is above the portion let out to M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Further, the witness RW­1 could not say whether the fact that Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. is the company in the first floor Ex. RW­1/P­2 has been correctly written or not and by way of voluntarily he stated that Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. was occupying the ground floor of 4634 and also the first floor of 4634. But, the respondent has not led any evidence either oral or documentary to this effect that Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. is also occupying the ground floor portion of property No. 4634 more particularly when RW­1 could not say whether the fact that Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. is the tenant in the first floor and Ex. RW­1/P­2 has been correctly written or not.

35. So far the plea of the respondent that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. i.e the respondent is one firm and it was all a family business of Lala Hansraj Gupta and both these companies were in the nature of quasi partnerships of Hansraj Gupta and sons, is concerned, in civil jurisprudence there is no concept of quasi partnership of a private limited company and under law a limited company or a private limited company is a separate legal entity and therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the respondent that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Hans Raj Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. i.e the respondent is one firm and it was all a family business of Lala Hansraj Gupta and both these companies were in ­ 28 ­ the nature of quasi partnerships of Hansraj Gupta and sons and even after the amalgamation of M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. with the respondent, it has remained with the Lala Hans Raj Gupta and it does not amount to sub­letting, assigning or parting with possession of the suit premises.

36. In view of above, as it is admitted fact that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with the respondent without the consent of the petitioner, it amounts to sub­letting, assigning or parting with possession of the suit premises. It has been held in M/s General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M.A. Khader, AIR 1986 SC 1218 that, "Company, a tenant transferring interest in tenanted premises to another company under High Court's order sanctioning scheme of amalgamation­ Consent of landlord for sub­letting as per rent agreement not obtained, it amounts to transfer of tenancy interest by tenant." Similarly, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chander Malhotra that "Foreign Company running business in the premises­Said company assigning 60% shares to an Indian Company and allowed the Indian Company to occupy the premises­Permission of landlord not obtained - Held, it was sub­letting holding that there was a clear assignment between the Foreign Company and the Indian Company of the demised premises without any written consent of the landlord and it is a case of sub­letting within the meaning of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act."

37. Another authority relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan Chadha & ­ 29 ­ Ors., 113( 2004) DLT80 (SC) in which facts of amalgamation of two companies u/s 391 and 394 of Companies Act were considered and it was held that, "Sub­letting - Amalgamation of company­ Order of Court sanctioning scheme of amalgamation under section 391 and 394 of Companies Act whereunder leases, rights of tenancy or occupancy of transferor company get vested in and become property of transferee company­It would make no difference in so far as applicability of Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act is concerned."

38. Although, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that authority AIR 1986 SC 1218 relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case as case referred in the said authority pertains to A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and same is not under DRC Act. But, in my considered opinion, the ratio of the said judgment as referred in the said authority is that the amalgamation of the company which is a tenant under the landlord with the another company without the written consent of the landlord amounts to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the suit premises. Apart from this, the facts of the present case are squarely covered in view of the judgment in 113 (2004) DLT 80 (SC) cited supra.

39. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon an authority titled as J.B. Exports Ltd. Vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., AIR 2006 Delhi 317 in which principles of piercing veil of corporate personality was considered. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that in the present case if the corporate veil is lifted, it is revealed that M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate ­ 30 ­ Pvt. Ltd. was one of the company of Lala Hans Raj Gupta who was owning several companies including the respondent and the said M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with the respondent company which also belongs to Lala Hans Raj Gupta and it is the family arrangement of the companies of Lala Hans Raj Gupta whose family members were major shareholders and controlling the affairs of several companies and, therefore amalgamation does not amount to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the premises. I do not find any merit in this contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent as the facts of the case referred in the authority AIR 2006 Delhi 317 are distinguishable. In that case, their Lordships were dealing with a case under Electricity Act and it was held that principles of piercing veil of corporate personality should be applied. In that case, 'B' company was registered consumer of Electricity. However, electricity was being consumed by 'J' company which owned entire share capital of 'B' company and became holding company and 'B' company not carrying on any business of its own and in these circumstances it was held it was not the case of Electricity Board that its bills are not being paid or that any fraud has been committed and the demand of electricity charges on ground of sub­letting is not proper. As such, the question of sub­ letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the suit premises u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act was not involved. Moreover, as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 113 (2004) DLT 80 (SC) that, "It is not open to company to ask for unveiling its own cloak and examine as to who are directors and shareholders and who are controlling affairs of company", the contention of the tenant that Court should lift the corporate veil ­ 31 ­ and see who are the directors and shareholder of the transferee company and who are in real control of the affairs of the said company was declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

40. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the authority titled as Telesound India Ltd. But, the facts of the said authority is not applicable in the facts of the preset case as in that case the scheme of amalgamation under Companies Act was discussed and the amalgamation referring to provisions u/s 14 (1)

(b) of DRC Act was not an issue.

41. In view of aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, in view of law laid down in the aforesaid authority titled as M/s General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M.A. Khader, AIR 1986 SC 1218, M/s Cox & Kings Ltd. Vs. Smt. Chander Malhotra, Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan Chadha & Ors., 113( 2004) DLT80 (SC) the amalgamation amounts to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the suit premises. As in the present case M/s Delhi Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. who was the tenant in the suit premises was amalgamated with the respondent in the year 1971 without the consent of the petitioner, it amounts to sub­letting, assigning or parting with the possession of the suit premises. Hence, the petitioner has proved the ground u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act.

42. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act in respect of suit premises i.e. a portion of the ground floor of the property bearing no. 4634, Ward no. 7, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi;

­ 32 ­ more specifically shown in site plan Ex. A­1. No order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record Room. 



Announced in the open court                        (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 5th March, 2010                                  ARC, Central, Delhi
                                  ­  33 ­

                                E­420/09



05.03.2010 
              Present:   None

Vide my separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court, the present u/s 14(1) (b) of DRC Act is allowed and accordingly an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act in respect of suit premises. No order as to costs.

File be consigned to Record room.

(B.R. Bansal)05.03.2010