Delhi District Court
Unknown vs Shri K.D. Shrama on 29 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCT No. 49/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-006097-2019
In re:
Sh. Ramji Lal Goel (Deceased)
Through LRs:-
1. Smt. Padma Singhal
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar Singhal
R/o H.No. C-38, Vijay Park Extn.,
Naya Bazar, Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043
2. Smt. Sunita Mittal
W/o Shri Anil Mittal,
R/o House No. A-640/1,
Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052
3. Shri Bhajan Lal Goel
S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Goel
R/o D-108, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi
4. Shri Naresh Goel
S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Goel
R/o WZ-133-A, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi -110058
5. Shri Virender Goel
S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Goel,
R/o D-108, Vikaspuri,
New Delhi
RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 1 of 35
6. Shri Surender Goel
S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Goel
R/o D-108, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi . . . . . . Appellants
Versus
1. Shri K.D. Shrama,
S/o Late Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma
R/o A-2/259, Jankakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
2. Shri Sandeep Singh
S/o Shri Gurinder Singh
R/o WZ-236, G-Block,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110058 . . . . . . Respondents
Date of filing eviction petition : 07.03.2012
Date of impugned judgment : 02.07.2019
Date of filing appeal : 02.08.2019
Date of hearing arguments : 06.01.2021
Date of Judgment : 29.01.2021
Appearances:
Mr. Sunil Lalwani, Advocate for the appellants/LRs of deceased tenant.
Ms. Savita Malhotra, Advocate for the respondents/landlords.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide an appeal filed in terms of Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act'), by the appellants, who are the legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased tenant, namely Ramji Lal Goel, whereby they have assailed the Judgment dated RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 2 of 35 02.07.2019, passed by the Court of Sh. Ajay Nagar, Ld. ARC, (West), THC, Delhi, by which the composite petition under Section 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act has been allowed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Briefly stated, the petitioners/landlords, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the present appeal, filed a composite petition seeking eviction of the respondents, who are LRs of deceased Ramji Lal Goel on the ground that they were the owners and landlords of the tenanted premises viz., a shop measuring 19' x 37' in the property bearing No. WZ-622/D-3, Shiv Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi- 110058, as shown in red in the Site Plan Ex.PW-1/1, which property was purchased by them from Ravinder Pal Singh and Inderpal Singh, both LRs/sons of the original owner and landlord, namely Sardar Charanjeet Singh S/o Sh. Tehal Ram, vide registered Sale Deed dated 04.05.2011 Ex.PW-1/3.
3. In the petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act, it was the case of the petitioners/landlords that the tenant was in legally recoverable arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.2011 @ Rs. 1,600/- per month, which had neither been paid nor tendered despite service of demand notice dated 21.01.2012 Ex.PW-1/5.
4. In so far as petition under Section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act is concerned, the petitioners claimed that the respondent Ramji Lal Goel had sub-let or parted with the tenancy premises to two separate RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 3 of 35 business entities, namely M/S Goel Handloom House and M/s Goel Foam & Furnishing, which have been carrying on business from the tenancy premises independently after creating a wooden partition in between the tenancy premises thereby dividing the same possibly into two equal halves, and that no permission or written consent had been taken by the respondent while sub-letting or parting with the possession of the tenancy premises to the aforesaid two firms. As a necessary corollary, eviction was sought under Section 14 (1) (j) of the DRC Act alleging that the material alterations had been done in the tenancy premises by dividing it into two equal parts for the purpose of subletting or parting with possession, which petition has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment, and which is not assailed by the petitioners/landlord.
5. The respondent Ramji Lal Goel contested the eviction petition inter alia denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; and further claiming that the tenancy premises had been divided into two separate shops bearing No. 3 and 4 from which two different firms viz. M/s Goel Handloom House and M/s Goel Foam & Furnishing respectively have been carrying on their business pursuant to an agreement executed between him and the erstwhile owner, namely Sardar Charanjeet Singh dated 10.03.2008 (Ex.DW- 1/2), by virtue of which the tenancy was created in respect of the aforesaid two firms, for which rent was stipulated to be paid for each shop @ Rs. 800/- per month.
RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 4 of 356. The respondent further averred that the tenancy was initially created long time back in the year 1979 @ Rs. 1400/- per month in favour of M/s Goel Handloom House, a partnership firm having two partners viz. Himself and his son Bhajan Lal Goel; and that in the year 1981 his son Naresh Goel joined the partnership firm and in the year 1992 Surender Goel also joined the firm; and that he has been running his business in the name and style of M/s. Goel Foam & Furnishing along-with the other son Surender Goel, who joined in the year 1992 in a bonafide and lawful manner; and that each of the two firms have been paying monthly rent @ Rs. 800/- separately. The respondents denied service of the demand notice dated 21.01.2012 and claimed that no material or substantial alteration had been carried out in the tenancy premises.
THE TRIAL
7. During the course of a long trial, the petitioner No.1 Mr. K.D. Sharma was examined as PW-1, who filed his affidavit in evidence dated 08.01.2013 Ex.PW-1/A, in which he reiterated and reaffirmed his averments on oath relying upon site plan Ex.PW-1/1, rent receipts upto April-2011, which are Ex.PW-1/2 (colly) and copy of Sale Deed dated 04.05.2011 Ex.PW-1/3 in their favour, besides legal notice Ex.PW-1/5 and returned envelope Ex.PW-1/6. Suffice to state that the petitioners also examined three witnesses(PW-2 to PW-4) from the postal office and Ravinder Pal Singh son of the erstwhile owner Late Sardar Charanjeet Singh was examined as PW-5 and the 6 th witness was from the office of Value Added Sales Tax, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 5 of 35On the other hand, both Surender Goel and Naresh Goel, who were partners and sons/LRs of deceased Ramji Lal Goel came in the witness box and were examined as DW-1 and DW-2 respectively. They also examined three more witnesses, who were from their Banks and the office of the Sales Tax, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and their another brother Shr. Virender Goel as RW-7. Needless to state all the witnesses were duly cross-examined by respective Counsel for the parties. I shall delve upon their evidence later on in this Judgment.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
8. Ld. Trial Court/ARC vide impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2019 rendered a categorical finding that the petitioners have been able to prove their ownership to the premises in question by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 04.05.2011 Ex.PW-1/3 executed in their favour by the erstwhile owner and for the fact that DW-2 Naresh Goel admitted that he had filed a civil suit against the petitioners/landlords with regard to repairs of the roof of the tenancy premises; and therefore, the petitioners were entitled to demand, receive or collect the rent and thereby give valid discharge to the tenant. Coming to the ground under Section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act, the Ld. Trial Court/ ARC referred to the decisions in the case of Vaishaki Ram & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiana, 2008, 14 SCC; Associated Hotesl of India Ltd. Delhi v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, 1968 AIR (SC) 933; Kala & Anr. v. Madho Parshad Vaidya, 1998, 6 SCC 573; Prem Parkash v. Santosh Kumar Jain & Sons, 2017 Law Suit (SC) 872, Munshi Ram v. Bhoj Ram through LRs in CM (M) No. 1612/2010 and CM No. RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 6 of 35 8004/2005; Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v H.C. Sharma, 1988, 1 (SCC) 70; Praveen Saini v. Reetu Kapur & Anr. 246 (2018) DLT 709; Sukhpal Singh & Anr. v. Satbir Singh & Anr., 296 Capital Law Judgment 2012 (4); Padam Chand Jain v. Messrs Mahabir Pershad & Sons, SAO No. 464 of 1968; M/s. Udhey Bhan Ashok Kumar & Co. & Ors. v. Neelam Kumari, CM (Main) No. 172 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos. 2248-2249 of 2010, decided on February 24, 2010, and in the light of the case laws, on appreciation of the testimonies of DW-1 Surender Goel as also DW-2 Naresh Goel, Ld Court arrived at a conclusion that both the witnesses were giving evasive answers and made efforts to conceal the true facts; and that the tenant Ramji Lal Goel had retired from the partnership of the firm M/s. Goel Handloom House during his lifetime by virtue of partnership deed dated 16.04.1992 Ex.PW-6/3, and thereby divested himself of any control over the tenancy premises and that his re-admission into the partnership vide deed dated 19.12.2008 Ex.RW-6/5 did not obliterate the cause of action that accrued in favour of the petitioners/landlords.
9. Ld. Trial Court / ARC also observed that there was no evidence to suggest that the tenant Ramji Lal Goel had any authority to operate the bank account or for that matter to take part in business activities during the period 16.04.1992 to 19.12.2008, and rather the MOU Ex.DW-1/2 although not validly proved, showed that tenancy had been created in favour of Ramji Lal Goel and not in favour of M/s Goel Handloom House. Ld. Trial Court / ARC further found that the petitioners were able to prove that Ramji Lal Goel retired from the firm RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 7 of 35 M/s. Goel Handloom House w.e.f. 01.04.1992, which fact was intimated to the Sales Tax authorities vide letter dated 16.04.1992 Ex.RW-3/P1. Accordingly, the ld. Trial Court / ARC rendered a finding that the tenant had parted with the physical as well as legal possession of the tenancy premises in favour of his sons during his lifetime and that tenant failed to prove that any written consent had been taken from the erstwhile owner Late Sardar Charanjeet Singh with regard to such arrangement of placing his sons in exclusive possession and control of the tenancy premises consequent to his retirement in the year 1992.
10. As regards the petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is concerned, on having observed that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was held that there was no dispute that rate of rent was Rs. 1600/- per month, which had not been paid despite service of demand notice dated 21.01.2012 Ex.PW-1/5, and therefore, the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act were found to have been satisfied. Accordingly, an order under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act dated 02.07.2019 was passed directing the appellants/LRs of deceased tenant to pay or tender or deposit rent w.e.f. 01.05.2011 till the date of Judgment @ Rs. 1600/- per month with simple Interest @ 15% per annum. In compliance to such order, the Civil Nazir submitted a report to the effect that the rent had been deposited in accordance with the aforesaid directions, and accordingly no eviction order was passed for it being the case of first default and the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the DRC Act was accorded to the appellants/LRs of deceased tenant. Accordingly, an eviction order was RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 8 of 35 passed in favour of the petitioners/landlords and against the LRs of the deceased tenant, who are appellants in this appeal under Section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
11. The appellants have assailed the impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2019 inter alia on the grounds that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the erstwhile owner vide MOU dated 10.03.2008 Ex.DW-1/2 had given permission to the deceased tenant Ramji Lal Goel to involve or have benefit of services of his family members in running the business from the tenancy premises and in this regard allowing him to split up the tenancy premises thereby creating two different firms and that vide agreement dated 10.03.2008 rent was also increased from Rs. 1400/- per month to Rs. 1600/- per month viz. Rs. 800/- for each of the two separate tenancy premises; and that the ld. Trial Court did not properly appreciate the testimony of DW-1 and DW-2 with regard to the whole context or the manner in which the business had been run from the two tenancy premises; and that the deceased Ramji Lal Goel till his death on 16.09.2013 was always in firm control of the business affairs since he had been retaining complete hold over his two sons & other family members but the ld Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents pertaining to the partnership deeds including letter dated 16.04.1992 Ex.RW-3/P1 in fair and proper manner misconstruing itself that Ramji Lal Goel was never in possession and control of the premises ignoring overwhelming evidence that the deceased had been conducting the business affairs RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 9 of 35 of the two firms till his death; and the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Ramji Lal Goel never lost the legal possession of the premises; and that even the dissolution deed dated 16.04.1992 Ex. PW-6/4 did not provide for introduction of any 3rd party into the premises and neither the physical possession nor control of the tenancy premises was ever given to any third party except the family members of the deceased.
12. A reply has been filed to the grounds of appeal by the respondents/landlords and it is but obvious that the same are opposed tooth and nail.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR PARTIES
13. Mr. Sunil Lalwani, Ld. Counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that deceased Ramji Lal Goel had been allowed by the previous owner/landlord vide document dated 10.03.2008 Ex.DW- 1/2 to create two firms and run the same after splitting up the tenancy premises, each fetching Rs. 800/- per month and this document dated 10.03.2008 was binding on the successors-in-interest i.e., the petitioners/landlords, who purchased the property later on in May-2011; and that the deceased Ramji Lal Goel never retired from the business and was rather always in control over his sons & other family members running the businesses. It was urged that the moot point is: whether the tenant had lost control over the possession and whether he had been left with any right to oust the other partners or occupiers of the tenancy premises in part or whole? In this regard it was urged that the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 10 of 35 very fact that Ramji Lal Goel was inducted in the partnership firm in 2008 would establish that he retained his legal right to come back and continue to occupy the tenancy premises and take control of the business affairs. Mr. Lalwani in his submissions relied upon decision in the case of Jagan Nath (deceased) through LRs v. Chander Bhan & Ors., AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1362.
14. Per contra Ms. Savita Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners/landlords vehemently urged that the appellants/legal heirs of deceased tenant have failed to substantiate that any Memorandum of Understanding was ever executed and it was pointed out that PW-5 Ravinder Pal Singh was never confronted with the said Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement Ex.DW-1/2. Taking me through the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-2, it was vehemently urged that they were evasive and not telling the truth to the Court and their evidence would amply demonstrate that their father Ramji Lal Goel had retired from the business in the year 1992 and he was left with no right or control over business and there is no iota of evidence that even after alleged re- induction w.e.f, 19.12.2008, the deceased Ramji Lal Goel continued to take part in the business affairs of the two firms and in her submissions relying upon the case law referred by the ld Trial Court in the impugned judgment, she also claimed market rate of rent @ Rs. 1,05,450/- per month from the appellants relying upon decision in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., 115 (2004) DLT 531 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the decisions in the case of M/s. Udhey Bhan Ashok Kumar & Co. v. Neelam Kumari - CM (Main) No. 172 of 2010 decided on 24.02.2010; PrakashKaur Chadha v. Sudesh RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 11 of 35 Mehta & Ors., 2015 (1) RLR 214; Krishan Lal Aneja Through LRs v. Deepak Kumar Jain & Ors. 2004 (73) DRJ 467; Dr. Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. Raghubir Singh & Ors., 1971 RLE (Note) 123; Kulwant Kaur v. S.P. Bawa, 49 (1993) DLT 37; Dr. (Mrs.) Sushil Puri v. Jai Gopal, 135 (2006) DLT 90; Kailash Chander v. Om Prakash & Anr.,, 2003 (6) Scale 3; Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur, (2005) 1 SCC 34; Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai v. Bakerali Fatehali (Dead) by LRs, (1998) 7 SCC 608; Chanderbhan etc. v. Munnalal Ramdhan, 2001 RLR 129; Hem Chand Baid v. Prem Wati Parekh, 16 (1979) DLT 191; and Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, 2007 (2) BLJR 3030.
DECISION
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. I have also carefully perused the Trial Court record and the record of the present appeal.
16. For the purposes of deciding the present appeal, we bifurcate the discussion to deal the issues separately with regard to the findings given by the ld Trial Court/ARC on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (a) and Section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act .
EVICTION PETITION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON-PAYMENT OF RENT:
17. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act for our better understanding, which RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 12 of 35 goes as under:
Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act provides as under:- "Section 14 : Protection of tenant against eviction - (1) Not withstanding 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.
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 grounds only.
Section 14 (1) (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, 1881 (4 of 1882)."
18. It is well settled that in order to prove a case under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act, the Landlord has to show that;
i) There is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
ii) That the tenant has failed to pay or tender the whole of the legally recoverable arrears of rent within two months of the service of demand notice upon him by the landlord.
19. The term 'Landlord' is defined by Section 2 (e) of the DRC Act to mean "a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant." A landlord may or may not be the owner of the premises let out to a tenant. It is settled law that a legal owner to any premises/property has several rights one of which is that he can demand and collect rent from the tenant in his own right to reap the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 13 of 35 benefit of his property. On the other hand, the term 'tenant' is explained by Section 2(l) of the DRC Act, which contains an exhaustive definition. It is suffice to state that a tenant "means a person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent of any premises, is, or, but for a special contract, would be, payable. It also means any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy."
EXISTENCE OF RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT:
20. At the outset, there is no doubt in my mind that the tenancy premises was let out to Ramji Lal Goel by the erstwhile owner late S. Sardar Charanjeet Singh S/o Sh. Tehal Ram and the rent was lastly increased and started being paid @ Rs. 1600/- per month. Admittedly, the premises in question comprising the tenancy property was purchased by the present petitioners/landlords from the LRs of late Sardar Charanjeet Singh i.e. Ravinder Pal Singh and Rajender Pal Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 04.05.2011, certified copy of which is Ex.PW-1/3. The deceased tenant late Sh. Ramji Lal Goel in his written statement, which stood adopted by his legal heirs i.e., the present appellants on his death, in paragraph (3) of the Preliminary Objections, asserted that the tenancy premises was let out sometimes in the year 1979 @ Rs. 1400/- per month to M/s. Goel Handloom House, a partnership firm having two partners viz. Ramji Lal Goel and Bhajan Lal Goel. However, DW-1 Surender Goel as also DW-2 Naresh Goel in their affidavits, both dated 19.08.2017 Ex.DW-1/A and DW-2/A respectively, vide paragraph (2) conceded that same was let out to their father Ramji Lal Goel and he started running the partnership firm from RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 14 of 35 the same in the year 1979 onwards @ Rs. 1,400/- per month in the name of M/s. Goel Handloom House. Perusal of the partnership deed dated 06.03.1979 Ex.PW-6/1 would show that partnership was constituted by deceased tenant Ramji Lal Goel along-with Bhajan Lal and the recital in the same would show that it was Ramji Lal Goel, who was already running business from the tenancy premises under the name and style of M/s. Goel Handloom House as Proprietorship concern since September-1975. It is also uncontroverted in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 that on the purchase of property in question comprising the tenancy premises, they informed late Sh. Ramji Lal Goel in the ordinary course of human affairs and business, so much so that the demand notice dated 21.01.2012 Ex.PW-1/5 was served upon him. A bare perusal of the said notice would show that the tenant was informed that the petitioners had purchased the property in question including the tenancy premies and they demanded the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.2011.
21. Whether or not any information was given to the deceased tenant soon after purchase of the property on 04.05.2011 is immaterial since the legal notice Ex.PW-1/5 was categorical and neither the deceased tenant nor his sons viz. DW-1 Rajender Goel and DW-2 Naresh Goel or for that matter RW-7 Virender Goel could deny the title of the petitioners/landlords with regard to the premises in question. It was never the case of the deceased tenant or for that matter LRs/ present appellants that anybody else ever came forward claiming their right, title or interest in the premises or for that matter that the sons of RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 15 of 35 Late Sardar Charanjit Singh demanded any rent from them after the May, 2011. Ld. Trial Court/ARC also rightly observed that DW-2 Naresh Goel in his cross-examination conceded that he had filed a suit against the present landlords calling upon them to carry out certain repairs in the roof of the tenancy premises, and thus, they directly or indirectly admitted that the petitioners/landlords were the owners/landlords and thereby entitled to demand, collect or receive the rent and give valid discharge on payment of rent as the lawful landlords of the premises. Hence, the findings given by the Ld. Trial Court with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is beyond any challenge.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE TENANCY
22. In their eviction petition, the petitioners/landlords, categorically averred that it was one shop, measuring 19' x 37', as shown in the site plan Ex.PW-1/1, that was let to the tenant Ramji Lal Goel, which dimensions are not disputed. It is in evidence that at the time of inception of the tenancy, no agreement was executed between the deceased Ramji Lal Goel and the erstwhile owner Sardar Charanjeet Singh as such but the rate of rent for sometime was Rs. 1,400/- per month in respect of the entire shop. The plea by the learned Counsel for the appellants (LRs of deceased Ramji Lal Goel) that there have been two firms running from the tenancy premises bearing No.3 viz. Goel Handloom House and No.4 viz. Goel Foam and Furnishing since 10.03.2008 paying rent separately is without any substance.
RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 16 of 3523. First thing first, the LRs of the deceased tenant Ramji Lal Goel produced the original of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.03.2008 EX.DW-1/2 only at the time of recording of examination-in- chief of DW-1 Surender Goel on 25.08.2017). For our better understanding, the contents of Ex.DW-1/2 are reproduced hereinafter:
"UNDERSTANDING This understanding has been reached between Shri Charanjit Singh S/o Sh. Tehal Ram R/o WZ-622/D-3, Shiv Nagar and Sh. Ramjee Lal Goel (Partner M/s Goel Handloom House) S/o Sh. Prasadi Lal R/o D- 108, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
Shri Ram Jee Lal Goel as partner M/s Goel Handloom House has been running the shop as tenant under Sh. Charanjit Singh at WZ- 622/D-3, Shiv Nagar Jail Road (total area approx of 85 sq. yards) at monthly rent of Rs.1600/-.
Shree Ram Jee Lal has been tenant for more than thirty years when he has also paid Pagdi.
Now, Shri Ram Jee Lal Goel has stated that he wants to have his two separate shops to run as two separate partnership firms that is M/s Goel Handloom House (existing) and M/s Goel Foam and furnishing with his children to accommodate them for running their business. It has been agreed that the said two firms will pay monthly rent of Rs.800/- to Sh. Charanjit Singh so that he will receive some rent of Rs.1600/- per month.
Both the parties have also agreed that no one other than family will be involved in the said partnership firm. In case any person outside the family would to involved the consent of Land Lord would become necessary.
Both the parties have mutually settled and agreed out of their own free will and consent.
Sd/-
Charnjit Singh
Witnesses Sd/-
Ramjee Lal Goel
Sd/- Sd/-
Surender Goel Naresh Goel"
24. Ld counsel for the petitioners/landlords has scored another vital point when it is surprisingly seen that PW-5 viz. Ravinder Pal Singh S/o Late Sardar Charanjeet Singh was not confronted with the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 17 of 35 said document Ex.DW-1/2 except for giving a bald suggestion that his late father Sardar Charanjeet Singh had allowed them to run the aforesaid two firms viz. M/s. Goel Handloom House and M/s. Goel Foam & Furnishing from the said premises separately from 2008. PW-5 was not given any suggestion that rent was stipulated to be paid separately @ Rs.1600/- per month i.e., Rs. 800/- per month for each of said shops Nos. 3 and 4. In fact, no specific date of the Memorandum of Understanding Ex.DW-1/2 was even suggested or put to the witness. Secondly, PW-5 Ravinder Pal Singh then deposed without any challenge that at the time they sold the property to the petitioners/landlords, it was one single shop for all practical purposes under the tenancy of deceased Ramji Lal Goel although he did depose that the same were three shops bearing Nos. 3, 4, and 5, but in the same breath he also deposed testified without any challenge that for all practical purposes it was one single shop having three shutters, which was not controverted in his cross-examination.
25. Indeed, the said witness viz. PW-5 Ravinder Pal Singh was not correct in his testimony when he deposed that the details of the tenancy in favour of Ramji Lal Goel and four others were mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 04.05.2011 Ex.PW-1/3. A bare perusal of the same would show that such details were not mentioned therein and paragraph (10) of the said Deed Ex.PW-1/3 merely mentions shops in tenancy of certain tenants in general. Having observed that it is also pertinent to mention that there is nothing in the pleadings i.e. the written statement of deceased Ramji Lal Goel and / or in the testimony of the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 18 of 35 appellants, or for that matter any other witnesses that there was any pucca (पककक) or brick/cemented partition wall as between two shops. It has never been claimed to be three shops but two since 2008. The evidence brought on the record raises a strong inference that the tenant Ramji Lal Goel created a wooden partition so as to divide the tenancy shop into two separate shops. Infact, PW-5 categorically stated that the tenancy shop in question was interconnected but having separate shutters, which is quite obvious having regard to the extent of tenancy, that has not been disputed to be 19' x 37', and which fact is quite plausible having regard to the fact that it happens to be a corner shop.
26. Interestingly, DW-1 in his cross-examination recorded on 16.05.2018, conceded that he had never seen rent receipts with regard to the tenancy premises and that he did not remember if any rent receipt had been issued in favour of M/s. Goel Handloom House though he stated tendering of rent but he failed to recall when and how much rent was tendered by him. The fact of the matter is that neither there are any rent receipts proved from either side so as to suggest that rent was separately stipulated or tendered with regard to the tenancy premises bifurcating it into shop Nos. 3 and 4. The plea that rent was agreed to be paid separately is belied from the statement of account of M/s Goel Handloom House from Dena Bank, Hari Nagar branch for the period 01.04.2009 to 16.05.2010 and 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 Ex RW4/1(Collectively running into 15 pages) which clearly reveals that the rent had always been paid @ Rs. 1,600/- per month from the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 19 of 35 account of the said firm alone. There are produced no books of accounts by the appellants during the course of trial so as to suggest that the two different firms were accounting for the payment of rent differently in their business affairs either. In other words, there is nothing to discern that rent was paid separately @ Rs.800/- per month for the other firm M/s. Goel Foam & Furnishing.
27. Thirdly, the execution of aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.03.2008 Ex.DW-1/2 is not proved in accordance with law as both DW-1 Surender Goel and DW-2 Naresh Goel failed to produce its author/writer, namely their so called Accountant Kuldeep Kumar, who appears to be a witness to the said document, and neither did they produce the attesting witness one Pradeep Kumar s/o Chetan Dass. Fourthly, what further goes against the appellants is that petitioners/landlords sought to lead secondary evidence by calling the record of the three Money Orders purportedly sent by the deceased Ramji Lal Goel in his own name for two each in the sum of Rs. 4,800/- and one in the sum of Rs. 1,600/- each dated 23.11.2011, but the deceased Ramji Lal Goel denied permission to the Public Relation Officer, the Postal Account Office under the Right to Information Act to divulge the details vide his letter dated 14.11.2012, which documents are Ex. PW-4/1 to PW-4/7 and such denial of information by the deceased tenant Ramji Lal Goel invites an adverse inference against him and the appellants to the effect that had the information been supplied or shared, it might have raised a factual circumstance against him. The plea of the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 20 of 35 petitioners/landlords that the rent was tendered by Ramji Lal Goel in his own name becomes quite highly probable.
28. Fifthly, it is also pertinent to point out that in response to an application under Order XI Rule 12 CPC filed by the petitioners/landlords dated 28.05.2012 on the record, the petitioners/landlords had called upon the respondent/deceased tenant to produce the following documents:-
(a) Respective partnership deeds along with proff of their respective registration with Registrar of Firms i.e. Form-A and Form-B;
(b) Income tax and sales tax records wherein the alleged firms have been shown to be assessed by transacting the business in the tenanted premises from 1974-75 to 2012;
(c) Certificate from the respective bankers of M/s. Goel Foam and Furnishing and M/s. Goel Handloom House as to the constitution of the respective firms in their record and from what date;
(d) Information of the constitution of the firms as given in writing to the owner landlord of the tenanted premises.
29. In response thereof, the deceased tenant Ramji Lal Goel filed an affidavit dated 02.11.2012 and the stark fact that emerges out of it is that nothing was reflected in the said affidavit by the deceased Ramji Lal Goel about Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.03.2008. Further, DW-2 was not able to reveal as to who was attesting witness Pradeep Kumar at the time of execution of DW-1/2. Mere marking an exhibit on a document is not proof of its execution or the contents. The sum result of the aforesaid discussion is that the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 21 of 35 petitioners/landlords have successfully proved that it was a "single indivisible tenancy" which was let out to the deceased Ramji Lal sometimes in the year 1979 and it was partitioned sometimes in April- 2008 by raising a wooden wall so as to run two different firms from each portion without any permission or concurrence of the erstwhile owner. DW-1 conceded that there was no document available with him to show that the erstwhile owner Sardar Charanjeet Singh was ever intimated about constitution of the firm M/s. Goel Foam and Furnishing.
30. All said and done, it must be finally seen that the bare perusal of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 10.03.2008 Ex.DW-1/2 would show that it was Ramji Lal Goel, who was acknowledged as the tenant and not M/s Goel Handloom House. The aforesaid discussion, therefore, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the eviction petition had no defect at all with regard to identification and the status of the tenancy premises as being single one and it was never considered to be two different shops either by the previous owner Sardar Charanjeet Singh nor by the successor buyers i.e. the present petitioners/landlords.
SERVICE OF DEMAND NOTICE
31. At the outset, legal demand notice dated 21.01.2012 Ex.PW-1/5 was correctly addressed and the same was sent to the deceased tenant by registered post AD, the original postal receipt of which are on the record and the registered envelope Ex.PW-1/6 sent through speed post was returned mentioned that "Postman visited on 23, 24 and 25 of January-2012" and it was returned with the remarks RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 22 of 35 "बबर बबर जबनन पर भभ नहभह ममलब अतत वबमपस जबयन". It was not the case of deceased Ramji Lal Goel or for that matter the appellants that petitioners/landlords were in any way able to procure a manipulated report from the Post Office. The deceased Ramji Lal Goel and the appellants merely made a bald deposition about not receiving such demand notice and they failed to rebut the presumption invited under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act read with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, I do not find any infirmity or gross illegality or approach adopted by the ld. Trial Court in raising a presumption of service of legal demand notice dated 21.01.2015 Ex.PW-1/5 upon the deceased tenant based on the ratio in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 1999 AIR SC 3762.
NON-PAYMENT OF RENT
32. The decision on this issue would also not take long. The legal demand notice dated 01.05.2011 Ex.PW-1/5 demanded arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.2011 @ Rs. 1600/- per month. There is nothing in the written statement by deceased Ramji Lal Goel as to till which date he had paid the rent. Although he claimed that rent had been paid on regular basis but there was no worthwhile cross-examination by PW-5 Ravinder Pal on this score. No application was ever filed by the deceased tenant under Section 26 of the DRC Act for the deposit of rent tendered and refused by the landlords or for non-issuance of rent receipts. Both DW-1 Surender Goel and DW-2 Naresh Goel in their cross-examination were evasive as to till what date, month or year they had paid rent to late Sardar Charanjeet Singh or for that matter to his RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 23 of 35 two sons. They failed to produce any bank statement or books of accounts so as to suggest that they had accounted for the payment of rent to the sons of the erstwhile owner or for that matter to the petitioners/landlords.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present appeal by the appellants with regard to the findings and the ultimate decision given by the ld. Trial Court/ARC under Section 14 (1)
(a) of the DRC Act, and therefore, the order under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act directing them to pay or deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.05.2011 till the date of Judgment @ Rs. 1600/- per month with simple interest @ 15% per annum within a month thereof and continue to pay future rent at such rate by 15th of the succeeding month cannot be faulted on any grounds whatsoever. Lastly, benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act has been rightly accorded vide order dated 03.08.2019.
PETITION UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (b) OF THE DRC ACT
34. Section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act provides as under:-
"Section 14 (1) (b): that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June 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;"
35. There are plethora of case laws on the import and ambit of the expressions "subletting" or "assignment" or "parting with possession" finding place in various rent restriction laws in India. In the context of a similar provision in Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, the Supreme Court in its decision reported as RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 24 of 35 Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana,(1989) 3 SCC 56, while referring to its various previous decisions including Associated Hotel of India Ltd. Delhi v. S.B Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC 933; Dr. Vijay Kumar v. Raghbir Singh Anokh Singh, (1973) 2 SCC 597; and Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C Sharma, (1988) 1 SCC 70, inter alia, held thus:
"...to constitute a sub-letting, there must be a parting of legal possession i.e, possession with the right to include and also right to exclude others and whether in a particular case there was sub-letting was substantially a question of fact. xxx ...parting with possession is understood as parting with legal possession by one in favour of the other by giving him an exclusive possession to the ouster of the grantor... xxx ...the question whether there is a tenancy or licence or parting with possession in a particular case must depend upon the quality of occupation given to the licensee or the transferee. Mere occupation is not sufficient, in our opinion, to infer either sub-tenancy or parting with possession..."
36. After examining several case law on the subject, in the Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholakar, (2010) 1 SCC 217, the law was reiterated and summarized by the Supreme Court as under:-
"25. The legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decisions can be summarised thus:
(i) In order to prove mischief of sub-letting as a ground for eviction under rent control laws, two ingredients have to be established, (one) parting with possession of tenancy or part of it by the tenant in favour of a third party with exclusive right of possession, and (two) that such parting with possession has been done without the consent of the landlord and in lieu of compensation or rent.
(ii) Inducting a partner or partners in the business or profession by a tenant by itself does not amount to sub-RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 25 of 35
letting. However, if the purpose of such partnership is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to conceal the real transaction of sub-letting, the court may tear the veil of partnership to find out the real nature of transaction entered into by the tenant.
(iii) The existence of deed of partnership between the tenant and alleged sub-tenant or ostensible transaction in any other form would not preclude the landlord from bringing on record material and circumstances, by adducing evidence or by means of cross-examination, making out a case of sub-letting or parting with possession in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour of a third person.
(iv) If the tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and retains the control over the tenancy premises with him, may be along with partners, the tenant may not be said to have parted with possession.
(v) Initial burden of proving sub-letting is on the landlord but once he is able to establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the premises and that tenant has no legal possession of the tenanted premises, the onus shifts to the tenant to prove the nature of occupation of such third party and that he (tenant) continues to hold legal possession in tenancy premises.
(vi) In other words, initial burden lying on the landlord would stand discharged by adducing prima facie proof of the fact that a party other than the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises. A presumption of sub-letting may then be raised and would amount to proof unless rebutted."
37. Thus, a stranger acquiring possession of the tenanted premises through the tenant, wholly or partly, without the consent of the landlord, constitutes the core element of the ground of subletting, assignment or parting with possession etc. The ingredient of "parting with possession wholly or partly" is inherent in all the three limbs. It is also well settled law that the primary burden of proving the presence of a stranger in the tenanted premises and he being in exclusive possession of the whole or part of the tenancy premises is upon the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 26 of 35 landlord. Once the landlord has proven that the tenant stands excluded from the tenancy premises the fundamental facts to show that the tenants stands excluded from the tenanted premises or that he has forfeited the "right to repossess" of the whole or part thereof, that an inference of subletting, assignment or parting with arises thereby shifting the onus on the tenant to explain the legal status of the stranger in the tenancy premises.
38. Hence, the landlord is required to prove following essential conditions in order to succeed in a petition under Section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act:
"(i) The tenant sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises i.e. the sub tenant was in exclusive possession of property or part of the property.
(ii) No content in writing was taken fro the landlord by the tenant."
39. In view of the aforesaid short discussion on the proposition of law, reverting back to the instant case, in view of the discussion while deciding on the appeal against the impugned judgment in so far as the ground of eviction u/s 14(1)(a) DRC Act is concerned, the petitioners/landlords have been able to prove that the tenancy premises was let out to deceased tenant Ramji Lal Goel. Further, the petitioners/landlords are also able to show that it was a "single indivisible tenancy" which was let out to the deceased Ramji Lal Goel and rent was lastly raised payable @ Rs. 1600/- per month, which was never paid bifurcating the same for the two alleged tenancies. Most importantly, the petitioners/landlords are also able to prove the RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 27 of 35 presence of the family persons of the tenant albeit sons and the wife of one of the son in the tenancy premises, from which, as per the own case of the tenant Ramji Lal Goel, there have been running two firms since April, 2008. The moot question, therefore, arises is to: whether the deceased tenant had completely divested himself of having any control over the exclusive possession of the tenancy premises by parting over with the possession of the shop, wholly or in partly, to his family members during his lifetime? Needless to state, the onus of proving the same was upon the deceased tenant and on his death, upon his legal heirs i.e. the present appellants.
40. Without further ado, on appreciation of the evidence led by the parties to this litigation, especially the testimonies of DW-1 Surender Goel and DW-2 Naresh Goel, I have no hesitation in holding that the appellants have failed to prove on the record that the deceased Ramji Lal Goel took written consent of the previous owner Sardar Charanjit Singh to bifurcate or split up the tenancy, and thereby, run two different firms from the same and also failing to prove that the deceased Ramji Lal Goel retained exclusive possession and/or control over the running of affairs of the two partnership firms from the tenancy premises w.e.f 31st March, 1992.
THE REASONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
41. First thing first, the deceased Ramji Lal Goel in his written statement concealed a material fact that he had retired from the partnership firm M/s. Goel Handloom House w.e.f. 16.04.1992 and RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 28 of 35 there was no averment by him that he resumed partnership in the said firm w.e.f. 19.12.2008, which internal and vital facts were within his personal knowledge. Secondly, the appellants were checkmated in their cross-examination when DW-1 was confronted with the fact that Ramji Lal Goel had retired from the partnership firm M/s. Goel Handloom House during his lifetime w.e.f. 31.03.1992 and fresh partnership deed was executed on 16.04.1992 Ex.PW-6/3. It must be emphasized that all the documents that were germane to the partnership business viz., Partnership Deed dated 16.04.1992 Ex.PW- 6/4, Dissolution Deed dated 16.04.1992 Ex.PW-6/4 and the Partnership Deed dated 19.12.2008 Ex.PW-6/5 and the Retirement-cum- Partnership Deed dated 31.01.2009 Ex.PW-6/6, were only brought on the record by the petitioners/landlords on summoning PW-6 Sh. Lekh Raj Singh, LDC from the office of Assistant Value Added Tax Officer, Ward No. 60 (earlier Wad No. 37), Trade and Tax Department, GNCTD.
42. Perusal of partnership deed dated 10.04.1981 Ex.PW-6/2 would show that Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ramji Lal Goel was inducted as a partner in M/s Goel Handloom House w.e.f. 01.04.1981, which business was being run from the tenancy premises. Further, a bare perusal of partnership deed dated 16.04.1992 Ex.PW-6/3 would show that partnership firm was reconstituted by Sh. Naresh Goel S/o Ramji Lal Goel as first party by inducting Surender Goel another son of Ramji Lal Goel and recital of the same would reveal that it was first party who had been doing business from the said premises under the name and style of M/s. Goel Handloom House in partnership with Ramji RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 29 of 35 Lal Goel S/o Late Prasadi Lal till 31.03.1992; and that the recital of the partnership deed dated 16.04.1992 Ex.PW-6/3 clearly stipulated that Ramji Lal Goel and Bhajan Lal Goel had retired from the firm w.e.f, closing hours of 31.03.1992. Although DW-1 Surender Goel did not admit the execution of the said document for strangely losing his memory, which often failed in his cross-examination whenever confronted with piercing questioning, but he indeed admitted his signatures at point 'A' as one of the executant.
43. The Dissolution Deed dated 16.04.1992 Ex.PW-6/4 appears to have been executed between Ramji Lal Goel S/o Late Prasadi Lal as first party; Bhajan Lal Gupta S/o Ramji Lal Gupta as second party and Naresh Kumar Goel as third party, whereby it was acknowledged that they had been carrying on partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Goel Handloom House in terms of partnership deed dated 10.04.1981 and the first and the second party i.e. Ramji Lal Goel and Bhajan Lal Goel retired from the said firm w.e.f, closing hours of business on 31.03.1992. On being confronted and prodded about such documents, DW-1 Surender Goel strangely tried to duck the question, saying that he was unable to remember if Ramji Lal Goel had retired from the partnership firm M/s. Goel Handloom House during his lifetime. Likewise, it is the own case of the appellants that Ramji Lal Goel was re-inducted into partnership business w.e.f. 19.12.2008 vide partnership deed Ex.PW-6/5, on which DW-1 Surender Goel acknowledged his signatures at point 'A' and the recital in the same reads that Ramji Lal Goel and Jyoti Goel W/o Surender Goel RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 30 of 35 were agreed to be inducted into partnership business for expansion of business w.e.f. 20.12.2008.That is not the end of story. There is retirement-cum-partnership deed dated 31.01.2009 executed between the first party viz. Surender Goel, his wife Jyoti Goel and Ramji Lal Goel with the second party, namely Naresh Goel and the latter i.e. Naresh Goel retiring from the firm w.e.f, 31.01.2009.
44. A conjoint and comprehensive reading of the cross- examination of DW-1 Surender Goel and DW-2 Naresh Goel would show that there is no categorical averment in their affidavits filed in evidence Ex.DW-1/A and Ex.DW-2/A respectively that late Ramji Lal Goel had been continuing to do business throughout his life from the tenancy premises in either of the firms. DW-1 acknowledged in his cross-examination that from 16.04.1992 to 19.12.2009 business had been carried out from the tenancy premises solely under the name and style of M/s. Goel Handloom House and no other name and style, which contradicts that another firm M/s. Goel Foam & Furnishers was also carrying on business after the alleged splitting up of the tenancy. The testimony of the Bank witnesses, who were examined by the appellant viz. RW-4 and RW-6 clearly bring out that during the period 16.04.1992 to 19.12.2008 deceased Ramji Lal Goel had no role in operating bank account of the firm and even after alleged re-admission of the deceased Ramji Lal Goel in the partnership business w.e.f. 19.12.2008. There is no iota of evidence that he ever was authorized or operated the bank account of the firm and if the testimony of RW-4 Sh. Shashi Kumar, Chief Manager, Dena Bank, Hari Nagar, New Delhi RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 31 of 35 is believed account of Goel Handloom was never operated by deceased Ramji Lal Goel during the period 01.04.2009 to 16.05.2010 and 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011, certified copies of which bank account are Ex.RW-4/1 (colly) containing 15 pages. In fact, even death of Ramji Lal Goel was not intimated to bank as per the testimony of RW-6 Smt. Uma Kumari, Sr. Associate from SBI, Shiv Nagar, Delhi. Similarly, DW-2 Naresh Goel also cut sorry figure in his cross-examination, who failed to show that deceased Ramji Lal Goel on being re-inducted into the partnership, ever operated bank account of M/s. Goel Foam & Furnishing. He was unable to disclose if from the date of constitution of said firm M/s Goel Foam & Furnishing until death of Ramji Lal Goel whether any income tax or sales tax returns were filed with the respective authorities in respect of his father.
45. The sum and substance of the aforesaid discussion is that the testimonies of both DW-1 Surender Goel and DW-2 Naresh Goel are utterly unreliable and not inspiring confidence since they were evasive in their answers to material questions and made deliberate attempts to conceal the true facts. It is not the case of the appellants/LRs that at the time of retirement of Ramji Lal Goel on 16.04.1992, he intimated the erstwhile owner Sardar Charnjeet Singh or sought permission to leave the tenancy premises exclusively in the hands and possession of his sons. The half hearted plea by Mr. Sunil Lalwani, learned Counsel for the appellants that the very fact that despite retirement in March, 1992, Ramji Lal Goel got himself re- inducted into the partnership business in the year 2008 which would RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 32 of 35 demonstrate that he always retained control over the tenancy premises, is deceptively decorative but not worth its salt. In the contemporary Indian society where concept of Hindu Undivided Family is disintegrating with formation of nuclear families, making an assumption that a father would always retain some legally binding authority over his kith and kin so much so as to exercise control over the actions or omission of his sons in their business or occupation is highly contentious. It is not fathomable having regard to the evidence led on the record that the deceased Ramji Lal Goel had been left with any authority or legal power to force his sons to vacate the tenancy premises in his favour and thereby retain exclusive use and possession of the premises after 01.04.1992.
46. The aforesaid discussion, therefore, leads to a conclusion that deceased Ramji Lal Goel was the original tenant, who parted with the legal and physical possession and control of the tenancy premises in favour of his sons during his lifetime without retaining any control over it from 31st March, 1992, and he miserably fails to prove that he entered into a MoU dated 10.03.2008 Ex. DW-1/2 after his re-induction in the partnership business, which fact itself is patently false and concocted, Before parting with this case, I would be failing in my duties if this Court does not refer to the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants in the decision Jagan Nath (deceased) through LRs v. Chander Bhan & Ors.,(supra). The said case is distinguishable on facts, wherein the tenancy premises had been let out for residential- cum-commercial purposes and the petition for eviction was filed under RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 33 of 35 Section 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act, and with regard to the latter ground of eviction, the grievance was that original tenant Jagan Nath had parted with the possession of the premises in favour of his two sons, who were running partnership business from the tenancy premises. It was a case where tenancy had begun in the year w.e.f. 01.01.1962 and it was held that although father had retired from the business and the sons had been looking after business, it could not be said that father had divested himself all the legal rights to be in possession; and that if father has a right to displace the possession of the occupants i.e. his sons, it cannot be that tenant had parted with the possession. It may be emphasized that the said finding was given in context of the premises let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes.
FINAL ORDER
47. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case where the appellants have been evasive and patently untruthful thereby taking the justice delivery system of a ride, this is fit case where the appellants should be called upon to pay the market rate of rent, which by no means should be less than five times of the agreed rent and they should also be visited with exemplary costs. Hence, the appellants shall be liable to pay penal rent @ Rs. 8,000/- per month from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of this decision. Further, appellants are also visited with exemplary costs of Rs. 1,10,000/-.
RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 34 of 3548. Trial Court record along-with copy of this Judgment be sent back forthwith. A copy of this Judgment be sent to the Ld. Counsel for parties on their email IDs. The appeal file be consigned to Record Digitally signed Room. DHARMESH by DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2021.01.30 16:30:19 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) on 29th January, 2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge/ Rent Control Tribunal (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RCT-49/2019 Ramji Lal Goel v. K.D. Sharma Page 35 of 35