Delhi District Court
Smt. Charan Kaur vs Smt. Gurdev Kaur on 7 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. GOMATI MANOCHA, COMMERCIAL CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARC. No. 25454 of 16
1. Smt. Charan Kaur
W/o Sh. Mohinder Singh
2. Shri Mohinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Ram Singh
Both R/o 2568, Gali Mandir Wali,
Shadipur Khampur, New Delhi.
..........Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Smt. Gurdev Kaur,
W/o Late S. Kehar Singh
2. Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur,
W/o Sh. Kulvinder Singh
R/o WZ-85, Sahpura, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
3. Shri Tarsem Singh
S/o Late S. Kehar Singh
4. Shri Arvinder Sngh,
S/o Late S. Kehar Singh
Addresses:
i) 1,3 & 4 at: 2568, Gali Mandir Wali,
Shadipur Khampur, New Delhi.
ii) C-80, Gali No. 3, Guru Nanak Dev Colony,
Delhi-110042.
SK
......... Respondents
Date of institution : 22.03.2014
Date of order : 07.01.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The present eviction petition has been filed by Smt. Charan Kaur (wife of Sh. Mohinder Singh ) and Sh. Mohinder Singh against the LRs of Late Sh. Kehar Singh seeking eviction of the respondents from the ground floor of the suit property forming part of property no.
2568, Mandir Wali Gali, Shadipur, Khampur, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan.
It is stated that the property in question is owned by petitioner no. 1 and both the petitioners are landlords in respect of the suit property. The eviction of the respondents from the suit property has been sought on the ground of bonafide requirement of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, son of the petitioners. It is stated that Sh. Sukhwinder Singh is living with his wife and three children. He has two sons aged about 17 and 15 years and a daughter aged 13 years. It is stated that the daughter of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh needs a separate room for herself and his two sons require a separate room for themselves as well as for the relations visiting their family. It is further stated that the petitioners do not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi and their son Sukhwinder SK Singh is dependent upon them for accommodation. It is also stated that respondents have long back acquired residential premises bearing no. C-80, Gali No. 3, Guru Nanak Dev Colony, Delhi where they have shifted after locking the demised premises.
2. In the leave to defend application filed by the respondents no. 1 and 4, it is stated that they are residing at the suit premises. Only respondent no. 3 has left the suit premises to live at Guru Nank Dev Colony, Delhi. Also, respondent no. 2, who is a married daughter of late Sh. Kehar Singh is residing at her matrimonial home. It is stated that the property was initially let out to the father of respondent no. 4 and the husband of respondent no. 1, namely Sh. Kehar Singh by one Sh. Gurcharan Singh Roopra from 10.09.1962 to 12.06.1977. Thereafter nobody came to collect the rent. Then, an eviction petition was filed by petitioner no. 1 along with one Smt. Manjeet Kaur and Sh. Gurcharan Singh against Kehar Singh, the father of respondent no. 1, u/s 14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act and the Court had ordered payment of rent to Smt. Manjeet Kaur. The respondent no. 4 is till date depositing the rent in the court. The respondents have denied landlord -tenant relationship between the parties and have stated that till date no rent receipts have been issued to the respondents by the petitioners. It is further stated that the petitioners have no bonafide requirement as the petitioners' son is grown up and he is not dependent upon them for accommodation. It is, therefore, prayed that the present eviction petition may be dismissed.
SK
3. Leave to defend application was also filed the respondent no. 2 disputing the landlord tenant relationship between the parties as well as stating that the petitioners have sufficient accommodation. Respondent has also stated that no rent receipt has been issued to the respondents by the petitioners till date. It is further stated that the electricity and the water connection exist in the name of Piara Singh Sambhi and Sh. Gursharan Singh respectively.
4. Reply was filed by the petitioners to the leave to defend application filed by the respondents no. 1 & 4 stating that no triable issue has been raised by the respondents. It is stated that prior to the filing of the present eviction petition, the petitioners have filed an eviction petition titled as Manjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Kehar Singh, wherein after the death of the original tenant, the present respondents were brought on record as legal heirs and the petition U/Sec. 14(1)(a) of D.R.C. Act was disposed of by granting to the respondents the benefit U/Sec. 14(2) of the D.R.C. Act. The copy of the said order has been placed on record. It is stated that initially the property was given on lease for 20 years, beginning from the year 1970, in favour of Sh. Gurcharan Singh Roopra. On the death of Sh. Gurcharan Singh Roopra and termination of lease, the property was purchased by Smt. Manjeet Kaur and Smt. Charan Kaur on 05.09.1991. Later on, Smt. Manjeet Kaur sold her 1/2 share in the property to the petitioner no. 1. Hence, petitioner no. 1 became the absolute owner of the property in question.
SK
5. In reply filed by the petitioners to the leave to defend application filed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioners have reiterated the submissions made above. It is again stated that the petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the property in question and the electricity connection and the water connection existing in the name of any other person has no bearing on ownership rights of the petitioner no. 1.
6. In support of the contentions, the petitioners have relied upon the following documents namely site plan of the property in question, copy of petition u/s 14(1)(a) of the D.R.C. Act, filed by Smt. Manjeet Kaur, Smt. Charan Kaur and Sh. Gurcharan Singh against Sh. Kehar Singh, copy of order dated 16.05.2012 passed in the petition u/s 14(1)(a) of the D.R.C. Act in which the Hon'ble Court has held that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and Sh. Kehar Singh i.e. the deceased original tenant and predecessor in interest of the present respondents, order of mutation, sale deed in favour of Smt. Charan Kaur i.e. petitioner no. 1, photocopies of orders in RC Rev. Petition No. 10/2011 & C.M. No. 429/2011, C.M. (M). no. 1041/2011, C.M. Nos. 16799/2011 & 16800/2011, RC Rev. No. 179/2013 & C.M. No. 7332/2013.
On the other hand, the respondents have relied upon the site plan, details regarding rent receipts from 10.09.1962 to 12.06.1977, electricity bills showing electricity connection existing in the name of Sh. Piara Singh Sambhi and water bills showing water connection existing in the name of Sh. Gurcharan Singh.
SK CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS:
7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.
8. The first issue raised by the respondents is that the petitioners are not the owners/landlord in respect of the property in question. To this, the petitioners have already placed on record the sale deed in respect of the suit property as well as copy of order dated 16.05.2012 vide which the court of Ld. ARC (Central), THC, Delhi has held that the petitioners are landlords in respect of the property in question. No document has been filed and no submission has been made by the respondents alleging if the said order was ever assailed or set aside. In these circumstances, the said order has attained finality and this court need not re-consider the aspect of relationship between the parties again. Also, the respondents have nowhere stated that if the petitioners are not the landlords, then who else is the landlord in respect of the suit property. The respondents have not filed any title documents in respect of the suit property nor have they stated as to who else is the landlord or the owner thereof. The respondents have only placed on record certain electricity and water bills. The existence of electricity and water bills in the name of predecessor in interest or any other person has no bearing on ownership rights of the petitioners.
SK It was held in the case of Meenakshi vs. Ramesh Khanna & Anr., 60 (1995) DLT 524 that-
"Mere denial of ownership is no denial at all. It has to be something more. For this, first and foremost thing which has always been considered as a good guide is does that tenant say who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner? In the present case, the tenant does not say anything except denying petitioner's ownership. The tenant is completely silent on this aspect. Merely by saying that the petitioner is not the owner, the tenant is trying to ensure that the case drags on for years for trial. If leave is granted on the basis of such vague pleas, it will encourage the tenants to deny ownership of the petitioners in every case.
Thus, in the present case mere denial of ownership or landlordship by the respondents is of no avail and this does not raise any triable issue.
9. Secondly, the respondents have stated that there is sufficient accommodation available with the petitioners and there is no bonafide requirement in respect of the suit property as all the children of the petitioners are grown up and independent. In the eviction petition, the petitioners have specifically mentioned about the bonafide requirement of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, son of the petitioners SK stating that he has deficient accommodation for his family. It has been stated that Sh. Sukhwinder Singh is living with his wife and three children. His children are growing up and require separate rooms for their needs. There is no specific denial by the respondents to this averment made by the petitioners. Simpliciter stating, that the petitioners have sufficient accommodation for their needs is not enough. The requirement of space of the family of the petitioners (son, grandson, granddaughter etc.) is the bonafide requirement of the petitioners. Simply because Sukhwinder Singh, son of the petitioners is grown up and earning independently does not necessarily mean that he can not be dependent upon the petitioners for accommodation.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raghvinder Kr. Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. I (2000) SLT 211 that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and tenant can not dictate him a manner in which he should adjust himself. Similar proposition has been held in Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., VIII JT 1998 (7) SC 297 that the petitioner has all freedom to choose accommodation.
In the present case it is not up to the respondents to dictate terms to the petitioners as to how they or their family should adjust themselves. There can be no reasonable ground why the owners of the property should be made to restrict or limit their requirements of space and adjust themselves or their family in a limited space. The requirement of a separate rooms by the growing up daughter and SK sons of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh is a reasonable requirement and this court shall not curtail the right of the petitioners to seek additional accommodation for their bonafide requirement. In these circumstances, no triable issue has been raised by the respondents.
It is settled legal principle that leave to defend is granted to the tenant only in case any triable issue is raised before the court, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence.
In Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal (1982) 3 SCC 270, the Apex Court has held that -
"the prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically and in a routine manner grant leave to defend. The onus is prima-facie on the respondent and if he fails, the eviction follows."
Perusal of the case file reveals that vide order dated 06.01.2015, an eviction order has already been passed against the respondent no. 1 Smt. Gurdev Kaur, respondent no. 3 Sh. Tarsem Singh and respondent no. 4 Sh. Arvinder Singh and the revision against the said order has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble High court vide order dated 05.10.2016.
In view of the above circumstances and as no triable issue has been raised on behalf of the respondent no. 2, therefore, the application seeking leave to defend is hereby dismissed and as a SK necessary consequence thereof an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no. 2 in respect of the residential premises on the ground floor of the property bearing no. 2568, Mandir Wali Gali, Shadipur, Kham Pur, Delhi, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the petition which is marked as Mark-X (put by the court for the purpose of identification).
However, in light of Section 14 (7) DRC Act, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from the date of this order. The parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 7th January, 2017.
(This order contains 10 pages) (GOMATI MANOCHA) Commercial Civil Judge-Cum Additional Rent Controller, West District, THC, Delhi.
SK