Delhi District Court
Smt. Parveen Singh vs Sh. Tara Singh on 18 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
E. No.25597/16
In the matter of:
Smt. Parveen Singh
w/o Sh. Kamlesh Pratap Singh
r/o WZ79/C Street no.8,
Virender Nagar
New Delhi110011.
...Petitioner
vs.
Sh. Tara Singh
s/o Sh. Budh Singh
c/o WZ30C Virendar Nagar
Delhi110058.
...Respondent
Date of filing of the petition : 18.03.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 10.10.2018
Date of pronouncement : 18.04.2019*
* On 30.11.2018, 09.01.2019,22,02,2019 & 06.04.2019 judgment was not ready as no time was left. Since these are two
connected matters, both orders were required to be pronounced on the same date.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has filed the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) R/w Section 25B of DRC Act.
judgment E. no.25597/16Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 1/14 1.1. On 01.07.1995, the respondent was inducted as a tenant by the father of the petitioner in one shop measuring 6'x9' ft. at property no.WZ 30 C, Virendar Nagar, Delhi110058 (hereinafter referred to as tenanted shop). The last paid rent is Rs.845/ per month. 1.2. Vide registered sale deed dated 08.08.2003, Sh. Nand Lal, father of the petitioner transferred the aforementioned property WZ30 C, Virender Nagar, Delhi to the petitioner, Smt. Seemaanother daughter of Sh. Nand Lal, Sh. Narender and Smt. Nimmywife of Sh. Nand Lal (mother of petitioner). Thereafter by mutual settlement, the said property was partitioned by metes and bounds. Half share of the aforementioned property came to the present petitioner and she became the landlady of the respondent.
1.3 The petitioner is residing in the rented premises at WZ79C, top floor, Gali no.8, Virender Nagar, Delhi, she is paying the rent of Rs.7,200/ per month with 10% annual increment. Husband of the petitioner is running computer coaching Institute under the name and style of 'Compworld Information Technology'. This institute is being run at WZ judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 2/14 30, Virender Nagar, Delhi.
1.4 Two rooms in the back portion of the ground floor of the aforementioned property are in the possession of the petitioner. Out of these, one room is used as office of the Institute and the other room is used as conference room. Three rooms at the first floor of the said property are also in possession of the petitioner. Out of these three rooms, two rooms are being used as computer labs and one room is used as classroom. There are more than 50 students in the coaching Institute. Husband of the petitioner requires more rooms to accommodate the students.
1.5 The petitioner has agency of LIC and she is working as an Insurance Advisor. The petitioner has good clientele and she needs a proper office and space for dealing with her clients.
1.6 The petitioner can also shift along with her family to the upper floor (Sic) of the aforementioned property.
judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 3/14 1.7 Vide order dated 21.08.2013, leave to defend was granted to the respondent.
2. Written statement filed.
2.1 It is stated that Sh. Nand Lal father of the petitioner inducted the respondent as a tenant in the tenanted shop. The petitioner sent the legal notice dated 11.05.2012 (Sic) to the respondent. In para no.2 of the additional submissions, there is reference to notice dated 12.08.2011. Through this notice, for the first time the respondent was intimated about the transfer of property by Sh. Nand Lal in favour of his daughters including the present petitioner and his wife . In this notice, she mentioned about the sale deed made in the year 2003. It is stated that Smt. Nimmywife of Sh. Nand Lal, Smt. Seemadaughter of Sh. Nand Lal and Sh. Narender made a registered gift deed dated 01.10.2011 in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of this, rent was claimed by the petitioner from the respondent. Through this notice, for the first time the petitioner claimed to be the owner of the said property including the tenanted shop and claimed arrears of rent @ Rs.8000/p.m. (Sic). On the basis of this, rent was claimed by the petitioner from the respondent. Father of the judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 4/14 petitioner took Rs.50,000/ as refundable security and Rs.2 lakhs as Pagdi from the respondent.
2.2 Husband of the petitioner is running a sham computer institute. The same has been created for the purpose of getting the remaining two tenants (including the present respondent) evicted. There are only 45 students in the socalled institute. Computers have been put in two rooms on the first floor. Rest of the rooms are lying vacant. The entire property is lying vacant and unused.
2.3 In the front portion of the said property of which the petitioner is claiming to be the owner , there are three shops one shop is occupied by the respondent; the other shop is occupied by Sh. Nayabuddin (respondent in the connected matter RC/ARC no.25596/16). One shop is in occupation of the petitioner, which was got vacated from the previous tenant. This shop is only depicted as a lobby in the site plan filed by the petitioner.
3. Replication filed by the petitioner wherein the averments made in the judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 5/14 petition are reiterated and the contentions raised in the reply are denied.
4. Application for bringing on record subsequent facts was filed by the respondent. It is stated that the petitioner along with her family was staying in a rented accommodation. Now the petitioner has shifted her residence to the first floor of the aforementioned premises. The computer institute allegedly run by the husband of the petitioner at the said floor, no more exist.
4.1 There is nothing on record to suggest that any written reply was filed to this application.
4.2 In the written submissions filed by the respondent, the contents of the application have been repeated.
4.3 In the written submissions filed by the petitioner, there are no specific arguments with regard to the said application. 4.4 No specific oral arguments were addressed with regard to the said application. In her petition, the petitioner has already stated that she can shift along with her family in the premises at the upper floor of the said premises. It shows that the petitioner has an intention to shift back to the judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 6/14 said portion of the said property. The respondent has not filed any material to support the contentions. However, in the absence of any specific denial by the petitioner, the application is allowed.
5. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE 5.1 Petitioner examined herself as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The witness was duly crossexamined on behalf of the respondent.
5.2 Vide separate statement dated 30.10.2014, the petitioner closed petitioner's evidence.
6. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE 6.1 Son of the respondent Sh. Jaspal Singh/GPA examined himself as RW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A. He was duly cross examined.
6.2 Vide separate statement dated 01.02.2017, the respondent closed respondent's evidence.
7. FINAL ARGUMENTS 7.1 Vide order dated 10.10.2018 an opportunity was granted to the judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 7/14 parties to file written submissions within four weeks. 7.2 Written submissions filed by the parties perused.
8. For deciding a petition Under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act following points are to be considered :
a. Landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner(s) and the respondent(s).
b. Bonafide need of the petitioner(s) / family member(s) / dependent(s).
c. Availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner(s) / family member(s) / dependent(s).
8. (a). Landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner(s) and the respondent(s).
8(a)(i) It is the admitted case of the respondent that he is a tenant in the tenanted shop. He was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted shop by the father of the petitioner. The respondent claims that for the first time the petitioner informed him about transfer of the said property through notice dated 15.11.2012. Further vide registered gift deed dated 01.10.2011 the said property came to the petitioner. In the written judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 8/14 statement, no specific ground regarding the bar of Section 14 (6) of Delhi Rent Control Act is taken. In the written submissions, the respondent has taken this point. Since it is a legal point, the same can be taken at any point.
8.(a)(ii) It is not denied by the respondent that Sh. Nand Lal, father of the petitioner owned the said property. The sale deed dated 08.08.2003 and the gift deed dated 01.10.2011 (in the gift deed Ex. PW1/2 at page no.4 the date of gift deed is mentioned as 30.09.2011) are not denied by the respondent. Photocopies of the same are Ex.PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2 respectively. Vide sale deed Ex. PW1/1 undivided share of the said property came to the share of the petitioner. Vide gift deed Ex. PW1/2, the other co sharers of the said property gave their share in the said property to the petitioner. It shows that at the time of execution of the gift deed Ex. PW1/2, the petitioner did not 'acquire' any fresh right/interest in the said property. She has rights in the said property since 08.08.2003 i.e. the date of sale deed Ex. PW1/1. Even otherwise, the petitioner is one of class I legal heirs of admitted landlord/owner of the suit property. There is no fresh acquisition of interest by the petitioner in the said property. judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 9/14 The bar of Section 14 (6) of Delhi Rent Control Act, will not apply. In the cross examination dated 02.12.2015, the respondent/RW1 stated that he has paid the monthly rent regularly @Rs.845/ per month by way of money order. This is also an admission of the fact that the petitioner is the landlady of the respondent with regard to the tenanted shop.
(b). Bonafide need of the petitioner(s)/ family member(s)/ dependent(s).
8.(b)(i) It is the case of the petitioner that she is residing in a tenanted premises. The application of the respondent for bringing on record subsequent facts has been allowed. In the application, it is stated that due to the shifting of the petitioner to the first floor of the aforementioned property the computer institute allegedly run by the husband of the petitioner has now been closed. As such, there is no need for the said computer institute. I have seen the site plan Ex. PW1/3. The first floor is shown to have three rooms, one store and one portion covered with asbestos sheet. In the petition, it is written that two rooms in the back portion of the said property are being used for the computer institute. One room is used as office and other room is used as conference room. On the first floor, there are three rooms. Out of three rooms, two rooms judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 10/14 are being used as Lab where the computers are installed for practical training of the students. If the petitioner has shifted to the first floor of the said property, it is still not clear how much portion on the first floor she has occupied. As already clarified, two rooms on the first floor were used for computer lab. If the said rooms have been occupied by the petitioner, it would show that now there is even less space available for the computer institute as compared to earlier. The computer institute is on the ground floor as well as on the first floor. There is nothing on record to show that the said institute has been completely closed down. It is further the case of the petitioner that she is an LIC agent. She needs office for her profession. In the photographs Ex. PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/10, the running of computer institute can be seen.
8.(b)(ii) On the other hand, the respondent in his written statement has merely denied the case of the petitioner. It is baldly stated that a sham computer institute is being run. It is also claimed that Sh. Nand Lal, father of the petitioner wants to construct a big residential cum commercial complex in the said property. In this regard, Sh. Nand Lal entered into a collaboration agreement with one builder and constructed one basement, judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 11/14 ground floor and 4 floors above the ground floor (Sic).
8.(b)(iii) No material regarding the said construction by the father of the plaintiff is filed on record. The respondent has not taken any specific ground regarding the need for computer institute being a need for additional accommodation. It is for the respondent to take up this ground and prove the same.
8.(b)(iv) The petitioner has claimed that she is residing in the tenanted premises, at WZ79C, Top Floor, Gali no.8, Virender Nagar, Delhi. At the time of her examination on 30.10.2014, she mentioned her address as WZ166A, Virender Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent has not alleged anything to show that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has acquired new property WZ166A, Virender Nagar, New Delhi. On the contrary, now it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has shifted along with her family to the said property.
8.(b)(v) The petitioner claims that she is an LIC agent and she needs space to run an office. There is nothing on record to show that the judgment E. no.25597/16 Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 12/14 petitioner is working as an LIC agent. The respondent has also not produced any evidence to show that the petitioner is otherwise gainfully employed. There is no specific denial regarding the petitioner being LIC agent. Further the petitioner/dependent need not be an expert in the proposed business/profession (subject to legal/statutory requirement). During the cross examination dated 30.10.2014, the petitioner admitted that she was residing in the suit property till 2009. Thereafter she shifted to rented accommodation. The present petition was filed in March, 2013. It was not filed immediately after the petitioner shifted to a rented accommodation.
8(b)(vi) The petitioner has claimed bonafidy need on three counts firstly, extra space for running the computer institute of her husband; secondly, space for establishing her office as LIC agent and thirdly for use of the tenanted premises and/or said property as residence. As per the case of the respondent now, the petitioner has shifted to the first floor of the said property. The petitioner is free to use the space available in the said property as per her own convenience. As such, the need of the petitioner is bonafide.
judgment E. no.25597/16Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 13/14
(c). Availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner(s) / family member(s) / dependent(s). 8(c)(i) The onus to prove this point is upon the respondent. No specific averments are made by the respondent regarding any reasonable/suitable alternative accommodation. The respondent has not given the details of any other property owned by the petitioner. The respondent has failed to prove this point.
9. In view of the above, the petition under Section 14 (1) (e) R/w Section 25B of DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled to recovery of possession of the tenanted shop/premises i.e. one shop measuring 6'x9' ft. at property no.WZ30 C, Virendar Nagar, Delhi110058.
10. This order, however, shall not be executable for a period of six months from today as per Section 14 (7) of DRCT Act.
11. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by
RAJINDE RAJINDER SINGH
R SINGH Date: 2019.05.01
15:15:33 +0530
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER SINGH)
COURT ON 18.04.2019 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI
an
judgment E. no.25597/16
Smt. Praveen Singh vs. Sh. Tara Singh Page..... 14/14