Delhi District Court
Shri. Krishan Chander Singh vs M/S. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri on 12 December, 2014
E31/13 1 12.12.2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN GUPTA, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGECUM
RENT CONTROLLER, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI
E31/13
Unique ID No. 02403C0169712013
Shri. Krishan Chander Singh
S/o Late Bhagat Singh
104, ground floor, Golf Links
New Delhi 110003 .....Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri
Through Partner
2. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.
Through Director
Both at:
2, Tribhovandas House
Scindia House,
New Delhi 110 001 .....Respondents
Date of institution : 11.11.2013
Date of arguments : 12.12.2014
Date of order : 12.12.2014
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application u/s 25(B) (4) of the DRC Act (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), filed by the tenant against the landlord/owner praying therein that he be allowed to Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 1 of 16 E31/13 2 12.12.2014 contest the eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) r/w sec. 25B of the Act in respect of the tenanted premises, i.e. ground floor flat comprising of front courtyard, verandah, four rooms with one bathroom, one WC , kitchen and store, back Courtyard, Entrance from front & back as shown red in site plan (hereinafter referred as tenanted premises) of property bearing no. 3, Pratap Singh Building , Janpath Lane, New Delhi .
2. Petitioner has filed the present petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Act, with the plea that the tenanted premises is required bonafide by him for his residence and his family members as there is no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation available with him. He is a retired Central Government Employee and is living in a rented accommodation at 104, Golf Links, Ground floor, New Delhi. He has purchased the tenanted premises vide registered sale deed dt. 30.05.2008. Premises were leased out originally to respondent no. 1 vide lease deed dt. 29.09.1970 entered into with predecessor in interest of the landlord viz PC Giri. However now respondent no. 1 has merged into respondent no. 2 company . The rate of rent is Rs. 550/ besides other charges. It is prayed that since the tenanted premises are required by him for his own residential use, his eviction petition be allowed as he has no other residential accommodation available with him in Delhi.
3. After notice of the petition, respondents filed the application for leave to contest on 13.12.2013 along with the Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 2 of 16 E31/13 3 12.12.2014 accompanying affidavit of one of the Directors. Respondent no. 1 was a partnership firm which has merged into M/s. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) Pvt. Ltd. and the company has been incorporated on 19.11.1999. There is no M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri Ltd. The partners of respondent no. 1 are also tenants in the tenanted premises . The partners and M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) Pvt. Ltd continue to be the statutory tenant. It is stated that present petition is not maintainable as the partners have not been impleaded as party and respondent no. 1 is no longer in existence and the petition is bad for non impleadment of partners who are necessary parties and for not correctly representing M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) Pvt. Ltd.
3.1 Petitioner has concealed material facts regarding his post and the Ministry in which he works. He was an Ambassador of India to UAE, whereafter he was appointed Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He had been a very high ranking official of the Ministry of External Affairs and on the basis of serving at highly influential position, he was selected to be an Ambassador of India to various countries of Middle East. He is a man of very high status and as per his own admission had taken on rent a residential premises in the most posh colony of Delhi and is paying Rs. 2,40,000/ per month as rent. The accommodation wherein the petitioner is staying is most suitable to his position and status and other relevant factors. On the contrary the photographs on record show that property in which he is presently residing cannot be compared with the quarters used for Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 3 of 16 E31/13 4 12.12.2014 employees of respondents which is a quarter in back lane of Janpath.
3.2 Petitioner has malafidely not disclosed the size of his family or pleaded the specific requirement of his family. Present petition has been filed only to get the premises vacated. He has no requirement but only a desire. Petitioner has malafidely not filed the income tax returns which would have shown his immovable / movable properties and substantial sources of income establishing the means to bear the present rent which he is paying to maintain a high lifestyle to which he is used to as per his past and present position in life and other social circumstances. There is no comparison with the accommodation where petitioner is living at present and the tenanted premises and there is no bonafide requirement of petitioner.
3.3. Petitioner cannot be recognized as a owner as no sale permission has been taken from L& DO in respect of the sale deed dt. 30.05.2008. Petitioner has purchased two quarters ie. Quarter no. 3 and 10 and has concealed the factum of alternate accommodation which is available to him in the form of quarter no. 10 . The tenanted premises is part of six double storey quarters which have been built by late Sardar Pratap Singh and is known as Pratap Singh building, which have been used as outhouses for servants since prepartition days. There are five smalls rooms in the entire quarter where the employees of respondent are residing. The entire block is in dilapidated state. The petitioner has with malafide intention not disclosed the reasons as to why he has not shifted to quarter no. 10, Janpath Lane, New Delhi Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 4 of 16 E31/13 5 12.12.2014 which is also owned by him.
3.4 The tenanted premises is neither comfortable nor convenient for petitioner and his family members to live considering his status and in comparison to the premises where he is living at present. He had earlier also filed one petition which stands dismissed by the Hon'ble High court vide judgment dt. 01.12.2013 and having failed in the said endeavour, he has filed present petition without any requirement.
4. In the reply filed by petitioner, he while denying the contents of application of respondents has reiterated the facts as stated in the petition. It is stated that tenanted premises is the only suitable accommodation available to him for his residential use as the upper portion of the property ie quarter no. 10 is in dispute and the matter is subjudice before Delhi High Court. The regular second appeal being RSA No. 167/2009 in Execution petition bearing no. 49/95 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in respect of quarter no. 10. The eviction decree was passed against the original tenant of first floor way back in 1970, whereafter appeal was filed which was dismissed and warrants of possession were issued in 1989, however subsequently due to unfortunate developments , objection was filed in 1999 by a person who has unauthorizedly and illegally occupied the first floor. The said quarter no. 10 on the first floor is in possession of some third person and the matter in this regard is pending.
Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 5 of 16 E31/13 6 12.12.2014 4.1 Petitioner has purchased the property where the tenanted
premises is located befitting his status and standard , same being in the very heart of Delhi and is one of the most expensive places in the country. The neighbours in the said locality are also respected citizens of the society and the next premises is occupied by the Foreign Policy Research Institute which was established in 1990 and the premises adjacent is occupied by quite qualified persons from Moscow. The comparison drawn by the respondents is illogical and the premises where he is living at present is causing substantial drain on his resources as he has to pay Rs. 2,40,000/ per month towards rent. He is compelled to live in the said premises despite having his own property in Delhi.
5 In the rejoinder filed by the respondents, they have reiterated the facts as stated in the application and counter affidavit and denied the facts as stated in the reply by petitioner.
6 It is argued by the counsel for petitioner that the respondents have not raised any triable issue in their application to leave to defend, same be disallowed and his petition be allowed accordingly. It is further argued that tenanted premises which is located in the heart of city is required by petitioner for his residential use as he has no other residential accommodation available with him for his residence and he is compelled to live in a rented accommodation where he is paying Rs. 2,40,000/ towards rent which is a major financial constraint / drain to his resources. Petitioner in Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 6 of 16 E31/13 7 12.12.2014 support of his contention has relied upon following judgments:
1. Prativa Devi Vs. T V Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353
2. Orissa State Financial Corporation & anr. Vs. Hotel Jogendra (1996) 5 SCC 357
3. Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222
4. M C Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors (1999) 6 SCC 237
5. Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander & Ors (1988) 3 SCC 131
6. Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 7 Per contra, it is argued by Ld. counsel for respondents that there is no bonafide requirement of petitioner as alleged as there is no comparison with the premises where he is living at present as compared to the tenanted premises. The petitioner has no plans to live in the tenanted premises which is in a very dilapidated condition and is being used since prepartition era for the use of the servants . Even today the same is in occupation of the servants of respondents. The petitioner who has been an Ambassador of India in various other countries and who is living in the most expensive locality i.e Golf Links at present would never like to live in a premises which has always been and in occupation of the servants, hence the need is malafide, with the ulterior motive, only to get the premises vacated.
7.1 It is further argued that partners of the respondents are also the tenants and have not been impleaded by the petitioner. Further petitioner has deliberately not disclosed the alternate accommodation available to him i.e on the first floor of the tenanted Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 7 of 16 E31/13 8 12.12.2014 premises i.e quarter no. 10 , which can also be used by him for meeting his requirement , if any. It is argued that since variable triable issues have been raised by him , his application be allowed and respondents be allowed to contest the present petition. Respondents in support of their contentions have relied upon following judgments:
1. Freddy Frernandes Vs. P L Mehra ILR (1973) I Delhi
2. Precision Steel & Engineering Vorks Vs. Prem DevaNiranjan Deva Tayal AIR (1982) SC 1518
3. Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand (1983) 1 SCC 301
4. Nandlal Goverdhandas & Co. Vs. Smt. Samratbai Lilachand Shah AIR 181 Bombay 1.
5. Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507
6. Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh (2001) 1 SCC 706
7. Kishan Chand Vs. Jagdish Pershad & Ors (2003) 9 SCC 151 8 Heard Ld. counsels for the parties and perused the complete record file. Under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord/land lady will be entitled to an order of eviction, if, he/she is able to show that
(a) the premises in question were let out for residential purpose or commercial purposes [as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India and another, 148 (2008) DLT 705 (SC),]
(b) he/she is the landlord/land lady and owner of the suit premises, Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 8 of 16 E31/13 9 12.12.2014
(c) the premises is required bona fide by him/her for occupation as residence for himself/herself or any member of his family dependent upon him/her for residence and for any person for whom the premises are held, and
(d) the landlord/land lady or such person has no other suitable residential accommodation.
9 Now coming to the first aspect regarding petitioner being the owner / landlord of the premises. The respondents in the entire application have not disputed the status of petitioner as that of landlord. There is no issue raised regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the entire application. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of registered sale deed in his favour dt. 30.05.2008. The respondents have merely disputed the said sale deed on the ground that no permission for entering into sale was taken from the L & DO. The said argument / objection is misconceived and not tenable.
9.1 In the present case, it has not been pleaded that there was any fraud in executing the sale deed or that the sale was executed in order to get rid of the respondents. The sale deed was executed way back in the year 2008 and the present petition has been filed in the year 2013. Interest was thus created in the property i.e the tenanted premises in favour of the petitioner in the year 2008 itself . Thus petitioner acquired the premises by transfer vide registered sale deed, and got notional possession of the premises which continued to be in Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 9 of 16 E31/13 10 12.12.2014 possession of the respondents/ their servants. The legislature in order to protect the right of tenant in such cases has also stipulated the period of five years and put the restriction on the right of the subsequent purchaser under section 14 (6) of the DRC Act. The fact that respondents are only a tenant in the rented premises is not disputed. From the sale deed and above discussion, it is evident that title of petitioner is better than that of respondents. Thus no triable issue is raised by the respondents in this regard.
10 Now coming to the argument of Ld. counsel for respondents and the objection that partners of respondent no. 1 who are also tenants in the tenanted premises have not been impleaded, the petition is bad for non impleadment of necessary parties i.e. Partners and for not correctly representing M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) Pvt. Ltd. As per the respondents themselves, respondent no. 1 which was a partnership firm has merged into M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) Pvt. Ltd and the company has been incorporated on 19.11.1999. The partners are the directors of the newly incorporated company. As per the copy of the lease deed with the erstwhile landlord dt. 29.09.1970, the tenanted premises was leased out in favour of M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri through their partner. Thus the premises was let out to the partnership firm , which has now as per the internal arrangement of respondents, merged into M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) Pvt. Ltd and the company has been incorporated on 19.11.1999. Petitioner on a safer side has impleaded both respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 in the present Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 10 of 16 E31/13 11 12.12.2014 petition. It is on this ground alone that the earlier petition of petitioner u/s. 14 (1) (b) was dismissed vide judgment dt. 02.12.2013. Since the partnership firm has merged into the company, there is no requirement of impleading the partners separately as the said partners are now the Directors / holding other position in the newly incorporated company and further the premises was let out to the said partnership firm and not to any individual partner in his individual capacity. The argument of counsel for respondents in this regard is misconceived and not tenable.
11 Now coming to the other aspect as to whether the premises is bonafide required by petitioner and as to whether he has any other suitable alternate accommodation. These are twin requirements which are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act i.e the bonafide requirement coupled with the reasonably suitable accommodation, are to be satisfied together and collectively.
12 Now coming to the plea of boanfide requirement, petitioner in very short has stated that tenanted premises is required by him for residential use for himself and for his family members as it is the only residential accommodation available with him and at present he is constrained to live in a rented accommodation where he is paying Rs. 2,40,000/ per month as rent which is causing considerable drain to his resources. The said bonafide requirement has Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 11 of 16 E31/13 12 12.12.2014 been challenged by respondents on the ground that there is no comparison of tenanted premises with the premises where petitioner is living at present as the tenanted premises is and was always used by the servants and is in a very dilapidated condition and is not upto the status of petitioner who has served as ambassador of India in various foreign countries. Except this comparative study in the location of the tenanted premises and the rented accommodation where petitioner is residing at present, the respondents have not challenged the bonafide requirement of petitioner on any other ground. The size of the family is irrelevant while considering the requirement of petitioner himself for residential or other use.
12.1 In Sudesh Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. Prabha Khanna &Anr. 153 (2008), DLT 652 it was held that :
"it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premisessuitability has to be seen for convenience of landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances including their profession, vocation , style of living , habit and background".
13 It is settled law that landlord is the best judge of his requirement. The requirement or need not be fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire and must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. It may be a need in praesenti or within a Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 12 of 16 E31/13 13 12.12.2014 reasonable proximity in the future. Petitioner who is a retired Central Government Employee has reasonably explained that the tenanted premises is required by him for his own residential use and for residential use for his family. The fact that petitioner who is a retired officer is living in a rented accommodation at Golf Links at monthly rent of Rs. 2,40,000/ is not disputed by the respondents. The comparison which respondents have drawn in respect to the tenanted premises and the rented accommodation where petitioner is living at present is immaterial with regard to the bonafide requirement of petitioner, who requires the tenanted premises for his own residential use. It is not the case of respondents that petitioner is living in his own accommodation at Golf Links or that he wants to shift from his own accommodation to the tenanted premises.
14 The rent of Rs. 2,40,000/ is quite alot for any person of any status / stature and especially when he has his own property where he can reside. Undisputedly the tenanted premises is situated at Janpath lane which is in the heart of the Delhi and well connected to the main posh areas of Delhi. Even the Golf Links where petitioner is residing at present is not very far from the tenanted premises. Janpath lane is also one of the most expensive areas of Delhi and if a person owns a property in the said area, would naturally like to live and enjoy the said area which is not only located in the heart of the city but is also well connected with the other posh areas. On the face of it and in the absence of any challenge to the bonafide requirement of petitioner, except the comparative analysis drawn by the respondents, bonafide Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 13 of 16 E31/13 14 12.12.2014 requirement of petitioner is made out and it cannot be said that his requirement is actuated with any malafide or is flimsy.
15 Now coming to the plea regarding alternate accommodation. The only alternate accommodation brought to the notice of the court by respondents is the first floor of the tenanted premises ie quarter no. 10 . Petitioner has categorically stated that the second appeal in execution petition is pending before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi and the said fact is not disputed by respondents also. Thus the first floor ie quarter no. 10 is not in possession of petitioner but in possession of some other person and the matter is still subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this regard. Thus it cannot be said that quarter no. 10 is available with the petitioner to meet his requirement for residential use. Even otherwise, as per respondents the tenanted premises is being used for the residence of their servants and from the photographs it is evident that the premises is in a very shabby and dilapidated condition. Any person, leave aside petitioner who has been portrayed as a person of very high stature by respondents themselves, would not like or even live on the first floor of such a dilapidated premises where the servants are residing on the ground floor.
16 The respondents have only made preposterous claims in respect of accommodation available with petitioner. It is settled law that landlord is the best judge of his requirement and has complete freedom in the manner of beneficial enjoyment of his property, once it Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 14 of 16 E31/13 15 12.12.2014 is not disputed that his requirement is bonafide. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that he needs the tenanted premises for his own residential use along with his family . He has specifically stated that he has no other suitable residential accommodation for his residence. From the above discussion, this court is satisfied that need of petitioner is bonafide and appears to be sincere and honest and not a mere pretext to evict the respondent/ tenant. The tenanted premises is the most suitable to meet his requirement.
17 From the above discussion and in the given facts and circumstances, petitioner has been able to show that he is the owner and has the status of landlord in the tenanted premises . He has no other alternate accommodation, the tenanted premises is the only most suitable residential accommodation which is available to him for meeting his bonafide requirement i.e. for residential use. There is no triable issue raised by respondents to allow their application to contest the present eviction petition. The application for leave to contest is accordingly dismissed. As a result of the dismissal of the application for leave to contest, petitioner is entitled to recover the possession of the tenanted premises i.e i.e. ground floor flat comprising of front courtyard, verandah, four rooms with one bathroom, one WC , kitchen and store, back Courtyard, Entrance from front & back as shown red in the site plan attached with the petition. The eviction petition is allowed. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.
18 In view of provisions of sub section 7 of Section 14 of the Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 15 of 16 E31/13 16 12.12.2014
Act, this order for recovery of possession of premises shall not be executed before the expiration of the period of six months from this date. The respondents are further restrained not to sublet or create any third party interest during the aforesaid period of six months.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN ( KIRAN GUPTA )
COURT ON 12.12.2014 SCJCUMRENT CONTROLLER
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS:NEW DELHI
Sh. Krishan Chander Singh Vs. M/s. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri & Anr Page No. 16 of 16