Delhi District Court
Harjit Singh vs Padma Sehgal on 17 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT
CONTROLLER, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Presided By: Ms. Swati Sharma, DJS
RC ARC No.: 60/2019
SH. HARJIT SINGH
WZ-54, Gali No.2,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. SMT. PADMA SEHGAL (Wife)
W/o Late Ved Prakash Sehgal
2. Ms. RANI SEHGAL (Daughter)
D/o Late Ved Prakash Sehgal
3. Smt. PAYAL NAGDEV (Daughter)
D/o Late Ved Prakash Sehgal
4. Smt. DEEPAL SEHGAL (Daughter)
D/o Late Ved Prakash Sehgal
All residing at:- Shop No.8-B,
Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-24.
...Respondents
Petition for Eviction of Tenant under Section 14 (1) (b) & (e) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958
Date of Institution: 16.09.2019
Date of reserving order: 09.08.2024
Date of Judgment: 17.08.2024
RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1) (b) (e) DRC Act, seeking eviction of the respondents late Sh. Ved Parkash Sehgal which is under possession and occupation of his legal heirs in respect of premises no.8B, Pushpa Market (Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi- 110024 (hereinafter referred as to demised premises).
2. It is stated that petitioner is the owner of the property no.8 (32 sq. yds.) and the back portion measuring 59.7 sq. yds as a godown, Pushpa Market (Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024 which was allotted by the L&DO vide lease deed dated 14.04.1981. It is stated that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members has got any commercial property available in entire Delhi except the property in question. It is stated that the petitioner seeks to vacate this property from the respondents for his bonafide purpose. It is stated that the respondents have not paid the rent to the petitioner for more than 10 years and he has sublet the shop to some unknown people and are fetching higher rents from them. It is stated that the entire property is occupied by eight tenants including the respondent herein and the petitioner is taking individual steps for evicting the other tenants for committing the acts of sub-letting and misusing the property in question as per their own will and accord.
RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 2 of 19
3. It is stated that the petitioner is a retired Govt. servant and has been living in rented accommodation with mere income of survival for more than 35 years. He has no other business or accommodation for his residence or any other property for use of residential or commercial purpose. He has to support his family consisting of 11 members which comprises of three sons and his 4 grand children who are dependent on the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner requires the said property for his bonafide need and requirement for building his residence for his family as well as to carry out business for commercial purposes for his family members and make better livelihood for his family and himself. Hence the petition.
4. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora are claiming to have purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 26.03.2019 as such they are necessary parties to the suit. It is stated that the petition is filed with malafide intention to harass and humiliate the respondents and that the present petition is without any need for bonafide requirement as the petitioner is not owner of the suit premises. It is stated that the petition is meritless as there is no subletting of the suit premises as the respondents have not parted with the possession of the suit premises to anyone and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the respondents are in occupation of the demised premises as tenants and are running their business of sale of readymade garments. It is stated that the electricity connection is in their name and they are paying the RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 3 of 19 electricity charges regularly. It is stated that Ved Parkash Sehgal was the tenant in the demised premises and since his demise the present respondents are in use and occupation of the demised premises as tenants.
5. Replication was filed by the petitioner to written statement of the respondents in which the submissions of fact in the written statement were denied and averments of the plaint were reiterated. The petitioner denied that he has sold the suit property to Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora by way of registered sale deed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the matter is pending before the court of learned District Judge where the petitioner has challenged the sale deed.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
6. In support of his case, petitioner got himself examined as PW1. The witness reiterated and reaffirmed the facts mentioned in the plaint on oath. Certain documents were also exhibited which are as under: -
a) Original site plan is exhibited as Ex.PW1/1.
b) Copy of lease deed between the petitioner and respondent is marked as Mark A.
c) Copy of conveyance deed and lease deed along with allotment letter is marked as Mark B.
d) Copy of rent agreement of 2018 and 2019 is marked as Mark C (colly).
e) Copy of Bank statement of 2018 and 2019 is marked as Mark D(colly).
RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 4 of 19 The witness was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for respondents and thereafter the petitioner's evidence was closed.
7. In support of his case, respondents got himself only respondent no.2 as RW1. The witness reiterated and reaffirmed the facts mentioned in the WS on oath. Certain documents were also exhibited which are as under:
a) My Aadhar card is exhibited as Ex.PW1/1.
b) Copy of my voter-I-card is hereby de-exhibited from
RW1/2 and marked as Mark A.
c) Copy of sale deed dated 26.03.2010 is hereby de-exhibited
from RW1/3 and marked as Mark B (attached with the WS).
d) Original deposit receipts are Ex.RW1/4 to Ex.RE1/6 respectively.
e) Copy of demand notice dated 31.03.2012 is hereby de-exhibited from RW1/7 and marked as Mark C.
f) Copy of reply to the demand notice dated 31.03.2012 is hereby de-exhibited from RW1/8 and marked as Mark D. The witness was cross-examined at length by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no.1, 3 and 4 did not lead any evidence. Hence, after the cross examination of RW1, respondent's evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
8. I have heard the final arguments at length on behalf of both the parties and perused the record carefully. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 5 of 19
i) Pushpa Sharma Vs. V.V. Gujaral & Ors., 2014 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
ii) Vinod Kumar Jain & Sons HUF Vs. Sarika Enterprises & Ors., 2012 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
iii) Raj Kumar Khaitan Vs. Bibi Zbaida, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The respondents has relied upon the following judgments:-
i) Anjum Nath Vs. British Airways 226 (2016) DLT 306
ii) 2001 CRI Law General 1288 DB Delhi
iii) M.B Ramesh Vs. K.M Veeraje URS (2013), 7 SCC
490.
iv) Mudasan Vs. Venkatnarayan AIR 2016 SC 2250.
v) Musauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam, AIR (2010) SC 3813.
vi) Khemchad Vs. Arjan Singh (2013) 138 DRJ 154
9. The petitioner has sought eviction of the respondents on two grounds i.e. (i) Sub-letting of the demised premises and
(ii) Bonafide Requirement. Both the grounds taken by the petitioner are being dealt with one by one.
Sub-letting U/s 14 (1) (b) DRC Act
10. The petitioner may seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of subletting u/s Section 14 (1)(b) DRC Act. Relevant portion is reproduced as under:
RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 6 of 19 "(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;"
11. The case of the petitioner is that respondent has parted with possession of the suit property and now property is in possession of some other unknown persons. After consideration of the evidence led by the parties and materials placed on record, this court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent has parted with possession of the demised premises or has sublet the same. RW1 in her evidentiary affidavit Ex.RW1/A stated that she has not sublet the tenanted shop to anyone at any point of time and is in occupation of tenanted shop as on date. These statements made by the respondents in their WS as well as evidentiary affidavit of RW1 have not been controverted by the petitioner during the cross examination of the RW1 and the petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that some other person is currently in occupation of the tenanted premises. Simply stating that the respondents have sublet the tenanted premises to some unknown persons is not going to suffice until and unless atleast some credible fact is brought on record. The petitioner has not even disclosed about the time as to since when the tenanted premises have been let out by the respondents to unknown persons. There is nothing on record to support the case of the petitioner that the respondents have parted with possession of the tenanted premises. Therefore, it is held RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 7 of 19 that petitioner has failed to prove that respondent has sub-let the tenanted premises without permission of the petitioner.
Bonafide Requirement U/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act
12. To succeed in the case U/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients:
(a) Ownership in respect of demised premises
(b) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(c) Petitioner bonafidely requires the demised premises;
(d) Petitioner does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation with him/her.
13. The respondent has opposed the petitioner's application on the basis that there is no existing landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The respondent claims that the petitioner has already sold the suit property to Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora, and as a result, the petitioner is not the owner of the suit property. On the other hand, the petitioner asserts ownership of the suit property based on a conveyance deed dated 14.04.1981 in favor of the petitioner. The respondent contends that since the petitioner has sold the suit property, the petitioner is not entitled to seek an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, as the petitioner is no longer the owner of the demised premises.
14. According to the respondent, a sale deed was allegedly executed by the petitioner in favor of Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora on 26.03.2010. However, the petitioner has denied the execution of any such sale deed. RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 8 of 19 Furthermore, the petitioner has argued that a suit seeking the cancellation of the sale deed dated 26.03.2010 has already been filed by the petitioner against Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora, and that the said suit is currently pending before the Court of the Learned District Judge.
15. The respondent has argued before this court that, in light of the sale deed, the petitioner can no longer be considered the landlord of the respondent. Consequently, the respondent contends that the petitioner is not entitled to an eviction order under the provisions of the DRC Act. The central issue, therefore, revolves around the conflicting claims regarding the ownership of the demised premises and the validity of the alleged sale deed, which is the subject of a separate legal proceeding.
16. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the materials submitted, and the evidence presented, the following facts of the case are not in dispute. Firstly, the respondents have always been paying rent to the petitioner because RW1 in her cross examination clearly stated that "I deposit rent for the said premises to the account of Sh. Harjit Singh, who is my uncle". It is the own case of respondents that they have been depositing the rent in court from 2011. Secondly, the respondent never received any letter of attornment from the petitioner asking attornment in favour of the subsequent owners i.e. Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora. The respondent has also never paid any kind of rent to the alleged subsequent owners/ Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora. There is one document Mark D which is a copy of reply to the demand notice dated 31.03.2012 sent by one RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 9 of 19 of the respondents, Padma Sehgal to Sh. Pradeep Arora. The said letter has been placed on record by the respondents itself and RW1 accepted the document mark D to be correct. RW1 admitted that the respondent no.1 replied the letter sent by Sh. Pradeep Arora questioning about the sale/purchase of the demised premises and refusing to pay rent to Sh. Pradeep Arora without any court order. It is also to be noted that Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora had never sought to be impleaded in the present case.
17. It is an admitted case that the respondents entered in the possession of the property as a tenant on payment of monthly rent of Rs.150/-. In cross examination of RW1, she stated, "I deposit rent for the said premises to the account of Sh. Harjit Singh, who is my uncle". In her affidavit she has also admitted that the petitioner was the owner of the suit property and her father was the original tenant in the demised premises under the tenancy of petitioner. She has further stated that she has been paying rent to the petitioner only because of orders of court u/s 27 of the DRC Act. Since, the respondent has always been paying or depositing rent in favour of the petitioner, the landlord tenant relationship between the parties subsists. The status of the respondent as a tenant cannot change.
18. In the light of the above undisputed facts, thus, when status of respondent is clearly established as that of a tenant in the demised premises, then the respondent cannot challenge ownership claim of the petitioner over the demised premises, in light of the express bar given U/s 116 Indian Evidence Act. There RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 10 of 19 has been no attornment by the petitioner in favour of Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora. The respondents have never paid or tendered rent to them. Further, the respondents refused to deposit the rent to Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora even after receiving letter of demand from Sh. Pradeep Arora. Prior to the alleged sale deed, the respondents have admitted the petitioner to be owner/ landlord of the tenanted premises and they have been regularly paying rent to the petitioner U/s 27 of DRC Act. The respondent has not proved the execution of sale deed before this court. Furthermore, it is now well established that the question of ownership is not to be decided in a petition under Section 14 (1)(e) DRC Act, as in a title suit. The landlord merely has to show a better title than the respondent in an eviction petition under DRC Act. In the present matter, the petitioner has produced his ownership documents as well as established himself as landlord through various documents. Thus, the respondents have failed to raise any issue with respect to ownership of demised premises or existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties
19. In an eviction petition, the petitioner need not prove absolute ownership. The petitioner only needs to show that he has a better title than that of the respondent. Any imperfectness in title of the petitioner cannot come in the way of the eviction of the tenant. Reliance is placed upon Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudesh Kumar Dass in RC Rev. No. 136/12, decided on 22.08.2013 (Delhi HC), Shanti Sharma Vs. Smt. Ved Prabha [AIR 1987 SC 2028], Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi reported as 157 (2009) DLT 450, Sheela and ors Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 11 of 19 Prem Parkash, (2002) 3 SCC 375 and Sushil Kanta Chakarvarty Vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, 79 (1999) DLT 210. It is an established principle that complex questions of title cannot be adjudicated in a rent petition before the Rent Controller. As far as the respondent is concerned, the petitioner is recognized as the owner of the suit property. The respondent has no involvement in the title suit that is pending between the petitioner and the alleged subsequent owners, Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora. Therefore, based on the reasons outlined above, it is concluded that the petitioner is indeed the owner and landlord of the demised premises.
Bondafide Requirement
20. The petitioner has asserted that the demised premises are needed by him and his family members to start a business for earning a livelihood and for residential purposes. The petitioner is a retired government servant currently living in rented accommodation. He has the responsibility of supporting 11 family members, including three sons and four grandchildren. It has been mentioned that the demised premises are part of a property comprising 09 shops, for which separate eviction petitions are currently pending in different courts. At present, the petitioner has access to only shop no. 8A.
21. The respondent has contested the petitioner's claim of bonafide requirement, arguing that the petitioner has not presented any other witnesses to substantiate that his family members are dependent on him. Additionally, the respondent points out that the petitioner has failed to specify the business RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 12 of 19 purpose for which the property is needed. The respondent further alleges that the petitioner's true intention is to take possession of the demised premises in order to demolish and reconstruct the property, with the aim of renting it out at a higher rate. The respondent also asserts that the petitioner owns other immovable properties in Dwarka and that one of the petitioner's grandsons is employed in the Bollywood industry. It is further claimed that one of the petitioner's daughters-in-law owns a property in Govindpuri and operates a business under the name M/s Swaroop Fashion Property. The respondent argues that all of the petitioner's sons and daughters-in-law are self-employed and are not financially dependent on the petitioner.
22. The petitioner has claimed that the demised premises are necessary for both residential purposes and for establishing a commercial business. It is stated by the petitioner that he is not sure of what business he will start and the same shall be decided after obtaining eviction orders from the courts. Currently, the petitioner plans to open a retail clothing shop on the ground floor of the premises and use the first and second floors to build his residence.
23. In his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A, the petitioner stated, "That the petitioner currently residing in a rented accommodation and surviving on mere income from independent lievelihood a working in private companies. The petitioner is retired Govt. Servant and has been living in rented accommodation with mere income of surivival from more than 35 years. He has no other business or accommodation for his RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 13 of 19 residence or any other property for use for residential or commercial purpose. He has to support his family consisting of 11 members which comprises of three sons and his 4 grand- children who are dependent on the petitioner. The current rent of petitioner's house is amounting to Rs.16,500 per month while the rent being derived from the above said property is Rs.130/- (approx) p.m. from each shops."
24. The above statement of the petitioner remained uncontroverted in his cross examination and the respondent has not brought any evidence on record to rebut the same. During cross-examination, the respondent's counsel asked the petitioner a single question. The petitioner responded, "I cannot tell presently what are the contents of my evidentiary affidavit as I have filed it long time ago". Beyond this question, the respondent's counsel did not challenge the contents of the affidavit nor put any suggestions to rebut the assertions made therein. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by a witness. It is during cross-examination that a party has the opportunity to challenge the facts and assertions made in an affidavit and to undermine the credibility of the witness. It is a well-established principle in law that when a party presents evidence, and the opposite party doesn't challenge it even though it had the chance, the court can consider the unchallenged evidence may be deemed admitted. In the present case, the respondent's counsel only inquired about the witness's present recollection of the affidavit but refrained from questioning the substantive content or disputing the specific assertions made therein. Accordingly, RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 14 of 19 statement made by the petitioner in the affidavit should be accepted as true along with the supporting documents.
25. As per the affidavit, the petitioner and his family members are residing in rented accommodation, and they require the demised premises to run business. When the petitioner himself is residing in a rental accommodation it can be safely concluded that requirement of the petitioner is bonafide. It is well established that the tenant is not entitled to weigh the bonafide requirement of petitioner against his own need for the demised premises. Thus, in view of the above well settled position of law, it is not open to the respondent to claim that the petitioner has no bonafide requirement for starting his own business at the demised premises.
26. In this case, the petitioner has repeatedly mentioned that the specific business to be started will be decided by the family after seeking eviction order qua the tenants from all the tenanted premises. The demised premises is one of nine shops owned by the petitioner, and there are separate eviction cases pending against the other tenants. The petitioner has a plan for how the property will be used once all tenants are evicted. Currently, all the shops, except one, are still occupied by tenants. Additionally, there is ongoing litigation concerning the ownership of the suit property.
27. It has also been contended on behalf of the respondent that the suit property is purely for residential purpose to be built with approval of Chief Commissioner and therefore RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 15 of 19 no commercial activity can be run from the said premises. On the other hand, the petitioner has stated in his petition that the property is mixed land and can be used for both commercial as well as residential purpose. No evidence has been led by either of the parties in support of their rival claims. Furthermore, bonafide requirement of the landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is not to be tested from the convenience and view point of tenant. The landlord being owner of the tenanted premises, is entitled to put the said tenanted premises to use for his bonafide requirement, in manner as deemed fit by the landlord. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to which other property might be suitable for the purposes and requirements of the landlord or how the landlord can adjust best according to his needs in the property already available to him. The bonafide requirement of the petitioner is to be presumed on the basis of the pleadings disclosed in the present petition. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in Abid-ul-Islma Vs. Inder Sain Dua in Civil Appeal no. 9444 of 2016 decided on 07.04.2022.
28. As already noted above, the tenant is not entitled to weigh the bonafide requirement of petitioner against his own need for the demised premises. It is upon the discretion of the petitioner to use all his properties in a manner as deemed fit by him. It is pertinent to mention here that no doubt the respondent is in possession of the demised premises for a long period of time, and an eviction order will cause inconvenience to the respondent resulting in his dispossession. However, it has been categorically held in the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 16 of 19 India in Mohd. Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand, 2012(2) SCC, 155 that any order of eviction is likely to cause hardship to the tenant who is being asked to move out of the premises, but depriving any person from occupying his own premises, is likely to result in more hardship. Thus, the respondents might be worthy of sympathy, but that does not give them any immunity from an eviction order.
29. In the facts of the present case the petitioner and his family have been living in rented premises despite being owners/ landlord of the tenanted premises for the last many years. The petitioner being retired and his family being dependent on him require the tenanted premises for running their own business. Apart from the suit property the petitioner is not owner of any other property. Therefore, in my view, the court must consider the current requirement of the petitioner and his family. Further, the fears of the respondent that the petitioner shall re let the property at higher rent or sell the property or will not occupy the property are assuaged by section 19 of the DRC Act wherein right of re - entry into the property has been given to the tenant in such a scenario.
30. This court finds that the petitioner has proved his bonafide requirement in the present case. When the requirement of the petitioner is at present there, he cannot be denied eviction on the mere aspersion that he might later rent the property to third persons or not use the property himself as sufficient protection is provided by the DRC Act.
RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 17 of 19 Other suitable alternative accommodation
31. The respondent has pointed out that the petitioner has additional accommodation available as petitioner has received possession of shop no. 8A. The respondent also asserts that the petitioner owns other immovable properties in Dwarka and that one of the petitioner's grandsons is employed in the Bollywood industry. It is further claimed that one of the petitioner's daughters-in-law owns a property in Govindpuri and operates a business under the name M/s Swaroop Fashion Property. However, the respondent has not led any evidence to prove that the petitioner is the owner of other properties also or that the petitioner's sons and daughters-in-law are self-employed and are not financially dependent on the petitioner.
32. The petitioner's case is that his family is huge consisting of 11 members including 3 sons and 4 grandsons. Shop No. 8 A is in occupation of one grandson and the petitioner is in requirement of settling his other family members as well who are dependent on him. In view of circumstances of the petitioner, it is held that there is no other suitable alternate accommodation available to the petitioner.
33. In view of the discussion above, the petitioner has proved that he is owner/ landlord of the demised premises and he has a bonafide requirement of the same and that he does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation available to him. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to orders of eviction in his favour and against the respondent's u/s 14 1(1)(e) qua the demised premises. Accordingly, the petition for eviction U/s 14 RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 18 of 19 1(1)(e) DRC Act on behalf of petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e shop no.8B, Pushpa Market (Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024. The petitioner shall not file the execution petition for eviction of the tenanted premises before the expiry of period of six months from today.
34. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Swati Digitally signed by Swati Sharma Sharma Date: 2024.08.17 15:47:49 +0700 (Swati Sharma) Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi 17.08.2024 RC ARC 60/19 Harjit Singh Vs. Padma Sehgal PAGE 19 of 19