Delhi District Court
Pardeep Dhamija vs Triloki Nath Ji on 7 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD JOSHI
ACJ-CCJ-ARC(EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RC/ARC No.: 20/21
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Pardeep Dhamija,
S/o Late Sh. Sher Chand Dhamija,
Aged about 56 years,
C/o Shop no. 8, Prachin Mata Mandir,
2B, Khasra no. 391/23/1 (Min.),
Goswami Ganesh Dutt Marg,
Jheel Kurenja, Opposite Mahila Colony,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 ...Petitioner
vs
Sh. Triloki Nath Ji
Prachin Mata Mandir,
2B, Khasra no. 391/23/1,
At Jheel Kurenja, Opposite Mahila Colony,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 ....Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09.02.2021
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 16.08.2024
DATE OF DECISION : 07.10.2024
PETITION UNDER SECTION 44 OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL
ACT,1958
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition filed by petitioner under Section 44 of Delhi Rent Control Act seeking permission to carry out the necessary repairs in the tenanted premises.
RC/ARC No. 20/21Page no. 1 of 10
2. The brief facts as per the petition are as follows:-
(a) The petitioner is the tenant in respect of shop no. 8, property bearing no. 2-B, Prachin Mata Mandir, Khasra no. 391/23/1, Goswami Ganesh Dutt Marg, Jheel Khurenja, Opp Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Earlier, the father of the petitioner Sh. Gulshan Sawhney was the tenant under the respondent in respect of the shop, however, after the death of Sh. Sher Chand Dhamija, the petitioner is occupying the tenanted shop as tenant. The rate of rent is at Rs. 150/- per month excluding electricity charges.
(b) The petitioner is using the tenanted shop for commercial purposes.
With passage of time, the tenanted shop required repairs, however, even upon requests upon the petitioner, the respondent never carried out any repairs in the tenanted shop and the condition of the shop started deteriorating and at present the shop is in dilapidated condition and same required necessary repairs, which require no permission from any concerned departments. The repairs needed are as follows:-
(i) Re-roofing on the top of the roof and re-plastering of the ceiling.
(ii) Affixation of new rolling shutter. (iii) White Washing (iv) Re-plastering of the walls. (v) Re-flooring with plain cement and concrete (PCC). (c) During the rainy season, the water enters into the shop due to
damaged rolling shutter of the tenanted shop, which is causing damaging goods and articles kept in the tenanted shop by the petitioner and the petitioner is not in a position to keep his goods and articles in the shop.
(d) The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 03.09.2020 to the RC/ARC No. 20/21 Page no. 2 of 10 respondent to carry out the necessary repairs. However, the respondent did not carry out any repairs and instead replied by a notice dated 30.09.2020. The petitioner gave a rejoinder notice to the respondent dated 11.10.2020.
(e) One Sh. Subhash Nath filed a suit (CS No. 8604/16) against the respondent as defendant no.1 and other tenants in the suit property (temple premises) as remaining defendants (including petitioner), before the court of Ld. ACJ (Shahdara). The suit was disposed off as compromised vide order dated 07.05.2018, wherein the said Subhash Nath and the respondent herein, entered into a settlement agreement, wherein the petitioner was duly acknowledged as a tenant and it was further agreed that since the date of settlement the respondent shall be the owner/landlord of the Mandir properties and shall collect the rent therein.
(f) The petitioner is ready and willing to bear all the costs/expenses of the repairs to be carried out in the tenanted premises. The petitioner shall not demand for any adjustment/recovery of the costs of the said repairs from the respondent by way of any deduction from the rent.
3. The respondent filed reply to the present petition through the SPA of Mahant Triloki Nath, namely Sh. Rajbeer Pandit and has submitted as follows:-
(i) The respondent namely Rajbeer Pandit is Mahant of the respondent temple/Math and his having the control over the administration of the temple premises/suit property.
(ii) One Late Sh. Subhash Nath was the sewadar of the temple and started collecting the money from some of the licensee in the temple premises without any authorization. He has also filed the suit bearing no. 613/07, which RC/ARC No. 20/21 Page no. 3 of 10 was disposed off as withdrawn on 07.08.2018, after the respondent entered into a settlement in the larger interest of the temple.
(iii) The shop in question is in unauthorized occupation of the petitioner.
The respondent is also running his business from other shop in the same locality and has also got possession of a godown and is also running a transfer of his business.
(iv) The shop in question has been closed for more than 10 years. The petitioner is an unauthorized occupation and is as tresspasser.
(v) The petitioner has raised unauthorized construction, thereby damaging the foundation of the temple, without the consent of the respondent.
(vi) The respondent conceded to the request of the petitioner and allowed the petitioner to continue in a temple premises, following a meeting between the petitioner and Sanchalak of the temple.
(vii) The petitioner is not giving a market rent and is a habitual defaulter in the payment of rent. The petitioner wants to grab the temple premises and had sent a notice dated 03.09.2020. The rent receipts filed by the petitioner are forged and fabricated.
4. Upon the requests of the petitioner, a local commissioner was appointed in the present matter and the LC duly filed his report on 11.05.2022. The court vide order dated 07.03.2023, directed the parties to lead evidence in the present case.
5. PW1 Sh. Pardeep Dhamija, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed on the same lines as stated in the petition. He has also relied upon the following documents:-
RC/ARC No. 20/21Page no. 4 of 10
(i) Rent receipt dated 01.11.2012, 08.05.2018, 01.07.2009, 01.04.2013 and 01.01.2010 is Ex PW-1/1 (colly) (OSR).
(ii) Site plan is Ex PW-1/2.
(iii) Legal notice dated 03.09.2020 is Mark A (Ex PW-1/3 is accordingly
de-exhibited).
(iv) Reply of legal notice dated 30.09.2020 is Ex PW-1/4 (OSR).
(v) Rejoinder dated 10.11.2020 is Mark B ((Ex PW-1/5 is accordingly de-
exhibited).
(vi) Postal receipts is Ex PW-1/6 (OSR).
(vii) Copy of settlement agreement is Mark X (Ex PW-1/7 is accordingly
de-exhibited).
(viii) Copy of challan deposit rent receipt is Ex PW-1/8 (OSR).
(ix) Copy of order dated 18.03.2021 is Ex PW-1/9 (OSR).
(x) Copy of challan deposit rent receipt is Ex PW-1/10 (OSR).
He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondent.
6. PW2 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondent.
7. The respondent namely Sh. Rajbeer Pandit i.e SPA of Mahant Triloki Nath tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and deposed on the same lines as stated in the reply. He has also relied upon the following documents:-
(i) The photocopy of Aadhar Card respondent is de-exhibited as the RC/ARC No. 20/21 Page no. 5 of 10 same is not on record.
(ii) The photocopy of Aadhar Card SPA Holder is de-exhibited as the same is not on record.
(iii) Photocopy of SPA is exhibited as Ex RW-1/3 (OSR).
(iv) Original photographs of the closed shop is exhibited as Ex RW-1/4.
(v) Local commissioner report is exhibited as Ex RW-1/5.
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
8. Sh. Parveen Kumar has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-2/A. He has also relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of Aadhar card of Sh. Parveen Kumar is Ex RW-2/1 (OSR).
(ii) Photographs is Mark A (Ex RW-2/2 is accordingly de-exhibited).
He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
9. I have already arguments heard both the sides and have also gone through the material available on record.
10. Section 44 of DRC Act, enumerates the duty of the landlord to keep the premises in good repair. As per Section 44 (1) of DRC Act - "Every landlord shall be bound to keep the premises in good and tenantable repairs." Further, if after issuance of notice in writing by the tenant, the landlord fails to carry out the repairs, the petitioner can approach the controller for the permission to make the repairs himself as per the Section 44 (3) of DRC Act.
11. In the present petition, the respondent on one hand, has alleged the petitioner to the unauthorized occupant, however, on the other hand, he has also RC/ARC No. 20/21 Page no. 6 of 10 made the submissions that he was provided temple shop for his livelihood and is a habitual defaulter in payment of 'rent'. The respondent has himself made contradictory averments regarding the status of the petitioner as tenant in the reply to the present petition.
12. The petitioner has duly filed the rent receipts Ex PW-1/1 (colly), for the rent paid in respect of the tenanted shop. Petitioner has also filed the record of petition filed under Section 27 of DRC Act (Ex PW-1/8, Ex PW-1/9 and Ex PW-1/10) against the respondent, for the deposition of rent in the court. Petitioner has also duly filed the settlement agreement Mark X and the order of the court dated 07.05.2018 in the civil suit no. 8604/16, before Ld. ACJ, Shahdara. The respondent has not denied the said settlement and has infact stated that he is the owner/landlord of the suit property, pursuant to the settlement. The said settlement duly acknowledges the petitioner to be one of the tenants in the suit property. Accordingly, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not in question.
13. The petitioner has alleged that the tenanted shop requires necessary repairs as follows:-
(i) Re-roofing on the top of the roof and re-plastering of the ceiling.
(ii) Affixation of new rolling shutter. (iii) White Washing (iv) Re-plastering of the walls. (v) Re-flooring with plain cement and concrete (PCC).
14. The petitioner has stated that he is not able to keep his goods and RC/ARC No. 20/21 Page no. 7 of 10 articles in the tenanted shop as the water enters into the shop during rainy season. While, the respondent has stated that the tenanted shop is unoccupied by the petitioner for the last 10 years and he has not been using the same.
15. The local commissioner has duly filed his report after inspection of the property alongwith the photographs depicting the current state of the tenanted shop. The same are Ex RW-1/5 (colly) and Mark A to H. The report has not been contested by the parties. As per the report of the LC, the top roof of the shop is cemented, however, some cracks were noticed on the roof. Some portions of the ceiling were also found damaged. It was reported that the shop has not been used in a long time and garbage has accumulated therein. It is also reported that there is one gate in the shop, however, no shutter was found and the shop also needs white wash. Further, there are minor damages in the wall plaster.
16. After the perusal of the report of LC alongwith photographs and from the deposition of parties, the court is of the opinion that the tenanted shop is not in habitable condition. If further reflects that the shop has not been used for any commercial purposes in a long time.
17. Be that as it may, as per Section 44, it is the duty of every landlord to keep the premises in good and tenantable repairs. The respondent being the landlord was bound to keep the tenanted shop in habitable condition after necessary repairs. It seems that the respondent did not take any action to carry out the much needed repairs in the tenanted shop for last many years, due to which the tenanted shop has become uninhabitable. The petitioner cannot be RC/ARC No. 20/21 Page no. 8 of 10 made to suffer due to the inaction on the part of the landlord/respondent and forced or bound to use the tenanted shop in such uninhabitable condition.
18. The petitioner has stated that he is willing to carry out the necessary repairs in the tenanted shop at his own expense and therefore the court finds no reason for the respondent to contest such plea, as the respondent himself has failed to carry out the repairs despite the knowledge of the uninhabitable condition of the tenanted shop.
19. Accordingly, the court allows the present petition with the following directions:-
(a) The petitioner can carry out the repairs of the damaged portions of the roof and re-plaster the damaged portions of ceiling.
(b) The petitioner can re-plaster the damaged portions of the walls of the tenanted shop.
(c) The petitioner can also install the missing shutter at the gate of the shop.
(d) The petitioner can carry out Re-flooring of the damaged portions of the floor with plain cement and concrete, after removal of the garbage therein.
(e) The petitioner can also white wash the shop after the above said repairs.
(f) The petitioner shall carry out the above said repairs within the period of 2 months from today.
(g) The repairs shall be carried out at the expense of the petitioner. The respondent shall allow the repairs to be carried out and will provide access to the petitioner for carrying out the above said repairs.RC/ARC No. 20/21
Page no. 9 of 10
(h) The petitioner however, shall not carry out any change to the site plan of the tenanted shop and also shall not carry out any additional construction on the roof or the walls of the tenanted shop.
20. File be consigned to Record room.
VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD JOSHI JOSHI Date: 2024.10.07 05:02:09 +0530 VINOD JOSHI ACJ-CCJ-ARC(EAST) KKD Courts/Delhi/07.10.2024 RC/ARC No. 20/21 Page no. 10 of 10