Delhi District Court
Case No. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors vs . Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 1 Of 24 on 31 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SUSHANT CHANGOTRA,
ACJ/ARC/CCJ (NEW DELHI), PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
E. NO. 08/08
Case no. 5563/16
1. Sh. Sunil Kumar Lall
S/o Dr. M. B. Lall
R/o SFS Flat no. 376,
Delhi110009
2. M/s J. S. R. Family Trust,
G39, Connaught Circus, New Delhi
Through its trustee
3. Rajeshwar Gopal (deceased)
S/o Late Sh. Bans Gopal
Represented through his LRs:
(i) Vandana Srivastava (deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Rajeshwar Gopal @ Rajesh Gopal
Through LR Ms. Ruby Dewan,
R/o Unitech Horizon Tower 17, Flat no. 301,
Sec. Pi2, Greater NOIDA, UP
(ii) Ashish Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Rajeshwar Gopal @ Rajesh Gopal
4. Ramesh Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Bans Gopal
5. Shiweshwar Gopal
Since deceased through LRs
(i) Swati Gopal
E. NO. 08/08
Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 1 of 24
D/o Late Sh. Shiweshwar Gopal
6. Manmohan Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Bans Gopal
7. Virender Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Gopal
8. Mahinder Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Sri Gopal
9. Jitender Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Sri Gopal
10. Rajani Sinha
W/o Dr. S. N. Sinha
11. Rashmi Srivastava
W/o Dr. R. K. Srivastava
12. Rajendra Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Madan Gopal
13. Chanda Dewan
W/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar
14. Menka Dewan
D/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar
15. Tushar Dewan
S/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar
16. Pradeep Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Madan Gopal
17. Deepak Dewan
S/o Late Sh. Madan Gopal
18. Sushila Devi (deceased)
W/o Late Sh. Girdhari Gopal
to be represented through her son
Sh. Inder Gopal S/o Late Sh. Girdhari Gopal
19. Girdhar Gopal (deceased)
E. NO. 08/08
Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 2 of 24
represented through LR
Sh. Inder Gopal S/o Late Sh. Girdhar Gopal
20. Inder Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Girdhar Gopal
Petitioner no. 3 to 20 are residents of:
2991, Ballimaran, Delhi (except 3 (I))
21. Sushila Devi
W/o Late Sh. Brij Gopal
22. Mridul Srivastava
W/o Late Sh. Sudhir Gopal
23. Nitin Gopal Srivastava
S/o Late Sh. Sudhir Gopal
24. Jitin Gopal Srivastava
S/o Late Sh. Sudhir Gopal
25. Smt. Archana Srivastava
W/o Late Sh. Sunil Gopal
26. Karan Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Sunil Gopal
27. Ishan Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Sunil Gopal
(both petitioner no. 26 & 27 have become major)
28. Sanjay Gopal
S/o Late Sh. Brij Gopal
29. Sameer Dewan
S/o Late Sh. Brij Gopal
30. Ajay Srivastava
S/o Late Sh. Brij Gopal
All petitioner no. 21 to 30 are resident of:
BE76/77, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
31. Indu Srivastava (deceased)
W/o Maj. Jai Gopal
E. NO. 08/08
Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 3 of 24
to be represented through her LRs
(i) Major Jai Gopal
(ii) Pawan Dewan
S/o Major Jai Gopal
(iii) Mamta Sinha
D/o Major Jai Gopal
(iv) Charu Srivastava
D/o Major Jai Gopal
(v) Seema Johri
D/o Major Jai Gopal
32. Pawan Dewan,
S/o Major Jai Gopal
Both petitioner no. 31 and 32
R/o 6, Metcalf Road, Delhi
33. Raj Dulari (deceased)
through: petitioner no. 1, 34 to 36
W/o Late Dr. M. B. Lall
34. Sh. Sushil Kumar Lall
S/o Late Dr. M. B. Lall
35. Sh. Vimal Kumar Srivastava
S/o Late Dr. M. B. Lall
36. Raj Kamal Srivastava
S/o Late Dr. M. B. Lall
Petitioner no. 33 to 36 are resident of:
20A, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi54
37. Sh. Vijay Kumar
S/o Late Sh. R. B. Srivastava
38. Sankalp (now major)
39. Vinod Kumar
S/o Late Sh. R. B. Srivastava
E. NO. 08/08
Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 4 of 24
40. Taru (now major)
D/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
41. Sh. Ravi Kumar
S/o Late Sh. R. B. Srivastava
Petitioner no. 37 to 41 are resident of:
Flat no. 4, Dewan House, Ajay Enclave,
New Delhi.
42. Himanshu (now major)
S/o Sh. Ravi Kumar
43. Atul Kumar (since deceased)
to be represented through:
(i) Abinav (now major)
S/o Late Sh. Atul Kumar
(ii) Priyanka Srivastava
D/o Late Sh. Atul Kumar
both residents of: S94A,
Sunder Block, Shakarpur, Delhi92
44. Usha Sahay
W/o J. M. Sahay
45. Diwakar Sahay
S/o Sh. J. N. Sahay
Petitioner no. 44 to 46 are resident of:
Flat no. 54, Sector15A, NOIDA, UP. .......... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Santosh Wati Sood @ Smt. Hari Das
W/o Sh. Hari Das
Through LRs:
(i) Kirti Pradeep Sood
E. NO. 08/08
Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 5 of 24
R/o Flat B901, Dev Darshan Apartment
Station Road, Bhandup (W)
Mumbai400078
(ii) Asha Lata Kapasi
W/o Sh. K. Kapasi
C404, Prince Apartment,
Patparganj, New Delhi
(iii) Anjana Sood
C/o Sh. R. K. Sood
Simla Medical Store,
9 Lakar Bazar, Simla, H. P.
(iv) Uttra Bhoil
W/o Late Sh. B. Bhoil,
D410, Usha Nagar, Village Road,
Bhandup, Mumbai400078
(v) Bhavana Seghal
W/o Sh. Rajan Sehgal
DDA SFS Flat no. 225, Ground Floor,
Sector1, Pocket 1, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Virendra Sud,
S/o Sh. J. R. Sud
R/o G80, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
3. Sh. Bhim Sud (deceased)
S/o Sh. J. R. Sud
R/o G80, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
Also to be served at:
Flat no. 73A, Block AC4,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi110088.
(i) Nishi Sud
E. NO. 08/08
Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 6 of 24
W/o Late Bhim Sud
R/o Flat no. 73A, Block AC4,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi110088.
(ii) Himanshu Sud
S/o Late Bhim Sud
R/o Flat no. 73A, Block AC4,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi110088.
(iii) Jitin Sud
S/o Late Bhim Sud
R/o Flat no. 73A, Block AC4,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi110088. ..........Respondents
PETITION UNDER SECTION 14(1) (e) DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT,
1958
Date of Institution of the petition : 07.11.2000
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 31.08.2018
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case of petitioner are that premises in question i.e. G80, Connaught Circus, New Delhi forming part of property/plot no. GVI, Connaught Circus, New Delhi was previously owned by Sh. Brij Kishore s/o Sh. Om Prakash, who sold the same to M/s Dewan & Sons Investments Pvt. Ltd vide sale deed dated 07.12.1972. Sh. Brij Kishore let out the demised premises to Sh. Hari Das i.e. husband of respondent no. 1 at the rent of Rs. 23/91 p.m for residential purpose. After the sale of said property, E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 7 of 24 the said Sh. Hari Das became tenant under the ownership of M/s Dewan & Sons Investments Pvt. Ltd by operation of law. After the death of Sh. Hari Das, his rights in the said property devolved upon respondent no. 1. Thereafter, the aforesaid M/s Dewan & Sons Investments Pvt. Ltd sold all their rights, interest and title in the said property to the petitioners vide sale deed dated 16.08.1985.
2. Respondent no. 1 illegally, unauthorizedly and without consent of petitioners and their predecessor in interest sublet, assigned and or otherwise parted with the possession of the said premises to the respondent no. 2 and 3. Predecessor in interest of the petitioner Smt. Sushila Devi had filed petition under section 14 (D) of DRC Act against the respondent, but the said Smt. Sushila Devi expired and the petition was abated. In the proceedings of said petition respondent no. 1 had given statement after filing the affidavit that she and her legal heirs had already left the premises in question and none of the legal heirs were residing in the premises in question. The said statement was recorded by the court of Sh. J. R. Aryan, the then Ld. ARC.
3. The demised premises is required for bonafide personal need of the petitioner no. 1. He is presently residing in the rented accommodation i.e. Flat no. 376, Mukerjee Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner no. 1 has no other reasonable and suitable residential accommodation nor petitioners have filed any other petition on this ground. The husband of respondent no. 1 was the E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 8 of 24 tenant in respect of the first floor only but the respondents illegally and unauthorizedly constructed upper floor. Hence, petitioner prayed that eviction order be passed against the respondent no. 1 to 3 in respect of demised premises i.e. G80, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
4. Respondent no. 2 & 3 filed their written statement and took preliminary objections. They pleaded that petition is not maintainable. They have been residing in the suit premises since 1947 when respondent no. 2 was a minor. The legal heirs of late Sh. Jaishee Ram Sood are necessary parties. This court does not have any jurisdiction to decide this petition.
5. On merits, it has been pleaded that respondent no. 3 was born in the demised premises in the year 1950 and was a member of the family of his father late Sh. Jaishee Ram Sood. At first the entire family of their father and then the applicants have been in uninterrupted possession of the suit premises. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It has been further pleaded that no notice of atornement was given by them or anyone of them to the respondents. The original owner of the demised premises had executed some documents in favour of father of respondents with regard to ownership of the demised premises and as the respondents themselves are the owners of the premises, they cannot be evicted therefrom. There was a fire in the demised premises in the year 1980 and most of the record was destroyed. The title documents were also destroyed in the fire. The demised E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 9 of 24 premises was sold by Sh. Brij Kishore to the father of respondents. Respondent no. 1 was never the tenant of suit premises, however, her husband did reside in the suit premises alongwith his father and thereafter he shifted to his own house alongwith his family. Respondents have denied that tenancy of Sh. Hari Dass was ever terminated. It has been pleaded that even if the averments of plaint are taken to be correct still all the legal heirs of Hari Dass would have become tenants. Remaining averments of plaint have been denied. It has been prayed that petition may be dismissed with costs.
6. The petitioner filed rejoinder and thereby denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the averments of petition.
7. After completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence. Petitioners examined six witnesses in support of their case. PW1 Sh. Brij Kishore Gupta deposed that he was the previous owner of the property bearing no. G39, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. The said property has been sold by him to Diwan Investments vide sale deed Ex. PW1/1. The said property was in two parts i.e. front open and side lane open. There were tenants in the entire building. Hari Dass was a tenant on the first floor of the property in the portion of side lane open. The property was having two floors i.e. ground and first.
8. PW2 Sh. Rajinder Gopal deposed that he is the coowner of the property and this case has been filed with consent of the other coowners.
E. NO. 08/08Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 10 of 24 The petitioner is also one of the coowner. The petitioner lives in tenanted premises and for his requirement the present case has been filed.
9. PW3 Sh. Rajgopal deposed that he is the Director of Diwan & Sons Investments Pvt. Ltd. The property bearing no. G39, municipal no. G30 and 80 situated at plot no. 6, Block G, Connaught Circus was purchased from Sh. Brij Kishore S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash. The sale deed is Ex. PW3/1 and the said sale deed bears his signature at point A. Sh. Sunil Kumar Lal is one of the coowners of this property who is his nephew. Sh. Sunil Kumar Lal is living in a tenanted premises and the said property is required for his personal needs and he has no other properties in his name except this property. This witness did not turn up for crossexamination. Since as he could not be crossexamined, therefore, his examination in chief cannot be read in evidence.
10. PW4 Sh. Surinder Kumar, LDC from office of sub Registrar proved summoned record i.e. sale deed bearing no. 5749, bookI, Volume 5324 pages 116 to 150 registered on 16.08.1985 Ex. PW4/1.
11. PW5 Sh. Sunil Kumar Lal tendered his affidavit Ex. PW5/A. PW6 Sh. Raj Kamal Srivastava also tendered his affidavit Ex. P6 and also relied upon documents Ex. PW6/1 to Ex. PW6/12. They were crossexamined. Then, petitioner's evidence was closed on 19.01.2016.
12. In respondent's evidence respondent no. 2 examined himself as RW1. He tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and relied upon documents i.e. E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 11 of 24 school leaving certificate Ex. RW1/1, insurance policy Ex. RW1/2 and death certificate Ex. RW1/3. He also relied upon documents Mark X & Y i.e. reports dated 09.06.1980 and 29.05.1980 regarding fire. RW2 Sh. Arjun Sood tendered his affidavit Ex. RW2/A and also relied upon documents Ex. RW2/1 & RW2/2 and Mark RW2/3 and RW2/4. RW3 Smt. Nishi Sood tendered her affidavit Ex. RW3/A and relied upon documents Mark RW3/1 and RW3/2. All these witnesses were crossexamined. Then, respondent's evidence was closed on 30.11.2017.
13. I have heard the arguments of ld. counsels for parties. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by both the parties and the evidence on record very carefully.
14. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act. Section 14 (1) (e) DRC is reproduced below: "Section 14 (1) (e): Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order of decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:
(e) That the premises let for residential purposes are required E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 12 of 24 bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation."
15. In order 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 tenanted premises;
(b) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(c) Petitioner requires the tenanted premises for his bonafide need and necessity or necessity of his family members;
(d)Petitioner does not have any other alternative accommodation with him/her.
OWNERSHIP IN RESPECT OF TENANTED PREMISES:
16. The case of petitioners is that Sh. Brij Kishor was the owner of the property bearing no. G39 situated in plot no. 6 consisting of two story building bearing municipal no. G30 and 80 in block G, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. He sold the said property to Dewan and Sons Investment Pvt. Ltd vide sale deed dated 07.12.1972 i.e. Ex. PW1/A. Subsequently, the said vendee sold the aforesaid property to petitioners vide sale deed dated 16.08.1985 i.e. Ex. PW4/1. Therefore, petitioners became the owners of suit property.
E. NO. 08/08Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 13 of 24
17. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3 had argued that the petitioners are not the owners of the suit property as the sale deed pertains to property bearing no. G39, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, whereas, the present petition is regarding property no. G80, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. In this regard, it has to be noted that in the sale deed Ex. PW1/A, there is specific reference to the effect that the property no. G39 consists of two story building bearing municipal no. G30 and 80 respectively. In the entire written statement as well as evidence of respondents there is no whisper that property no. G39 is not having municipal no. 80 or that property bearing no. G39 is some other property. Hence, the aforementioned argument is devoid merits.
18. In the written statement, respondents denied the existence of tenancy in favour of Sh. Hari Dass and took a plea that original owner had executed some documents and transferred title in favour of their father Sh. Jaishee. Respondent no. 2 & 3 have not produced any document on record to show that sale transaction took place between Sh. Brij Kishor and their father Jaishee Ram Sud. They have taken a plea that fire had broken out in their premises and the original documents got burnt. All the respondent witnesses deposed about the said fact in their examinations in chief by way of their affidavits. However, in his crossexamination RW1 Sh. Virender Lal Sud stated that he has not seen the aforementioned documents at any point of time. Similarly, RW2 Sh. Arjun Sood in his crossexamination stated that he did not E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 14 of 24 remember the denomination of stamp papers on which power of attorney and agreement to sale were executed in favour of his father. Similarly, RW3 in her crossexamination also stated that she has not seen the documents and fire had broken out prior to her marriage.
19. It is necessary to mention that in written statement it has been pleaded that some documents were executed in favour of Sh. Jaishee Ram Sud, whereas, in the crossexamination of PW5, a suggestion was given that power of attorney and agreement to sell were executed. The respondents have not divulged even the basic particulars regarding the date of preparation or execution of said documents. In fact, the perusal of entire respondent evidence shows that none of them had seen the documents alleged to have been executed in favour of Sh. Jaishee Ram Sud.
20. It is further necessary to note that as per case of respondents no. 2 & 3, fire had broken out on 02.05.1980 and till that day the said documents had not been produced before any authority or department by the respondents. In such circumstances, the vague plea about existence of documents in favour of Jaishee Ram Sud with respect to suit property cannot be believed.
21. Even otherwise in Suraj Lamp & Industries Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, (2012) 1 SCC 656, it has been held that, "Any contract of sale (agreement to sell) which is not a registered deed of conveyance (deed of E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 15 of 24 sale) would fall short of the requirements of sections 54 and 55 of TP Act and will not confer any title nor transfer any interest in an immovable property (except to the limited right granted under section 53A of TP Act). According to TP Act, an agreement of sale, whether with possession or without possession, is not a conveyance. Section 54 of TP Act enacts that sale of immoveable property can be made only by a registered instrument and an agreement of sale does not create any interest or charge on its subject matter"
"A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him. it is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee."
Thus, the respondents failed miserably in their endeavor to establish their defence that they are the owner of suit property, whereas petitioners have proved that they are the owners of suit property by virtue of sale deed.
RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT BETWEEN THE PARTIES:
22. In the present case, the question of petitioner being landlord is E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 16 of 24 seriously disputed. The term 'landlord' has been defined in Section 2 (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act. It is reproduced below: "Landlord" means a person who, for the time being, is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of, or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant."
23. The case of petitioners is to the effect that original owner/landlord Sh. Brij Kishor had inducted Sh. Hari Dass i.e. husband of respondent no. 1 as tenant at monthly rent of Rs 23.91 p.m. Subsequently, he became a tenant under Dewan & Sons Investment Pvt. Ltd. After the death of Sh. Hari Das, his wife i.e. respondent no. 1 became statutory tenant under the petitioners.
24. In order to substantiate their case regarding existence of tenancy in favour of Hari Dass, the petitioners examined PW1 Sh. Brij Kishor S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash who stated that Sh. Hari Dass was tenant in demised premises. However in his crossexamination, no specific suggestion was given to him that Sh. Hari Dass never remained tenant in the suit property. PW6 Sh. Raj Kamal also categorically deposed that Sh. Hari Dass was the tenant in the suit premises and after his death his wife became the statutory tenant. In his E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 17 of 24 crossexamination also no suggestion was put to the effect that Sh. Hari Dass was not the tenant in the suit property. In V. N. Deosthali V. State through CBI 2010 (1) JCC 466, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in paragraph no. 19 held that, "When a witness deposes a particular fact and no suggestion to the contrary is given to him in crossexamination, the party against whom the deposition is made, is deemed to have admitted that fact."
25. In his examination in chief RW1 Sh. Virender Sud deposed that Sh. Hari Dass was never the tenant and his father was paying the rent to Sh. Brij Kishore till 1951, but in the crossexamination conducted on 19.01.2017, he deposed that his father was never a tenant in the suit property. He also stated that he cannot tell whether his uncle Sh. Hari Dass was ever a tenant in the suit property and also stated that his uncle Hari Dass got the tenancy in his name, but all of them including his uncle used to live in the suit property. He repeated the same answer twice.
26. The aforementioned statement of RW1 Sh. Virender Sud is infact admission that tenancy existed in the name of Sh. Hari Dass. The said admission coupled with the averment in the sale deed Ex. PW1/A (executed between Sh. Brij Kishor and Dewan and sons Investment Pvt. Ltd.) to the effect that Sh. Hari Dass was the tenant of the first floor of side building at the monthly rent of Rs. 23.91 leads to conclusion that Sh. Hari Das was the tenant in the suit premises. Hence, by operation of law after having purchased the E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 18 of 24 property from M/s Dewan and sons Investment Pvt. Ltd. petitioners became the landlords and legal heirs of Sh. Hari Das became tenants.
27. Ld. counsel for respondents has further argued that all the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Hari Dass had become statutory tenants, therefore petition is barred by misjoinder of parties. However, it is necessary to mention that an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was filed upon death of respondent no. 1 Smt. Santoshwati. In the order dated 10.09.2014, the ld. Predecessor has specifically observed that all the legal heirs of respondent no. 1 were not interested in contesting the eviction petition. Since, all of them were made parties and neither of them were interested in contesting the petition, therefore it cannot be said that petition is barred for nonjoinder of necessary parties.
28. The ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3 also argued that the petitioner u/s 14 (D) of DRC was filed by one Smt. Sushila Gupta against Sh. Hari Dass and the said proceedings were abated, therefore, the petition itself is not maintainable. Perusal of record shows that the aforementioned petition was dismissed by the court of Sh. V. K. Maheshwari, the then Ld. ARC on the ground that relief u/s 14 (D) DRC Act was a person specific relief which was not inheritable. Hence, the dismissal of petition u/s 14 (D) DRC Act will not disentitle the other legal heirs from claiming the eviction on the ground of bonafide need and requirement.
29. Further, for the petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 19 of 24 petitioner is only required to prove that he is more than a tenant. It has been held in Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudesh Kumar Dass in RCR No. 136/12 that, "It is settled law that in the context of Delhi Rent Control Act, what appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is that visavis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant." The position in law is that "The ownership" of the landlord for the purpose of maintaining a petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act is not required to be a absolute ownership of the property and it is sufficient if the landlord is a person who is collecting the rent on his own behalf. The imperfectness of the title of the premises can neither stand in the way of an eviction petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act, nor can the tenant be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord."
30. Also in Sri Ram Pasricha V. Jagannath & Ors (1976) 4 SCC 184, it was held that, a coowner can succeed in the petition for eviction without impleading all the other coowners. It is not necessary that landlord should be a absolute owner. Since coowner owns every part of the composite property alongwith others, therefore, it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner.
Therefore, it has to be held that the petitioner has successfully proved on record that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between them E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 20 of 24 and LRs of respondent no. 1.
PETITIONER REQUIRES THE TENANTED PREMISES FOR BONAFIDE NEED:
31. The case of petitioner is that suit premises is required for the need and requirement of petitioner no. 1 as he is residing in a rented accommodation in flat no. 376, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi which has been provided to him by his employer. PW5 in his examination in chief deposed about the said fact. He was crossexamined at length by ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3, but his testimony remained unimpeached. In his cross examination conducted on 06.11.2004, he reiterated that he was working in M/s Parivar Sewa Santha as Divisional Sales Manager. He has two bedroom flat of DDA which is owned by Sh. Rajiv Gopal and his company is paying the rent for the flat by deducting it from his salary.
32. On the contrary respondents failed to bring any evidence to disprove the evidence led by petitioners. In his examination in chief, RW1 Virender Sud only made bald assertion that Sh. Sunil Kumar is residing in his own flat without specifying details of the said flat. In his crossexamination, the witness stated that he has never visited the said flat bearing no. 376 Mukherjee Nagar and did not know whether petitioner does not have any premises other than the suit property. In such circumstances, it is apparent that E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 21 of 24 averments in affidavit of RW1 to this effect were bald assertions which cannot be termed sufficient to disbelieve the averment of petitioner visavis his bonafide need and requirement.
33. In Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507; it has been held that : "Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean 'in good faith: genuine'. The word 'genuine' means 'natural': not spurious: real:
pure :sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 22 of 24 to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the Court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against." Further in M/s John Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Surender Singh & Ors. 135 (2006) DLT 265), it has been held that, "The landlord is the E. NO. 08/08 Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 23 of 24 best judge of his requirements and a tenant cannot dictate the terms on which the landlord should live."
Thus, in the present eviction petition, the petitioner has been able to establish his bonafide requirement in respect of the suit premises.
RELIEF:
34. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it has to be held that the petitioners have proved all the ingredients of section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act and they are entitled for an eviction order. Therefore, an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in respect of property no. G80, Connaught Circus forming part of property/plot no. GVI, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. This order shall not become operative before the passage of six months from today. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in open court (SUSHANT CHANGOTRA)
on 31st August, 2018 ARC/ACJ/CCJ(New Delhi)
Patiala House Courts/New Delhi
E. NO. 08/08
Case no. 5563/16 Sunil Kumar Lall & Ors Vs. Santosh Wati Sood & Ors 24 of 24