Delhi District Court
Smt. Mohini Jain vs Sh. Sharwan Kumar on 20 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER
DISTRICT SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
********
Unique I.D. No. 02402C0266922010
E No.169/2010
In the matter of:
Smt. Mohini Jain
W/o Late Sh. Ram Lal Jain,
R/o X/2369, Street no. 10,
R.P. No.2, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031.
........ Petitioner
Vs.
Sh. Sharwan Kumar
S/o S. Roop Chand
At X/2405, Gali no. 9,
R.P.No. 2, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031
...... Respondent
Date of filling of petition : 20.09.2010
Date on which arguments heard : 18.02.2014
Date of decision : 20.02.2014
Final order : Petition allowed
EVICTION PETITION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(f) OF THE
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 1 of 9
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case The present case is filed seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1) (f) of the DRC Act (in short 'the Act'). The petitioner stated that her husband let out a shop (in short 'shop in question') to the respondent in the year 1981 on a monthly rent of Rs.160/- and subsequently it was increased to Rs.535/- excluding electricity charges. There was no written agreement between the parties and the tenancy runs on month to month basis. It is further stated that after expiry of her husband, petitioner and her son, namely, Shri Rakesh Jain became the landlady/landlord being the legal heirs of her husband/father respectively. It is specifically averred that due to lapse of time, the condition of the building became dilapidated and at present, the condition of shop in question is very bad and it is not fit and safe for human habitation. It is also stated that keeping in view the dilapidated condition and old structure of the building, the construction may collapse any time and there is apprehension of danger to the life and property of the persons who are residing /working in the said building or to the neighbourers. It is further stated that petitioner has also made complaints to various authorities i.e. MCD and SHO in this regard.
E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 2 of 9Written statement
2. The respondent filed his written statement stating therein that the petitioner is not the landlady of the respondent and rather Sh. Rakesh Jain (son of the erstwhile owner Sh. Ram Lal) is the landlord of the shop in question to whom the respondent is paying rent. It is further stated that the present case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as Sh. Rakesh Jain has not made as a party in this case. It is further stated that no notice was given to the respondent before filing of the present case.
3. In order to prove her case, petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and her son Sh. Rakesh Jain as PW-2. The respondent also examined himself as RW-1. Various documents were also exhibited /proved by the parties.
4. I have heard learned Shri Pritiysh, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
Reasons for decision
5. In order to succeed under Section 14(1)(f) of the Act, the landlord must prove the following ingredients:
(i) That there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 3 of 9 the parties;
(ii) That the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and
(iii) That such repairs cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated.
(i) Relationship of landlord and tenant
6. At the outset, counsel for the respondent denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent specifically stated that the son of the petitioner namely, Sh. Rakesh Jain is the landlord and not the petitioner. It is admitted that the property in question was let out to the respondent by the erstwhile owner Shri Ram Lal. The petitioner is the wife of Ram Lal and Sh. Rakesh Jain is his son. Shri Ram Lal has already expired during subsistence of tenancy. Accordingly, in the capacity of legal heirs, both the said persons can be said to be co-owners/co-landlords of the property in question. The petitioner also examined her son Sh. Rakesh Jain as PW-2. He also categorically stated that he as well as her mother are the legal heirs of erstwhile owner Ram Lal and after expiry of Ram Lal, they became the landlord/landlady/owners by the law of succession. Respondent did not place on record any document or any other evidence to doubt that petitioner is not the wife of the erstwhile owner Shri Ram Lal. The counsel for the petitioner further stated that the tenant has no right to E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 4 of 9 challenge the title of the owner as the same is barred under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Keeping in view the specific admission of the respondent that Sh. Rakesh Jain is the landlord of the tenanted premises and the above facts, I hold that the petitioner is also one of the co- owners/co-landlords being one of the LRs of erstwhile owner and, as such, she is well within her right to file the present case of eviction. The case of the petitioner is further strengthened by the fact that she has also examined her son Sh. Rakesh Jain, who also admitted that her mother is one of the legal heirs and competent to file the present case. The respondent or the petitioner did not disclose details of any other legal heirs of the earstwhile owner Shri Ram Lal and as a corollary, there is no other conclusion can be drawn than that the petitioner and her sons are the succeeding co-landlords. In view of the above evidence on the record, I hold that there is a relationship of landlady/tenant between the parties.
(ii) & (iii) Issue of unfit or unsafe condition of the premises and need of its vacation
7. The Section 14 (1) (f) of the Act provides that the landlord can seek recovery of possession against the tenant if the premises have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation and is required bona fide by a landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. The petitioner also levied allegations that the E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 5 of 9 respondent is not paying the amount of electricity and rent but the same are not relevant factors as the present case is not filed for eviction towards non-payment of rent.
8. In order to show the physical condition of the property in question, the petitioner placed on record various photographs. The said photographs clearly show that the condition of the tenanted shop is very bad. Apart from it, there are various glaring evidence on record, like it is the admitted fact that the property in question was let out in the year 1981 and nothing is brought on record to show that the property was ever repaired thereafter. The respondent admitted in his cross- examination that the property was an old construction in the year 1981 itself. During the lapse of considerable period of 33 years, the condition of the tenanted premises turned from bad to worst. The respondent also admitted that the other adjoining shops of the said building are lying vacant. It is also admitted by the respondent /RW-1 that the floor level of the property is below than the road level. From the aforesaid evidence on the record, it is clear that the premises in question have become unsafe and unfit for human habitation. It is also a common sense, if the old structure of the premises in question is not reconstructed, it may collapse any time due to environmental factor and in that case, it may cause great hardship or danger to the human beings and properties of the neighbourers and the occupants. The counsel for the petitioner also pointed out severe damages in the lantern of the roof of the premises in E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 6 of 9 question through the photographs placed on record.
9. On the contrary the counsel for the respondent argued that the other shops in the building where the premises in question is situated are in running condition (one jeans factory and one property dealer's shop) and as such, the premises in question can also be repaired instead of demolished. Moreover, the counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there are three separate lantern in the entire building and the portion in which the shop in question is situated is one part of the area and of this portion all the shops are vacant. In my opinion, the argument of the counsel for the respondent has no force since it is the premises in question whose condition is required to be considered for the purpose of eviction and not the other adjoining premises. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the case of Piara Lal Kapur v. Kaushalya Devi and Anr, 1970 RCJ 653 wherein it was held that "The law does not require that the entire demised premises must be proved to have become unsafe or unfit for human habitation before the order of eviction can be passed under this clause. When a part of the building becomes unsafe, ejectment of the tenant can be had from the entire building in his tenancy."
10. It is further vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has not made any complaint to the MCD or police about the alleged danger condition of the shop in question. In E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 7 of 9 response, the counsel for the petitioner specifically said that the son of the petitioner has made various complaints to the said authorities and the copies of the said complaints are already on record. I find substance in his submission that it is not necessary that the complaints should be made by the petitioner alone and not by her son. As such, this argument is without any merit.
11. Lastly the counsel for the respondent contended that the physical condition of the shop is not of such a nature that it cannot be repaired. He further urged that there is no need to get vacation of the shop and it can be easily repaired.
12. Keeping in view the evidence brought on record, especially the old structure of the property (since the year 1981), passage of long 33 years without any repairs being carried out, numerous cracks in the walls (from right side), various broken portions of lantern [RCC roof slabs] in the above front side (not just cracks), broken portion of lantern from the side of roof, leaving state of cohesion of plasters, the level of the shop getting down below the road and other substantial deteriorating conditions, I hold that the said shop is not repairable and it requires complete new construction for which shop is required to be vacated. In holding so, I also find support from the case of Shakuntala Devi v. Daulat Ram, 1970 RCJ 536 wherein it was held that "One of the aspects which deserves to be fully kept in view when the question of a building E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 8 of 9 being unsafe or unfit for human habitation is examined, is that apart from the danger to those who use the building, it must be remembered that to postpone its reconstruction or effective repairs is likely to cost more in terms of money to the owner."
Conclusion
13. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the petitioner succeeded in proving all the essential ingredients of the Section 14(1)(f) of the Act. Accordingly, the tenant is directed to vacate the shop in question (as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW1/1) forming part of property No.X-2405, Gali No.9, Raghubir Pura No.2, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi within 45 days. Put up for consideration on the aspect of other requirement of law as per Section 20 of the Act on 24.03.2014.
Announced in the open court on 20.02.2014 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Senior Civil Judge-cum Rent Controller, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
E. No.169/10 Mohini Jain v. Sharwan Kumar Page 9 of 9