Delhi District Court
Sh. Anand Saroop vs M/S Harkaran Dass Deep Chand on 27 October, 2016
1
In the Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
CCJ cum Additional Rent Controller1(Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. E 396/13 (Old), 79120/16 (New)
Unique ID No. 02401C0560792011
In the matter of :
Sh. Anand Saroop
S/o Late Sh. Badri Parshad
R/o 4/41, Roop Nagar,
Delhi. ............Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand
455, Khari Baoli, Delhi110006.
Through its partner, Sh. Dharam Pal
2. Sh. Raj Pal
S/o Sh. Nirotam Singh
R/o E327, Nehru Vihar,
Gali No. 6, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi.
3. Sh. Arun Kumar Singhla
S/o Sh. Prem Sagar Singhla
R/o A67, First Floor, Kamla Nagar,
Delhi110007. ........Respondents
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14 (1) (b) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
Date of Institution: 03.12.2011
Final arguments heard/case reserved for Judgment: 29.08.2016
Date of Judgment: 27.10.2016
Decision: Allowed
Page 1 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13
2
JUDGMENT
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Sh. Anand Saroop against the respondents/tenants for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., one garage situated on the ground floor of property bearing no. 4/41, Roop Nagar, Delhi110007, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith petition, on the ground u/s 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act'].
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are liable to be evicted from the suit premises as respondent no. 1 has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the garage in dispute to respondent no. 2 after January, 2000 without the written consent of the predecessorininterest of the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 remained in complete possession and occupation of the said garage upto May, 2003 and thereafter, he had given possession of the same to respondent no. 3, who is in occupation of the same. Further, it is averred that in the beginning respondent no. 2 also used to live in the suit premises as an employee of respondent no. 1 in as much as he used to work as driver for plying car of respondent no. 1. That respondent no. 2 ceased to be an employee of respondent no. 1 sometime in the year 2000 and thereafter, respondent no. 2 remained in possession of the garage in dispute in his own right as a subtenant of respondent no. 1. It is further submitted that the electricity which used to be supplied to the garage in question was disconnected because of nonpayment of electricity charges. That as respondent no. 1 has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenanted premises to respondent no. 2, so Page 2 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 3 respondent no. 1 did not pay rent of the tenanted premises to the predecessorininterest of the petitioner after January, 2000 in as much as respondent no. 1 did not remain in occupation of the tenanted premises. Further, it is stated that respondent no. 2 continued to remain in possession of the suit premises even after leaving the employment of respondent no. 1 in his own right and not as an employee of respondent no. 1.
On these above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises.
3. Summons were served upon the respondents. Respondent no. 1 filed his written statement stating that respondent no. 1 has not sublet the tenanted garage to respondent no. 2 at any point of time. It is submitted that from the contents of the petition it seems that the petitioner before instituting the present highly motivated and manipulated petition in November, 2011 has given the possession of the tenanted garage to respondent no. 3 illegally and fraudulently incollusion with respondent no. 2, whereas, a matter of fact, the possession of garage in question was with the petitioner as stated by the answering respondent in the written statement filed in the earlier petition filed by Smt. Beni Devi, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 11.01.2012. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by impleading respondent no. 3 with fraudulent intention, just to protect the possession of the garage, which was obtained by the predecessorininterest of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Beni Devi, from respondent no. 2 way back, in order to defeat the tenancy right of the answering respondent. Further, it is averred that the subject matter of the present petition was directly and Page 3 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 4 substantially in issue in the earlier petition u/s 14 (1) (a) and (b) of the DRC Act filed by the predecessorininterest of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Beni Devi, titled "Smt. Beni Devi Vs. Sh. Ved Pal & Ors.", in the month of March, 2002, which was pending in the Court of Sh. Vinod Kumar Gautam, Ld. RC/ACJ, Delhi, when the present petition has been filed in November, 2011, and thereafter, the same was withdrawn by the petitioner on 11.01.2012. The abovesaid petition was earlier filed by said Smt. Beni Devi by impleading the wrong tenant, namely, Sh. Ved Pal as respondent no. 1 and Sh. Raj Pal as respondent no. 2, on the ground that respondent no. 1 (i.e. Sh. Ved Pal) therein, had sublet the tenanted garage to respondent no. 2. The answering respondent was allowed to be impleaded as respondent no. 3 in the said petition on the basis of an application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by them. The answering respondent had filed their written statement and also deposited the arrears of rent as per the order passed by the court u/s 15 (1) of the DRC Act in the aforesaid petition. But instead of leading the evidence, the petitioner has malafidely filed the present petition and withdrawn the said petition subsequently. Further, it is submitted that the abovesaid predecessorininterest of the petitioner Smt. Beni Devi (since deceased) had obtained the possession of the tenanted garage by putting her locks, illegally and fraudulently from respondent no. 2, who was the employee/driver of respondent no. 1. However, the said petition which was ultimately withdrawn by the petitioner on 11.02.2011 in order to safequard his possession in respect of the tenanted premises by manipulating/handing over the possession to his own person (i.e. respondent no. 3) and as such, the petitioner has impleaded respondent no. 3 in the present petition by falsely claiming that the possession of the Page 4 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 5 tenanted garage was given to him by respondent no. 2, after May 2003, whereas the possession was with the petitioner himself who had handed over the same to respondent no. 3 in November, 2011, before filing the present petition. It is submitted that the answering respondent is a lawful tenant of late Smt. Beni Devi, the predecessorininterest of the petitioner in respect of the garage on the ground floor of the property no. 4/41, Roop Nagar, Delhi. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 was the driver of respondent no. 1. However, during the course of employment of respondent no. 2 as the driver, respondent no. 1 had permitted respondent no. 2 to use the said garage for the purpose of parking their car and to live there. When respondent no. 2 retired from the employment of the answering respondent, on the request of respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 had permitted him to live in the tenanted garage for temporary period as some construction/renovation was being carried out in the house of respondent no. 2 as stated by him. However, after the retirement of respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 continued to visit to respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 1 on number of occasions took the services of respondent no. 2 as driver of their car.
4. That respondent no. 1 was having bonafide faith and trust upon respondent no. 2 being their old employee/driver and were having impression that respondent no. 2 was temporarily using the garage for living purposes only during the course of renovation and construction of his house as told by him to the answering respondent. However, when on 01.02.2006, partner of the answering respondent, namely, Sh. Dharam Pal had visited at the tenanted garage to inspect the same and also to enquire about respondent no. 2, as he did not visit the answering Page 5 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 6 respondent for a considerable period, he was shocked to find that respondent no. 2 was not there, rather the garage was in occupation of Smt. Beni Devi, the predecessorininterest of the petitioner. The landlady Smt. Beni Devi, since deceased, informed the said Sh. Dharam Pal that she had put her locks on the garage as she had taken the possession of the same from respondent no. 2 under some deal and settlement. Apart from this, the said landlady also informed Sh. Dharam Pal that she had also filed an eviction petition against respondent no. 2, which was pending in the court of Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Ld. ARC, Delhi then. The said partner of respondent no. 1 was shocked and hurt to know that the landlady Smt. Beni Devi, the predecessorininterest of the present petitioner, in connivance and collusion with respondent no. 2, had taken the physical possession of the tenanted garage of the respondent no. 1, illegally and unauthorizedly, without the knowledge of the answering respondent. That after coming into the knowledge about the above said facts, the partner Sh. Dharam Pal of the answering respondent made an enquiry and came to know that the landlady Smt. Beni Devi, the predecessorininterest of the present petitioner, had instituted a petition in March 2002 titled "Smt. Beni Devi Vs. Sh. Ved Pal & Ors." u/s 14 (1) (a) (b) of the DRC Act, by impleading the old partner, namely, Sh. Ved Pal as respondent no. 1 and Sh. Rajpal as respondent no. 2 in the said case, by claiming that respondent no. 1 in the said case, namely, Sh. Ved Pal was their tenant of the garage in question, who had not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.04.1996 and had also illegally and unauthorizedly sublet, assigned or otherwise part with the possession of the garage to respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal. Whereas, the matter of fact was that the said Sh. Ved Pal of M/s Harkaran Dass Ved Pal, was not Page 6 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 7 the tenant of the garage in question, rather the firm M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand was and is the actual and lawful tenant of Smt. Beni Devi. It is submitted that in order to defeat the tenancy right of the answering respondent, the said landlady Smt. Beni Devi had instituted the above said petition earlier by impleading the wrong person as her tenant. That the said Smt. Beni Devi had filed the above said petition intentionally by impleading the retired partner Sh. Ved Pal of the firm M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand, who had retired from the said firm on 31.03.1992 vide Deed of Dissolution dated 24.07.1992. Accordingly, after 31.03.1992, the said Sh. Ved Pal had no right in the partnership firm M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand, who is the lawful and actual tenant of the petitioner in respect of the garage. Moreover, the counterfoil filed by the said Smt. Beni Devi in the said petition pertaining to the rent receipt issued in the name of the answering respondent for the period from 01.04.1991 to 31.07.1991 and from the period w.e.f. 01.08.1991 to 31.12.1991 itself contain the name of the tenant as of the answering respondent, as such the fraudulent and malafide intntion of the said Smt. Beni Devi is self apparent.
5. It is further submitted by the respondent that during the pendency of the abovesaid petition, the landlady Smt. Beni Devi had expired, and the present petitioner, namely, Sh. Anand Saroop had been impleaded as the petitioner in place of deceased Smt. Beni Devi in the said petition. The petitioner herein, namely, Sh. Anand Saroop had contested the said petition after the death of Smt. Beni Devi, till the same was withdrawn by him on 11.01.2012. In case the respondent no. 3 was in possession of the tenanted premises after May, 2003, then under what circumstances Page 7 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 8 or reasons, the petitioner had not disclosed the abovesaid fact during the pendency of the earlier petition filed by Smt. Beni Devi. That the answering respondent, thereafter, had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in February, 2006, against the said Smt. Beni Dvi and Sh. Raj Pal for removal of the lock and handing over the possession of the tenanted garage back to the answering respondent. Subsequently, because of the death of Smt. Beni Devi, the said suit was abated against the petitioner/her Lrs. It was submitted by the respondent that the said suit is still pending in the Court of Ms. Shama Gupta, CJ, Tis Hazari, Delhi and next date of hearing is fixed for 13.04.2012 for the service of Sh. Raj Pal, respondent no. 2 herein. However, moving an application u/s 45 of the DRC Act for restoration of electricity in the tenanted premises and filing of suit for perpetual injunction by respondent no. 2 are denied for want of knowledge, by the answering respondent. However, it is submitted that the deceased Smt. Beni Devi, the predecessorininterest of petitioner and respondent no. 2 were hand in gloves with each other and the said application or suits might have been filed by respondent no. 2 against the petitioner under some conspiracy with each other in order to defeat the tenancy right of the answering respondent. Further, it is submitted that respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal was the driver of respondent no. 1, so the answering respondent used to send the rent to the deceased Smt. Beni Devi, the predecessor ininterest of the petitioner occasionally through their driver, respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 used to visit at the office of respondent no. 1 time to time and the answering respondent used to send the rent to the deceased landlady Smt. Beni Devi in the name of respondent no. 1 by putting his signature on the counterfoil of the rent receipt.
Page 8 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 96. Replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement filed by respondent no. 1, wherein the petitioner has denied all the contentions made by the respondent in his written statement. Further, it is submitted that since the previous petition had not been dismissed on merit, so Section 11 of CPC does not apply. Similarly, Section 10 of CPC does not apply as previous petition is not pending in as much as the same has been withdrawn after filing the present petition. It is further submitted that if really the possession of the garage in question was with the petitioner, then there was absolutely no question of respondent no. 1 agreeing to pay rent of the garage in question to the petitioner after May. 2003 as per order dated 06.05.2011. Thus, the stand of respondent no. 1 that the possession of the garage in question is with the petitioner is totally false and wrong. The contention of respondent no. 1 that respondent no. 2 was allowed to live in the garage after his retirement on temporary basis as he was constructing his own house is false in as much as respondent no. 2 was already living in a constructed house since before 1997 in as much as the son of respondent no. 2 also having ration card from house no. 6/327, Nehru Vihar, Delhi and as respondent no. 2 had also applied for electricity connection in his name from the address of the said house in January, 2000. It is further added that respondent no. 2 had purchased land underneath house no. 6/327, Nehru Vihar, Delhi in the year 1984. Respondent no. 1 had not deliberately stated as to when respondent no. 2 had retired from the service of respondent no. 1. Similarly, no reason has been given as to why rent of the garage was not paid from 01.04.1996 or from February, 2000 onwards till order dated 06.05.2011 was passed u/s 15 (1) of the DRC Act. It is submitted that initially Sh.
Page 9 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 10Ved Pal was a tenant of the suit premises. Subsequently, firm M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand was accepted as a tenant and in 1991 Sh. Ved Pal again became tenant in the garage at a rent of Rs. 400/ per month as the said firm had surrendered tenancy rights in favour of Sh. Ved Pal in as much as Sh. Dharam Pal, partner of the said firm, is the brother of Sh. Ved Pal. The notice of demand was also served upon Sh. Ved Pal before filing the previous petition.
7. Sh. Anand Saroop, i.e., the petitioner, entered into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of petition. Further, he relied upon the following documents : a) Site plan : Ex. PW1/1
b) Certified copy of the plaint of suit no. 797/11(old no. 798/06): Ex. PW1/2
c) Attested copies of the plaint of suit no. 112/2000 as well as : Ex. PW1/R1 to Ex. PW1/R4 statement of the counsel of Smt. Beni Devi and copy of statement of counsel of respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal as well as order passed in that suit on 21.02.2003
d) Attested copy of the petition filed by respondent no. 2 : Ex. PW1/R5 u/s 45 of the DRC Act, claiming himself to be a tenant under Smt. Beni Devi
e) Attested copies of the statement of respondent no. 2 as well: Ex. PW1/R6 & PW1/R7 as order passed on 20.06.2000 in petition u/s 45 of the DRC Act
f) Certified copy of written statement filed by respondent no. 1 : Ex. PW1/R8 in earlier eviction petition no. 133/2006
g) Attested copy of Ration Card of respondent no. 1 : Ex. PW1/R9
h) Attested copies of Indemnity Bond and Affidavit given by : Ex. PW1/R10 & PW1/R11 respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal to the electricity department
8. In their turn, Sh. Dharm Pal, Partner of respondent no. 1 firm M/s Harkarn Dass Deep Chand, stepped into the witness box as RW1 and deposed on the lines of written statement filed by him. Further, he relied upon the following documents :
a) Certified copies of the Partnership Deeds dated 01.07.71, : Ex. RW1/1 to RW1/3 02.07.73 and 23.11.77
b) Certificate of Registration of Partnership firm : Ex. RW1/4
c) Certified copy of Deed of Dissolution dated 24.07.1992 : Ex. RW1/5
d) Certified copy of written statement dated 11.12.2002 filed : Ex. RW1/6 filed by Sh. Raj Pal Page 10 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 11
e) Certified copy of the replication file by Smt. Beni Devi to the : Ex. RW1/7 written statement filed by Sh. Raj Pal
f) Certified copy of the application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC moved : Ex. RW1/8 & RW1/9 by Sh. Dharm Pal being the partner of respondent no. 1 in the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, the then ARC, on 20.02.2006 and order dated 28.07.2009
g) Copy of order dated 11.01.2012 : Ex. RW1/10
h) Certified copy of the replication : Ex. RW1/11
i) Certified copy of order dated 06.05.2011 : Ex. RW1/12
j) Certified copy of the orders dated 26.07.2011, 13.10.2011, : Ex. RW1/13 to RW1/15 and 05.12.2011
k) Appointment letter dated 01.07.1969 : Ex. RW1/R1
l) Full and final settlement dated 30.10.2004 : Ex. RW1/R2
m) Receipts regarding receiving bonus, gratuity and leave : Ex. RW1/R3 to RW1/R5 with salary by respondent no. 2 dated 03.11.2004
n) Copy of the computer generated Ledger Folio : Mark 'A'
9. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and have also gone through the judicial record.
GROUNDS OF EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(b) OF THE ACT:
10. Two essential conditions are required to be satisfied to prove sub letting as under:
(a) That the alleged subtenant is in exclusive possession, and
(b) That between the tenant and the alleged subtenant, there is a relationship of lessor or lessee.
11. The subtenancy or subletting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered, as has been held in Bharat Sales Ltd. V. LIC of India, (1998) 3 SCC 1.
Page 11 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 1212. In the present case, the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship has not been disputed by the respondent. It is submitted by respondent no. 1 M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand that M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand was the tenant of Smt. Beni Devi with respect to a garage at the ground floor of property no. 4/41, Roop Nagar, Delhi, for parking their car. It is further submitted that Sh. Dharm Pal is one of the partners of the said firm. The respondent has placed on record certified copies of the Partnership Deeds dated 01.07.71, 02.07.73 and 23.11.77 exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. RW1/3 alongwith Certificate of Registration of the said firm Ex. RW1/4. It is submitted by the respondent, however, that the present subject matter of the petition was directly and substantially in issue in earlier petition filed u/s 14 (1) (a) & (b) of the DRC Act, by the predecessorininterest of the petitioner Smt. Beni Devi against Sh. Ved Pal in the month of March, 2002. However, during the pendency of the said petition, an application u/o 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the present respondent on the ground that present respondent is a tenant under the petitioner and not Sh. Ved Pal. In the said petition, the present respondent was allowed to be impleaded as respondent no. 3. However, during the pendency of the said petition, the present petition was filed by the petitioner and the petitioner withdrew the earlier petition filed against Sh. Ved Pal & Ors. It is not disputed by the petitioner that as on date, the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner. It is further admitted by the petitioner that respondent no. 1 is a tenant under the petitioner even at the time of predecessorininterest of the petitioner and even rent receipt was issued to respondent no. 1 at that time. It is submitted that for sometime Sh. Ved Pal became a tenant under Smt. Beni Devi, who Page 12 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 13 thereafter, retired and again respondent no. 1 became a tenant under the petitioner. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question as well as existence of landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.
13. It is further averred by the petitioner that respondent no. 1 has sublet, assigned and otherwise parted with possession of the premises , i.e., garage to respondent no. 2 after January, 2000, without the written consent from the petitioner or from his mother Smt. Beni Devi. That initially respondent no. 2 was kept by respondent no. 1 as his driver for plying his car and the garage was also used by respondent no. 2 to live. However, after January, 2000, respondent no. 2 ceased to be an employee of respondent no. 1 and stopped plying car of respondent no.
1. However, the possession of the garage was not obtained by partner of respondent no. 1 from respondent no. 2 even after termination of service of respondent no. 2. That respondent no. 2 also obtained his Ration Card from the address of the suit premises in the year 1996 and also Election ID Card was issued to respondent no. 2 from the said address. That after leaving the service of respondent no. 1, respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal filed a suit for perpetual injunction on 27.04.2000 against Smt. Beni Devi, i.e. erstwhile owner of the premises in question claiming himself to be a tenant under Smt. Beni Devi @ Rs. 130/ per month. That the said suit was compromised on 21.02.2003. The attested copies of the plaint, statement of counsel of Smt. Beni Devi, statement of counsel for respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal as well as order passed in that suit are exhibited as Ex. PW1/R1 to Ex. PW1/R4. Further, respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal had also filed petition u/s 45 of the Page 13 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 14 DRC Act for restoration of the electricity connection on 12.06.2000, which was registered as suit no. 13/2000, wherein also respondent no. 2 claimed himself to be a tenant under Smt. Beni Devi. The attested copy of the petition in that case is Ex. PW1/R5. It is further submitted by the petitioner that in earlier petition filed by the petitioner against Sh. Ved Pal and others, u/s 14 (1) (a) & (b) of the DRC Act, respondent no. 1 had agreed to pay arrears of rent since 01.04.1996. Had the possession of the tenanted premises being in possession of the petitioner himself, respondent no. 1 would not have agreed to pay arrears of rent since 01.04.1996. Per contra, it is submitted by the respondent that respondent no. 2 during the course of his employment was driver of respondent no. 1 and was permitted to use garage in question for parking car of respondent no. 1 and also to live therein. That when respondent no. 1 retired from employment of the firm M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand, he was permitted to live in the garage for temporary period as some construction/renovation work was carried out in his house. Even otherwise, respondent no. 2 used to visit respondent no. 1 on continuous basis and on number of occasions used to ply the vehicle of respondent no. 1. However, when partner of respondent no. 1 visited the garage, i.e., the suit premises on 01.02.2006, he gound that respondent no. 2 was no longer in occupation of the said premises and that the said premises at that time was in occupation of Smt. Beni Devi, i.e., predecessorininterest of the petitioner, who had put her own locks on the said premises. It is submitted by the respondent that predecessorin interest of the petitioner Smt. Beni Devi in order to defeat the tenancy right of respondent no. 1 had intentionally instituted the earlier petition u/s 14 (1) (a) & (b) of the DRC Act against a wrong person Sh. Ved Pal Page 14 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 15 as a tenant, whereas, the tenant of the premises in question was M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand. Thereafter, the respondent again sought the permission to file certain document and had filed on record Appointment Letter dated 01.07.1969 of Sh. Raj Pal, by which he was appointed as Driver of respondent no. 1 as Ex. RW1/R1 as well as full and final settlement dated 30.10.2004 relating to Sh. Raj Pal. Perusal of the full and final settlement documents relating to Sh. Raj Pal clearly shows that though there is mention of bonus, gratuity, etc, by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 but there is no mention of the fact that respondent no. 2 was allowed to retain the possession of the garage in question even after his full and final settlement. No document, receipt or full and final settlement has been filed by respondent no. 1 to prove that respondent no. 2 was allowed to remain in possession of the suit premises even after his retirement from the service of respondent no. 1 on 30.10.2004. Further, two cases were filed by respondent no. 2 against the erstwhile owner of the premises Smt. Beni Devi claiming himself to be a tenant under Smt. Beni Devi prior to his alleged retirement in the year 2004. Had there been no subtenancy between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2, there was no reason for respondent no. 2 to file a separate petition against the petitioner claiming his independent title in the premises in question. Further, no rent was paid by respondent no. 1 after the year 2000 to the petitioner, even though, it was claimed that respondent no. 1 had paid rent to the petitioner till 2004. No document has been filed by respondent no. 1 to prove that rent was ever paid by respondent no. 1 after 2000, i.e. after possession of the garage in question was given by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2. Further, during crossexamination, it was stated by Page 15 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 16 RW1 that respondent no. 2 had given back possession of the premises in question to the petitioner in May, 2003. It was also stated by RW1 that the car of RW1 was parked in garage in question till January, 2006 and that respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal retired from job in the year 2004. That all these statements made by RW1 are in complete contradiction to each other. If respondent no. 2 had retired on 30.10.2004, then how is it possible that possession of the garage in question given back to the petitioner in the year 2003 when it is the case of the respondent that respondent no. 2 was allowed to reside in the garage in question even after his retirement from service of respondent no. 1 on the ground that he was constructing/renovating his own house. Further, the statement made by respondent no. 1 that the car of respondent no. 1 was parked in the garage in question till 2006 is also contradictory since after the possession of the premises in question was given back to the petitioner in the year 2003, then how the car of respondent no. 1 was parked in the said premises till 2006. Thus, all these statements of the respondent clearly show that the respondent himself is not clear as to when premises in question was given back to the petitioner and till when it was in occupation of respondent no. 2.
14. It is further submitted by respondent no. 1 that when he visited the premises in question in the year 2006, he found that the premises was no longer in occupation of respondent no. 2 and the possession of the same had been taken back by the petitioner. This statement of respondent no. 1 also clearly shows that respondent no. 1 had lost his control over the premises in question and thus, premises in question was under the complete control of respondent no. 2 Sh. Raj Pal, meaning Page 16 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 17 thereby that the full control over the premises in question was given by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2, thus proving creation of sub tenancy by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2. Further, it is clearly stated by the petitioner that respondent has its own residential accommodation bearing House No. 6/327, Nehru Vihar, Delhi since 1997, which was fully constructed. No explanation has been given by respondent no. 1 to prove that despite having the said house why respondent no. 2 was living in the garage which was given on tenancy to respondent no. 1. Further, it is submitted by respondent no. 1 that he had asked respondent no. 2 to hand over the keys of the tenanted premises, however, he refused to do so. However, respondent no. 1 failed to file any complaint against respondent no. 2. Further, it is clear that respondent no. 1 had lost his control over the premises in question and he was not even aware that when respondent no. 2 left the said garage and who is in occupation of the said garage. Further, contradictory statements were made by respondent no.1 regarding parking of car since 2006 and further regarding handing over the possession of premises in question by respondent no. 2 to the petitioner in the year 2003.
15. From all these abovestated discussed facts, it is clear that respondent no. 1 had parted with the possession of the premises in question to respondent no. 2, loosing all its control over the same. Thus, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents u/s 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act, is allowed. The respondents are held liable to be evicted from the premises in question, i.e. one garage situated on the ground floor of property bearing no. 4/41, Roop Nagar, Delhi110007, as Page 17 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13 18 shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith petition. No order as to costs.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
th
on 27 Day of October, 2016 CCJ cum ARC1 (Central)
[This judgment contains 18 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 18 of 18 Anand Saroop Vs. M/s Harkaran Dass Deep Chand & Ors. E-396/13