Delhi District Court
Ms. Preeti Rajput vs Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur on 7 May, 2018
In the Court of CCJ cum ARC, Pilot Court (Central District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Case No. E279/17
CIS No. 321/17
In the matter of :
Ms. Preeti Rajput
D/o Sh. Balbir Singh
2084, Street No. 5, Chuna Mandi,
Paharganj, New Delhi110055. ...........Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o 2527/28, (Ground Floor),
Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi,
Paharganj, New Delhi110055. .............Respondent
Date of institution : 22.04.2017 Date of reserved for judgment : 07.04.2018 Date of judgment : 07.05.2018 Decision : Petition allowed
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Ms. Preeti Rajput against the respondent Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., property bearing no. 2527/28 comprising of two rooms with kitchen and bathroom, part of built up property having Khasra No. 521, Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi110055, as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act').
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 1 of 37 9.14% undivided and unspecified share, i.e., 84 sq. yds. of entire built up premises no. 2524 to 2530 and part of property no. 2527 of Khasra No. 521, out of total area measuring 919 sq. yds., situated in Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi. She bought the same from the original owner/landlord Sh. S. Pawanjit Singh Bawa by virtue of two separate sale deeds dated 27.07.2010. As per the oral understanding and arrangement with other coowners, the petitioner has the portion of the said property under her possession bearing Municipal No. 2527/28, which is shown in the site plan. Sh. Balbir Singh, the father of the petitioner vide SPA dated 12.04.2017 executed in his favour is a duly constituted attorney and authorized signatory of the applicant. The tenanted premises was let out for residential purposes to Sh. Ram Singh, Later on, the respondent came into possession of the suit premises and used to give rent on his behalf.
3. It is averred by the petitioner that she is unmarried and lives with her parents. She is B.A. (H) from University of Delhi and M.A. in Political Science from IGNOU. She has also done diploma in computer applications and programming besides basic teacher training course (JBT) from Madhya Pradesh and despite all that she is unable to get a decent employment and earns her living by giving tuitions. The petitioner wants to start her own coaching cum tuition centre from the suit premises. The suit premises is situated on the ground floor and is just 45 minutes walk from her residence. Being in a residential cum commercial area, the same is ideal to carry out the said business of coaching cum tuition centre. The E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 2 of 37 petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation to meet her bonafide requirement.
On the above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
4. Summons were served upon the respondent, who appeared and filed leave to defend application which was allowed vide order dated 25.07.2017 and the respondent was given liberty to contest the present eviction petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed written statement wherein he denied the contentions made by the petitioner in the petition and further stated that the sole purpose behind the institution of this eviction petition is, certainly, not to use the premises in suit for residential purposes. It is further submitted that neither the petitioner is the owner of the property in question nor is the landlord of the respondent. Further, there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner for the property in question. It is submitted that the petitioner, i.e. Ms. Preeti Rajput has got married to Sh. Varun on 08.05.2017 and as such, after marriage she has left her parental home at Paharganj to Patel Nagar, which is at a distance of more than 15 kms. After leaving the parental home and going to her matrimonial home far away from Paharganj where the property in question is situated, it is highly improbable and impossible that the petitioner can open a coaching centre at the property in question or even to run the same. The alleged requirement shown by the petitioner is a self created paucity of accommodation and is not a case of bonafide requirement. Copy of the marriage card of the petitioner is annexed as E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 3 of 37 Annexure1. The alleged sale deeds also does not show that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in question as neither the property no. 2527/28 is mentioned in the alleged sale deeds nor on the alleged site plans annexed by the petitioner. Further, a site plan as annexed with the present petition is not correct and proper. The petitioner has failed to disclose before the Court that her mother Asha Rani had also purchased the property in the said location and infact from the same person as that of the petitioner, which is situated in same municipal number as that of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner must have other reasonable suitable accommodation to start her alleged coaching centre. Smt. Asha Rani (mother of the petitioner) has also filed eviction petition bearing no. 322/17 against one Mr. Rajinder Singh Juneja for the property bearing no. 2526, Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi110055.
5. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner and her family members owns the following properties :
a) Property No. 2084, Gali No. 5, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, which consists of ground, first, second and third floor with roof rights and the entire property is in the area of mix land use and are under the possession and occupation of mother of the petitioner. The entire ground floor is a big hall/shop and the same is for the commercial use.
b) Shop No. 1874, Wazir Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi situated at first floor on an area of 60 sq. yds. and the same is used by the petitioner and her family members for E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 4 of 37 commercial use.
c) Shop No. 1875, Wazir Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, an area of 40 sq. yds., main road on ground floor. This property is being used for the commercial purposes by the petitioner.
d) Shop No. 2530/3, Main Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi110055. This property is an area of 360 sq. yards and same is in the area of mix land use. The first and second floor portions of the property no. 2530. Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi has been rented out by the petitioner to different tenants. The first and second floor portion of the property No. 2524 to 2529, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi are also under the ownership of the mother of the petitioner and are on rent with different tenants and earning rental income.
e) The petitioner claimed to be the owner of an area of 85 sq. yards out of property no. 2524 to 2530, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi.
f) Property No. 2527/42, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi in the name of mother of the petitioner. She has rented out the first floor portion on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/. The mother of the petitioner further let out the second floor portion of the above said property on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/.
g) Property No. 2527/74, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi in the name of the mother of the petitioner. She has rented out the first E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 5 of 37 floor portion of the property on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/. The remaining portion of the property is under use and occupation of mother of the petitioner.
h) Property No. 2527/74, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, is the property of the petitioner and her family members. The ground floor portion is lying vacant. This property is situated at main road and is in the mixed land use which is for the commercial purposes.
i) The petitioner and her family members are also in possession of the property situated at Prachin Shiv Mandir, Aram Bagh, Paharganj, New Delhi110055 and area of the property is more than 200 sq. yds. The first floor portion of the property is rented out and the remaining part of the property are with the petitioner and her family members.
6. It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner is not the landlord of the respondent as no verbal or written rent agreement ever executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent has never paid any rent to the petitioner or Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa (who claimed to be the owner of the property through Will of Sh. Jagjit Singh Bawa) and it is only a self created tenancy by the petitioner to harass the respondent to get the said property evicted from the respondent. From the documents as placed on record by the petitioner, the petitioner have claimed to purchased the 4.57% undivided and unspecified share (42 sq. yds., i.e. 35.13 sq. meters approximately) in the suit property from one Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa vide a registered sale deed, whereas, the E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 6 of 37 alleged sale deed does not show that the petitioner has purchased the suit property, i.e. property bearing no. 2527/28, which is under the possession of the respondent herein. Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa, who claimed to be the owner of the property is/was not the landlord of the respondent herein and as such, there can be no transfer of tenancy in favour of the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any document/letter/receipt/notice by which the petitioner had intimated the respondent about the purchase of the said property or transfer of tenancy in her favour. Whereas, the respondent herein had received a legal notice dated 18.10.2011 from Smt. Anu Oberoi, W/o Sh. Rajesh Oberoi, R/o 2527/42 (Part) Nalwa Street, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, wherein she has claimed to be the owner of the property/premises possessed by the respondent herein. The said legal notice was allegedly sent by Smt. Anu Oberoi to get the said premises vacated from the respondent and to hand over the possession of the same to said Smt. Anu Oberoi. Copy of the legal notice dated 18.10.2011 is annexed as Annexure2. Copy of the printouts taken from the website of Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi showing the sale of the property bearing no. 25242530 and 2527, Chuna Mandi to various other persons is annexed as Annexure
3. Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa is neither the owner of the said property nor the landlord of the respondent which is evident from the facts and documents placed on record, as Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bawa, who was the original owner of the said property, had left a Will dated 07.04.2009 in favour of Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa. Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa is E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 7 of 37 claiming the ownership of the said property on the basis of the said Will, whereas no probate of the said Will has been obtained from the Court. Further, Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bawa has three children and it was necessary that the probate of Will to be obtained. Without obtaining the probate of the Will, neither the said property can be transferred in favour of Sh. Paramjeet Singh Bawa nor any further tenancy can be created. The alleged sale deeds as placed on record cannot be considered and acted upon by the Court as the said sale deeds are similar and identical with respect to the area of the property and value of the property and it is not clear why two separate sale deeds have been executed for the same set of property. It is submitted that the alleged sale deeds cannot be acted upon being barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended till date as it is the case of the petitioner that she had cleared the Bachelor of Arts in the year 2009 and thereafter, has obtained Diploma in Education in December, 2013, thus, it is clear that the petitioner was unemployed till 2010 and had no source of income to purchase the property as mentioned in the alleged sale deeds. The consideration amount as paid by the petitioner in the alleged sale deed has been provided by another person.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner is the owner and in occupation of various other premises which is also evident from the perusal of the alleged sale deeds. There are 90 houses in the property number 2527 and the respondent is one of them. The area of the property possessed by the respondent is 40 sq. yards and as such, it is clear that the E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 8 of 37 petitioner is also owner of the other houses in property no. 2527 and as such there is alternative suitable accommodation to the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed that there is an oral understanding and arrangement with other coowners of the said property, i.e., Property bearing no. 2527/28, whereas, the petitioner has failed to disclose who are the other coowners of the said property and are not intentionally not made party in the present suit.
8. It is submitted that the alleged rent receipt bearing no. 711 as placed on record by the petitioner is false and fabricated as the same does not bears the signatures of the respondent herein. The signatures of the respondent are forged and fabricated by the petitioner. It is submitted that the original receipt is in possession of the respondent and copy of the same is annexed as Annexure 4. It is submitted that the premises is let out for residential purposes, however, it is denied that the said premises was ever let out by the petitioner to the respondent for residential purpose. It is further denied that the tenanted premises at Municipal Number 2527/28, Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 was let for residential purposes or comprise of two rooms with kitchen and bathroom. It is further denied that the respondent materially altered the structure of the premises without the permission of the petitioner or also converted the use from residential to commercial somewhere way back in 2006. It is submitted that the property in question was let out byone Sh. Jagjit Singh Bawa and not by Sh. Pawanjit Singh Bawa.
E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 9 of 379. The petitioner neither requires the premises in question for her bonafide need nor she do not have any other suitable reasonable accommodation. It is further denied that the suit premises was let on rent to Ram Singh. It is further denied that later the respondent happens to be in possession of the property or use to give rent on his behalf. It is further denied that the respondent has materially altered the structure of the premises without the permission of the petitioner. It is further denied that she had also converted the use from residential to commercial somewhere way back in 2006. It is submitted that the petitioner or Sh. Jagjit Singh Bawa has never informed the respondent about the alleged sale of the property in question to the petitioner. As such, there is no landlordtenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and thus, there is no question of payment of rent to the petitioner herein.
10. It is further denied that the petitioner wants to start her own coaching cum tuition center from the said premises, as such, she is in bonafide need of the said premises. It is further denied that the said premises is on ground floor or is just 45 minutes walk from her residence. It is further denied that being in a residential cum commercial area, the premises is ideal or hence reasonably suitable to carry out the said business of coaching cum tuition center. Further, as per the knowledge and information of the respondent, the petitioner has also made a police complaint against the occupant of the first floor of the property in question claiming that the property is in depleted condition and need to be vacated by the said occupant for repairs. The said fact E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 10 of 37 itself shows that the property in question is not usable by the petitioner. The respondent only resides in the ground floor of the said property and there is another occupant on the first floor of the property in question.
11. Replication to the written statement was filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has denied all the averments made by the respondent in the written statement, reaverring what was averred by her in the main eviction petition. It is wrong and denied that the petitioner has started living far from the property which will make it inconvenient for her to open coaching cum tuition centre. It is submitted that the matrimonial home of the petitioner is at Patel Nagar which is just 56 k.m. and not 15 km as alleged by the respondent. Nowhere the petitioner has stated that she is the owner of the property. It is reiterated that the petitioner brought 9.14% undivided and unspecified share of the entire built up premises. It is submitted that property no. 2084, Gali No. 5, Chuna Mandi, Pahargarnj, New Delhi was purchased by Shri Balbir Singh the father of the petitioner. The said property was rebuilt and in order to pay the construction cost he sold the ground floor and first floor around 7 years back. Second and third floor is used for residential purpose by the father of the petitioner. It is absolutely wrong and denied that the property being MCD No. 1874, Wazir Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi at first floor is a shop or is being used for commercial purpose. The said property was purchased by Gaurav Kumar the elder brother of the petitioner. He is married and resides with his family on the said premise. It is absolutely wrong and denied that shop E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 11 of 37 no. 1875, Wazir Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi is having an area of 40 sq. yards. It is submitted that the same is only of about 25 sq. yards. Moreover, the petitioner is not the owner of the said property. It is in ownership of Shri Saurabh Kumar the elder brother of the petitioner. He is running a shop of computer parts under the name and style of M/s ASP computers with his brother namely Shri Gaurav Kumar. It is absolutely wrong and denied that the shop bearing no. 2530/3, Main Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi is 360 sq. yards. Its a small shop of about 12 sq. yards. It is not a portion of 2530 which is located on first floor and is about 100 yards away from 2530/3. It is in possession of petitioner's mother who has rented the same. Shop bearing no. 2530/3 is in name of Shri Saurabh Kumar the brother of the petitioner who is using the same as storage cum godown for his business. In respect of 2524 to 2529 Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi it is submitted that it is altogether separate from the portion mentioned in the above para 2524 to 2529 are part of entire property of which besides petitioner, her mother Smt. Asha Rani and others are also coowner. However, the said portion is not in possession of the petitioner. Part of it is in possession of her mother and other are occupied by coowners. The following portion of the property comes under the possession of Smt. Asha Rani the mother of the petitioner: Portion bearing MCD no. 2524 (part), it is on the first floor and is occupied by an old tenant Sardar Jagir Singh and his sons. He does not pay any rent.
Portion bearing MCD No. 2526 is at ground floor and is occupied E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 12 of 37 by Shri R.S. Juneja as tenant against which the mother of the petitioner has already initiated eviction proceedings. Portion bearing MCD No. 2527/1 ground floor comes in the inner portion of the katra. It is strictly for residential usage and is rented to Shri Harish Chandra for his residential purpose.
Portion bearing MCD no. 2527/29 (part) is on the first floor comes in the inner portion of the katra. It is strictly for residential usage and is occupied by an old tenant who does not pay any rent. Portion bearing MCD No. 2527/61 ground floor is occupied by Shri Gurpreet Singh and Shri Guvinder Singh who are transacting commercial activities from there. They are old tenant and do not pay any rent. It falls on the inner side of katra.
Portion bearing MCD No. 2528 is on the ground floor and is occupied by an old tenant Smt. Venus W/o Late Shri Ram P. Johnson does not pay any rent.
Portion bearing MCD No. 2530 is located on the first floor and above and the same is also rented to respective tenants who pay monthly rent.
12. It is submitted that the petitioner owns 84 sq. yards of the entire built up property on Khasra No. 521, having Municipal Corporation No. 2524 and parts of property bearing no. 2527. 2527/42 is in two parts. Both have MCD No. 2527/42 one part is in possession of Smt. Asha Rani the mother and coowner of the property and other part is in possession of the petitioner. The part in possession of Smt. Asha Rani is let out to Shri Chinta Mani. The part in possession of the petitioner is let out to Shri Nirmal Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh. He is an old tenant and does not pay rent. This is purely residential in use as per MCD and falls in the inner side of katra. 2527/74 First Floor is in the possession of petitioner and the same is occupied by Shri Natthi as tenant. Besides this the following E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 13 of 37 portion are also in possession of the petitioner which are as under:
Portion bearing MCD no. 2527/74 is one room at second floor. Portion bearing no. MCD no. 2527/42 (Part) is occupied by an old tenant Shri Nirmal Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh. He does not pay any rent.
Portion bearing MCD No. 2527/62 is also rented and is occupied by an old tenant family of Late Shri Charan Singh who does not pay rent.
There is no portion of the property bearing MCD No. 2527/74 at ground floor. The said property at Prachin Shiv Mandir is a mandir property which is being governed by Prachin Shiv Mandir Trust wherein Shri Balbir Singh the father of the petitioner is only in the management of the temple.
13. The petitioner is the coowner of the entire property of which 2527/28 is the municipal number of the part of the property occupied by the respondent. The petitioner coownership is not denied by the respondent as such she is within her right to initiate eviction petition against the respondent. It is absolutely wrong and denied that Shri Pawan Jeet Singh Bawa was not the owner or the landlord of the said property. It is absolutely wrong and denied that the respondent has received notice of eviction from one of the coowner of the suit property. It is further submitted that there is no dispute between the petitioner and the other co owner of the suit property. The erstwhile owner from whom the petitioner purchased the share in the property had lastly informed the respondent vide its letter dated 13.04.2017 and the same was received by the respondent. The petitioner purchased the said property from the absolute owner Shri Pawan Jeet Singh Bawa. It is absolutely wrong and E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 14 of 37 vehemently denied the Sale Deed in respect of the property is not valid. It is submitted that the said property was purchased by the petitioner from the money earned from her tuition work and with monetary help from Satish Kumar. It is absolutely wrong and vehemently denied that the petitioner has other suitable reasonable accommodation. It is absolutely wrong and hence denied that the rent receipt placed on record by the petitioner is false and fabricated and the rent receipt filed on record by the respondent is the correct rent receipt.
14. During evidence, the petitioner examined two witnesses. Petitioner herself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of eviction petition. Further, she relied upon the following documents :
a) Special Power of Attorney dated 12.04.2017 : Ex. PW1/1
b) Copy of sale deeds dated 27.07.2010 : Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) c) Site plan : Ex. PW1/3
d) Copy of rent receipt : Ex. PW1/4
e) Copy of letter dated 13.04.2017 alongwith postal : Ex. PW1/5 receipt
f) Documents pertaining to educational qualifications : Ex. PW1/6 (colly.) of the petitioner
15. S. Pawanjit Singh Bawa entered into the witness box as PW2 and deposed in sync with PW1.
16. In her turn, the respondent entered into the witness box as DW1 and deposed on the lines of her written statement. Further, she relied upon the following documents :
a) Copy of the marriage card of the petitioner : Ex. DW1/1
b) Copy of the legal notice dated 18.10.2011 : Ex. DW1/2
c) Copy of the printout taken from the website of : Ex. DW1/3 Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi showing the sale of the property bearing no. 2524 2530 and 2527, Chunda Mandi to various other persons.
d) Copy of rent receipt : Ex. DW1/4 E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 15 of 37
17. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record.
Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958.
i. Petitioner is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
ii. She requires the premises bonafidely for herself or for family members dependent upon her;
iii. She has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
Ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship :
18. In the present case, the respondent has disputed the existence of landlordtenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as well as ownership of the petitioner stating that the sale deeds placed on record does not bear property number which is in occupation of the respondent. It is submitted that neither the petitioner is the owner of the property in question nor the landlord of the respondent. The alleged sale deeds also do not show that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in question as neither the property no. 2527/28 is mentioned in the alleged sale deeds nor on the alleged site plans annexed by the petitioner. From the documents as placed on record by the petitioner, the petitioner has claimed to purchased the 4.57% undivided and unspecified share (42 sq. yds., i.e. 35.13 sq. meters approximately) in the suit property from one Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa vide a registered sale deed, whereas, the alleged sale deed does not show that the petitioner has purchased the suit property, i.e. property bearing no. 2527/28, which is under the possession E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 16 of 37 of the respondent herein. The respondent has also relied upon copy of the printouts taken from the website of Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi showing the sale of the property bearing no. 25242530 and 2527, Chuna Mandi to various other persons as Ex. DW1/3.It is further the contention of the respondent that the alleged sale deeds as placed on record cannot be considered and acted upon by the Court as the said sale deeds are similar and identical with respect to the area of the property and value of the property. It is not clear why two separate sale deeds have been executed for the same set of property. It is submitted that the alleged sale deeds cannot be acted upon being barred by the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended till date as it is the case of the petitioner that she had cleared the Bachelor of Arts in the year 2009 and thereafter, has obtained Diploma in Education in December, 2013. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was unemployed till 2010 and had no source of income to purchase the property as mentioned in the alleged sale deeds. The consideration amount as paid by the petitioner in the alleged sale deed has been provided by another person.
19. On the other hand the petitioner has submitted that she is the owner of 9.14% undivided and unspecified share, i.e., 84 sq. yds. of entire built up premises no. 2524 to 2530 and part of property no. 2527 of Khasra No. 521, out of total area measuring 919 sq. yds., situated in Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi. She bought the same from the original owner/landlord Sh. S. Pawanjit Singh Bawa by virtue of two E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 17 of 37 separate sale deeds dated 27.07.2010. As per the oral understanding and arrangement with other coowners, the petitioner has the portion of the said property under her possession bearing Municipal No. 2527/28, which is shown in the site plan. Nowhere the petitioner has stated that she is the owner (exclusive) of the property. The petitioner is the coowner of the entire property of which 2527/28 is the municipal number of the part of the property occupied by the respondent. The coownership of the petitioner is not denied by the respondent and as such she is within her right to initiate eviction petition against the respondent. It is further submitted that there is no dispute between the petitioner and the other co owner of the suit property. The erstwhile owner, from whom the petitioner purchased the share in the property had lastly informed the respondent vide letter dated 13.04.2017 and the same was received by the respondent. The petitioner purchased the said property from the absolute owner Shri Pawan Jeet Singh Bawa. It is submitted that the said property was purchased by the petitioner from the money earned from her tuition work and with monetary help from Satish Kumar.
20. In order to substantiate her version, the petitioner as PW1 has relied upon the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 (colly.). She has also stated that the tenanted premises is the part of the number mentioned in the sale deed. PW1 stated that she has jointly purchased the property with other co owners. The said properties include the tenanted premises. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner having purchased undivided and unspecified share of the entire build up premises is the coowner of the entire suit E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 18 of 37 property. Further, she has categorically mentioned that by way of oral understanding with other coowners, the tenanted premises alongwith other portions of the property have fallen to her share. She has named the other coowners in her crossexamination as Jagdish Pahuja, Anu, Sunil Arora and Asha Rani. PW1 has categorically stated that she has got two rooms in 2527/28 alongwith bathroom and kitchen, one room in 2527/42, one room in 2527/62, one room on first floor in 2527/74 and one room on the second floor. Thus, she has given the description of the entire 84 sq. yds. of the property which has come to her share, which includes the tenanted premises.
21. As regards the contention of the respondent that two identical sale deeds have been got made, it is the prerogative of the petitioner to purchase the property by one sale deed or two sale deeds as per her will and convenience. The contention of the respondent regarding the purchase of property being benami transaction is also not found tenable. During crossexamination, PW1 has stated that she used to give tuition classes to the students living in her street. She also used to give tuition classes to students in and around her street. She stated that she purchased the property mentioned in the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 (colly.) from her own funds as she was giving tuitions. She sold her gold and took loan from her uncle and Sh. Satish Kumar.
22. Moreover, the absolute ownership is not required to be proved under the DRC Act. The petitioner is required to only show that his/her title is more than that of the tenant. Reliance in this regard is placed upon E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 19 of 37 the caselaw titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Leela Wati & others, 155 (2008) DLT 383", wherein it was laid down that a landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act and he is required to show only that he is more than a tenant. Same was the ratio of decision given in Jiwan Lal v. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162. Further, in Yashpal v. Chamanlal Sachdeva, 129 (2006) DLT 200, it has been held that coowner can maintain a petition and that the intersearrangement between owners is no business of the tenant.
23. The next contention of the respondent is that Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa, from whom the petitioner claims to have purchased the property, is neither the owner of the said property nor the landlord of the respondent which is evident from the facts and documents placed on record, as Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bawa, who was the original owner of the said property, had left a Will dated 07.04.2009 in favour of Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa. Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa is claiming the ownership of the said property on the basis of the said Will, whereas no probate of the said Will has been obtained from the Court. Further, Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bawa has three children and it was necessary that the probate of Will to be obtained. Without obtaining the probate of the Will, neither the said property can be transferred in favour of Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa nor any further tenancy can be created.
24. On the other hand, the petitioner as PW1 has stated that she got the suit property from the original owner and landlord Sh.Pawanjeet Singh E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 20 of 37 Bawa, who inherited the same from his father late Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bawa. Originally, the tenanted premises was let out on rent to Sh. Ram Singh by late Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bawa on an oral agreement. Later, the respondent happens to be in possession of the said portion and started paying rent on behalf of Sh. Ram Singh. The original rent receipts handed over to the petitioner at the time of sale are Ex. PW1/4. At the time of sale of the suit property by Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa, she informed the respondent about the sale of the portion and that the petitioner is the new landlord, however, the respondent did not pay a single penny towards rent to the petitioner. PW2, Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa also deposed in sync with PW1 and stated to have sent a letter regarding nonpayment of rent to the respondent as Ex. PW1/5. During crossexamination, PW2 stated to have inherited the property from his father by way of registered Will. He stated that there is no dispute between him and his step brother and sister. He also admitted to have sold part of the property to Smt. Anu Oberoi in the year 2010. He also stated that he was present at the time when mutual understanding was arrived between the petitioner and other coowners.
25. In Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247, it was held that "the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit . If the premises was let out by a person and after the death, the premises has come in the hands of a beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary.
E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 21 of 37If on the death of the original owner, the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord / owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after the death of original owner without demur and without raising any objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show there is a testament in his / her favour, he is deemed to have discharged his burden of proving under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord / owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of original owner."
26. Further, It is immaterial that the respondent /tenant attorns to the respondent/ landlady as landlady or not, as law does not require any act of attornment. It is settled principle that in case respondent is admittedly tenant under earlier owner, and once Sale Deed is registered by the earlier owner in favour of petitioner/landlady any attornment by the tenant to the petitioner/ landlady is not required. Reference may be made to : Sanjay Singh v. M/s Corporate Warranties Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 204 DLT 12; Harvinder Singh v. M/s. Paradise Tower Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 199 DLT (CN) 25; Ambica Prasad v. Mohd. Alam (2015) 13 SCC 13. Hence, the E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 22 of 37 contention of the respondent that the petitioner is not having any rent receipt after the year 2007 nor she has given any written notice or communication to the respondent about the purchase of the premises in question does not hold ground.
27. Another contention raised by the respondent is that PW2 during crossexamination has admitted that the property is leasehold property and he has sold the entire property as leasehold. It is averred that PW2 does not remember whether he had obtained any permission from the DDA to sell the leasehold rights and he has not applied for freehold to the DDA. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that the lease was for a total period of 90 years and for sale of leasehold rights in immovable property, prior permission of the DDA is required. The above argument of the respondent is not found tenable as the respondent is not able to produce any document in support of her contention. Also, in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. v. Smt. Ved Prabha &Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, it has been held that "Ordinarily, the concept of the ownership may be absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereof. But in the modern context, where all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons who holding the land on some term from the Government or the authorities constituted by the State. The legislature, when it used the term "owner" in S. 14 (1) (e), did not think of ownership as absolute ownership.
28. The meaning of the term "owner" is visavis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. In cases where the plot E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 23 of 37 of land is taken on lease, the structure is built by the landlord and he is the owner of the structure. So far as the land is concerned, he holds the long lease and as against the tenant he will fall within the ambit of the meaning of the term "owner" as contemplated under S.14 (1) (e)". The petitioner is thus able to show the better title than that of the respondent.
29. It is also contended by the respondent that no verbal or written rent agreement was ever executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent has never paid any rent to the petitioner or Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa (who claimed to be the owner of the property through Will of Sh. Jagjit Singh Bawa) and it is only a self created tenancy by the petitioner to harass the respondent to get the said property evicted from the respondent. Sh. Pawanjeet Singh Bawa, who claimed to be the owner of the property is/was not the landlord of the respondent herein and as such, there can be no transfer of tenancy in favour of the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any document/letter/receipt/notice by which the petitioner had intimated the respondent about the purchase of the said property or transfer of tenancy in her favour. Whereas, the respondent herein had received a legal notice dated 18.10.2011 Ex. DW1/2 from Smt. Anu Oberoi, W/o Sh. Rajesh Oberoi, R/o 2527/42 (Part) Nalwa Street, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, wherein she has claimed to be the owner of the property/premises possessed by the respondent herein whereby Smt. Anu Oberoi asked the respondent to vacate and handover the possession of the same to her. On the other hand, it is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted premises E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 24 of 37 was let out for residential purposes to Sh. Ram Singh. Later on, the respondent came into possession of the suit premises and used to give rent on his behalf. PW1 has relied upon the rent receipt Ex. PW1/4 which was issued by Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bawa, i.e., the original erstwhile owner/landlord. The respondent has nowhere denied that the deceased Sh. Jagjeet Singh Bawa was not the erstwhile landlord. Once the petitioner has purchased the property from the LR of the deceased landlord, she has stepped into the shoes of the original landlord, which cannot be challenged by the respondent. The respondent has also relied upon the rent receipt Ex. DW1/4 which is issued in the name of Ram Singh by erstwhile landlord Jagjeet Singh Bawa. The respondent is not claiming any right separate from Ram Singh. Hence, the version of the petitioner that the original tenant was Sh. Ram Singh and respondent is claiming to be tenant though Ram Singh has been substantiated from the version of the respondent herself.
30. As regards the contention of legal notice Ex. DW1/2 given by one Anu Oberoi in the year 2011 to the respondent, the petitioner has admitted that Anu Oberoi is one of the coowners. RW1, during cross examination, has stated that she did not inform Smt. Anu Oberoi about the present eviction petition filed against her. RW1 also did not have any knowledge whether any ownership dispute relating to the suit property is pending in any Court. Petitioner has categorically stated that there is no dispute between the coowners and they have arrived at oral understanding amongst themselves. None of the coowners have filed E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 25 of 37 any objections. It is settled law that any of the coowner can alone in his/her own right can file an eviction petition against the tenant. The consent of other coowner is assumed as taken, unless it is shown that the other coowners are not agreeable to evict the tenant. Reliance in this regard is placed upon M/s. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandel Agarwalla (dead ) by Lrs. AIR 2004 SC 1321. Hence, the petitioner is able to prove that she is one of the coowners and that there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, which has been proved as per the requirement of the DRC Act.
Bonafide requirement :
31. It is submitted by the petitioner that the tenanted premises is bonafide required by her to start her own coaching cum tuition centre from the suit premises. It is submitted that the petitioner is unmarried and lives with her parents. She is B.A. (H) from University of Delhi and M.A. in Political Science from IGNOU. She has also done diploma in computer applications and programming besides basic teacher training course (JBT) from Madhya Pradesh and despite all that she is unable to get a decent employment and earns her living by giving tuitions. The suit premises is situated on the ground floor and is just 45 minutes walk from her residence. Being in a residential cum commercial area, the same is ideal to carrying out the said business of coaching cum tuition centre. She has relied upon her educational qualification document Ex. PW1/6 (colly.).
32. Per contra, it is averred by the respondent that there is no bonafide E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 26 of 37 requirement of the petitioner for the property in question. It is submitted that the petitioner, i.e. Ms. Preeti Rajput has got married to Sh. Varun on 08.05.2017 and as such, after marriage she has left her parental home at Paharganj to Patel Nagar, which is at a distance of more than 15 kms. After leaving the parental home and going to her matrimonial home far away from Paharganj where the property in question is situated, it is highly improbable and impossible that the petitioner can open a coaching centre at the property in question or even to run the same. The alleged requirement shown by the petitioner is a self created paucity of accommodation and is not a case of bonafide requirement. The respondent has also placed on record the copy of the marriage card of the petitioner as Ex. DW1/1 to prove the same.
33. The respondent has not disputed the education qualification of the petitioner. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is already engaged in any job to earn her livelihood. Thus, the petitioner, being one of the coowner/landlord of the premises in question, is well within her right to seek eviction of the respondent from the suit premises in order to start her own coaching/tuition center even after her marriage and the respondent, being a tenant cannot dictate terms upon the petitioner regarding the same.
34. Further, as regards the contention of the respondent that after marriage, the petitioner has left her parental home at Paharganj to Patel Nagar, which is at a distance of more than 15 kms and it is highly improbable and impossible that the petitioner can open a coaching centre E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 27 of 37 at the property in question or even to run the same, it is the sole prerogative of the petitioner to decide as to which premises would be more suitable for her bonafide requirement and the respondent, being a tenant cannot dictate terms upon the petitioner as to whether the premises in question would be suitable for the petitioner to run her coaching centre or not, being situated at a distance from her matrimonial home. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the caselaw titled as Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary reported as AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 534, the Supreme Court held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan reported as (1996) 5 SCC 353. Moreover in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 it has been held that Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and that when the landlord shows Prima facie case, a presumption that the requirement is bona fide is to be drawn. Thus, the bonafide requirement of the petitioner over the premises in question for starting her own coaching/tuition center in order to stand on her own legs and to earn her livelihood stands duly proved.
Availability of alternative suitable accommodation :
35. It is averred by the respondent that the petitioner is in possession of other accommodation for her alleged bonafide requirement. It is E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 28 of 37 submitted that the petitioner has failed to disclose before the Court that her mother Asha Rani had also purchased the property in the said location and infact from the same person as that of the petitioner, which is situated in same municipal number as that of the petitioner and thus, the petitioner must have other reasonable suitable accommodation to start her alleged coaching centre. It is further averred that Smt. Asha Rani (mother of the petitioner) has also filed eviction petition bearing no. 322/17 against one Mr. Rajinder Singh Juneja for the property bearing no. 2526, Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi110055. However, the said contention of the respondent is without any basis as it is herself stated by the respondent that the said property is under the ownership of her mother and hence, the same cannot be said to be an alternative suitable accommodation available with the petitioner for her bonafide requirement. Even otherwise, after her marriage, the petitioner cannot claim her right over the properties owned by her parents for her abovesaid bonafide requirement as she is now either self dependent or dependent upon her inlaws for the purpose of residential as well as commercial accommodation and not upon her parents.
36. Further, it is averred by the respondent that the petitioner and her family members also owns various other properties, which are discussed as under :
a) Property No. 2084, Gali No. 5, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi - RW1 has stated in his affidavit Ex. DW1/X that the said property consists of ground, first, second and third floor with roof E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 29 of 37 rights and the entire property is in the area of mix land use and are under the possession and occupation of mother of the petitioner. The entire ground floor is a big hall/shop and the same is for the commercial use. On the other hand, it is submitted by the petitioner that the said property was purchased by Shri Balbir Singh, the father of the petitioner. The said property was rebuilt and in order to pay the construction costs, he sold the ground floor and first floor around 7 years back. Second and third floor is used for residential purpose by the father of the petitioner. Thus, the said property cannot be said to be alternative suitable accommodation available with the petitioner for her bonafide requirement. During crossexamination, RW1 could not say whether father of the petitioner is the owner of second and third floor of above property no. 2084 nor she could say whether ground floor is in the ownership of Ritu Kanoja nor could she say whether the above said property is residence of parents of the petitioner. She also could not say whether first floor of property no. 2084 is in the ownership of Mr. Gulati. RW1 has not produced any document in support of her version. Hence, it is not proved by the respondent that the said property is available with the petitioner.
b) Shop No. 1874, Wazir Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi - RW1 has stated that the said property is situated at first floor on an area of 60 sq. yds. and the same is used by the petitioner and her family members for commercial use. Per contra, E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 30 of 37 petitioner has denied that the property being MCD No. 1874, Wazir Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi at first floor is a shop or is being used for commercial purpose. It is submitted that the said property was purchased by Gaurav Kumar, the elder brother of the petitioner. He is married and resides with his family on the said premises. During crossexamination, RW1 could not say whether the shop no. 1874, 1875, 2530/3, Main Road, Paharganj, is in the ownership of brother of the petitioner. Moreover, no document has been produced by the respondent in support of her contention, which remains to be a bald assertion.
c) Shop No. 1875, Wazir Singh Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi It is stated by RW1 that the said property is admeasuring 40 sq. yds., situated on the main road on ground floor. This property is being used for the commercial purposes by the petitioner. On the other hand, petitioner has denied the same. It is submitted that the same is only of about 25 sq. yards. Moreover, the petitioner is not the owner of the said property. It is in ownership of Shri Saurabh Kumar the elder brother of the petitioner. He is running a shop of computer parts under the name and style of M/s ASP computers with his brother namely Shri Gaurav Kumar. Respondent could not say whether M/s ASP computers is being run from shop no. 1875 nor she could produce any document regarding her assertion that the petitioner is the owner of the said shop.
E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 31 of 37d) Shop No. 2530/3, Main Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi110055 RW1 has stated that this property is having an area of 360 sq. yards and same is in the area of mix land use. The first and second floor portions of the said property has been rented out by the petitioner to different tenants. On the other hand, the petitioner denied that the shop bearing no. 2530/3, Main Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi is 360 sq. yards. Its a small shop of about 12 sq. yards. It is not a portion of 2530 which is located on first floor and is about 100 yards away from 2530/3. It is in possession of petitioner's mother who has rented the same. The respondent has not been able to substantiate her version by way of any document.
e) The first and second floor portion of the property No. 2524 to 2529, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi - It is averred by the respondent that the said properties are also under the ownership of the mother of the petitioner and are on rent with different tenants and earning rental income. Further, it is averred by the respondent that the petitioner claimed to be the owner of an area of 85 sq. yards out of property no. 2524 to 2530, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi. Per contra, it is submitted by the petitioner that properties no. 2524 to 2529 are part of entire property of which besides petitioner, her mother Smt. Asha Rani and others are also coowners. PW1 has stated that she has got two rooms in 2527/28 alongwith bathroom and kitchen, one room in 2527/42, one room E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 32 of 37 in 2527/62, one room on first floor in 2527/74 and one room on second floor. She has also stated that one room on the first floor of the tenanted premises is numbered as 2527/42. The remaining portion is not in possession of the petitioner. Part of it is in possession of her mother and other parts are occupied by co owners. It is submitted that various portions of the said property comes under the possession of Smt. Asha Rani, the mother of the petitioner. Portion bearing MCD no. 2524 (part), it is on the first floor and is occupied by an old tenant Sardar Jagir Singh and his sons. He does not pay any rent. Portion bearing MCD No. 2526 is at ground floor and is occupied by Shri R.S. Juneja as tenant against which the mother of the petitioner has already initiated eviction proceedings. Portion bearing MCD No. 2527/1 ground floor comes in the inner portion of the katra. It is strictly for residential usage and is rented to Shri Harish Chandra for his residential purpose. Portion bearing MCD no. 2527/29 (part) is on the first floor comes in the inner portion of the katra. It is strictly for residential usage and is occupied by an old tenant who does not pay any rent. Portion bearing MCD No. 2527/61 ground floor is occupied by Shri Gurpreet Singh and Shri Guvinder Singh who are transacting commercial activities from there. They are old tenant and do not pay any rent. It falls on the inner side of katra. Portion bearing MCD No. 2528 is on the ground floor and is occupied by an old tenant Smt. Venus W/o Late Shri Ram P. Johnson does not E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 33 of 37 pay any rent. Portion bearing MCD No. 2530 is located on the first floor and above and the same is also rented to respective tenants who pay monthly rent. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner owns 84 sq. yards of the entire built up property on Khasra No. 521, having Municipal Corporation No. 2524 and parts of property bearing no. 2527, for which she has already disclosed the portion in her possession. It has already been discussed that the petitioner, being married, cannot be said to be dependent upon her mother for accommodation when she has property in her own name. Hence, the remaining portions of the property which are in possession of mother of the petitioner cannot be termed as alternate suitable accommodation for the petitioner.
f) Property No. 2527/42, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi -
RW1 has herself stated that the said property is in the name of mother of the petitioner, of which she has rented out the first floor portion on a monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/ and further let out the second floor portion of the above said property on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,000/. Per contra, it is submitted by the petitioner that property no. 2527/42 is in two parts. Both have MCD No. 2527/42 one part is in possession of Smt. Asha Rani the mother and co owner of the property and other part is in possession of the petitioner. The part in possession of Smt. Asha Rani is let out to Shri Chinta Mani. The part in possession of the petitioner is let out to Shri Nirmal Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh. He is an old tenant and E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 34 of 37 does not pay rent. This is purely residential in use as per MCD and falls in the inner side of katra. The respondent has nowhere denied that the said property is residential in nature and also has not denied that the said property is tenanted and hence, cannot be said to be available with the petitioner for her bonafide requirement.
g) Property No. 2527/74, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi RW1 has stated that the first floor of the said property is in the name of the mother of the petitioner, which she has rented out. The ground floor portion is lying vacant. This property is situated at main road and is in the mixed land use which is for the commercial purposes. The remaining portion of the property is under use and occupation of mother of the petitioner. Per contra, it is submitted by the petitioner that 2527/74 First Floor is in the possession of petitioner and the same is occupied by Shri Natthi as tenant. The remaining portion bearing MCD no. 2527/74 is one room situated at second floor and there is no portion of the said property at the ground floor. Respondent has not produced any document to show that any property bearing no. 2527/74 is lying vacant on the ground floor. Moreover, during crossexamination, she has admitted that the portion of the property at ground floor bears different numbers than the properties situated at first and second floor. Hence, from the version of RW1 herself, it is clear that the property on the ground floor does not bear the same property number as that on the first and the second floor. Hence, contradiction is found on the E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 35 of 37 version of the respondent herself. Moreover, the respondent has failed to file any site plan or photograph of the alleged property bearing no. 2527/74, Ground Floor, allegedly lying vacant. Hence, the contentions made by the respondent regarding property no. 2527/74 remains to be mere bald assertions, without any substance.
h) Property situated at Prachin Shiv Mandir, Aram Bagh, Paharganj, New Delhi110055 RW1 has stated that the petitioner and her family members are also in possession of the said property, which is admeasuring more than 200 sq. yds. The first floor portion of the property is rented out and the remaining part of the property are with the petitioner and her family members. Per contra, it is stated by the petitioner that the said property at Prachin Shiv Mandir is a mandir property which is being governed by Prachin Shiv Mandir Trust, wherein, Shri Balbir Singh the father of the petitioner is only in the management of the temple. Hence, the said property cannot be said to be available to the petitioner. Thus, the respondent has miserably failed to prove the availability of any alternative suitable accommodation available with the petitioner for her bonafide requirement.
37. In totality of the discussion made above, the petitioner has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, stands allowed. The petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e. E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 36 of 37 property bearing no. 2527/28 comprising of two rooms with kitchen and bathroom, part of built up property having Khasra No. 521, Gali Nalwa, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi110055, as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2018.05.10
DAGAR 05:07:08 -0400
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 07th Day of May, 2018 Pilot Court,
CCJ cum ARC(Central)
(This judgment contains 37 pages.) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E. No. 279/17 Preeti Rajput v. Sukhvinder Kaur Page 37 of 37