Delhi District Court
Tara Chand Gupta Anr vs Jai Parkash Ors on 13 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN, ARC-1,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
E No. 85/2014
RC ARC No. 78885/2016
1. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta.
S/o Late Sh. Ram Swaroop Gupta (Since deceased)
2. Smt. Shyam Lata
W/o Late Sh. Tara Chand Gupta (Since deceased)
Both through LR.
Neha Gupta
W/o Sh. Yogesh Bansal
R/o 2257, Chowk Raiji,
Nai Sarak, Roshanpura,
Delhi - 110006. ..... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Jai Prakash,
S/o Sh. Baijnath
Proprietor of M/s Baijnath Jai Prakash
2720, Chowk Raiji,
Nai Sarak, Roshanpura
Delhi - 110006
2. M/s Baijnath Jai Prakash
Through Proprietor Jai Prakash
2720, Chowk Raiji,
Nai Sarak, Roshanpura
Delhi - 110006
RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 1 of 22
3. Mittal Caterers
Through its proprietor /Manager
2720, Chowk Raiji,
Nai Sarak, Roshanpura
Delhi - 110006 .... Respondents
Date of Institution of the case : 25.07.2012
Date of reserving Judgment : 21.12.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 13.02.2025
Under Section : 14 (1) (a) (b) & (j) of Delhi
Rent Control Act
JUDGMENT
The present case is an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)
(a) (b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (or in short "DRC Act") filed by the petitioners against the respondents.
PETITION
1. The case of the petitioners, who are husband and wife, is that the respondents no.1 and 2 are tenants with respect to shop measuring 15'.4" x 8'.2" feet in property bearing municipal number 2257, Chowk Rai Ji, Gali Paharwali, Nai Sarak, Delhi - 110006, (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises") and more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. It is stated that respondents no.1 and 2 are habitual defaulter in the payment of rent and had failed to pay rent @ Rs.
RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 2 of 22118/- per month with effect from 01.08.2005 to 31.03.2008 and rent @ Rs. 130/- per month from 01.04.2008 to 30.06.2012. It is further stated that despite sending legal notice dated 22.04.2012, respondents have neither tendered nor paid the rent to the petitioners. Further, it is stated that respondents no.1 and 2 have illegally and without the written consent of the petitioners have assigned and parted with the possession of the tenanted premises to respondent no. 3. Hence, the petitioners have been constrained to file the present eviction petition.
Written Statement
2. After service of the summons, all the three respondents filed common written statement. It is contended that the present petition is not maintainable as permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 has not been taken. It is further stated that the suit property was not taken on rent by the firm M/s Baij Nath Jai Prakash. It is submitted that the suit property was originally let out to Baij Nath (father of the respondents) and after his demise, the respondent Jai Prakash alongwith other legal heirs became the tenants of the premises in question. It is further stated that the petitioners cleverly issued one rent receipt in the name of M/s Baij Nath Jai Prakash and the respondents Jai Prakash and Suresh Kumar had objected to the same. It is also stated that Suresh Gupta who is proprietor of M/s Mittal Caterer, is the son of late Sh. Baij Nath (original tenant) and therefore, being the statutory tenant is running his business in the RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 3 of 22 tenanted premises. Further it is stated that the tenanted premises are occupied by tenants namely respondent no.1 Jai Prakash and respondent no. 3 Suresh Gupta and therefore, the allegation of sub- letting are baseless. It is stated that the respondents replied the legal notice dated 22.04.2012 of the petitioners and sent a money order of Rs. 4810/- but the same was refused by the petitioners. Hence, it is denied that respondents are in default in payment of rent or have sub-let the premises without the consent of the petitioners. Hence, it is prayed that the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed.
Replication.
3. Thereafter, replication was filed on behalf of the petitioners wherein the averments of the written statement have been denied and the contents of the petition have been reaffirmed. Additionally, it is denied that Suresh Gupta is the legal heir of Baij Nath or that Suresh Gupta is proprietor of M/s Mittal Caterers.
TRIAL
4. On 30.04.2013, order under Section 15 (1) of DRC Act was passed and respondents were directed to deposit pay arrears of rent @ Rs. 130/- per month w.e.f. April 2009 till date within one month alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. Subsequently, an application under Section 15 (7) of the DRC Act was filed on behalf of the petitioner. However, the counsel for the respondents took personal responsibility for the default committed in the deposit of future rent as contended in the application. Therefore, in view of no objection by the counsel for petitioner, the said delay qua the month of July RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 4 of 22 2013 and August 2013 was condoned subject to cost of Rs. 500/-.
5. Thereafter, during the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner no.2 expired and she was allowed to be represented through her husband /petitioner no.1 and her daughter Neha Gupta vide order dated 14.08.2015. Matter was then adjourned for petitioner's evidence.
Petitioner's Evidence
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as AW-1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.AW-1/A and relied upon the following documents: -
(i) Ex. AW-1/1 is legal notice dated 22.04.2012
(ii) Ex. AW-1/2 and Ex. AW-1/3 are the postal receipts.
(iii)Ex. AW-1/4 is AD Card.
(iv)Ex. AW-1/5 is counter foil of rent receipt which was de-exhibited being photocopy and marked as mark A.
(v)Ex. AW-1/6 is site plan.
(vi)Ex. AW-1/7 is the certified copy of order dated 29.02.2012 passed by competent authority (DUSIB)
(vii) Ex. AW-1/8 was de-exhibited in view of the repetition of Ex. AW-1/6
7. In his cross examination, he stated that he does not recognize RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 5 of 22 Suresh Gupta present in the court. He, however, admitted that Suresh Gupta is the son of late Sh. Baij Nath . He further stated that he saw Suresh Gupta sitting in the tenanted premises for the first time in the year 2008. He also stated that he has raised objection after seeing Suresh Gupta in the tenanted premises for the first time though he does not remember the exact date, month or year when he had raised objection. He however conceded that he never sent any written notice to Suresh Gupta after he had raised objections orally. He further stated that he has never sent any written notice to Suresh Gupta regarding his possession in the tenanted premises. He also stated that no rent has been paid since 2008. He admitted that the tenanted premises was owned by him and his deceased wife. He further stated that he has three tenants in the property in dispute and he used to issue rent receipts as and when tenants or any of his family members would pay the rent. He, however, stated that he used to issue rent receipts in the name of the tenant only. He also stated that the receipt issued in the year 2002 to 2004 to the tenants were issued in their presence and the contents of the receipts were filled by him. He further stated that during the said period he took rent from Baij Nath Jai Prakash and accordingly, he issued rent receipts in the name of Baij Nath Jai Prakash. However, he admitted that the receipts in the court records are in the name of Baij Nath and identified the same as Ex. AW-1/R-1 to Ex. AW-1/R-7. He further stated that Jai Prakash Gupta was /is in possession of the tenanted premises. He again said that at present Jai Prakash Gupta is not in the possession of the tenanted premises . He, however, stated that he does not remember since when Jai RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 6 of 22 Prakash was in the possession of the tenanted premises. He further stated that prior to 2005, he had met Jai Prakash Gupta 2-3 times as he used to come to his house for payment of rent. He admitted that he issued rent receipt in the name of Baij Nath Jai Prakash despite the fact that rent was paid by Jai Prakash Gupta. He, however, stated that he had issued a rent receipt in the name of the firm because the firm was the tenant. He further stated that he himself had issued rent receipt in the name of firm and none had asked him to change the name of tenants in the receipts. He also stated that it is not necessary to write M/s before the name of the firm. He denied the suggestion that there was no tenant in the name of M/s Baij Nath Jai Prakash. He stated that he does not know if the LRs Jai Prakash Gupta, Suresh Gupta and another LR had inherited the tenancy after the death of Baij Nath. He further stated that he does not know if Jai Prakash Gupat is running a restaurant in Ashram since 1998 or if Jai Prakash Gupta is residing with his family in Patparganj, Delhi since 1998. He admitted that prior to death of Sh. Baij Nath, rent was being paid by Baij Nath only not his son Suresh Gupta. He, however, stated that after the death of Baij Nath, rent was paid by Jai Prakash Gupta. He denied the suggestion that rent was paid by Suresh Gupta and not by Jai Prakash Gupta. He further denied the suggestion that Suresh Gupta had tendered any rent by way of money order. He stated that Suresh Gupta has no locus to pay the rent. He denied the suggestion that Suresh Gupta is a tenant in the premises after the death of his father Baij Nath. He further denied the suggestion that LRs of late Sh. Baij Nath had paid rent and on rent receipt in the name of M/s Baij Nath Jai RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 7 of 22 Prakash being issued by him, they had raised objection. He stated that no such request was ever made. He further stated that he had let out the premises to firm. He denied the suggestion that LRs of Baij Nath stopped paying rent as he refused to correct the name of tenants in the rent receipt. He admitted that he had received the reply of the legal notice dated 22.04.2012. He denied the suggestion that he had received money order of Rs. 4810/- along with the reply of legal notice. He denied the suggestion that there is no sub-letting or that respondent no. 3 is in occupation of the tenanted premises as LR of Baij Nath.
8. Thereafter, petitioner examined Alok Gupta as AW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. AW-2/A wherein he has deposed that he is residing in the vicinity of tenanted premises and he had never seen the tenanted premises open as it used to remain closed and only about a year ago, premises were renovated by one Suresh Gupta who runs a business catering in the name of Mittal Caterers. In his cross examination, he stated that the tenanted premises is kiryana shop run by Sh. Suresh Mittal who is present in the court. He further stated that he does not know if the said person is the tenant or landlord of the aforesaid premises. He also stated that the said shop was lying closed for the past 7-8 years and has been opened since last 01 year only. He denied the suggestion that Suresh Gupta is a tenant in the said shop after the death of his father. He further denied the suggestion that respondent Suresh Mittal carried out minor repairs in the said shop.
RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 8 of 22He denied the suggestion that the respondent did not renovate the said premises. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
9. Thereafter, petitioner closed his evidence by separate statement on 25.02.2019. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, Suresh Kumar /proprietor of respondent no. 3 expired. Despite furnishment of the details of the LRs of deceased of the respondent no. 3 by the counsel for the respondents on 07.03.2023, no steps were taken by the petitioners for impleadment of the LRs of the respondent no. 3. Therefore, vide order dated 25.01.2024, proceedings qua respondent no. 3 were held to be abated, in view of the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days. Thereafter, matter was again adjourned for respondent's evidence.
Respondent's Evidence
10. The respondent Jai Prakash examined himself as RW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW-1/A. In addition, he relied upon the following documents: -
(i) Ex. RW-1/1 is the original returned envelope.
(ii) Ex. RW-1/2 is the copy of reply of legal notice dated 08.05.2012.
11. However, before his cross examination could be conducted, the petitioner no.1 also expired. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.05.2024, his LR Ms. Neha Gupta was impleaded on his behalf RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 9 of 22 under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC. Thereafter, cross examination of RW-1 was conducted on behalf of the petitioners.
12. In his cross examination, RW-1 stated that there was no rent agreement executed between the petitioners and his father Sh. Baij Nath at the time of inception of tenancy. He further stated that his father used to pay the rent to the petitioners by cash. He stated that rent was paid to the petitioners was paid by his father till his death on 28.06.2005. He admitted that after the death of his father, he never paid rent to the petitioners. He also stated that he is not aware whether any of his brothers and sisters paid rent to the petitioners after the death of his father. He stated that his father used to run business of foodgrain from the tenanted premises till his death but then stated that his younger brother Sh. Suresh Chand along with his father used to run the business of foodgrain and catering since the year 1990. He stated that the business of foodgrain was being run in the name of M/s Baij Nath and the business of catering was being run in the name of M/s Mittal Caterers. He further stated that the business of foodgrain continues to run till date from the tenanted premises. He, however, stated that he did not inform his counsel at the time of filing of written statement that the business of foodgrain in the name of M/s Baij Nath was being run from the tenanted premises by his father alongwith his younger brother since the year 1990. He further stated that his father died intestate. He further stated that the name of the firm M/s Mittal Caterers has been kept after the name of his RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 10 of 22 younger brother Sh. Suresh Mittal. (Thereafter attention of witness was drawn towards para 4 of your evidence affidavit at point A where the name of his brother is mentioned as Suresh Gupta and at point B where the name of his younger brother is mentioned as Suresh Chand, and his reply to the previous question wherein he had mentioned the name of his younger brother as Suresh Mittal and asked to clarify the correct name of his younger brother.) He stated that the correct name of his younger brother is Sh. Suresh Mittal but then again said that the name Sh. Suresh Gupta is also correct. He, however, stated that the name Suresh Chand as mentioned in para 4 of evidence affidavit may be clerical mistake. He further stated that at the time of filing of the written statement he had informed his counsel that the correct name of his younger brother is Sh. Suresh Mittal. He also stated that the adhaar card of his brother mentions his name as Suresh Mittal. He further stated that his brother Sh. Suresh Mittal died in the year 2020 and at present, the business of M/s Mittal Caterers is being run by son of the Sh. Suresh Mittal namely Sh. Mohit Mittal. He further stated that the tenanted premises has never been assessed by the MCD and landlord might be depositing the house tax. ( Thereafter attention of witness was drawn towards para 7 of evidence affidavit and he was asked if it is correct that the money order of Rs. 4,810/- as mentioned in para 7 has not been filed in the proceeding) . He stated that he does not have any knowledge about the said money order as his younger brother late Sh. Suresh Mittal used to deal with these matters with the landlord. He further stated that he does not have any knowledge whether any application for deposit of rent RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 11 of 22 was filed in the court after the refusal of money order of Rs. 4810/- by the landlord as stated by him in para 7 of his evidence affidavit. He, however, stated that the reply dated 08.05.2012 ( Ex. RW-1/2) to the legal notice was sent to the landlord by his counsel on his instruction. He denied the suggestion that tenancy of the tenanted premises was in the name of M/s Baij Nath Jai Prakash since inception of tenancy or that his father Sh. Baij Nath was not the tenant in the tenanted premises in individual capacity or that his brother Sh. Suresh Mittal was not the tenant in the tenanted premises or that the tenanted premises has been sub-let, assigned, and parted with possession by him and M/s Baij Nath Jai Prakash in favour of the respondent no. 3 M/s Mittal Caterers.
ARGUMENTS
13. No other witness was examined on behalf of respondents.
Thereafter, final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties. Sh. Sonal Sinha addressed submissions on behalf of the petitioner and Sh. Rakesh Srivastava addressed submissions on behalf of the respondents. At the outset, it is stated that there is no doubt qua the case laws relied upon by the Counsels for both the parties where principles of law have been laid down by the Hon'ble Higher Courts in the light of factual scenario existing therein. However, each case has to be decided in the light of its established facts. Hence, I proceed to consider the contentions of the parties. During arguments, Counsel for petitioner fairly conceded that no evidence has been led on the aspect of 14 (1) (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore the claim is limited to grounds under 14 RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 12 of 22 (1) (a) & 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act only.
FINDINGS
14. In order to succeed in a petition under section 14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has to establish the following essential ingredients: -
(i) Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) That the respondent was in arrears of rent, legally recoverable on and before the date of notice of demand;
(iii) Service of notice of demand in the manner as provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act;
(iv) Failure of the tenant to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from her within two months of the date of service of notice of demand;
15. As far as the first ingredient of the existence of a landlord-
tenant relationship between the parties is concerned, respondents have not disputed the same. Further, the rate of rent is admitted to be Rs. 130/- per month. Petitioner vide legal notice Ex. AW-1/1 had averred the rate of rent to be Rs. 130/- per month. Respondents in reply Ex. RW-1/2 have also conceded the rate of rent to be Rs. 130/- per month. Further, it is also not in disputed by the Counsel for respondent that there were arrears of rent. RW1 has also admitted in his cross examination that his father used to pay the rent to the petitioners by cash and that rent was paid to the petitioners was paid by his father till his death on 28.06.2005.
RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 13 of 22RW-1 has admitted that after the death of his father, he never paid rent to the petitioners. Further, RW-1 has stated that he is not aware if the rent was deposited by way of DR Petition or not. The receipt of legal notice is also not in dispute. Hence, the only issue in dispute between the parties in this regard is whether the arrears have been paid within the prescribed period or not after due service.
16. However, nothing has been brought on record to show that arrears of rent have been repaid. Though as per the version of the respondents, in reply to legal notice, money order of Rs. 4,810/- was sent to the petitioner, but no record of the same has been filed. Furthermore, as per the version of the respondents themselves, the said money order had been refused by the landlord. However, no application for deposit of rent as per Section 27 of the DRC Act has been filed. Here, I find it pertinent to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Goel & Ors. Vs. Kishan Chand (2009) 7 SCC 658 wherein it was held that it is incumbent upon the tenant to deposit rent before the Rent Controller as prescribed under Section 27 DRC Act on refusal of the landlord to accept the rent tendered through money order. Further, it is also pertinent to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. Palanisamy vs Palanisamy (D) By Lrs & Ors, AIR 2003 SC 153, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court:
"The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well-RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 14 of 22
settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance of the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration have no place in such matters. The statute contains express provisions. It prescribes various steps which a tenant is required to take. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a pre-condition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. A strict compliance of the procedure is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i.e. to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant. We are fortified in this view by the decisions of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal & Another reported in 1996 (1) SCC 243 and M.Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu reported in 1996 (6) SCC 228".
17. Further, the above view also affirmed in case of Atma Ram vs Shakuntala Rani AIR 2005 SC 3753 by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it was observed that in Rent Control Legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. It was further held that if any condition precedent is to be fulfilled before the benefit can be claimed, the tenant must strictly comply with that condition and if he fails to do so, he cannot take advantage of the benefit conferred by such a provision. However, in the present matter, nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to show that on the refusal of the landlord to accept the money order, steps were taken to deposit the rent under Section 27 RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 15 of 22 of the DRC Act.
18. It is trite to state that when petitioner alleges non-payment of rent under Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act, the onus lies upon the respondent/tenant to prove that he has paid the rent. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Raghubir Prasad Vs. Rajendra Kumar, 1993 (2) RCR (Rent) 234 and Karamchand D. Sanghavi Vs. Tulshiram Kalu Kumavat, 1992 (1) RCR 118. However, no proof of payment has been filed on record. No record of money order purportedly sent to pay rent has been filed. Further, even if, for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that money order was actually rent, even then, as per the case of respondents themselves, on refusal by landlord, no steps were taken for deposit of rent under Section 27 of the DRC Act.
19. Thus, all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act also stand fulfilled in the present case.
20. The petitioner has also filed the present case under Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act. Now, as per Section 14 (1)(b) DRC Act, if the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord, then he is liable to be evicted from the premises . Further, in case titled as "Dipak Banerjee v/s Lilabati" AIR1987 SC RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 16 of 22 2055, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in order to have an eviction order in his favour on the ground of sub- letting, the following essentials are required to be proved by the landlord against the tenant:-
(i) The Sub-tenant must have exclusive possession.
(ii) Right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation.
21. It is also settled position that mere use by other person is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself. Thus, there must be vesting of possession by the tenant in another person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession. The divestment or abandonment of the right to possession is necessary in order to invoke the clause of parting with possession . But so long as the tenant keeps the control with him, then it cannot be said that the sub-tenant is in exclusive possession and hence, it does not fall within the mischief of clause (b) to Section 14 (1). Reliance in this context is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of "Sohan Lal Vs. Sri Pal & Ors"., 48 (1992) DLT 65.
22. In the present petition, while petitioner contends that the premises have been sub-let to respondent no. 3, the respondent's case is that respondent no. 3 being legal heir of erstwhile tenant is occupying the premises in his own right. Thus, the occupation of respondent no. 3 is not dispute. Only bone of contention between the parties is whether the respondent no. 3 is a sub-tenant or joint-
RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 17 of 22tenant after the demise of erstwhile tenant.
23. Perusal of record shows that the AW1 has admitted in his cross examination that he would issue rent receipt in the name of tenant only. Further, he has also admitted the rent receipts put to him in cross examination which are Ex. AW-1/R1 to Ex. AW-1/R-7. Perusal of said receipts shows that the name of tenant mentioned is Sh. Baij Nath. Hence, the pleadings of petitioner that the original tenant was a firm is not supported by his testimony in cross examination and the documents on record. Furthermore, no record of any firm in the name of M/s Baijnath Jai Prakash has been filed by the petitioner. It is trite to state that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right, dependent upon the existence of facts which he asserts, he must prove that those facts exist. Thus, the burden of proving fact always lies upon the person who assert it and unless such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami, AIR 2011 SCC 2344. A bald self-serving ipse dixit averment has been made by the petitioners that the original tenant was a firm but the said assertion is contradicted from the testimony of the petitioner himself. The case of the petitioners, therefore, cannot stand on its own legs. Hence, I find that the original tenant in the premises was Sh. Baij Nath.
24. Therefore, on the demise of Baij Nath, his legal heirs including respondent no. 3 succeeded the tenancy as joint tenants.
RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 18 of 22Now, AW-1 has also admitted in his cross examination that Suresh Gupta is son of late Baij Nath. Though he refused to identify him in the court, however, from his testimony, it is apparent that the allegation of sub-tenancy have been made with respect to the said Suresh only, who is son of late Sh. Baij Nath. It is also pertinent to note that it is not the case of petitioners that possession has been parted to respondent no. 3 in lieu of some compensation by respondent no.1 and 2. Thus, the petition is lacking in material particulars as far as the allegations of sub-tenancy are concerned. Hence, it cannot be held that possession of tenanted premises have been parted to some third person and tenancy rights have been abandoned. Rather, the son of erstwhile tenant is occupying the tenanted premises after the demise of original tenant in the capacity of joint tenancy.
25. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is hereby held that the petitioners have failed to prove sub-letting of tenanted premises by respondents no.1 to 2 in favour of respondent no. 3.
RELIEF
26. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the petitioners have succeeded in establishing their case u/s 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act against the respondents as the petitioner has met out all the requirements needed for initiating action against the respondent u/s 14 (1) (a) DRC Act. As it is a case of first default, eviction order u/s 14 (1) (a) DRC Act cannot be passed straightaway without affording an opportunity to the respondents RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 19 of 22 for benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act. Vide order dated 30.04.2013, an order under Section 15 (1) DRC Act was passed and the respondent was directed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month and to keep on depositing the monthly rent @ Rs. 130/- per month for a period starting from April 2009 within 30 days from the date of order. The respondent was also directed to pay future rent @ Rs. 130/- per month by the 15th of each succeeding calendar month. Though there was default in the payment of rent for the month of July 2013 and August 2013, the said delay already stands condoned vide order dated 30.09.2013.
27. As it is a case of first default, matter be now listed for consideration on the point of giving benefit of section 14(2) of the DRC Act to the respondents for 23.04.2025. Petitioners and respondents are directed to file their statements qua payment of rent in Bank Account of the petitioner in Union Bank of India, Chawri Bazar, Delhi bearing no. 307202010047361 in view of order dated 30.04.2013 under section 15 (1) of the DRC Act.
28. On filing of PF by the petitioner, issue notice for service upon the respondents informing him of this order. Copy of this order be sent with notice. Notice and copy of the order be served by way of affixation at the tenanted premises. Endorsement to this effect be made on the notice. Further, since during the course of the proceedings, respondent no. 3 had expired but no steps were RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 20 of 22 taken to implead his legal representatives, it was observed that proceedings qua him stand abated vide order dated 25.01.2024. However, as per the case of the respondents themselves, respondent no. 3 /proprietor of firm Mittal Caterers is the son of original tenant Baij Nath. It is now well settled that on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable thereof. That is the position as between the landlord and the heirs of the deceased tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. Reliance in this regard is placed upon H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 and Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain & Anr, AIR 2018 SC 2708. Therefore, even if the LRs of the respondent no. 3 have not been impleaded, his interest in the tenancy continued to be represented through his brother / respondent no.1 who is also a joint tenant in the premises. Therefore, the successors of the respondent no. 3 would also be bound by the present proceedings even though they have not been impleaded by the petitioner on the demise of the respondent no. 3.
29. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate file for the consideration of benefit u/s 14 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Nazir is also directed to file report on 23.04.2025 regarding compliance RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 21 of 22 by the respondent of order u/s 15 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act and of the present order.
30. However, the petitioner has not been able to establish the essential ingredients of Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act. Hence, the eviction petition as regards claim u/s 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act is concerned, stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RUPINDER RUPINDER SINGH
SINGH DHIMAN
Date: 2025.02.13
DHIMAN 17:01:39 +0530
(Announced in the Open Court) (RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN)
ARC-01, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
13.02.2025
RC ARC NO. 78885/2016 Tara Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page 22 of 22