Delhi District Court
Hazari Courts vs Sh. Chand Ratan on 15 November, 2011
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
E494/09
15.11.2011
Smt. Uma Rani Jain,
W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar Jain,
R/o E4/22, Model TownI,
Delhi110009. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Chand Ratan,
S/o Sh. Babu Lal Bagri.
2. Sh. Brij Ratan,
S/o Sh. Babu Lal Bagri
Both R/o House No. 4318, No. 3,
Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
Delhi.
...Respondents
Petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case : 29.07.2009
2. Date of Judgment Reserved : 01.11.2011
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 15.11.2011
JUDGMENT
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner and landlady of the premises bearing no. 472731, No. 21, Daya Nand Road, E494/09 Page 1 of 15 //2// Darya Ganj, Delhi and the respondents are joit tenant in respect of five rooms, one kitchen, one store, latrine/bath room with covered varandah on the first floor at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,167/ per month excluding all other charges in the said property. It is stated that initially the father of the respondents was the tenant and after his death both the respondents became joint tenants and the suit property was also belongs to Smt. Vidyawati Jain, Smt. Kanak Mala and Smt. Uma Rani Jain and the suit property partitioned between Smt. Kanak Mala Jain and Smt. Uma Jain vide written partition deed dated 31.03.2000 and the suit property is under the petitioner as per the partition deed. It is further stated that the suit premises is required by the petitioner for herself and for her family members i.e her husband, three sons, their wives, five grand children. It is further stated that the petitioner has only seven rooms at present which are not sufficient for the petitioner and her family members as the petitioner requires two rooms for herself, three rooms for her elder son and four rooms each for her two sons. Petitioner has three servants in her house, therefore, three servants rooms are also required to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is god fearing lady, therefore, required one room for worship. Two sisters of the husband of petitioner and one brother used to visits the petitioner, therefore, petitioner required two guest rooms. It is further stated that neither the petitioner nor her E494/09 Page 2 of 15 //3// family members have any property in Delhi for their residence.
2. Separate written statements filed on behalf of the respondents wherein making almost similar averments. It is admitted that the petitioner is the owner and landlady of the premises in question and the respondents are joint tenants. It is further stated that there was a rent deed dated 09.02.1973, executed by the petitioner, amongst others, in favour of M/s Babu Lal Bagri, a proprietorship concern. Thereafter, the tenancy was amicably transferred to the respondents. In terms of the said rent deed, the property was let out to the tenant for a period of 5 years, which was to be extended for further periods of 5 years each, at the option of the tenant. In addition in terms of clause 8 of the said rent deed, the property could be used either for the residence or for the office of the tenant. It is denied that the suit property is lying vacant. It is further stated that the suit property is under the active use and occupation of the respondents in terms of the rent deed executed between the parties. The respondents have also employed their security guard for the suit property and the said guard Sh. Avdesh Tyagi has even got his Employees State Insurance Corporation identity card from the adress of the suit premises. The respondents are regularly paying the electricity bills in respect of the suit property. It is stated that the site plan filed by the petitioner E494/09 Page 3 of 15 //4// is wrong and incorrect. It is further stated that the suit property contains only 4 rooms as per the rent deed and the correct site plan has been filed by the respondents. It is further stated that the petitioner has concealed from this Hon'ble Court the exact amount of space available to the petitioner in the Model Town property and the petitioner has three entire floors in this property, each admeasuring 3000 sq. ft. i.e a total available area of 9000 sq. ft. while the area available in the suit property is only 2000 sq. ft inclusive of the open verandah and open area. It is further stated that the sons of the petitioner have their own incomes and livelihoods and are supporting their own respective wives and children and otherwise they are not dependent on the petitioner for their residence. It is further stated that the elder son of the petitioner namely Mr. Nalin Jain does not reside at the said house in Model Town, as would be evident from the ration card. It is further stated that the provisions of DRC Act do not envisage eviction of a tenant for giving the tenanted property to a servant of the petitioner. All other averments made in the petition were denied.
3. Replication filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the averments made in the written statement of the respondents were denied and the contents and averments of the petition were reiterated and reaffirmed. E494/09 Page 4 of 15
//5//
4. In order to prove her case the petitioner has examined herself as PW 1, her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1. The documents exhibited are the site plan Ex. PW1/A, documents of ownership are collectively Ex. PW 1/B, copy of ration card and election Icard of family members of petitioner are collectively Ex. PW1/C.
5. On the other hand respondent no. 1 has examined himself as R1W1 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R1W1/A, one Sh. R.P.Sharma as R2W1 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R2W1/A and one Sh. Avdesh Tyagi as R2W2 and his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R2W2/A.
6. The documents exhibited are the electricity bills for the period May, 2006 till September, 2009 Ex. R1/1 (Colly.), site plan filed by the respondent Ex. R1/2, copy of site plan of model town property Ex. R1/3, SPA deed Ex. R2W1/1, electricity bills collectively Ex. R2W1/2, water bills collectively Ex. R2W1/3, annual report of a company namely MRPL Ex. R2W1/4, ESI card of Avedesh Tygi Ex. R2W1/5, letter dated 23.09.2009, 07.10.2009 are Ex. R2W1/6 and R2W1/7 respectively and the rent receipt dated 07.10.2009 Ex. R2W1/8.
E494/09 Page 5 of 15
//6//
7. Arguments heard. Written arguments have also filed by the respondent no. 2. Record perused and considered.
8. Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following rulings :
(i) Salekh Ch. Jain Vs. Vinesh Ch. Sheth, 1986. RLR 17.
(ii) Mast Ram Vs. Suresh Kumar, 1997 RLR 476. (iii) Silvertoe Mfg. Co. Vs. Usha Sai, 1995 RLR 24. (iv) Dwarka Prasad Vs. Niranjan and another, (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 549. (v) Sumitra Devi Vs. Raj Rani Sehdev, 98 (2002) DLT 355. (vi) Chander Sain Jain Vs. Sumer Chand, 82 (1999) DLT 394. (vii) Dr. Des Raj Bhasin (Deceased) Through LRs Vs. Mr. M.G.Khanna, 82 (199) DLT 74. (viii) Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore behal, Air 2002 Supreme Court 2256. (ix) Vinod Kapoor Vs. Kailash Sethi, 2008 VIII AD (Delhi) 461. (x) Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, 2008 RLR 310 (SC). (xi) K.B.Mathur & another Vs. Sardar Bhagwant Singh (deceased) through his LRs, 1988 (2) 161. (xii) Amar Kaur & Anr. Vs. Naresh Kumar, 97 (2002) DLT 772. E494/09 Page 6 of 15 //7//
9. Ld. counsel for the respondents relied upon the following rulings :
(i) M/s Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra K. Tandon, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1639.
(ii) Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh, 2001 (1) RCR 33.
(iii) D.N.Gupta Vs. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1982 Delhi 250.
10. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove (i) Ownership of the suit premises; (ii) Purpose of letting; (iii) Alternative accommodation; and (iv) Bona fide requirement;. Let the same be discussed in detail.
Ownership & purpose of letting
11. The respondents have neither disputed that the petitioner is owner/landlady of the suit premises nor they disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As there is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, this ingredient is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
12. So far the purpose of letting is concerned, after the judgment of the E494/09 Page 7 of 15 //8// Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union Of India III (2008) SLT 553, an eviction petition is maintainable on the ground of bona fide requirement in respect of the property which were let our for commercial purpose.
Alternative accommodation & bonafide requirement
13. PW1 deposed that she had a large family consisting of herself, her husband, three married sons, their wives and children. The elder son of the petitioner is about 49 years old, the second son is of 46 years old and the third son is about 41 years old. The petitioners have five grand children between the age group of 22 years to 9 years. PW1 further deposed that she was having only seven rooms available with her in the property at E4/22, Model TownI, Delhi and required at least 13 rooms for herself and for her family members. PW1 further deposed that she had three old servant and she needs atleast one servant room for them. PW1 further deposed that she is a religious lady and for this requires one puja room. She also needs one guest room for two sisters of her husband who visited regularly to the petitioner. PW1 further deposed that she had only two properties, one is E 4/22, Model Town, Delhi and the other is suit property. PW1 further deposed that seven rooms available in the model town property are insufficient for her E494/09 Page 8 of 15 //9// large family, therefore, she urgently required the suit premises. PW1 further deposed that all the family members are dependent upon her for the purpose of residence. PW1 deposed in her cross examination that her son Nalin would reside at the suit property, if she get the possession of the same. PW1 further deposed that she had forgotten the rent agreement dated 09.02.1973 while filing the present petition. PW1 further deposed that the address of the suit property is 4727/31, Dayanand Road No. 21. The suit property at Daryaganj contain five rooms apart from bathroom, latrine, kitchen. PW1 denied that the suit property has only four rooms. PW1 further deposed that the entire property of Daryaganj is about 500 sq. yard out of which half belongs to her jethani. The property at Model Town where she resides is approximately 500 to 540 sq. yards and there are seven rooms in the Model Town House. She stay at the ground floor and her jethani resides on the first floor. There is a second floor in the Model Town House which had been made by her jethani. PW1 denied that the three sons and their family do not reside with her at her Model Town house. PW1 further deposed "it is wrong to suggest that she had not stated anywhere in the eviction petition that her children are dependent on her".
14. R1W1 Sh. Chand Ratan Bagri, respondent no. 1, deposed in his E494/09 Page 9 of 15 //10// affidavit that the suit premises consists of four rooms as per rent deed and the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect and the correct site plan filed by respondent Ex. R1W2. R1W1 further deposed that the petitioner had three entire floors each admeasuring 3000 sq. ft in the Model Town property and the petitioner is in occupation of more than sufficient accommodation for herself and for her family members. RW1 further deposed that SH .Nalin Jain son of the petitioner did not reside at the house in the Model Town as evident from the ration card and one son of Nalin Jain who is about 11 years old has not been mentioned in the eviction petition. R1W1 deposed in his cross examination that he never visited the residential house of the petitioner and he did not remember whether he had sent any of his person to the house of the petitioner at Model Town to meet the petitioner. R1W1 further deposed that he had sent one of his employees namely Kishore Kumar to see the residential property at Model Town of the petitioner but he did not know what Kishore Kumar had done at the residential property of the petitioner. R1W1 further deposed that he prepared a map and given to him which is Ex. R1W3. R1W1 further deposed that he did not remember whether Kishore Kumar mentioned to him regarding the adjoining property of the property of the petitioner at Model Town. R1W1 further deposed that Kishore Kumar had not entered into the petitioner's property at Model Town.R1W1 further deposed E494/09 Page 10 of 15 //11// that he could not say whether the site plan mentioned Ex. R1W3 was a wrong site plan. He did not know, how many person are residing in the property at Model Town and also did not know regarding the family of the petitioner. R1W1 further deposed that Kishore Kumar had told him regarding certain facts about the dimension of the property at Model Town but he did not remember how many rooms the petitioner has in her Model Town property.
15. R2W1 and R2W2 have neither deposed anything regarding the alternative accommodation available with the petitioner nor regarding the bonafide needs of the petitioner. It is important to mention here that R2W1 is merely an associate and attorney of respondent no. 2. R2W2 is an employee of respondent no. 2 who deposed that he had been residing in the suit premises alongwith his family for many years.
16. After considering the depositions of the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has succeeded to established that she has only seven rooms in her house at Model Town where she is residing with her large family. The contentions of the respondents that the petitioner has three floors at Model Town has no substance because the respondents failed to prove the same. As discussed E494/09 Page 11 of 15 //12// above, the respondent no. 1 has clearly stated that he never visited the Model Town house of the petitioner and only his employee Sh. Kishore Kumar had visited the house of the petitioner. Respondents neither know how many persons are residing in the Model Town property of the petitioner nor they are aware how many rooms are available at Model Town house of the petitioner. The respondents do not know even regarding the dimension of the property. The respondents do not know where the sons of the petitioner reside. The respondents have not disputed the number of family members of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that she has 13 family members but having only seven rooms. The accommodation of seven rooms for a family consisting of 13 members is not sufficient particularly when there are three married couples and five grown up children. All these prove that the petitioner has no alternate accommodation and the need of the petitioner to have the suit premises is bonafide one.
17. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not stated in the petition that her sons depend upon her for residence, therefore, petition is not maintainable. I do not find any substance in this contention. The petitioner has filed this petition for the need of herself and her family members including her married sons. From these facts it itself established that the sons of the E494/09 Page 12 of 15 //13// petitioner depend upon her. Even otherwise the respondents have not filed any document to show that the sons of the petitioner own any other property. It is held in Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash, 2009 (2) RCR 485 "Pleading are loosely drafted in the courts and the courts should not scrutinize the pleading with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on frivolous grounds". Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 461.
18. It is held in M.M.Mehta Vs. Chaman Lal,1980 RLR(Note)30 that "that it is well settled that a member of the family although not financially dependent on the landlord but living together with him is covered by the word dependent used in section 14 (1) (e)".
19. The respondents have also disputed the site plan filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner there are five rooms in the suit premises whereas according to the respondents there are four rooms. It is not in dispute that the respondents are joint tenant in the premises in question which is situated on the first floor of the suit property. The respondents are only tenants on the entire first floor of the suit property, therefore, mentioning of 4 or 5 rooms as suit premises will not make any difference. The other E494/09 Page 13 of 15 //14// contention of the respondent that petitioner has concealed that a rent deed was executed at the time of letting out the premises in question, therefore, the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this court. This contention again has no substance because admittedly there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioner has also explained in her evidence that she forgot to mention the same as the rent deed was executed long back.
20. It is important to mention here that the petitioner,who is owner/landlady of the suit premises, is living in insufficient accommodation despite the fact that she owns the suit premises. On the other hand none of the respondents is residing in the suit premises and merely the employee of respondent no. 2 is residing in the suit premises with his family. This fact itself shows that the need of the petitioner is more genuine than the need of the respondents. Hence the ingredients regarding alternative accommodation and bonafide requirement are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The rulings relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
21. In view of the above discussions and as all the ingredients of section E494/09 Page 14 of 15 //15// 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act are proved therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order against the respondents. Accordingly the petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act is allowed in favour of the petitioner and an eviction order is passed against the respondents in respect of property in question i.e 472731, No. 21, Daya Nand Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi having five rooms, one kitchen, one store, latrine/bathroom with covered verandah on the first floor more specifically shown in red colour in site plan Ex. PW1/A. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry of 6 months running from today. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court
on 15.11.2011) (Pritam Singh)
ARC/Central/Delhi
E494/09 Page 15 of 15