Delhi District Court
Madan Lal Nishad vs Sh. Ram Sahai on 18 January, 2016
Page 1 of 25
IN THE COURT OF SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI, ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST),
TIS HAZARI, DELHI
UID No. 02401C0209552012
E. No: 40/2012
Date of Institution : 08.05.2012
Date of order : 18.01.2016
MADAN LAL NISHAD
S/o Sh. Ram Charan Nishad
R/o H. No. 53/7, Military Dairy Farm,
Ambala Cantt., Haryana. ....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. SH. RAM SAHAI
S/o Sh. Jagan Nath
R/o 221/59, S Block, Gali No. 6,
Vishnu Garden, New Delhi.
2. SMT. SUDARSHAN DEVI
W/o Late Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah,
R/o S-32, 1st Floor, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi.
3. ARUN KUMAR MARWAH
S/o Late Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah,
R/o S-32, 1st Floor, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
JUDGMENT
1. By filing the present petition section u/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, petitioner is seeking eviction of respondent in respect of property at Ground Floor, 221/59, S-Block, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi consisting of two bed rooms, toilet, bathroom and kitchen, under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act.
FACTS
2. The brief facts as narrated in the petition are that petitioner is the owner / landlord E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 2 of 25 of entire property bearing No.221/59, S-Block, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi, the ground floor of which was let out to the respondent. The rate of rent is Rs.525/- per month.
3. The respondent has defaulted in payment of rent and failed to pay rent w.e.f. 14.01.2004, despite the service of legal notice dated 17.11.2011 which was served upon the respondent by registered AD post and Speed Post.
4. The respondent no. 1 filed reply to the eviction petition wherein he has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent. Respondent contended that petitioner is not the owner of the property in question. Present petition is without any cause of action as petitioner has got no cause of action for filing the present petition, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed/rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner has suppressed the material facts from the court and as such has not come before the court with clean hands. Petitioner has not filed the correct site plan and as such the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Further, it is contended that petitioner fails to mention Municipal Ward/Division No. and if he is owner of the suit property then he must know ward and Municipal number of the property in question. Respondent no. 1 denied that rate of rent is Rs.525/-. Respondent further contended that on the one hand, Sudershan Devi is claiming herself to be the owner of the property and has filed a suit for mandatory injunction whereby seeking directions to demolish the alteration at first floor here that she has succeeded and son the case and thereafter she has filed an execution petition to demolish the altered portion and the bailiff also visited the suit property and thereafter many persons are visiting the suit property and claiming themselves to be the owner of the property and respondent is very much confused and puzzled and fails to understand to whom the rent should be paid.
6. An application u/O I R 10 CPC filed by the wife and son of Late Sh. K. C. Marwah was allowed vide order dated 25.04.2013 with the remarks that they are necessary and proper parties being the LRs of Late Sh. K. C. Marwah.
E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 3 of 25
7. Reply/written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and 3 wherein they contended that the property bearing No. 221/59, S-Block, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi was purchased by Late Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah from Ch. Priay Vart on 05.07.1965 as per Sale Deed and since been mutated in the name of Smt. Sudarshan Devi, respondent no. 2 after the death of Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah on 24.05.2006. After the death of Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah, the original sale deed was misplaced and a public Notice to this effect was published in the Newspaper Indian Express dated 07.08.2006 mentioning that respondent no. 2, Smt. Sudarshan Devi being the legally wedded wife of Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah is entitled to all his movable and immovable property and therefore through this notice she warned everybody against any dealing with any one with regard to all the properties of Late Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah and if any one does so, he/she will be doing at his/her own risk and responsibility, for which respondent no. 2, Smt. Sudarshan Devi shall not be responsible in any manner. After the death of Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah, Sh. Ram Sahay, Respondent no. 1 presented forged documents in the office of Sub Registrar II Janakpuri for transfer of the said property in the name of his wife Mrs. Kamla and son Mr. Santosh. Sub Registrar II Janakpuri on 18.12.2007 informed the respondent no. 2 and 3 about this. Respondent no. 2 and 3 immediately obtained stay on 07.01.2008 from Hon'ble Court of Ms. Savitri, Tis Hazari Court and also filed suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. After considering all the facts of the case, Hon'ble Court of Sh. Vikram passed decree on 22.09.2011 in favour of the respondent no. 2 and 3 in Suit No. 08/2008. On 07.09.2012 when the respondent no. 3 along with court bailiff went to execute the Decree, the respondent no. 3 could partially demolish the unauthorized construction carried out by the respondent no. 1 and thus partially execute the decree because respondent no. 1 did not allow the respondent no. 3 and bailiff to demolish the remaining unauthorized construction and complete the execution of the decree. Having failed in his intentions to grab the property by fraudulent means, the respondent no. 1 now in collusion with petitioner has filed the present application so that the decree could not be executed and is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Court. They denied that the petitioner purchased the property from Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah on 14.01.2004.
E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 4 of 25 They further submitted that Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah and Sh. Ram Sahay the respondent no. 1 contested a case in the court of Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, Addl. Rent Controller Delhi and a court order was passed on 30.05.2005. Sh. Ram Sahay the respondent no. 1 who used to pay rent to Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah till his death on 24.05.2006, thereafter paid rent for six months from June to November, 2006 to Smt. Sudarshan Devi the respondent no. 2, DH, wife and legal heir to Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah. The missing original sale deed of Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah about which the report was lodged in police and a publication was issued in Indian Express dated 07.08.2006 as mentioned above has somehow found its way in the hands of the petitioner Mr. Madan Lal Nishad who has now prepared forged documents to grab the property. Mr. Madan lal Nihad, never appeared during the life time of Late Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah, when Sh. Ram Sahay respondent no. 1 and Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah contested the case in the court of Sh. Anil Kumar Garg, Addl. Rent Controller upto 30.05.2005. Even after the death of Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah, when his legal heirs, i.e. Smt. Sudarshan Devi his wife and respondent no. 2 and Sh. A.K. Marwah his son and respondent no. 3 contested the case against their tenant Sh. Ram Sahay the respondent no. 1 vide Suit No. 08/2008 in which decree was issued on 22.09.2011, Sh. Madan Lal Nishad never appeared in the court. There is no cause of action against the respondent no. 2 and 3, hence petition is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. The petition is filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent no. 1 so as to help respondent no. 1 so that the judgment and decree passed against the respondent no. 1 could not be executed. The case is filed for the purpose to grab the property by fraudulent acts, to harass the respondent no. 2 and 3. Petitioner is not land lord and the respondent no. 1 is not his tenant. The respondent no. 1 is tenant of respondent no. 2 and 3, hence the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed the petition in collusion with respondent no. 1 from the back of respondent no. 2 and 3 secretly, so that the property could be easily grabbed while misleading the Hon'ble Court by playing fraud.
8. Respondent no. 2 and 3 also took preliminary objections that the petition is filed E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 5 of 25 due to playing fraud upon the respondent no. 2 and 3 as well as the Court. Hence, the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are liable to be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The petition is filed secretly so as to cheat, grab the property by fraudulent acts. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. The petition is filed in collusion with petitioner and respondent no. 1 so that judgment and decree could not be executed against respondent no. 1 and J.D. On reply on merits, all the averments made by the petitioner have been denied.
9. Rejoinder to the reply of respondent no. 2 and 3 was filed wherein all the contentions of respondents were denied and all the averments made in the petitioner have been reaffirmed as correct.
10.The application u/O VII R11 CPC filed by Respondent 2 and 3 was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2014 with the remarks that it is not the prerogative of this Court to decide questions of ownership in detail and proof of ownership is not even a necessary ingredient in this petition.
EVIDENCE
11.In support of his case, petitioner examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A on 15.01.2015 wherein he stated that he is sole/legal owner of the suit premises i.e. 221/59, S-Block, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi and the respondent no. 2 and 3 in collusion with the respondent no. 1 had obtained the decree passed by the court of Sh. Vikram, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in petition bearing E. No. 40/2012 titled as Mrs. Sudershan Devi & Ors. V. Sh. Ram Sahay & Ors. by misleading the Hon'ble Court and concealing the material facts from the above mentioned Hon'ble Court. The collusion and the fraud played by the parties to the above mentioned matter is very much apparent from the fact that the respondent no. 1 did not take part in the proceedings after filing the written statement so that the case may easily be decided in favour of the respondent no. 2 and 3. Parties to the said suit tried to mislead the court of Sh. Vikram, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the petition No. E-40/2012 titled as Mrs. Sudershan Devi & Ors. v. Sh. Ram Sahay & Ors. and by bringing the false frivolous facts before the court in connivance with each other and thus the decree received by the E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 6 of 25 respondent no. 2 and 3 is a nullity. That the petitioner only came to know about the pendency of the execution proceedings when the petitioner was informed by the neighbours that some court bailiff had come to the suit property to demolish some structure of the suit premises and the petitioner immediately engaged the lawyer on 08.09.2012 and enquired about the same to move the appropriate application. Petitioner further submitted that he is owner of the suit premises by virtue of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Possession Letter, Will and Receipt, all dated 14.01.2004 executed by erstwhile owner Sh. K.C. Marwah in favour of petitioner. The previous owner while executing the above said document handed over the original sale deed dated 05.07.1965 executed by Ch. Priay Vart S/o Ch. Lakhi Ram in his favour. Petitioner filed and relied upon the sale deed, GPA, Agreement to sell, Will and Receipt. Photocopies of the same are Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6. Originals of the same were returned after perusal. Further, petitioner submitted that erstwhile owner of the suit property namely Sh. K.C. Marwah had inducted the respondent no. 1 as a tenant in the suit premises @ Rs. 525/- excluding the water and electricity charges comprising of two bed rooms toilet, bathroom, kitchen at ground floor, more specifically shown in red in the site plan which is Ex.PW1/7. Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Raghunandan Saran & Ashok Kumar v. U.O.I. and stated that in view of the said judgment, petitioner is entitled to revise the rent @ Rs.6,000/- per month. The date of the letting out of the suit property is not known to the petitioner as suit premises is let out by the erstwhile owner of the suit property namely Sh. K.C. Marwah to the respondent no. 1. The petitioner after becoming the owner of the suit property had terminated the tenancy of the respondent no. 1 vide legal notice dated 17.11.2011, copy of the same is Ex.PW1/8 and postal receipt is Ex.PW1/9.
12.Petitioner was cross examined on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 wherein he stated that he is working in a private company i.e. Metro Tyres Limited at Ambala Cantt. and getting salary of Rs.16,000/- per month. In the year 2004, he was working with the same company but he does not know remember what salary he was getting then. His salary used to come in his account since the year 2008-2009. He denied the suggestion that intentionally and deliberately, he is not explaining his salary for the year 2004. In the year 2004, he was having E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 7 of 25 responsibility of his wife and two children, aged about 2 and 7 years respectively. His son was about 7 years old and was school going at that time. He came to know about the said property by one of his relatives namely Sunil in the year 2004 itself. Sh. Sunil is also attesting witness to the documents of ownership but he does not remember the exact month and time of first meeting in respect of sale of property. He first met with Sh. Kuldeep Chand Marwah at Baljeet Nagar at the house of Sh. Sunil but he does not remember the date, time and month of meeting. He denied that he is intentionally and deliberately concealing the fact as he never met with Mr. Kuldeep Chand Marwah. He further denied that he never dealt with the Sh. Kuldeep Chand Marwah regarding the said property. He was not paying income tax in the year 2004 but he used to pay the ITR from last two years. He completed his transaction in respect of property with Mr. Kuldeep Chand Marwah on 14.01.2004. He never took the possession of property in question till date. vol. as the tenant was residing in the property in question. In respect of property in question, two times, he met with Mr. Kuldeep Chand Marwah. The documents in respect of property in question had been executed at Tis Hazari Court but he does not remember the exact place. Petitioner denied that neither any document had been executed between the parties nor any transaction had taken place in respect of property in question. He further denied that the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 are forged and fabricated and therefore he does not remember the place of their execution. The documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 have been prepared by his Advocate but he does not remember his name and address. He further denied that no such documents had been prepared therefore he is not explaining the name and address of the said Advocate. He does not know the age of Mr. Kuldeep Chand Marwah at the time of execution of documents. He further denied that he is not explaining his age as he never met with him. However, he admitted that photocopy of possession letter dated 14.01.2004 is filed by him in the court. He came to know about House No./plot No. of the property in the year 2004 itself before execution of documents when he visited the property in question. He conveyed in respect of purchase of property in question to Ram Sahai on the same day i.e. 14.01.2004 or on the next day by physically visiting in front of his house. Sh. Ram Sahai had never tendered any E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 8 of 25 rent to him despite intimation given to him. He never issued any notice/letter to Ram Sahai in respect of payment of rent. He used to ask for payment of rent on phone to Ram Sahai but he does not remember the day, month or year and phone number upon which he used to call him. After 2004 from purchase of property in question, directly he filed the present petition before this court. He could not explain that how many members are residing with tenant Ram Sahai as mentioned in para-5 of his petition. He had never applied for electricity, water and sanitation in his name as mentioned in para-10 of his petition. He never used to deal in respect of property in question in any other Govt. Department i.e. Electricity, Water, MCD, House Tax etc. except to file the present petition. He could not explain anything in respect of citation mentioned in para-11 as the same has been done by his lawyer. He could explain about the structure period of the property in question. On 14.01.2004, Mr. Kuldeep Chand Marwah told him about the rate of rent with Mr. Ram Sahai and upon saying Mr. Marwah, He explained same rent to Mr. Ram Sahai. He does not know about wife and children of Mr. Marwah. His advocate Sh. Honey Kaushik got prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/7 on his instructions. He has never seen the structure of the property in question from inside. Vol. He has seen the property from outside. He admitted that he had not seen inside structure of the property in question. However, he denied that the site plan Ex.PW1/7 is false one. He could not explain if his affidavit mentioned in para-2 regarding intimation of court bailiff as well as neighbour who intimated him. He is also not able to explain date, time, year or month of the intimation came in his knowledge in respect of court bailiff. He denied that he has filed a false and frivolous suit with connivance of Mr. Ram Sahai on forged and fabricated documents.
13.On the even date, petitioner was cross examined on behalf of respondent no. 1 wherein he stated that he became owner of the property in question on 14.01.2004. He denied that he had not shown property documents to the tenant Ram Sahai. He denied that he is not the owner of the suit property. Respondent no. 1 has not paid rent to him and he volunteered that he had asked for the same several times. He got sent a legal notice through his lawyer to the tenant to this effect but he does not remember the exact time, date and year. He denied the E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 9 of 25 suggestion that no notice was sent by him to respondent no. 1 regarding non payment of rent.
14.In support of his case, petitioner got examined Sh. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh Ram Padarth as PW2 on 16.07.2015 wherein he stated that late Sh. K.C. Marwah sold the property No. 221/59, S-Block, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi to Sh. Madan lal Nishad S/o Ram Charan Nishad by means of G.P.A., Agreement to sell etc. and he is attesting witnesses of the said documents. He identified his signatures at point X-1, X-2, X-3 and X-4 on GPA, Agreement to sell, Will and receipt Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6. He also identified signatures of Sh. K.C. Marwah at point Y on all these documents as the entire dealing was done in his presence. The entire sale documents were got prepared and executed at Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in his presence.
15.PW2 was cross examined on 27.08.2015 on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 wherein he admitted that he has not filed any document in support of his identification alongwith his affidavit. As mentioned in his affidavit in respect of document, the said document has been prepared in the year January, 2004, he does not remember the exact place of preparing the documents in Tis Hazari but in back side of Tis Hazari Complex. He denied the suggestion that neither such documents have been prepared nor he visited Tis Hazari at that point of time therefore, he is unable to tell the exact place and name of the person who had prepared the documents. He does not remember as to how many documents have been prepared or he had signed at that point of time. He had never visited the suit premises at the time of execution of said sale transaction between K.C. Marwah and Madan Lal Nishad. He further denied that no such transaction has taken place or any physical possession has been handed over therefore he had never visited the suit premises on that day. He knew petitioner being cousin brother in law (jija) since about 10 years. He does not know exact date of marriage but the marriage has taken place in Faijabad, U.P. and at the time of execution of documents, he was accompanied with the petitioner and K.C. Marwah with his lawyer. He reached Tis Hazari alongwith petitioner by bus but he does not remember the bus no. He denied the suggestion that nothing has happened on that day therefore he E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 10 of 25 is hiding all date, time and place. At the time of execution of said documents, K.C. Marwah was aged about 50-60 years of age but he could not explain his exact figure. On the said date, K.C. Marwah was wearing Kurta Pazama. At the time of execution of documents, an amount of Rs.4 lacs has been handed over in cash but he could not explain currency of notes. He further denied the suggestion that no amount has been handed over therefore, he is not explaining the currency of notes. He knew K.C. Marwah since last 20 years as he used to reside in front of each other for a distance of half kilometer. He does not know address of K.C. Marwah. He further stated that full name of K.C. Marwah is Kuldeep Chand Marwah. He does not remember at the time of execution of sale documents photographs and identity proof of K.C. Marwah has been attached with documents or not. He denied that no such documents had been prepared or signed. Therefore, he is hiding the aforesaid facts. He further denied that being relative of petitioner, they had made a conspiracy to grab the property of Sh. K.C. Marwah by preparing forged and fabricated documents between each other in respect of suit property. He admitted that the possession letter dated 14.01.2004 bears his signatures in the list of witnesses at sr. no. 1. The possession letter was not prepared before him and it was prepared by Mr. K.C. Marwah and he signed it without reading the same. Other documents were prepared before him at Tis Hazari and he signed the same without reading the contents. He did not know the exact contents but he knew that there are documents for the transfer of the suit property.
16.Cross examination on behalf of respondent no. 1 was nil though opportunity for the same was given on even date.
17.On behalf of respondents, respondent no.3 Sh. Arun Kumar Marwah was examined by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A on 08.10.2015 wherein he stated that he, himself, and his mother Smt. Sudarshan Devi w/o Late Sh. K.C. Marwah, both are residents of S-32, 1st Floor Janta Market Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and are respondent no. 2 and 3 in the case titled Sh. Madan Lal Nishad Vs Sh. Ram Sahay and others in this very court and are owners of property bearing No. 221/59, S-Block, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi which is shown in the site plan Ex.RW1/1 by virtue of being LRs of late Sh. K.C. Marwah, who died on E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 11 of 25 24.05.2006. Smt. Sudarshan Devi is the widow of late sh. K.C. Marwah and he is the only child, son of late Sh. K.C. Marwah and he is authorized by his mother. Sh. K.C. Marwah had purchased the property in question from Chaudhary Priya Vart by way of registered sale deed Ex.RW1/2 in the year 1965 and since then his father has been in continuous exclusive possession of the said property. After having constructed rooms, the portion of premises was let out to Sh. Ram Sahay, Respondent no. 1 which consisted only of two rooms on the ground floor with common bath room and court yard. After the death of Sh. K.C. Marwah, respondent no. 2 and 3, LRs automatically acquired the rights and title of the above mentioned property.
18.He further stated that respondent no. 1 is the tenant of respondent no. 2 and 3 in respect of only two rooms with common bath and court yard which is shown in red in the site plan Ex.RW1/1. The respondent initially paid the rent to late Sh. K.C. Marwah through money order which was received accordingly, but subsequently he started defaulting in making payments of rent which led to the filing of the petition under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, 1958 Ex.RW1/3. Respondent no. 1 deposited the rent in the court under section 15(1) of DRC Act and subsequently the matter was compromised before the court of Hon'ble Rent Controller, Delhi on 13.03.1997 and respondent no. 1 promised to pay the rent regularly. However, the amount of rent was very meager and the landlord continuously insisted for increasing the rent to maintain the premises accordingly, but the respondent no. 1 failed to do so. Again accepting him to be tenant in respect of aforesaid portion, respondent no. 1, filed petition under section 44 of DRC Act Ex.RW1/4 and the same was decided by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30.05.2005 whereby the court had only permitted the respondent no. 1 to carry out required repairs, i.e. replacing the wooden karies of the said two rooms, repair the leaking roof, floors and walls. But in the garb of the said order, the respondent no. 1 in gross violation of the order dated 30.05.2005 instead of repairing the rooms made further new constructions on the ground floor as well as on the first floor and a permanent stair case which was not existing at the inception of the tenancy or even prior to the filing of the petition under Section 44 of DRC Act. Respondent no. 1 committed the contempt of the court and has E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 12 of 25 even trespassed in the portions of the premises which were never let out to him at any point of time either by late sh. K.C. Marwah or his LRs i.e. respondent no. 2 and 3. Respondent no. 2 and 3/LRs reserve their rights to file a separate contempt petition against the respondent no. 1 in the appropriate court. After the demise of Sh. K.C. Marwah on 24.05.2006, the said property was mutated in the name of Smt. Sudarshan Devi, respondent no. 2 being LR/widow of late Sh. K.C. Marwah vide order dated 30.04.2007 Ex.RW1/5. Original sale deed dated 05.07.1965 between Ch. Priya Vart S/o Ch. Lekhi Ram R/o Village Khyala Delhi State, the vendor Sh. K.C Marwah S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram Marwah R/o T/1998, Ashok Nagar Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the Vendee, had gone missing after the death of Sh. K.C. Marwah on 24.05.2006 and this fact is published in Public Notice in the newspaper, Indian Express dated 07.08.2006 Ex.PW1/6 by counsel of Smt. Sudarshan Devi, respondent no. 2 warning everybody against any dealing with any one with regard to all her properties including this property and that if any one does so he/she shall be doing so at his/her own risk and responsibility for which Smt. Sudarshan Devi shall not in any manner be responsible and she shall be further entitled to nullify any/all such transactions as and when she comes to know of the same, so that nobody can misuse the missing document and also Smt. Sudarshan Devi respondent no. 2 informing the concerned authorities like police and the Sub Registrar. Further, respondent no. 3 reiterated the averments made in the written statement. He relied upon the documents i.e. receipt of payment of rent for six months upto November, 2006 by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2, notices dated 23.09.2006, 14.03.2007 and 21.03.2007, reply dated 03.10.2006 to the legal demand notice dated 23.09.2006, decree dated 22.09.2011 passed in favour of respondent no. 2 and 3, cross examination of Sh. Madan lal Nishad dated 30.05.2015 in the execution court of Ms. Anjani Mahajan, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi on 28.02.2014 and Sh. Sunil Kumar Witness was examined before the court of ARC on 27.08.2015 in the said court on 07.11.2014. The said documents alongwith documents mentioned above are Ex.RW1/1, Ex.RW1/2, Ex.RW1/5, Ex.RW1/12, Mark-A to Mark-H. The documents mentioned in the affidavit as Ex.RW1/7, Ex.RW1/9 and Ex.RW1/10 are not on record and as such the same were de-exhibited.
E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 13 of 25
19.RW1 Sh. Arun Kuma Marwah was cross examined on 08.10.2015 on behalf of petitioner wherein he stated that he retired as a Director from Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances and Pension. No SPA has been executed by respondent no. 2 in his favour to contest the present petition and volunteered that he is son and AR of the respondent no. 2 and copy of the authority letter is already on record. He has not filed any ID proof of respondent no. 2 or himself and volunteered that he brought his driving licence. He has not filed any ID proof of K.C. Marwah of A-69, Pandav Nagar, Opposite Shadipur Depot, New Delhi and volunteered that all the court proceedings filed by him bear the same address of K.C. Marwah and himself. He has ID proof of A-69, Pandav Nagar, Opposite Shadipur Depot, New Delhi, however, he has not filed the same on record. He denied that he does not have ID proof of A-69, Pandav Nagar, Opposite Shadipur Depot, New Delhi. His father Sh. K.C. Marwah retired from Govt. Service in October, 1981 and he died on 24.05.2006. After the death of his father, his mother respondent no. 2 herein started getting family pension from the department. He has not filed any document to show that his mother is getting pension from the department and volunteered that he can produce the same, if so directed. He denied the suggestion that respondent no. 2 was not wife of Sh. K.C. Marwah or that she was not getting pensionary benefits of Late K.C. Marwah. He has not filed death certificate of Sh. K.C. Marwah on record and volunteered that he can produce the same, if so directed. He further denied the suggestion that he is not having death certificate of Sh. K.C. Marwah in his possession. He further stated that one or one and half month after the death of his father Sh. K.C. Marwah, he came to know about missing of the Sale Deed dated 05.07.1965 Mark-A. A police complaint to this effect was lodged with PS Tilak Nagar and with the office of Commissioner of Police, ITO, New Delhi. He denied that any police complaint was not lodged with PS Tilak Nagar and with the office of Commissioner of Police, ITO, New Delhi about missing of aforesaid documents. Further, he stated that publication Mark-E was made in respect of missing of documents mark-A on 07.08.2006. The said missing documents consist of 3-4 pages and volunteered that the photocopies of said missing sale deed/documents are already mark-A on record. The site plan was not enclosed with the said missing sale deed mark-A. The property in E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 14 of 25 question is measuring 150 sq. yards. He further denied the suggestion that the suit bearing no. 8/08 Mark-F was a collusive suit. He further denied the suggestion that K.C. Marwah had already sold the property to Madan Lal Nishad, petitioner herein on 14.01.2004 vide GPA and other relevant documents Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6, before publication of missing documents dated 07.08.2006. He denied that Sh. K.C. Marwah had handed over original sale deed dated 05.07.1965 in respect of property in question to Sh. Madan Lal Nishad at the time of execution of GPA dated 14.01.2004. He further denied that they have wrongly published the public notice Mark-E. He further denied that they, intentionally and deliberately in order to grab the property of the petitioner, published a public notice in respect of property in question. He further denied that he knew that K.C. Marwah had already sold the property in question to petitioner, at the time of filing of suit bearing no. 8/08 Mark-F. He further denied that petitioner is owner of the property in question and he is entitled to receive the rent from respondent no. 1. The sale deed 05.07.1965 was in possession of Marwah family which was consisting of himself, his father, mother, his two daughters at that time. The sale deed 05.07.1965 was kept at house No. A-69, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi from where it was misplaced. The missing articles consist of sale deed dated 05.07.1965, certain house hold articles, bank passbooks and other documents. They were living jointly and severally at three places i.e. A-69, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi, S-32, First Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and WZ-221/59, Block-S, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, Khyala, New Delhi. He admitted that he has not filed any document which shows that he was residing at WZ-221/59, Block-S, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, Khyala, New Delhi. No FIR has been lodged in respect of missing articles, however, police complaints have been lodged. He has not filed any complaint case for lodging the FIR in court. He further denied that any documents have been misplaced from his possession.
20.Respondents examined Sh. Desh Bandhu Gosain, UDC from the Office of Sub Registrar-II, Basai Dara Pur, Delhi wherein he produced the summoned record in respect of Sale Deed dated 05.07.1965 executed by Ch: Priya Vart S/o Ch: Lakhi Ram in favour of Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram Marwah which E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 15 of 25 was registered vide registration No. 2775 in Addl. Book No. 1, Vol. 399 on page 100 to 102 dated 09.07.1965. He has compared the photocopies of the aforesaid Sale Deed filed on record with the original record brought by him and stated that the same are correct copies and the same are Ex.RW2/1(colly). Original of the same was returned after perusal.
21.He was cross examined on the even date on behalf of petitioner wherein he stated that generally two sets of documents are prepared in their office, one of them is given to the parties concerned and second copy with original signatures is kept in their record. He does not have any personal knowledge as regards the present case.
22.Sh. Desh Bandhu Gosain, UDC was again examined on 08.10.2015 wherein he produced the summoned record of original unexecuted sale deed dated 10.12.2007 presented by Sh. Ram Sahai s/o Sh. Jagan Nath R/o S-221/59, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi in respect of property No. S-221/59, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi in favour of Smt. Kamla w/o Sh. Ram Sahai and Sh. Santosh Kumar s/o Ram Sahai. As per their record, the aforesaid sale deed was not executed as A.K. Marwah had written a letter dated 22.11.2006 to Sub Registrar-II, which fact has been referred to in an undated notice issued by the Sub Registrar-II to Smt. Kamla and Sh. Santosh Kumar. As per their record, Sub Registrar-II have issued two separate letters, both dated 18.12.2007 to Sh. A.K. Marwah and Smt. Sudarshan Devi. He saw photocopies of aforesaid two letters dated 18.12.2007 and unexecuted sale deed dated 10.12.2007 and other related documents as aforesaid already Mark-G on record and the same are correct copies of the original brought by me today. Same are now Ex.RW4/1, Ex.RW4/2 and Ex.RW4/3. Original of the same were returned after perusal. Cross examination was nil though opportunity for the same was given to counsel for petitioner.
23.Witness was cross examined on even date on behalf of respondent no. 1 wherein he stated that as per record brought by him today, no previous chain of the sale deed in respect of property in question is lying. He could not say whether the department has any application sent by Sh. A.K. Marwah. Same is his reply in respect previous chain of property in question. He denied that A.K. Marwah had E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 16 of 25 sent any application to the department for stay of execution of sale deed dated 10.12.2007 in respect of property in question. He joined this office in March, 2014. He could not identify signatures of Sub Registrar-II, Janak Puri. He does not have any knowledge whether any receipt for depositing stamps fee for execution of sale deed in respect of property in question was issued by their department or not. He denied that neither Sh. A.K. Marwah had issued any letter to their department nor their department had issued any letter to Smt. Kamla and Sh. Santosh Kumar. He denied the suggestion that all the documents brought by him are forged and fabricated documents which were prepared by their department in collusion with Sh. A.K. Marwah. He denied that no stamp papers/fees has been deposited by Smt. Kamla and Sh. Santosh to their department. He denied that A.K. Marwah had obtained the signatures of Ram Sahai, Smt. Kamla and Smt. Santosh Kumar by deceitful means and deposited the same with their department in order to get vacated the tenanted premises and implicate them in false cases.
24.Respondent examined RW3 Sh. Ravi Shankar, UDC from South MCD, West Zone, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi wherein he produced the summoned record in respect of Mutation and House Tax pertaining to property WZ-221, Block-S, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, Khyala, Delhi. He has compared the photocopy of the aforesaid Mutation Letter No. TAX/WEST/MR/614/MUT/979/2007 dated 30.04.2007 filed on record with the original record brought by him and the same are correct copy and the same is Ex.RW3/1. Original of the same was returned after perusal. Apart from aforesaid house tax receipts, he has also brought House Tax Receipts Nos.292400 dated 2003, 0797974 dated 07.10.2004, 1037628 dated 03.08.2005, 0953868 dated 17.01.2007, all issued in the name of Sh. K.C. Marwah and House Tax Receipts Nos. 1365408 dated 21.05.2007, 475059 dated 02.06.2008, 702040 dated 15.06.2009, 92330 dated 13.06.2010 and No. 31747 dated 14.05.2011, all issued in the name of Sudarshan Devi. Photocopies of the same are marked as Mark-A to Mark-I. As per our record, mutation qua the suit property is in the name of Sudarshan Devi.
25.He was cross examined on even date on behalf of petitioner wherein he stated that the mutation letter Ex.RW3/1 does not prove any ownership qua the E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 17 of 25 property in question. Anyone can deposit the house tax qua any property irrespective of owner thereof or not. He does not have any personal knowledge as regards the present case.
26.Arguments have been heard. Material on record perused. Submissions have been considered.
SECTION 14(1)(a) OF DRC ACT
27.To prove the case under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(i) That there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) Rate of rent;
(iii) That there were arrears of legally recoverable rent at the time of issuance of
legal demand notice;
(iv) That a valid legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent; and
(v) That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally
recoverable rent within two months of date of receipt of legal demand notice.
The ingredients are taken up for consideration one by one:-
RELATIONSHIP
28.This is perhaps the ingredient that requires the most deliberation in the present case. There is a serious challenge to the claim of the petitioner of being landlord by Respondent No. 2 and 3 who themselves claim to be the landlords by virtue of being the wife and son respectively of the erstwhile landlord and previous owner of the property, late Sh. K. C. Marwah. There appears to be no dispute amongst the parties regarding the fact that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the said premises by late Sh. K. C. Marwah.
29.The petitioner claims that the premises was transferred to him by the erstwhile owner through documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to sell, Will and receipt Ex.PW1/2, E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 18 of 25 Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 respectively. Interestingly, the respondent no. 2 and 3 claim that the original sale deed of the property which is in possession of the petitioner was lost after the death of the erstwhile landlord. They also claim that after his death, the property was mutated in the name of Respondent no. 2 being wife of the deceased owner and now she and Respondent no. 3 are owners of the property. They have also alleged collusion between the tenant and the petitioner. Whereas, the petitioner has alleged collusion between the tenant and respondent no. 2 and 3. Interestingly, the version of the tenant is that with many people claiming to be the owner, he is confused as to whom to pay rent. Thus, he neither conclusively recognizes the petitioner nor respondent no. 2 and 3 as the landlord. The respondent no. 2 and 3 also allege that the tenant first tried to get the property registered in the name of his family members and when he couldn't do so, he propped up the petitioner to grab the property in collusion with him.
30.Now, this Court does not have the prerogative to decide the ownership of the tenanted premises conclusively. Rather, the question of ownership is not even material for the purpose of deciding a case u/s 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act. What is important is the existence of a landlord tenant relationship.
31.Section 2(e) of the DRC Act provides that "Landlord" means a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent to be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant.
32.Before proceeding further, it would be expedient to refer to certain excerpts from the pleadings of the parties and evidence led by them.
33.The petitioner has stated that the respondent no. 1 did not take part in the proceedings of a case filed against him by respondent no. 2 and 3 after filing the written statement so that the case may easily be decided in favour of the respondent no. 2 and 3. PW Sunil Kumar has stated in his deposition that late Sh. K.C. Marwah sold the property No. 221/59, S-Block, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi to Sh. Madan lal Nishad S/o Ram Charan Nishad by means of G.P.A., E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 19 of 25 Agreement to sell etc. and he is attesting witnesses of the said documents. He also identified signatures of Sh. K.C. Marwah at point Y on all these documents as the entire dealing was done in his presence. He also deposed that at the time of execution of documents, an amount of Rs.4 lacs has been handed over in cash. He knew K.C. Marwah since last 20 years as he used to reside in front of each other for a distance of half kilometer. He admitted that the possession letter dated 14.01.2004 bears his signatures in the list of witnesses at sr. no. 1. The possession letter was not prepared before him and it was prepared by Mr. K.C. Marwah
34.The respondent no. 2 and 3 have stated in their WS that Sh. Ram Sahay the respondent no. 1 who used to pay rent to Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah till his death on 24.05.2006, thereafter paid rent for six months from June to November, 2006 to Smt. Sudarshan Devi the respondent no. 2, DH, wife and legal heir to Sh. Kuldip Chand Marwah.
35.The respondent no. 3/ RW1 has stated in his deposition that the said property was mutated in the name of Smt. Sudarshan Devi, respondent no. 2 being LR/widow of late Sh. K.C. Marwah vide order dated 30.04.2007 Ex.RW1/5. Original sale deed dated 05.07.1965 between Ch. Priya Vart S/o Ch. Lekhi Ram R/o Village Khyala Delhi State, the vendor Sh. K.C Marwah S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram Marwah R/o T/1998, Ashok Nagar Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the Vendee, had gone missing after the death of Sh. K.C. Marwah on 24.05.2006. The photocopies of said missing sale deed/documents are already mark-A on record. The sale deed 05.07.1965 was kept at house No. A-69, Pandav Nagar, New Delhi from where it was misplaced. No FIR has been lodged in respect of missing articles, however, police complaints have been lodged. He has not filed any complaint case for lodging the FIR in court
36.RW3, who was an official witness, has stated in his cross examination that the mutation letter Ex.RW3/1 does not prove any ownership qua the property in question. Anyone can deposit the house tax qua any property irrespective of owner thereof or not
37.In this regard, it has also been held in the case of Sabina Sablok vs Promila E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 20 of 25 Mehra & Another decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 12 March, 2014 that:
"Mutation per se is not a conclusive proof of title merely because mutation is carried out in favour of one party does not make that party as the absolute owner of the property."
This is the settled position of law and no useful purpose would be served by multiplying authorities on this point.
38.Thus, even if mutation has been carried out in the name of Respondent no. 2 or if she has deposited house tax for the property, the same is not proof enough that she has become owner or landlady of the tenanted premises. No doubt, that the respondent no. 3 had given public notice about the allegedly missing sale deed, but under what circumstances the same went missing, if at all it went missing, has not been explained by respondent no. 2 and 3. Interestingly, the respondent no. 2 and 3 have filed copies of several complaints against the tenant but they have not filed any complaint or FIR against the petitioner. It is highly untenable that if the petitioner had forged the documents pertaining to the property in question then the respondent no. 2 and 3 would not have taken any action in criminal law against him. Even otherwise, the documents of the petitioner have not been challenged by the respondent no. 2 and 3 till date and they have not sought declaration to the effect that the same are null and void or forged or should be cancelled before any court of law till date. Thus, as things stand today, this Court has no reason to doubt the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner. These documents, particularly the GPA Ex. PW1/2, which pertain to the same property as referred to in the original sale deed executed in favour of Late Sh. K. C. Marwah, categorically authorize the petitioner to receive rent with respect to the said property.
39.Even otherwise, the respondent no. 2 and 3 have stated that the respondent no. 1 paid rent to them for six months but no rent receipt or other document has been filed on record to prove the same. No plausible explanation has come forth on part of respondent no. 2 and 3 as to why they did not seek eviction of the tenant on account of non payment of rent till date especially when they have themselves stated that the respondent no. 1 only paid rent to them allegedly till November, E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 21 of 25 2006. They have not even stated if any legal notice was served by them upon the tenant. On the other hand, the petitioner has at least clearly stated in the legal notice Ex. PW1/8 that he could not recover rent from respondent no. 1 as he was suffering from several problems and various diseases. Even the civil suit which was filed by them against the tenant was decided exparte and the tenant chose not to contest the same. This negates any collusion between the petitioner and the tenant but rather hints at collusion between the tenant and respondent no. 2 and 3. This is also apparent from the fact that even though the tenant tried to get the property transferred in the name of his family members, no concrete action was taken by respondent no. 2 and 3 against him. It is not known whether the complaints filed by them against the tenant were seriously and diligently pursued by them. On the other hand, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the wrong doings, if any, of the tenant as no collusion is apparent between the tenant and the petitioner. Rather, the tenant has supported the version of respondent no. 2 and 3 in his WS and opposed the version of the petitioner.
40.Although, it is stated in Agreement to Sell Ex. PW 1/3 that possession of the property has been handed over to the petitioner, the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that such documents are often prepared from set formats by people who are not so skilled in the nuances of drafting and this is nothing but a minor discrepancy which is not patently germane to the merits of this case.
41.Likewise, the rights of the petitioner do not get extinguished merely because of the fact that the tenant paid rent to Late Sh. K. C. Marwah till his death or paid six months rent to the respondent no. 2 and 3.
42.Thus, it is held that on account of documents relied upon by the petitioner, which have not been put to any challenge before any civil or criminal court by respondent no. 2 and 3, the petitioner is entitled to receive rent for the tenanted premises and is held to be landlord in respect of the same.
43.As far as the discrepancy in the description of the property is concerned, the respondent no. 1 has merely stated that the site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct. He has not filed any site plan of his own. It is settled law that when tenant does not file his own site plan then the site plan relied upon by the landlord should E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 22 of 25 be presumed to be correct. The respondent no. 2 and 3 have filed their own site plan but the same cannot be taken into account in this case as neither they are landlords nor tenants and a petition u/s 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act is essentially a dispute between landlord and tenant. Even otherwise, there is no material difference between the site plan filed by the petitioner and that filed by respondent no. 2 and 3 except for the fact that the respondent no. 2 and 3 have also sought to describe the portions in alleged unauthorized occupation of the tenant. Thus, the petitioner is held to be landlord of respondent no. 1 in respect of tenanted premises as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW 1/7.
RATE OF RENT
44.The rate of rent is stated by the petitioner to be Rs. 525/- per month. The respondent no. 1 has denied the same. Although in the legal notice Ex. PW1/8 the petitioner has mentioned the rate of rent to be Rs. 525/- per month, there is no rent receipt or other document on record to prove the said rate of rent. However, the respondent no. 3 in his evidence has relied upon petition filed by Respondent no. 1 against late Sh. K. C. Marwah under section 44 of DRC Act Ex.RW1/4 which was decided by vide order dated 30.05.2005. In the said petition the rate of rent is mentioned as Rs. 500/- per month. The same is also admitted in the reply filed by the deceased previous landlord and also finds mention in the order dated 30.05.2005. There is nothing on record to show that rent was increased thereafter, although the petitioner may have statutorily been entitled to the same. Even the notice Ex. PW1/7 does not demand an increase in rent. Hence, the rate of rent is held to be Rs. 500/- per month excluding other charges.
ARREARS OF RENT
45.It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 had defaulted in payment of rent and failed to pay rent w.e.f. 14.01.2004, despite the service of legal notice dated 17.11.2011 which was served upon the respondent vide postal receipt Ex. PW1/9.
E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 23 of 25
46.In reply to the contention raised by the petitioner, the respondent has merely stated that after the death of the previous landlord he got confused as many people were claiming to be the owner of the property.
47.It is settled law that when the 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. It has been held in Sukhanand Vs. IVth Additional District Judge, Bulendshahar & ors. 1994(2) AIRCJ 27 that the onus to show payment of rent lies on the tenant and oral testimony of tenant in regard to the payment of rent claiming discharge of liability in this regard cannot be admitted to be worth reliance at all. It is also held in Raghubir Prasad Vs. Rajendra Kumar Gurudev, 1993(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 234 that on default in payment of rent the onus to show payment of rent lies on tenant.
48.It is also held in Satya Prakash Vs. District Judge Ghaziabad, 1982(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 295 that if in a petition tenant alleges that rent is paid, then as per Evidence Act, burden to prove payment lies on the tenant, as he alleges that payment is made. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Karamchand Deojee Sanghavi Vs. Tulshiram Kalu Kumawat, 1992(1) RCR 118 in a case of eviction on arrears of rent, the onus would always be on tenant to prove that he has paid the rent.
49.Thus the onus was upon the respondent no. 1 to prove that he had made upto date payment of rent and there were no arrears of rent due against him as claimed in the legal demand notice Ex.PW1/8. But he has miserably failed to discharge the said onus as he has not led any evidence in this regard. Since the respondent no. 1 has failed to discharge his onus to prove payment of rent, so it is held that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 14.01.2004 till date @ Rs.500/- per month.
THAT A VALID LEGAL DEMAND NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE RESPONDENT
50.The service of legal demand notice Ex.PW1/8 stands proved as per Section 114 of Evidence Act and Section 27 of General Clauses Act as the same was sent E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 24 of 25 vide postal receipt Ex. PW1/9. It has been held in the case of Jagdish Singh Vs. Natthu Singh; AIR 1992 SC 1604 that where a notice is sent by the landlord by registered post and the same is returned by the tenant with an endorsement of refusal, it will be presumed that the notice has been served. Thus, in view of the law laid down above and by virtue of Section 27 of General Clauses Act 1897, even if the notice would have been refused by the respondent no. 1 then also he would have been deemed to have been served with the legal notice of demand.
THAT DESPITE THE SERVICE OF THE LEGAL DEMAND NOTICE THE RESPONDENT HAS NEITHER PAID NOR TENDERED THE ENTIRE ARREARS OF LEGALLY RECOVERABLE RENT
51.It is reiterated that the respondent no. 1 has merely stated that after the death of the previous landlord he got confused as many people were claiming to be the owner of the property.
52. The petitioner has stated that despite service of legal demand notice Ex.PW1/8, the respondent no. 1 has failed to pay the demanded arrears of rent. Respondent no. 1 has failed to prove or even allege that payment of rent was made.
53.Thus, it is held that the respondent no. 1 did not pay arrears of rent despite service of legal notice of demand.
CONCLUSION
54.From the above said discussion, it is clear that the petitioner has proved all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act and, therefore, the present petition is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no.1 in respect of tenanted premises on Ground Floor, 221/59, S-Block, Gali No. 6, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi consisting of two bed rooms, toilet, bathroom and kitchen as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/7.
55.Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 is directed to pay/ deposit rent w.e.f. May, E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai Page 25 of 25 2009 (the limitation period for recovery of rent being 3 years and the petition having been filed on 08.05.2012) along with statutory interest @ 15% per annum thereupon in the Court within one month from today.
56.If the respondent fails to deposit the aforesaid arrears within one month from today, the petitioner shall be entitled to recover the same by filing an execution in that regard.
57.Original documents, if any, be returned to the parties after filing certified copies thereof and against acknowledgment of receipt as per rules.
58.Separate file be maintained for consideration of granting benefit of Section 14 (2) of DRC Act.
59.There shall be no order as to costs.
60.Before parting, this Court records its appreciation for Sh. Dhan Mohan, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 and 3 for meticulous arguments led by him.
61.File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court On this 18th day of January, 2016 (Sumedh Kumar Sethi) ACJ/CCJ/ARC(West)/18.01.2016 Tis Hazari, Delhi E. No. 40/2012 Madan Lal Nishad vs Ram Sahai