Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajinder Pal vs Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall on 21 February, 2022
In the Court of CCJ cum ARC (Central District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Presided by: Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh
Case No. E-253/2017
CNR No. DLCT03-002500-2017
Judgment partly dictated through Video Conferencing and
partly physically in the Court.
In the matter of:-
Sh. Rajinder Pal
S/o Late Sh. Prakash Chand
R/o 25/83, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi-110007. ............Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall
S/o Late Dr. M.B. Lall
C/o Clinic Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall
7331, Prem Nagar, Delhi-110007. ............Respondent
Date of institution : 03.04.2017
Date of reserved for judgment : 09.02.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.02.2022
Decision : Petition
Dismissed
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER
SECTION 14 (1) (e) READ WITH SECTION 25B OF THE
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, AS AMENDED UPTO
DATE
JUDGMENT :-
1. This petition for eviction of tenant/respondent under clause
(e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 1 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 17:58:38 +0500 Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') is preferred by the petitioner against the respondent for recovery of possession of tenanted premises, i.e., Shop No. 7331, measuring 8'-1" x 17'-6" situated in property bearing No. 7331-7332 common staircase to 7330, Prem Nagar, G.T. Road, Delhi-110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises').
2. In nutshell, the facts are that the petitioner is the owner and landlord with respect to the premises bearing No. 7331 to 7332, and property No. 7330, situated at Prem Nagar, G.T. Road, Delhi-110007, the part of property No. 7330 is owned by the brother of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner purchased built up property constructed on plot No. 136 and 137 on 20th November, 1969. The petitioner's father and the petitioner's brother were the co-owners of the said property having one half undivided share each in the same. The property was partitioned by metes and bound between the petitioner's father and the other co-owner, i.e., the brother on 1st April, 1983 and as a result of that the portion shown in red colour in the site plan was agreed to be enjoyed by the father of the petitioner, i.e., in the ownership right/title of father and the portion shown in yellow colour was agreed to be enjoyed by the brother of the petitioner, i.e. Sh. Yash Pal as per the site plan attached. The share of petitioner's father devolved upon the petitioner as the father bequeathed his share by the registered Will dated 18.12.2006 who died on 23.11.2009 on account of the execution of the registered Will and after the death of the father, the petitioner became the owner of the father's CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 2 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 17:58:56 +0500 portion and the suit property measuring floor area 8'-1" x 17'-6"
bearing Municipal No. 7331. The tenanted premises was let out to Dr. M.B. Lall, respondent's father at the rate of rent of Rs. 38.50 per month long back. After the death of Dr. M.B. Lall, the respondent has been enjoying the tenanted premises by running a clinic being a Doctor. The respondent had committed a default in payment of rent. Thereupon, the petitioner had served a legal notice dated 08.03.2016 upon the respondent, who replied the same vide reply dated 11.03.2016.
The petitioner's family consists of petitioner, his wife, daughter and son, brother who is living independently and 5 married sisters and their families who are frequent visitors in the petitioner's house. The petitioner is living in residential house bearing No. 25/83, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 and this residential accommodation is being enjoyed by the petitioner as well as the married sisters and their families. The petitioner's daughter Kshitija Rajput born on 21.05.1988 has passed the LL.B. examination and is enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Delhi vide enrollment No. D-1313/2013. Now the petitioner wants to set up an independent office for his daughter named Kshitija Rajput as per her desire. The petitioner's daughter needs proper place where the clients/visitors could be properly attended after the court hours. In the said office, the petitioner's daughter would store the entire record/documents pertaining to the cases of client's and where the staff would also be engaged who would be in a position to resolve the problems of clients/visitors when the petitioner's daughter would be busy in the Courts. The petitioner's daughter would also be upgraded and her earnings would also increased. The petitioner is running the CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 3 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 17:59:07 +0500 electrical business in the adjoining shop under the name and style of PAL ELECTRONICS and if the office of the daughter is just close to the petitioner's business place in that situation the petitioner would also be in a position to take care of daughter's independent office. Therefore, the petitioner needs the tenanted premises for this bonafide need. The daughter of the petitioner is dependent on the petitioner with regard to the shop where the office could be properly established.
The details of the entire properties owned by the petitioner are as follows :-
Property bearing Municipal no. 7331, 7332 and common portions of 7330 which devolved upon the petitioner after the death of petitioner's father by virtue of the Will executed by the father. In this property on the ground floor there are 2 shops. One shop is a suit property and in another shop alongwith basement, the petitioner is running the electrical business under the name & style of PAL ELECTRONICS as a showroom used for selling the appliances of Philips and basement is being used for storage purposes. On the other floors, the property is tenanted and no portion is in the possession of the petitioner.
Besides the above stated property, the petitioner owns property No. 7278 which is located in the Gali of Prem Nagar, measuring 100 sq. yds.. This property consists of ground, first, second and third floors. On the ground floor, there is a godown being used by the petitioner for storage purpose, on the first floor, old tenant, namely, Manju Naval is residing and second & third floors are in CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 4 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 17:59:22 +0500 possession of Sh. Manoj Jain, who is an old tenant. The other property of the petitioner is property no. 25/83, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. This property consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor. Ground floor & first floor are being used by the petitioner and his family for residential purpose. Below the ground floor, there is a basement which is being used for storage purpose for storing the goods of PAL ELECTRONICS and other domestic goods. On the second floor, there is a room and lobby, which is being used as guest room and over the roof of the second floor, there is a mobile tower installed. Hence, no space is available in the said property. It is stated that the petitioner doesn't have any other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation available with him to set up an office for his daughter, for whose bonafide need the present petition is filed.
Upon the above quoted facts, prayer is made for passing an eviction order against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner with respect to the tenanted premises.
3. Summons were served upon the respondent, who filed the leave to defend application alongwith separate detailed affidavit, which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2017.
Written statement of defence was filed by the respondent. At this stage, an application u/o 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of petition was filed, which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2017.
CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 5 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.21
SINGH 17:59:38 +0500
Thereafter, amended petition was filed. Thereupon,
amended written statement of defence to the amended petition was also filed by the respondent.
In the amended written statement, the respondent took preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable in the present form. It was stated that the present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties because after the death of the original tenant, Dr. M.B. Lall, father of the respondent left behind 05 legal heirs, namely, i) Ms. Raj Dulari Lall (now deceased), ii) Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall, iii). Dr. Vimal Kumar Srivastav, (iv) Raj Kamal Srivastav & (v) Sunil Kumar Lall who succeeded the tenancy by operation of succession. The petitioner has stated himself to be the owner of property no. 7331 & 7332 in para no. 18 (a) (1) with common share of 7330 and further contradicting himself in subsequent paras 18 (a) (9) (i), wherein he stated to be the owner of property bearing no. 7332 & 7333, which devolved upon him after the death of his father by virtue of Will executed by his father. Petitioner further stated that property no. 7331 & 7332 are upper portions, whereas, the tenanted premises is ground floor shop bearing 7331 as municipal number. Hence, ownership of the petitioner qua tenanted premises is not clear. It is stated that the petitioner is trying to fill up the lacunae which was exposed by the respondent by way of leave to defend application and to its reply, the petitioner has admitted some portions and has not denied some other portions. The site plan filed by the petitioner with the original/first petition, that site plan shows six properties, i.e., 7226-7232 but no number has been mentioned against the portion on the site plan. It is stated that as per the rent receipt, the tenanted premises is 7331 which is a CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 6 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 17:59:57 +0500 ground floor shop. However, now the petitioner is trying to say that 7331 belongs to the upper floor, which is not possible at all. Hence, the entire petition is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the tenanted premises is 7331, which has been bequeathed to him by way of Will, as mentioned in the original petition. However, by way of amended petition, the petitioner is trying to say that only 7332 & 7333 were devolved upon him by way of Will and hence, admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. It is stated that this petition is not for the bonafide requirement but only an additional requirement. In the Partition Deed, no property number has been mentioned as to which property is falling to whom. Similarly, site plan shows only the total properties number from 7326 to 7332, Prem Nagar, G.T. Road, Delhi but in the site plan, only basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor and second floor of one property is shown. Thus, the division of the property is not clear. The Will dated 18.12.2006 executed by the father of the petitioner has not been probated till date. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon. It is stated that perusal of para no. 1 of the said Will says that one half divided share of the properties No. 7331 & 7332 would go to the petitioner. Hence, reading of Partition Deed and Will together, both contradicts each other. It is stated that Partition Deed shows that properties bearing no. 7326 to 7332 have been divided in two shares, thus three properties each. On the other hand, Will only bequeath only two properties. It is stated that there is no Will with respect to property no. 7326 to 7330 owned by the father of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner will succeed to these properties by way of succession and hence, these CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 7 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:00:11 +0500 properties are alternative accommodations available to the petitioner and the petitioner has concealed these facts in the petition. It is stated that by filing the amended petition, the petitioner has further contradicted himself that property bearing no. 7332 & 7333 has fallen upon him by virtue of aforesaid Will and further stating that property no. 7331 is the upper portion of the said property, whereas, the respondent is in possession of the ground floor shop consisted 7331 municipal number. It is stated that the petitioner is totally silent about the present status of the office of the daughter and simply it is stated that he wants to set up an independent office for his daughter. It is submitted that the daughter of the petitioner is already running her office from premises no. 25/83, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, who had issued a notice to the respondent dated 08.03.2016.
The petitioner is having various alternate accommodations at his disposal, which has not been disclosed by him. The property bearing no. 25/83, Shakti Nagar Delhi is claimed to be a residential house. However, the petitioner further claims that his daughter is having no place to sit, whereas, her own letter head shows that she is running her office from the said premises, which makes the petition for additional requirement instead of bonafide. This property consists of basement, ground, first, second and on the roof of the second floor, a mobile tower is installed. Since the petitioner is silent about the usage of first and second floor in the entire petition, hence, alternative accommodation is very much available to him, which are lying vacant and sufficient to meet the bonafide need. Moreover, basement of this property is also lying vacant and is in possession of the petitioner and this CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 8 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:00:28 +0500 space as per MPD 2021, it can be used for office purpose. This property is bigger and better situated and suitable to the petitioner.
The tenanted premises is only 8'-0" x 17'-0" only and hence, it cannot be said that this space can be used for office purpose/storage purpose by the daughter of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has admitted that the mobile tower is installed over the second floor and not on the second floor. It is stated that in the previous original petition, the petitioner has admitted that there are three rooms on the first floor of this property. However, in the amended petition, the word 'bed' has been removed to show their malafides. Hence, it is the fact that once a fact is admitted shall be deemed to be admitted for all times to come. It is stated that the malafide intentions are clear from the fact that earlier the petitioner has stated that mobile tower is fixed on the second floor. However, in the amended petition, petitioner is saying that it is on the third floor. Admittedly, the petitioner is having another property bearing no. 7278, Gali of Prem Nagar, Delhi. It is stated that the correct address is 7278, Gali No. 2, Prem Nagar, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 and not as alleged in the petition. The said property is also consists of third floor. On the first floor of the said premises, there is no tenant and the same is lying locked for the last many years, which is evident from the photographs being placed on the record. Hence, the said premises is available to the petitioner in the form of alternative accommodation. It is stated that no proof of tenancy of second floor is placed on record by the petitioner, hence, adverse inference can be CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 9 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:00:40 +0500 drawn against him. It is stated that earlier, the petitioner has concealed the third floor of the said property. However, he admitted the same when brought by the respondent in his leave to defend application. The petitioner is also having one more alternate property bearing no. 10/20, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, of which ownership of petitioner's father is not disputed and the same was bequeathed upon the petitioner by his father. This property is more than 200 sq. yds. consists of three floors.
Another alternate property of the petitioner, being co- owner is bearing no. 19/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi which was earlier owned by the father of the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that the same has been mutated or transferred in the name of his brother.
In parawise reply, it has been admitted by the respondent in para no. 9 of his written statement that the tenanted premises/shop was let out to the father of the respondent. It is further submitted that after the death of the father, the respondent alongwith other co-tenants have succeeded to the tenancy and all are tendering rent to the petitioner.
On the abovesaid grounds, prayer is made for dismissal of the present petition.
4. Replication in the form of rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the amended written statement of the respondent, wherein he re-affirmed and re-iterated the facts mentioned in the petition and denied the defences taken by the respondent.
CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 10 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:01:00 +0500
5. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A relying upon the several documents as follows :-
a) Copy of Sale Deed dated 20.11.1969 is Ex. PW1/1.
b) Copy of Partition Deed dated 01.04.1983 is Ex. PW1/2.
c) Copy of Death Certificate of Sh. Prakash Chand is Ex.
PW1/3.
d) Copy of site plan is Ex. PW1/4.
e) Copy of reply dated 11.03.2016 Ex. PW1/5 was de-
exhibited.
f) Copy of Enrollment of daughter with Bar Council of Delhi
is Ex. PW1/6.
g) Copy of Amended Application Form of VAT Certificate is
Ex. PW1/7.
h) Copy of Insurance Certificate Ex. PW1/8 was de-
exhibited and marked as Mark 'A'.
PW2, Sh. Yaspal Rajput has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon the following documents :-
a) Copy of Sale Deed dated 12.11.1969 is Ex. PW2/1 (already Ex. PW1/1).
b) Copy of Partition Deed dated 01.04.1983 is Ex. PW2/2 (already Ex. PW1/2).
c) Copy of title/ownership documents of property bearing no.
19/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi is Ex. PW2/3 (Will executed by the father dated 18.12.2006)
d) Copy of title/ownership documents of property bearing no.
CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 11 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:01:18 +0500
10/20, Shakti Nagar, Delhi is Ex. PW2/4.
PW3, Sh. Manish Suri tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW3/A. PW4, Sh. Manoj Jain tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW4/A. He relied upon the Bank Statement for the period w.e.f. April, 2017 to September, 2017 Ex. PW4/1.
PW5, Sh. Sanjay Newar tender his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW5/A. He relied upon the Bank Statement of his mother Ex. PW5/1 in order to show his tenancy in respect of first floor of property no. 7278, Prem Nagar, Delhi.
PW6, Ms. Sonika, Asst. Manager, United India Insurance was the summoned witness, who brought two insurance policies issued in favour of Pal Electronics as Ex. PW6/1 (colly.). She has also brought another policy Ex. PW6/2 (colly.).
PW7, Draftsman, Sh. Laxman Singh stepped into the witness box, who had prepared the site plan of property bearing no. Plot No. 83, Block 25 situated at Shakti Nagar, Delhi owned by Sh. Rajinder Pal. The said site plan is Ex. PW7/1.
PWs were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent and PE was closed vide order dated 13.12.2018.
6. In respondent's evidence, the respondent examined himself as RW1, RW2 Sh. Raj Kamal Srivastav, RW3 Sh. K. K. Lakhotia and RW4 Sh. Om Prakash.
CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 12 of 24SANTOSH Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:01:33 +0500 RW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A relying upon the document Ex. RW1/1 (colly.), i.e., copy of reply dated 11.03.2016 to the notice dated 08.03.2016 issued by the daughter of the petitioner. This exhibited Ex. RW1/1 was put in cross-examination of PW1 and again exhibited as Ex. PW1/R1.
RW2, Sh. Raj Kumar Srivastav tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW2/A and relied upon 04 photographs Ex. RW2/1 (colly.) of alternate accommodations.
RW3, Sh. K.K. Lakhotia tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW3/A and relied upon the photographs of Chaudhary Misthan Bhandar Ex. PW3/1 (colly.).
RW4, Sh. Om Prakash, JSA, NDMC Office, Keshav Puram Zone was the summoned witness, who has brought the online record of half portion of property bearing no. 22/14A and 22/14 in the name of Sh. Manoj Gupta and Sh. Yashpal Rajput respectively and got exhibited the same as Ex. RW4/1 (colly., running into 02 pages). He has also got exhibited the Assessment Letter in the name of Sh. Prakash Chand and Sh. Yaspal for the property no. 7326/1 and 7332 as Ex. PW4/2. He has also brought the summoned record, i.e., copy of notice u/s 126(1) of DMC Act in respect of property no. 7326/1 and 7332 Ex. PW4/3.
RWs were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and RE was closed vide order dated 27.05.2019.
CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 13 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:01:52 +0500
7. I have heard the arguments tendered by Sh. A.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. Puneet Bhatnagar, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Both the Ld. Counsels for the parties have also filed written synopsis of their arguments and even filed subsequent synopsis on changed circumstances, which are on record.
I have gone through the entire material placed on record carefully.
8. In order to succeed in the case, the petitioner must establish :-
(i) Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
(ii) The petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafide for himself or for his daughter dependent upon him.
(iii) The petitioner has no other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation.
Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties :-
9. It is deposed by PW1 that his father Sh. Prakash Chand and Sh. Yashpal (brother of the petitioner) had purchased built up property constructed on plot no. 136-137 vide Ex. PW1/1 having ½ share each. This property was partitioned by metes and bounds between the father of the petitioner and his brother Sh. Yashpal vide Ex. PW1/2 and as a result, red colour shown in the CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 14 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:02:10 +0500 site plan was agreed to be enjoyed by father of PW1 and the portion in the yellow colour in the site plan would be enjoyed by the brother of the petitioner, i.e., Sh. Yashpal as per the site plan. PW1 has deposed that his father Sh. Prakash Chand had executed a Will dated 18.12.2006 Ex. PW2/3 bequeathing his share in the abovesaid property. He has deposed that his father Sh. Prakash Chand had died on 23.01.2009 (death certificate Ex. PW1/3) and hence, the petitioner became the owner of the father's portion in the suit property including the tenanted premises measuring 8'-1"
x 17'-6". PW1 has deposed that the respondent's father Sh. M.B. Lall was the tenant at the monthly rate of Rs. 38.50/- per month in respect of the tenanted premises and after the death of respondent's father Sh. M. B. Lall, the respondent has been enjoying the tenanted premises, being a Doctor, who is running his clinic therefrom. PW1 has deposed that after the death of father of the respondent, the respondent committed default in payment of rent and consequently, PW1 served a legal notice Ex. R1/X2 to the respondent, who replied the same vide Ex. RW1/1 (This document was put in cross and exhibited as PW1/R-1). PW1 has deposed that he has filed the site plan Ex. PW1/4 (The site plan was exhibited in evidence, however, the exhibit mark was not done on the site plan). However, the tenanted premises is marked in dark 'red colour' in the site plan.
PW2, being the brother of PW1 has relied upon Ex. PW2/3, i.e., Will executed by their father in favour of PW1 & PW2.
Per contra, it has been deposed by RW1 that the petitioner has stated himself to be the owner of property no. 7331 & 7332 in para no. 18 (a) (1) with common share of 7330 and further CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 15 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:02:26 +0500 contradicting himself in subsequent paras 18 (a) (9) (i), wherein he stated to be the owner of property bearing no. 7332 & 7333, which devolved upon him after the death of his father by virtue of Will executed by his father. Petitioner further stated that property no. 7331 & 7332 are upper portions, whereas, the tenanted premises is ground floor shop bearing 7331 as municipal number. Hence, ownership of the petitioner qua tenanted premises is not clear. RW1 has deposed that the petitioner is trying to fill up the lacunae which was exposed by the respondent by way of leave to defend application and to its reply, the petitioner has admitted some portions and has not denied some other portions. The site plan filed by the petitioner with the original/first petition, that site plan shows six properties, i.e., 7226-7232 but no number has been mentioned against the portion on the site plan. RW1 has deposed that as per the rent receipt, the tenanted premises is 7331 which is a ground floor shop. However, now the petitioner is trying to say that 7331 belongs to the upper floor, which is not possible at all. Hence, the entire petition is liable to be dismissed. RW1 has deposed that the tenanted premises is 7331, which has been bequeathed to him by way of Will, as mentioned in the original petition. However, by way of amended petition, the petitioner is trying to say that only 7332 & 7333 were devolved upon him by way of Will and hence, admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
10. Perusal of file reveals that the petitioner had issued the legal notice Ex. RW1/X2 to the respondent, who had replied the CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 16 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:02:45 +0500 same through Ex. PW1/R1. RW1 has admitted in his evidence that his father was the original tenant in the tenanted premises, who died on 18.12.2004 leaving behind 05 legal heirs, namely, i) Ms. Raj Dulari Lall (now deceased), ii) Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall,
iii). Dr. Vimal Kumar Srivastav, (iv) Raj Kamal Srivastav & (v) Sunil Kumar Lall, who succeeded the tenancy by operation of succession and become the co-tenants. RW1 has deposed that all above LRs had tendered the rent to the father of the petitioner. In this regard, evidence affidavit of RW1 is already Ex. RW1/A. RW1 has deposed in his evidence that, at present, he is paying rent of the tenanted premises to the petitioner/PW1. Both these exhibits and testimony of RW1 establishes that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner, which he has already admitted in his evidence affidavit as Ex. RW1/A. Hence, there is no ambiguity with regard to existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
11. In order to prove the ownership, the petitioner has already relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1, Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3 & Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW2/3.
It has been admitted by RW1 that he is paying rent qua the tenanted premises to PW1/petitioner and this fact has also been mentioned in Ex. PW1/R1, wherein it is mentioned that RW1, one of the legal heir of the original tenant Dr. M.B. Lall of the above mentioned property, shall personally hand over the rent to the petitioner. Perusal of Ex. RW1/X2 reveals that this document has been admitted by RW1 in his evidence, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of property bearing no. 7328 to 7332, Prem Nagar and RW1 is a CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 17 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:03:00 +0500 tenant in the premises bearing shop no. 7331, Prem Nagar, Delhi- 110007. Therefore, RW1 has no right to question the documents Ex.PW1/1, Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/4 & Ex. PW2/3.
12. The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by rent control law has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. The word "owner" is not used in the Act in the context of an absolute owner. In this regard reference can be have to the decision of the Apex Court in "Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2028", wherein it was held that:
"14. The word 'owner' has not been defined in this Act and the word 'owner' has also not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be is that ownership means absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereupon. Ordinarily, the concept of ownership may be what is contended by the counsel for the appellant but in the modern context where it is more or less admitted that all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some terms from the Govt. or the authorities constituted by the State and in this view of the matter it could not be thought of that the Legislature when it used the term 'owner' in the provision of Sec. 14 (1) (e) it thought of ownership as absolute ownership. It must be presumed that the concept of ownership only will be as it is understood at present. It could not be doubted that the term 'owner' has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. This CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 18 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:03:22 +0500 Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But at the same time it has provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bonafide requirement is one of such grounds on the basis of which landlords have been permitted to have eviction of a tenant. In this context, the phrase 'owner' thereof has to be understood, and it is clear that what is contemplated is that where the person builds up his property and lets out to the tenant and subsequently needs it for his own use, he should be entitled to an order or decree for eviction, the only thing necessary for him to prove is bonafide requirement and that he is the owner thereof. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
In another case law, "Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & others, 155 (2008) DLT 383", it was laid down that a landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act and he is required to show only that he is more than a tenant. Same was the ratio of decision given in "Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162." Further, the High Court of Delhi made important observations in the decision given in the case titled as "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450" it has been held that :-
"It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 19 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:03:39 +0500 himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly......".
13. In this matter, it has been admitted by RW1 that he is paying rent to the PW1, who is the landlord and the respondent being a tenant, he has been estopped to dispute or challenge the ownership of PW1/petitioner qua tenanted premises as per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
14. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, in the light of judgments cited above and in the light of evidence and material on record, it has been proved that the petitioner is the owner as well as the landlord of the tenanted premises for the purpose of the DRC Act.
Bonafide need and dependency of Ms. Kshitija Rajput upon the petitioner/PW1:-
15. The next element of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is whether the need of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises is CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 20 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:03:57 +0500 bonafide or not.
16. In this regard, it is stated in the petition that petitioner's daughter Ms. Kshitija Rajput born on 21.05.1988 has passed LL.B Examination and has enrolled herself as an Advocate vide Enrollment no. D-1313/2013. It is stated that the petitioner wants to set up an independent office for his daughter, who has expressed her desire. It is stated that his daughter needs proper place from where clients and visitors could be property attended after court hours. His daughter will store the entire documents/records pertaining to the cases of clients. His daughter would also engage staff to cater problems of clients and visitors when she would be busy in courts. She would also upgrade her income. It is stated that the petitioner is running electrical business in the adjoining shop under the Name & Style Pal Electronics and if the office of the daughter remains close to the petitioner's business, then the petitioner would also be in a position to take care daughter's independent office. Therefore, the petitioner needs the tenanted premises for this bonafide need and for that purpose, his daughter is dependent upon him.
Per contra, it is stated by the respondent that the petitioner is totally silent about the present status of the office of the daughter and simply it is stated that he wants to set up an independent office for his daughter. It is submitted that the daughter of the petitioner is already running her office from premises no. 25/83, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and had issued a notice to the respondent dated 08.03.2016 Ex. RW1/X2, which shows premises no. 25/83, Shakti Nagar, Delhi as Office-cum- Residence.
CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 21 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:04:17 +0500
17. In order to prove the bonafide need and dependency of Ms. Kshitija Rajput upon the petitioner, PW1 has relied upon the document Ex. PW1/6 showing that his daughter is an Advocate, who has enrolled herself with the Bar Council of Delhi. He has deposed that his daughter is running her office from one room on the first floor of property no. 25/83, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that this property is a residential one, comprising of basement, ground, first and second floors.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that an application u/s 151 CPC dated 21.08.2019 was filed on behalf of the respondent for taking on record changed circumstances on the same day, wherein it was mentioned that the daughter of the petitioner Ms. Kshitija Rajput, for whose bonafide need the present petition is filed, has got married on 12.03.2019 and after marriage, she has joined the matrimonial house in the company of the groom (her husband), who is a NRI and she had gone to United States of America. It was further mentioned that requirement for opening an office for the said daughter from the tenanted premises has come to an end.
In reply to this application, it was submitted by the petitioner that bonafide requirement of the petitioner still exists and mere marriage of his daughter has no effect on the need of the petitioner as neither has the daughter any idea to leave the legal profession nor withdrawn her registration and would continue with legal profession. It was submitted that her visit to husband's place after marriage in no way extinguish the bonafide need of the petitioner or petitioner's daughter.
After hearing, this application was decided on 18.09.2019 CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 22 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.21 SINGH 18:04:32 +0500 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court mentioning that the petitioner has not denied the marriage of his daughter to NRI Groom. In other words, marriage of daughter of the petitioner has been deemed admitted in reply. It was also admitted that daughter of the petitioner had visited to her husband's place after marriage and these changed circumstances/subsequent events regarding marriage of daughter of the petitioner, namely, Kshitija Rajput to NRI Groom on 12.03.2019 as well as her visiting to her husband's house in USA were taken on record and the said application was allowed and therefore, there was no requirement by the respondent to lead evidence for an admitted fact.
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 has held that:-
The 'bonafide requirement' must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.
20. In the present matter, it is an admitted position that the daughter of the petitioner, namely, Ms. Kshitija Rajput got married on 12.03.2019 and went to USA with her husband. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner never brought this fact to the knowledge of the Court and had concealed till the filing of this application, i.e., till 21.08.2019 filed by the respondent for bringing on record the changed circumstances/subsequent events. It is only in the reply to said application the petitioner had admitted this fact regarding the changed circumstances. Had the need of the petitioner be bonafide, he would himself have apprised and brought this fact to the knowledge of the Court. His CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 23 of 24 SANTOSH Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.21 18:04:56 SINGH +0500 silent conduct for almost more than 5 months shows that his real intention was to get the tenanted premises vacated at any cost.
21. Keeping in view the above discussion, in the light of judgment cited above, pleadings, entire material and the concealment by the petitioner on record clearly show that the petitioner has not been able to prove his bonafide need, rather, it would be called as manufactured ground based on concealed facts.
22. Since the petitioner has miserably failed to prove the bonafide need, therefore, there is no necessity for discussing the other elements of 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
23. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent u/s 14 (1)
(e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act is dismissed. No order as to costs.
24. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.21
SINGH 18:05:09 +0500
Pronounced in open Court (Santosh Kumar Singh)
on 21st Day of February, 2022 CCJ cum ARC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CIS No. E-253/17 Sh. Rajinder Pal Vs. Dr. Sushil Kumar Lall Page 24 of 24