Shanti P Singh vs Manmohan Singh on 15 January, 2025

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Shanti P Singh vs Manmohan Singh on 15 January, 2025

           IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
           CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
                     PRESIDED BY : RICHA SHARMA

RC ARC No: 100/2019
CNR No. DLWT-03-002656-2019

SHANTI P. SINGH
W/O LATE PRAKASH SINGH
R/O 25, EMERALD STREET, ROATH,
CARIFF, SOUTH WALES ENGLAND.

THROUGH ATTORNEY
SH. SUSHIL TANWAR
S/O RANDHIR SINGH
R/O A-16, FIRST FLOOR,
SHYAM NAGAR, KHYALA,
NEW DELHI 110018.                                                                   .....PETITIONER

                                               VERSUS

MANMOHAN SINGH (DECEASED)
S/O JAGEER SINGH

THROUGH LR'S

1. GURCHARAN KAUR (WIFE)

2. SARDAR BALVINDER SINGH (SON)
BOTH R/O RZ-07, RAVI NAGAR EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI 110018.

3. GURMEET KAUR (DAUGHTER)
W/O SARDAR INDERJEET SINGH
R/O F-59, VISHNU GARDEN, NEW DELHI 110018.

4. NARINDER KAUR (DAUGHTER)
W/O SH SUNIL KUMAR
R/O 161, CHANDER VIHAR, NILOTHI EXTENSION,
SHUKKAR BAZAAR, NEW DELHI.              .....RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

RC/ARC No.100/19            Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs.       Page No.1 of 48
                           Date of Filing   : 23.09.2019
                          Date of Judgment : 15.01.2025

                                                 JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioners filed the present petition under Section 14-D read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying for passing an order for eviction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent(s) in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. one shop on the ground floor of property bearing no. A-16, Sham Nagar, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi - 110018, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted shop").

AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN PETITION

2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioner, that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged 94 years and an illiterate widow and is the absolute owner of the property bearing no A-16, Sham Nagar New 110018. It has been further averred, that the respondent approached the petitioner to let out a shop on the ground floor of the above-said property on rent and the petitioner agreed to the same. It has been further averred, that the petitioner with the consent of her husband had let out the tenanted shop to the respondent for a monthly rent of Rs. 180/- excluding electricity and water charges and it was agreed between petitioner and respondent that the respondent will never sub- let the said shop.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.2 of 48

3. It has been further averred, that the petitioner is suffering from various old age ailments and had also undergone knee operation, due to which she is unable to climb stairs. It has been further averred, that the property bearing A-16 Sham Nagar, New Delhi 110018 is an old constructed building and not suitable for living and therefore, the petitioner wants to demolition the whole property and construct a floor for herself. It has been further averred, that the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the shop but respondent kept on saying that he will vacate the shop but till today, he has not vacated the tenanted shop.

4. It has been further averred, that the respondent in connivance with one person namely Bittoo also got signed few blank papers from the petitioner and later on used the said blank papers for making fabricated rent receipts. It has been averred, that the respondent even got installed an electricity meter in the name of M/s. Speedy Steady Motors, who is also one of the tenants of the petitioner and he never informed or obtained the consent of the petitioner in this regard.

5. It has been further averred, that whenever petitioner visits India, she used to reside in hotels because she is not in a position to use stairs to reside on the first floor of the property due to her old age. It has been averred, that the petitioner has also got issued a legal notice for eviction upon the respondent. Lastly, it is prayed, that an order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents be passed for eviction of the tenanted shop.

6. After service of the summons, leave to defend was filed by the respondent in the present case. In the leave to defend the respondent submitted, that there is no bonafide need of the petitioner. It has been further submitted, that only in order to evict the tenant and to sell/ dispose of the suit premises for monetary gains, the present petition has been filed. It has been further submitted, that the petitioner had earlier filed various eviction petitions against the respondent and the other tenants and every time, either such petitions were withdrawn by the petitioner or dismissed by Learned ARC or some of them against other tenants were still pending. It is submitted that, all the petitions were filed through the attorney of the petitioner as the petitioner is the permanent resident and citizen of United Kingdom and has no intention to come to India.

7. It has been further submitted, that the age of the petitioner is about 90 years and even at the time when the tenanted premises was let out, the petitioner was the resident of UK. It has been further submitted, that the Children of the petitioner are well settled and are permanent residents of UK. It has been further submitted, that the husband of the petitioner has already expired and the children of the petitioner rarely visit India and the petitioner too visits India after a gap of 3 - 4 years. It has been further submitted, that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation, as the entire first floor portion of the suit premises is with the petitioner which consists of three rooms, dining room, kitchen, bathroom and two balconies and the petitioner has deliberately not mentioned the extent of accommodation available ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.4 of 48 with her and her dependent family members. It has been further submitted, that the petitioner has failed to file any details with regard to the construction as alleged in the petition and any permission from the concerned authorities. It has been further submitted, that Shri Sunil Kumar, power of attorney holder for the present petition is residing on the first floor of the suit property. It has been averred, that the power of attorney holder is also the caretaker of the suit property and the area where the suit property is situated is inhabited by the poor class / middle class and the present petition is filed only to deprive the respondent of his place of livelihood.

REPLY TO THE LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION

8. No reply was filed by the petitioner to the leave to defend application.

9. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.09.2021, Learned Predecessor of this Court allowed the application of the respondent(s) for leave to defend and they were given liberty to file the written statement.

AVERMENTS BY RESPONDENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT

10. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia submitted, that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the same lacks the ingredients of the Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act; same has not been signed verified and instituted by the petitioner herself being competent person; the alleged attorney namely Sh. Sushil Tanwar is not competent to file and present the present petition on behalf of the petitioner and to swear affidavit on her behalf; the ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.5 of 48 alleged Special Power of Attorney dated 29.09.2018 is a forged and fabricated document; the petitioner has not correctly mentioned the description of the tenanted shop in the petition; the petitioner has not filed the proper site plan of the property in question; the petitioner has not mentioned about the extent of accommodation available with her.

11. It has been contended, that the petitioner is having complete first floor comprising three bed rooms, drawing room, kitchen, bathroom and two balconies with her which is sufficient for her need and the present petition is not bonafide and is a gross misuse of the provisions of the DRC ACT. It has been contended, that the petitioner has nowhere mentioned in the present petition that the petitioner need the tenanted shop for her residence. It has been contended, that the petitioner has tried to make out the case for evicting the respondent for demolition of the suit property and then to carry on the new construction for which there are specific provisions in the DRC Act and as such the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14-D of the DRC Act is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.

12. It has been contended, that the present petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and has been filed with malafide intentions to oust the respondent from the tenanted premises by using the summary procedure as earlier the petitioner has filed the petition against the respondent in respect of the suit premises in the year 2015 under section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of the DRC Act bearing No E-06/2015 which was pending ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.6 of 48 before the Court of Sh. Vishal Pahuja, Ld. ARC (West), Delhi, and the said case withdrawn by the petitioner by moving an application for withdrawing the same which was allowed with cost of Rs.1000/- vide order dated 28.05.2019. It has been contended, that the said petition was dismissed without there being any order of the Court to the effect for permitting the petitioner to file fresh petition on the same ground i.e. bonafide requirement.

13. It has been contended, that thereafter, another petition under section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act against the respondent was filed by the petitioner just two months after the aforesaid petition filed by her under section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act bearing No E-26/2015 and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 28.05.2019 with cost of Rs.1000/- by Court of Sh. Vishal Pahuja, Ld. ARC, West Delhi which was also at evidence stage. The petitioner too filed various such false and frivolous petitions against other tenants also which too were dismissed by the Ld. Concerned Courts. Thus, the petitioner through her so-called attorneys, who are the property dealers, is indulging in harassing the respondent and as well other tenants in the suit premises. Thus, the present petition is an another act of gross abuse of the process of the Court by the petitioner The petitioner in the present petition has deliberately not mentioned the details of her earlier cases filed by her against the respondent and other tenants as well and has concealed those facts which disentitle her from filing the present petition and the same deserve to be dismissed with heavy cost.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.7 of 48

14. It has been contended, that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present eviction petition against the respondent as the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and she is only collecting the rent from the respondent and is only the landlady. It has been contended, that the present petition is without any cause of action in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, as there is no bonafide need of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises in question which is very small shop measuring around 8' x 8' sq. ft. area and the petitioner is the permanent resident and citizen of U.K. and she has no intention to come to India at this stage and age of 92 years and even when the said shop was let out to the respondent in the year 1974, the petitioner was also then residing and citizen of U.K. and permanently settled down there since 1960. Her children too are the British citizens and permanently residing in U.K. and do not visit India. The petitioner herself visits India after the gap of 2 - 3 years for few days and whenever she visited India, always stayed in hotels only since 1960 onwards and never stayed in the premises/property in question. It has been contended, that the complete first floor comprising of three bed rooms, drawing room, kitchen, bathrooms and two balconies are in the possession of the petitioner but she never stayed there also at any time. Thus, the present petition is nothing but bogus and artificial petition filed by her so-called attorney who wanted to sell the suit property at premier price and is the actually person behind the veil.

15. It has been contended, that the petitioner's alleged claim that she wants to demolish the suit property and wants to reconstruct the same is a false, fabulous and baseless ground and it is unlikely, that the petitioner at this age of 92 years would come to India and demolish ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.8 of 48 the property in question and then construct the same and then to reside here, whereas since 1960, the petitioner has been permanently residing in U.K. It has been contended, that the respondent is a tenant in the shop situated on the ground floor of the property bearing no A-16, Sham Nagar, New Delhi - 110018 since 1974 and has been running an electrical items repair shop and earning the livelihood for himself and his family members who are totally dependent upon the respondent but the petitioner wants to snatch the livelihood of the respondent and his family members.

16. It has been contended, that the site plan filed by the petitioner is not according to the actual site and the petitioner was required to file complete site plan of the property bearing no A-16, Sham Nagar, Khyala Road, New Delhi-110018. It has been contended, that earlier the petitioner has given the first floor of the property in question to said Mr. Bittoo who use to act as her care-taker and attorney through whom the petitioner earlier filed about three cases against the respondent which were dismissed by the concerned Court and the petitioner has not given any details of those cases deliberately and has concealed the true facts from the Court. It has been contended, that the correct details of those cases are, (i) Petition under section 14 (1)

(e) R/W Sec 25 B of the DRC Act on dated 16.02.2015, bearing petition no E-6/2015 titled as Smt. Shanti P. Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh was dismissed as withdrawn by the then Id. Couft of Sh Vishal Pahuja, Ld. ARC (West) vide erder dated 28.05.2019 with cost of Rs.1000/- as the case was at evidence stage, the petitioner did not lead the evidence despite seeking various dates and finally withdrew the same; (ii) the petitioner just two months after the above said petition i.e. in the month of April 2015 filed an another petition ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.9 of 48 against the respondent under section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act which was also pending before the then Ld. Court of Sh. Vishal Pahuja, Ld. ARC (West) Delhi which was also withdrawn by the petitioner on 28.05.2019 and the same was also at evidence stage; and (iii) in the month of April 2015 itself, the petitioner filed one more suit against the respondent being suit for permanent Injunction which was also pending before the aforesaid Ld. Court wherein the respondent made the statement that he is not sub letting or parting with the possession of suit shop and the said suit was also dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner respondent.

17. It has been contended, that the petitioner had also filed similar Cases against other three tenants who are running their shops in the said property and such cases either have been withdrawn by the petitioner or dismissed. Lastly, it is prayed that the present petition be dismissed with heavy costs.

REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT

18. It has been further submitted, that each and every averment made in the written statement filed by the respondent which is contrary to the averments contained in the petition filed by the petitioner may be treated as denied unless specifically admitted. It has been been denied, that the Attorney of petitioner is not competent to file and present the present petition on behalf of petitioner.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.10 of 48

19. It has been further denied, that the SPA dated 29.09.2018 is forged and fabricated and the same has no legal sanctity. It has been further submitted, that the description of the tenanted shop is not properly mentioned and the petitioner has not filed proper site plan of the property in question. It has been further submitted, that the portion available with the petitioner on the first floor of the property in question is not at all suitable to the petitioner in view of her old age ailments and old age and due to the same she is unable to climb stairs. It has been further submitted, that despite having own property, the petitioner was forced to stay in hotels. It has been further submitted, that the tenanted shop was required for the purpose of installing lift for having easy access to the first floor portion.

20. It has been further submitted, that the provisions of section 14-D are well applicable in the present case as the same is an incidental bonafide requirement of petitioner for the installing/erecting lift purpose to have of easy access to the first floor portion due to the old age of petitioner. It has been further submitted, that the present petition is not an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted, that the earlier petitions which were filed by the petitioner's earlier counsel is a matter of record. It is submitted, that the said petitions have already been disposed off and as such, the said withdrawals have no connection with the present petition. The provision of section 14-D is a beneficial of a separate, enactment vulnerable previous cases have no distinct, for widow. The status of being a widow and requirement of premises is sufficient enough for granting the relief under the provision of section 14-D DRC Act.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.11 of 48

21. It has been further submitted, that the pleadings of the respondent in the written statement with regard to these previous cases is not more than an attempt to mislead and to divert the mind of the court. It is submitted, that the earlier cases were filed at the advice of her previous counsel. It has been specifically denied, that the Attorney of petitioner is a property dealer who harasses tenant / respondent. It is submitted, that the impugned shop property as well as whole is owned by petitioner being legal heir of her husband. It is submitted, that respondent is deliberately taking this frivolous plea. It is submitted, that petitioner is owner as well as landlady of the impugned property and her title is very clear.

EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONERS

22. In order to prove her case, the petitioner Smt. Shanti P Singh examined herself as PW1. She tendered evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 and relied upon several documents viz.

1. Mark A - SPA dated 29.09.2018 (however the same was exhibited as Ex.PW1/A in the affidavit of PW1 and de-exhibited and marked as Mark A).

2. Ex.PW1/B - Office copy of legal notice dated 13.08.2019,

3. Ex.PW1/C (Colly) - Postal Receipt,

4. Ex.PW1/D - Site plan,

5. Mark B (Colly) - Electricity Bills (however the same were exhibited as Ex.PW1/E in the affidavit of PW1 and de-exhibited and marked as Mark B)

6. Ex.PW1/F (OSR) Death certificate of husband of the petitioner. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.12 of 48

7. Ex.PW1/G (OSR) - Title documents of the suit property.

8. Ex.PW1/H (Colly) (OSR) Passport and Visa documents.

9. Ex.PW1/I (OSR) Bill and receipt of Hotel Stay dated 30.09.2018.

10. Ex.PW1/J (Colly) (OSR) - Passport and Vias documents of the daughter of the petitioner.

23. PW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

24. Petitioner has also examined Sh. Jaspal Ahuja as PW2, who filed his affidavit-in-evidence i.e. Ex.PW2/1. He relied upon his aadhar card exhibited as Ex.PW2/A (OSR). PW2 was also cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents.

25. Sh. Sushil Tanwar was examined as PW3, who filed his affidavit-in- evidence i.e. Ex.PW3/A. He relied upon his aadhar card exhibited as Ex.PW3/A (OSR). PW3 has also tendered his additional affidavit-in- evidence exhibited as Ex.PW3/B. He has relied upon original site plan of the property Ex.PW3/A-1. PW3 was also cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.

26. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed.

27. Vide order dated 21.03.2024, the respondent's evidence was ordered to be recorded through Local Commissioner. On 08.05.2024, the report was filed by the Local Commissioner along with examination and cross-examination of RW1 and RW2.

28. In the respondent's evidence, Sh. Balvinder Singh (son of late Manmohan Singh) was examined as RW1, who tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A. He relied upon the documents viz.,

1. Ex.RW1/1 - Special Power of Attorney executed by the mother of the RW1,

2. Ex.RW1/2 - Certified copy of the petition,

3. Ex.RW1/3 - Copy of the order dated 28.05.2019,

4. Ex.RW1/4 - certified copy of the petition

5. Ex.RW1/5 - Certified copy of the order dated 28.05.219 for withdrawal of the petition,

6. Ex.RW1/6 - Photocopy of the judgment.

RW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.

29. The LRs of the respondent have also examined Sh. Vikram, Junior Judicial Assistant as RW2, who was the summoned witness and has brought the summoned record i.e. case file bearing no. ARC No. 25683/2016 titled as Shanti P. Singh Vs. Punish Sethi And Ors . The copy of the judgment dated 29.05.2018 passed by Sh. Ajay Nagar, Learned CCJ Cum ARC was exhibited as Ex.RW2/1.

30. Thereafter, the respondent's evidence was closed.

31. I have heard the final arguments at length advanced by both the Learned Counsels for both the parties and have also carefully gone ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.14 of 48 through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents, case law relied upon and material on record. Before dealt with into the merits of the case, the Court hereby deems it fit to discuss in brief the arguments advanced by the respective stake holders i.e. the petitioner as well as the respondent.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

32. It has been submitted, by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a widow, land lady of property bearing no. A-16 Shyam Nagar, New Delhi 110018 and the tenanted premises / shop was let out to Sh Manmohan Singh for running a shop at monthly rent of Rs. 180/- per month by the husband of the petitioner in the early seventy's decade, though property is exclusively is in the name of petitioner herself. It has been further submitted, that petitioner who settled in Britain is suffering from old age ailments, knee problem and many other old age diseases and in the last phase of her life, petitioner is intending to die in India which is her motherland. However, for want of proper accommodation, she was forced to take shelter in hotels every time she visited India. It has been further submitted, that as petitioner requires the property in question for her ow urgent need, she filed the present petition under the provisions of Section 14-D of Delhi Rent Control Act.

33. It has been further submitted, that the petitioner also served upon the respondent a legal notice for evicting the property, but the respondent in spite of receiving the notice, did not vacate the shop. Ultimately, ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.15 of 48 the petitioner filed the present petition through her SPA namely Sh Sushil Tanwar who has been examined as PW-3 in the present case.

34. It has been further submitted, that the respondents have taken false defence that there is no bonafide need of the petitioner and she wants to evict the respondents in order to sell/dispose off the suit property for monetary gains and that the petition is not maintainable as petitioner had earlier filed other petitions against the respondent, which are (i) u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act bearing no. E-6/2015, (ii) u/s 14 (1) (b) DRC Act bearing no. E-26/2015 and (iii) CS/SCJ.25/2015 for Permanent injunction, however, the petitioner had also filed other petition against tenant Naresh Kumar in relation to other property/shop in the same premises u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act and two petitions against tenant Mahesh in relation to other property/shop in the same premises u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act and u/s 14 (1) (b) DRC Act and two petitions against tenant Puneet Sethi in relation to other property/shop in the same premises u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act and u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act which were dismissed on merits. It has been further submitted, that the respondents have taken further false plea that the petitioner is not the owner of the premises.

35. It has been further submitted, that the petitioner in support of her case examined three witnesses i.e herself as PW-1, (ii) Sh Jaspal Ahuja s/o Sh Sohan Lal as PW-2 and (iii) Sh. Sushil Tanwar s/o Sh Randhir Singh as PW-3, who is also SPA of the petitioner through whom the present petition was filed. It has been further submitted, that all the PW's were cross examined by the counsel for respondent, ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.16 of 48 but the counsel could not extract anything material from the witnesses in support of frivolous pleas taken by the respondent. The counsel for respondent kept on asking irrelevant questions from the witnesses and that they were so irrelevant that the court was even forced to disallow few questions and even recorded the reason for disallowing those questions during the cross examination of Smt. Shanti P Singh /petitioner/PW-1. It has been further submitted, that even during the cross examination of PW-3/Sushil Tanwar/SPA of petitioner, the counsel for respondent asked such a frivolous question which forced the Hon'ble court to disallow the said question. The counsel asked a question that whether petitioner has ever contributed to the National Disaster Fund/Prime Minister Relief Fund/Army Welfare Fund or any contribution to any Govt agency? This question was asked by the counsel as petitioner has stated in her affidavit that she wants to die in India being her mother land and that she loves her country. By asking this frivolous question, the counsel was suggesting that if she was a patriot then she would have contributed to these funds, otherwise not.

36. It has been further submitted, that the respondent in support of his case examined himself as RW-1 and Sh Vikram, Junior Judicial Assistant, Record Room Civil, Tis Hazari Court as RW-2. It has been further submitted, that RW-1 Balvinder Singh who is son of deceased respondent has admitted in his cross examination that " Earlier a display board was fixed at the work place, however MCD removed the same and board of other shopkeepers on the entire road. I again displayed the name of my business on shutter". This statement of the witness has clarified that the road on which the shop is located is a ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.17 of 48 residential area and as such, no shop can be run in that area being a residential area. It has been further submitted, that this witness has also admitted that he has not paid any rent to the petitioner on his own. This witness also stated that he is not aware that his father has paid any rent after March 2017. It has been further submitted, that RW1 also admitted that petitioner had to stay in hotels whenever she visits India. He also stated the age of petitioner between 95-100 years of age. RW1 also claimed, that he is aware that petitioner is landlady and she used to collect rent. RW1 also admitted, that he or his father never filed any case for depositing the rent. He also admitted, that petitioner is a widow and that there is no electricity meter installed in his shop.

37. It has been further submitted, that Section 14-D DRC Act gives right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow-"(1) Where the landlord is a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband, are required by her for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises. (2) Where the landlord referred to in sub-section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall he open to her to make an application under that sub-section in respect of any one of the premises chosen by her".

38. It has been further submitted, that this Beneficial section/legislation was inserted in the statute by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act 57 of 1998. It vests a right in a widow to recover immediate possession of premises let out by her or by her husband for her own ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.18 of 48 use. The provision is intended to serve the social need to help a widow in getting possession of the premises required for her personal occupation. To subserve that purpose a widow has been included in the special class of landlords who are entitled to recover possession of the premises let out by them when they require the same for self- occupation. The controller shall pass an order for eviction of the tenant from the premises with utmost expedition. The necessary ingredients of this section are (1) the landlady shall be a widow, (2) the premises should have been let out either by her or by her husband, and (3) premises are required by her for her own use.

39. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. Saraswati Devi decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 13/03/2009, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that "Since the present eviction petition has been filed by respondent- landlady on the ground of Section 14-D of DRC Act, she has to prove only the following three requirements: (i) She is a widow; (ii) She is a landlady; (iii) She requires the premises for her own residence." The Delhi High Court further observed- "As far as letting of premises for commercial use is concerned, the issue is squarely covered by a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India reported in 148 (2008) DLT 705 (SC).

40. Ld. counsel had further relied on the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India reported in 148 (2008) DLT 705 (SC) has held that - "38. In view of the above discussion. we hold that Section 14(1)(e) of the 1958 Act is violative ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.19 of 48 of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when the same are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the latter's right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only."

41. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in EMC Steel Limited, Calcutta v. Union of India, reported in 1991 (2) SCC 101 wherein it has been held that "6. We have already held in the accompanying judgment that classified landlords such as the widow landlady under Section 14-D can apply for possession of the premises under the respective provisions even if the premises are not let for residence. It is not necessary to repeat the said discussion in this judgment. Section 14-D makes no distinction between the landladies who become widows before and after letting out of the premises. It merely says that where the landlady is a widow and the premises are let out by her or by her husband, are required by her for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises. The language of the section in that respect is very clear. The premises might have been let out by her as a widow or they might have been let out by her husband or even by herself before she had become widow. The legislature wanted to give a special privilege to the landlady who is a widow notwithstanding whether the premises were let out before or after she became widow. Such conferment of ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.20 of 48 special benefit on a widow-landlady is permissible even under the provisions of Article 15(3) of the Constitution which is an express exception to the provisions of sub-clauses (1) and (2) of that article. It states that nothing in the said article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. A widow is undoubtedly a vulnerable person in our society and requires special protection. We further see no merit in the contention that if the benefit given by Section 14-D is allowed to be availed of by widows, they may make a business of it. There is no warrant for such apprehension. For, in the first instance, the right to recover possession under Section 14-D can be availed of by the widow only once. That is a sufficient guarantee against the abuse of the privilege granted by the section. Secondly, she has to prove her bona fide need for the occupation of the premises in question for her own residence like any other landlord. Thirdly, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act come into play in her case also, when the order for possession on the ground floor of bona fide requirement for occupation as residence is made in her favour".

42. In J. Chatterjee vs Mohinder Kaur Uppal & Anr. Decided on 29 September, 2000 AIR 2000 SC 3076, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "From the aforementioned statutory provisions, the legislative intent is clear that if an application for eviction of a tenant is filed by a widow to recover the premises in question for her self- occupation, the controller shall pass an order for eviction of the tenant from the premises with utmost expedition. The provision is intended to serve the social need to help a widow in getting possession of the ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.21 of 48 premises required for her personal occupation. To subserve that purpose she has been included in the special class of landlords who are entitled to recover possession of the premises let out by them when they require the same for self-occupation and special provision has been made in section 25-B/providing for a enquiry by the controller following a summary procedure to satisfy himself that the plea of self-occupation taken by the widow-landlady as a general and bonafide one and not a mere pretense to get the tenant evicted from the premises. For that reason, heavy burden is placed on the tenant to satisfy the Controller by filing an affidavit stating such facts which, if believed, will sufficiently prove that the plea of need of personal occupation by the petitioner-widow is nothing but a pretense. Whether leave to defend will be granted to the tenant in a case depends on the facts and circumstances of the case as emanating from the averments in the eviction petition filed by the landlord and the affidavit filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition. No hard and fast rule or straight jacket formula can be laid down for judging the question. It is to be kept in mind by the controller and the courts that the petition for eviction filed by a widow under Section 14-D should not be frustrated by granting leave to the tenant to raise any plea denying/refuting the case pleaded in the eviction petition. Unless a real and substantial case is made out on the averments made in the affidavit filed by the tenant in support of the petition filed under Section 25-B of the Act, the proceeding should not be dragged on unnecessarily and should be disposed of with due expedition. A balance has to be maintained between the general object of the statute which is to provide protection to the tenants ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.22 of 48 against arbitrary action of the landlords for their eviction and the assistance to be referred to the special class of landlords including a widow to recover possession of premises let out by her for self- occupation. We are aware that in some decided cases this Court has leaned in favor of granting leave to the tenant to defend the eviction petition but on a closer look at the decisions it will be clear that the cases were decided considering the facts and circumstances involved therein. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the decision on the question of grant of leave to defend depends on the facts and circumstances of the case".

43. In M.S. Rehi vs Mohinder Kaur @ Daman AndOrs. on 19 July, 2004 113(2004)DLT116, 2004 (76) DRJ 12, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed that "It is incorrect to suggest that the widow landlady who is nearly 70 years of age would not like to come to India but would prefer the comfort of her children in the United Kingdom. It is not for the tenant to advise or direct the landlady how she should lead her life. If she bona fide wishes to come to India for which she needs her premises as her residence, the same should not be denied to her".

44. In Sarita Sharma & Ors vs Sunder Devi on 6 March, 2012 Author:

Indermeet Kaur, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that "This petition is a petition under Section 14 (D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). The essential ingredients require to be established by the petitioner are that (i) the landlady is a widow; (ii) the premises have been let out either by herself or by her husband. (iii)the premises are required by her for her residence. There is no dispute to the first ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.23 of 48 two ingredients; nts; as noted above, arguments have been addressed only on the third ingredient which also stands satisfied. It would be relevant to note that the provision under Section 14 D of the DRCA does not contain the word 'bonafide'; it must be presumed that the averments made by the landlady are averments which are bonafide; she has been able to establish that the accommodation which is available with her on the second floor is not suitable for her need."

45. The Supreme Court in V. Rajaswari Vs. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. reported in (1995) Supp (3) SCC 172 had noted "that an averment the fact that the landlady/widow is living with her daughter or any other person is no ground to say that the premises in question are not required for her residence. The Apex Court in order to make this provision more reasonable had read into it that the need to substantiate the request of the widow to recover possession of the premises for her own residence should be bonafide; the word 'bonafide' being missing from the provisions of Section 14-D, her need and request for the premises even in the absence of a specific stipulation to that effect should be read as a bonafide need"

         ARGUMENTS                  ADVANCED                   ON         BEHALF          OF         THE
         RESPONDENTS

46. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondents, that the petitioner has filed the present petition against the respondent under Section 14-D R/W Section 25B of the DRC Act on the ground that she is the owner/landlady of the suit premises which is one small ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.24 of 48 shop measuring area 8'x8' on the ground floor of the premises bearing No A-16, Sham Nagar, New Delhi-110018, which was let out to the respondent for commercial purpose for running a shop by her husband. However, the petitioner has no where stated in the petition that when the suit shop was let out to the respondent and also when her husband expired and she became widow and to clear point, it has come on the record that petitioner's husband expired in the year 1991 and the suit shop was let out to the respondent in the year 1974 for running a shop although the suit shop is small in area which is 8'x8' in size and the respondent has been carrying on the electrical work / repairs of small household electricals items since the inception of the tenancy till date

47. It has been further submitted, by Learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner also did not disclose in her present petition as to where she is residing and also the size of the accommodation which is available to her and how the same is insufficient needs. It has been submitted, by Learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner did not mention anywhere as who are her family members and their names and who are dependent upon her for residence. The petitioner even did not mention very important ingredient of section 14-D of DRC Act anywhere in her present petition that she needs the suit premises for "her bonafide needs either for residence or commercial purpose".

48. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner also claimed in her present petition that she would ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.25 of 48 demolish the whole suit property and would construct a floor for herself as the suit property is not habitable and suitable for 1199, although in the replication filed by her she took a U-Turn by stating that the suit property is habitable and is repairable but she want to install a lift in the suit shop. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that while granting the leave to defend the present petition to the respondent, this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.09.2021 has observed in para no 2 of the said order that "Further, on the one hand, the petitioner says that she wishes to reside in the tenanted premises and on the other hand she wishes to demolish the tenanted premises and construct a floor for herself. There is specific provisions under DRC Act regarding requirement of bonafide requirement by the landlord/landlady for the purpose of building or re- constructing making there to any substantial addition or alternation which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated i.e. Section 14 (1) (g) of the DRC Act. It is not clear, that in case the petitioner wants to demolish and reconstruct the premises, then why the petitioner has not filed petition under section 14 (1) (g) of DRC Act which require compliance of section 20 of DRC Act...".

49. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that after grant of leave to defend the present petition by the Court to the respondent, present petition filed by the petitioner was opposed by the respondent while filing the written statement inter-alia on the grounds that the petitioner has concealed the multiple material facts from this Court in respect of her earlier litigation in respect of the suit shop/premises. The respondent filed several documents on record of ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.26 of 48 the Court stating that earlier, the petitioner earlier filed petitions against the present respondent one under section 14(1) (e) R/W section 25B of the DRC Act bearing petition No E- 06/2015 titled as Shanti P Singh vs Manmohan Singh which was pending adjudication before the Ld Court of Sh. Vishal Pahuja, then Ld.ARC (West) Delhi and at the evidence stage (petitioner's evidence stage), the petitioner withdrew her said petition on dated 28.05.2019 and the Ld court dismissed the said petition while imposing cost of Rs.1,000/-upon the petitioner and also there was no permission granted to the petitioner by the Court to file such petition afresh. Not only said petition, the petitioner also filed one petition against the respondent under section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act stating that the respondent has sub-let the shop to one Sh. Arvind Tyagi bearing petition no E-26/2015 titled as Shanti P Singh vs Manmohan Singh & Anr. which was also pending before the aforesaid Ld. Court and the petitioner withdrawn her said petition also on the said date and the Ld. Court allowed the same by dismissing it with cost. The petitioner also filed similar petitions such as petitions under section filed 14(1) (e) and 14 (1) (b) in respect of adjoining two other tenants namely one Sh. Mahesh and other Sh. Naresh Bhutani which were also dismissed.

50. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner also concealed from this Court the fact that in the suit property, there is an another tenant behind the suit shop of the respondent and the shops of other tenants named above having large area namely Sh. Puneet Sethi. The petitioner earlier filed eviction petition against Mr. Puneet Sethi bearing petition No E- ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.27 of 48 ARC/25683/2016 under section 14 (1) (e) R/W Section 25B of DRC ACT titled as Shanti P Singh vs Puneet Sethi stating therein that she is permanent resident and citizen of U.K and now she wants to shift to suit property as she wish to die in suit property and she needs the same for her bonafide requirements. It is pertinent, that though in the present petition, the petitioner did not claim that she wants to shift over to India but in her replication, the petitioner made ditto averments that she wish to shift to India and have wish to die in India The said petition was tried by the Ld. Court of Sh. Ajay Nagar, then Ld ARC (W), Delhi and vide detailed judgment dated 29.05.2018, the Court was pleased to dismiss the same on merits. The respondent has already filed the copy of the same on the record of this Court and also proved the same summoning and examining the record clerk (Mr.Vikram, RW-02) from the Record Room, Tis Hazari Courts which is matter of record of the Court.

51. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that although the petitioner did not mention in the present petition as to where she is residing but in her replication she stated that she is the permanent citizen of U.K and now aged about 94 years and wanted to shift to India The respondent on the contrary has taken a stand that the petitioner has no intention to come back to India and to reside here when she is residing in U.K for the last about more than 70 years and her all the children were born in U.K and are residing there permanently and are U.K citizen. Also ,the respondent pleaded before this Hon'ble Court that her stand that she want to shift to India and reside in the property in question has already been dismissed by the ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.28 of 48 Ld. Court of Sh. Ajay Nagar, then Ld, ARC (W), Delhi would operate as res-judicata as stated in the above para and the petitioner has not appealed the said order/judgment and that has become final meaning thereby her bonafide needs to reside in the suit premises were found to be whimsical and fictitious.

52. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner in her present petition has no where mentioned about the available accommodation with her for her residence and have completely kept mum whereas the respondent has stated in his written statement and also it is admitted fact, that the petitioner is having entire first floor in the suit property consisting of three rooms, kitchen, two balconies, bathrooms etc which is more than sufficient for her. More over, it has been the case of the respondent also, that the petitioner never resided even on the first floor whenever she visited India and always stayed in Hotels only during the period when she was young, hale and healthy which has been admitted by the petitioner herself in her evidence.

53. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner admitted in her cross-examination that she is 97 years old and is permanently residing in U.K. and is a citizen of U.K The petitioner further admitted that her sons and daughters are also citizens of U.K and they were born there in U.K. itself. The petitioner admitted, that her elder child is about 68 years and younger one is 50 years. Thus, the case of respondent has been that the petitioner is residing in U.K for the about 70 years stood proved. It ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.29 of 48 has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner also admitted in her examination that she do not remember what is written in the Annexure"A" attached to the present petition wherein limited contradictory grounds for eviction are set out by the petitioner in the present petition. The petitioner further said that she do not remember whether she filed any other case against the respondent earlier in the year 2015 for his eviction and also do not remember what happened to her earlier cases filed against the respondent The petitioner very categorically said in her cross- examination that she did not file any case against her other tenant namely Mr Puneet Sethi for his eviction in respect of portion/tenanted portion which is in his possession in the suit property bearing No A-16 Sham Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent on the other hand, to prove this point examined the record clerk from the record room( Mr.Vikram RW-02) who proved the judgment in the said case filed by the petitioner against said Sh. Punnet Sethi titled as Shanti P Singh vs Punnet Sethi which was dismissed by the concerned Ld. Court on dated 29.05.2019 and thus, the petitioner is trying to conceal the true facts from this Court which goes against petitioner.

54. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner in her main petition in para 6 of the Annexure "A' attached with the petition stated that the petitioner want to demolish the entire property including suit shop and would construct a floor for herself as the present structure/suit property is not habitable whereas in the replication filed by her, the petitioner has taken the u-turn stating that first floor which she have at her disposal consisting of three rooms ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.30 of 48 sets is in good conditions and is repairable one and she would like to install a lift in the suit shop after getting it vacated from the respondent to go to the first floor of the suit premises. Thus without seeking amendment in the the petition and permission of this Court, the petitioner incorporated several news facts in her replication Perusal of the site plan filed with the petition would show that there are three shops of similar sizes. As stated above, earlier in the year 2015 the petitioner filed three cases against all occupants/tenants of the three shops including the respondent. Out of three cases in respect three shops as shown in the site plan, the petitioner withdrawn two ca unconditionally including one against the respondent. The occupant/tenant of the middle shop i.e. adjoining shop to the suit shop during pendency of the said eviction petition filed by the petitioner against said tenant of the middle shop namely Sh. Mahesh expired as such his L.R'S did not come forward to contest the said petition and they handed over the key of said shop to the petitioner in the year 2018 and since than the said shop is in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner also in her cross-examination admitted that the L.R'S of Sh. Mahesh handed over the key of the said shop to her and the same is in her possession, therefore if the petitioner really wants to install a lift in the suit shop which is also having same size as of Mr.Mahesh's shop which is now in possession of the petitioner, the petitioner can very well install lift in the said shop which is sufficient for said purpose. Thus, it shows that the said second u- turn stand of the petitioner is also bogus, fictitious and not genuine

55. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.31 of 48 petitioner further said in her cross-examination that she do not remember that how many rooms are there on the first floor in the suit property which are available to her She further admitted that she reside in hotels whenever she visit India. Thus the petitioner has been concealing the actually accommodation available to her to prove her bonafide needs. Moreover at the time when the petitioner was young, hale and healthy that time also she always stayed in hotels only and did not use/stay on the first floor of the suit property which consists of three rooms set. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that during her examination-in-chief, the petitioner exhibited the death certificate of her husband which shows that he died in the year 1991 and the present petition is filed 28 years later on in the year 2019 on the ground under section 14-D of the DRC Act though in between the petitioner filed various petitions against the respondent and other tenants under section 14(1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of the DRC Act which were dismissed as stated herein-above. Thus, the present petition otherwise is hit by ground of delay and laches. Thus, the petitioner is creating fictitious grounds in order to evict the respondent Moreover, it has been the case of the respondent that the petitioner, in fact is in the hands of the local property dealers on whose dictates, the petitioner has been filing such petitions as the wants to get into the suit property.

56. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner also examined two other witnesses namely one Sh. Yashpal Ahuja (PW-02) and her attorney Mr. Sushil Tanwar (PW-03) and both the witnesses has admitted that they do not know about her children ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.32 of 48 and their status in U.K. Both witnesses are the actually property dealers and have vested interest in the suit property and have no personal knowledge about the petitioner and her family.

57. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner has not examined any of her family member in support of her case who would say that he/she wants to stay with the petitioner in the suit property as admittedly the petitioner is about 94 or 97 years of age as she said in her cross-examination. Nor the petitioner anywhere in her petition or in her evidence stated so that she would reside in the suit property with her son/daughter or any other member of the family. There is no whisper about the same. As the petitioner has not mentioned in her petition such vital facts,her claim to reside in the suit property is nothing but whimsical and fictitious but certainly not bonafide.

58. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent Sh. Manmohan Singh expired and his L.R's namely his wife, one son and two daughters were substituted as his L.R'S. The wife of late Sh. Manmohan Singh and his two daughters has given their special power of attorney in favour of Sh. Balvinder Singh, the son of the deceased respondent who is contesting the present petition and he filed his affidavit of evidence and examined himself as RW-1 and proved the case that the present petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but fictitious and not bonafide. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that RW-1, Sh. Balvinder Singh has ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.33 of 48 categorically stated that he has been working with his father since his childhood in the suit property and like his father he is also doing electrician works/repairs of household electric items etc and is earning his livelihood from the suit shop and have no other source of income except the suit shop which is small one The respondent further in his examination in chief stated that the petitioner has no intentions to comeback in India and settle down here. Moreover the suit shop being small shop 8'x8' is not at all suitable for the residence of the petitioner and the petitioner already got entire first floor in the suit property consisting of three rooms set which is sufficient for her that the respondent also examined RW-02, Clerk from the record room who brought the case file bearing. petition as No ARC NO 25683/2016 pertaining to case titled Shanti P Singh vs Puneet Sethi and proved the judgment copy in the said matter which was exhibited as RW-02/1 in his evidence to prove that similar petition on same grounds earlier has been dismissed on merits.

59. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the ingredients of section 14-D R/W section 25B of the DRC ACT firstly has not been mentioned by the petitioner in her present petition and also not proved Secondly the petitioner is guilty of making multiple concealment in the present petition which goes against her. The petitioner is guilty of misusing the process of this Hon'ble Court again and again. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petitioner who is now aged about 97 years as per her own statement made by her during her cross- examination, it is unbelievable that at this age any one or the petitioner would come ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.34 of 48 down to India and settle here as it has come on the record of this Court that her children were born in U.K and the petitioner and her children are U.K citizens and well settled there. It is further unbelievable, that she would prefer to live alone at this age in the suit shop as there is no evidence on record or averments made by her in present petition that her family members whosoever would stay with her in the property then how one alone at this age of 97 years would take a decision to shift over to suit property once record shows that for the last more than 70 years she has been residing in U.K and have U.K citizens residing there comfortably.

60. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that it is also highly doubtful that the petitioner at this age would demolish the suit property and would raise a new construction for her residence when already she has lost cases filed by her under section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and also when other tenant are residing in the said property No building sanction plan is either filed on record of proved by the petitioner. Even otherwise there are specific provisions in the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of making construction etc for which the petitioner is required to file such petition under those provisions of the DRC Act. It has been submitted by Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the petition filed by the petitioner have no merits and not a bonafide petition which does not satisfy the ingredients establishing a case under Section 14-D of DRC Act, hence the provisions of the act are misused by the petitioner by filing the present petition.

61. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (herein referred to as the DRC Act) and the same is as under:

"Section-14 D. Right to recover immediate possession of premises to accrue to a widow -

(1). Where the landlord is a widow and the premises let out by her, or by her husband, are required by her for her own residence, she may apply to the Controller for recovering the immediate possession of such premises.

(2). Where the landlord referred to in sub- section (1) has let out more than one premises, it shall be open to her to make an application under that sub section in respect of any one of the premises chose by her."

62. The first and foremost ingredient that needs to be fulfilled for entertaining the provision entailed under Section 14-D of DRC Act is that "a landlady should be a widow".

63. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is apposite to know, that though the respondent has averred in his averment, that the death certificate pertaining to the husband of the petitioner is not placed on record but the said averment is contrary to the record. The petitioner in her evidence has placed on record the document Ex.PW1/F, being the copy of the death certificate under the Birth and Death Registration Act 1953. The said document categorically reflects, that the husband of the petitioner died on 02.10.1991, at the Royal Infirmary Cardiff. Therefore, the averment of the respondent to the effect, that the proof of death of the husband of the petitioner is not advanced does not hold water and the same totally stand negated vide the said document. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.36 of 48 Therefore, primarily the first ingredient of Section 14-D of DRC regarding the petitioner being a widow hereby stands satisfied.

64. The second ingredient for attracting section 14-D is, that there should be landlady - tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent or between the husband of the petitioner or the respondent. To put it otherwise, the requisite for Section 14-D, is that the premises should have been let out by the petitioner i.e. the widow or her husband.

65. As per the contents of the petition, the petitioner has averred herself to be the absolute owner of the property bearing No. A-16, Sham Nagar, New Delhi - 110018. It is further averred, that the respondent had approached the petitioner to let out a shop on the ground floor of the property on rent and the husband of the petitioner agreed for the same. As far as this averment of the petitioner is concerned, the respondent vide his WS had admitted that the said shop was let out to the respondent in the year 1974 and has further vide the reply on merits to Para No. 3 of the WS has categorically stated that " the petitioner Smt. Shant P. Singh is the landlady and is residing in England and the respondent is the tenant in the suit premises ". Thus, primarily once the respondents have not disputed the fact that the property was let out to them by either the petitioner or the husband of the petitioner, any subsequent averment regarding the non- specification of the date on which the tenancy was handed over to the respondent holds no validity. As such, another ingredient of Section 14-D of DRC Act also stands satisfied.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.37 of 48

66. The third requirement is with regard to the premises being required by the petitioner for her own residential purposes . Given the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, this aspect requires detailed analysis as the principal averment made by the petitioner in her petition for seeking the eviction of the respondent of the premises in question is that the "property bearing address as A-16, Sham Nagar, New Delhi - 18, is an old constructed building and not suitable for living and therefore petitioner wanted to demolish the whole property and construct a floor for herself". Thus, by this very averment of the petitioner what stands carved out is, that the petitioner is averring that the premises in question is not suitable for living and she further seeks a demolition of the same. However, the fact that the building is old and owing to the said reason, is not suitable for living, is merely a bald contention of the petitioner and is not supported by any documentary evidence to this effect. There is no document placed on record by the petitioner either duly sanctioned or approved by the MCD / DDA or any other approved Government Forum to testify to the fact that the building is old and not habitable or non conducive for living purposes and further requires a demolition and only pursuant to that, the same can become habitable or conducive for the purpose of residence of the petitioner. The petitioner has had sufficient opportunity to get examined any of the officials of the concerned authority to testify in this regard, but the petitioner chose not to do so. Non-production of any vital document in order to testify qua the condition of the building goes against the petitioner.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.38 of 48 As such, keeping in view the statutory provision of section 114

(g) of Indian Evidence Act, it can be presumed in the present case, that "the evidence which could be or not produced would if produced be unfavorable to the person who withholds it". Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, an adverse inference may be drawn in the present case, keeping in view the material on record and in the light of the settled position of law.

67. As a corollary to the above, it is further not out of place to mention, that in Para No. 6 of Annexure A appended with the petition, on one hand, the petitioner avers that she intends to demolish the whole suit property in order to construct a floor for herself as the suit property is not habitable or suitable for living but on the other hand, vide the replication, the petitioner has taken altogether another stand and has averred that the suit property is habitable and is repairable and that she intends to install a lift in the suit property. It is not out of place to mention, that while granting the leave to defend, the Learned Predecessor of this Court, vide order dated 20.09.2021 has categorically observed in para no. 2 of the said order that :-

"2. Further, on one hand, the petitioner say that she wishes to reside in the tenanted premises and on the other hand, she wishes to demolish the tenanted premises and construct a floor for herself. There is a specific provision under DRC Act regarding requirement of bonafide requirement by the landlord / landlady for the purpose of building or reconstructing or making there to any substantial addition or alteration which cannot be carried out without the property get vacated i.e. Section 14 (1) (g) of the DRC Act. It is not clear that in case the petitioner wants to demolish and reconstruct the premises then why the petitioner has not filed petition ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.39 of 48 under Section 14 (1) (g) of DRC act which requires compliance of Section 20 of the DRC Act. ....."

68. It is the apropos to note, that Section 14 of DRC is a complete code in itself, whereby each and every clause entailed under the said section caters to a specific situation / circumstance under which the landlord / landlady can seek eviction of the tenanted premises. Now, in the case in hand, it is categorically averred by the petitioner, that she intends to demolish and reconstruct the premises in question and for that purpose, she seeks the eviction of the tenant and for this very aspect provision of section 14 (1) (g) has been enunciated but in order to avoid and eschew compliance of the subsequent requirements of section 20 of the DRC Act, the petitioner has camouflaged the provisions of section 14-D and has tried to give the provision of 14 (1) (g), the colours of section 14-D of the DRC Act and has tried to inappropriately play the victim card of being a widow whereby the petitioner has misused the benevolent provision enacted by the legislature for the benefit of the widow.

69. It is further pertinent to mention, that the tenanted premises in question is only a 8 X 8 shop and that cannot be used for residential purposes as it is already used by the tenant for running an electrical shop and thus within the tenets of the provision entailed under Section 14-D of DRC, the tenanted premises, as it is, cannot be used for residential purpose and in light of the tenets of the spirit of the provision of Section 14-D, the requirement of the landlord ought to have been of tenanted premises for the purpose of residence and it is ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.40 of 48 an admitted case of the respondent that the premises as it is cannot be used for residential purpose and so being the case, as far as requirement of section 14-D is concerned, whereby the third ingredient for the fulfillment of the aspect of the eviction of the tenanted premises for residential purposes is concerned, the same does not stands satisfied.

70. At this stage, it further becomes relevant to examine site plan in question i.e. Ex.PW3/1-A. As per the site plan, the area enclosed in red is the tenanted premises i.e. an 8 X 8'10" shop in question and the alleged staircase in question that is used for effecting the access to the first floor at a substantial distance from the tenanted premises in question. Now, it is the case of the petitioner, that she intends to get the respondents to vacate the suit premises in question as she wishes to get a lift constructed in order to get an access affected to the first floor but there is nothing on record either in the form of a layout plan or a proposed construction plan of any Architect or a Constructor, from where it could be deciphered, that in the premises the lift cannot be constructed without affecting an eviction of the tenant. It appears, that the petitioner has presumed and perceived on his own whims and fancies that in order to affect any kind of alteration / construction / improvement in the premises, the eviction of the tenant is a prerequisite. Further, the contentions of the petitioner taken by her in her petition (Annexure A) and replication are in contradiction to each other as on one hand she is averring, that the building is old and she needs to demolish the same and on the other hand vide the replication, she is submitting, that she intends to get a lift constructed ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.41 of 48 as on account of her old age, she is unable to affect her access to the first floor which is in her possession, as she is unable to climb the stairs. Now, even if for the sake of arguments, could believes the version of the petitioner to be a gospel truth, it stands unexplained as to how if the building is old and dilapidated as per own stand, the same would be able to withstand the construction of a lift. Thus, from the averments of the petitioner, it can be deduced that she is approbating and repro-bating in the same breathe.

71. The least that is expected from the petitioner being the landlord is to come to the Court with clean hands by enunciating the real bonafide requirement. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean "in good faith: genuine". The word "genuine" means "natural:

not spurious: real: pure: sincere". In Law Diction- ary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean "good faith, without fraud or deceit". Thus the term bonafide refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than in mere desire. The phrase ' required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.42 of 48 requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sympathy.

72. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer were in positive, then the need is bonafide.

73. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable requirement. It was held in case " Damodar Sharma and an- other v. Nandram Deviram" that:-

"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is distinction between the two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts.

In my opinion, in this part of Section 4

(g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.43 of 48 His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."

74. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, " the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down". The words "reasonable requirement"

undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a landlord/owner cannot be equated with bonafide need.

75. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words " required bonafide by the landlord", signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective. The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.44 of 48 not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic conditions obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the relevant circumstances.

76. Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as " S. Surjit Singh Kalra Etc vs Union Of India And Anr. Rajdhani Law Reporter (SC) 166", wherein it has been held as under :-

"The tenant of course is entitled to raise all relevant contentions as against the claim of the classified landlords. The fact that there is no reference to the word bona fide requirement in sections 14- B to 14-D does not absolve the landlord from proving that his requirement is bona fide or the tenant from showing that it is not bona fide. In fact every claim for eviction of a tenant must be a bona fide one. There is also enough indication in support of this construction from the title of Section 25(B) which states "special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.45 of 48

77. It is also relevant to mention, that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands as she has not revealed that prior to the present petition, she had preferred multiple litigation qua the respondent being petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B DRC Act titled as "Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh" and the same was withdrawn by her at the stage of evidence and the said Learned Court dismissed the petition with cost. Thereafter, the petitioner again preferred petition against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC and during the pendency of the same, the said petition was also withdrawn and the same was also dismissed subject to cost. Apart from these, the petitioner further preferred similar petitions under same sections qua the adjoining tenants as well and they also met the same fate. Though, the above-said petitions do not come within the purview of the res-judicata and per- say do not bar the petitioner from filing any subsequent petition but non-disclosure of the same, most certainly speak of the conduct of the petitioner in non-disclosing the fate of litigation preferred qua the same respondent under different provisions of section 14 of DRC Act. Further, the multiplicity of litigation also reflect the desperateness on the part of the petitioner to get the respondents evicted on any ground whatsoever.

78. In the concluding mode, Court also wants to state, that admittedly the petitioner is the permanent resident of UK and has been residing there with her children and grandchildren since minimum four decades and it is little surprising to note that in the extreme twilight zone of her ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.46 of 48 life, she intends to leave her nearest family members being her children and grandchildren who are utmost required in the older innings of one's life to reside in India. Even if, it is presumed for a moment that the petitioner genuinely intends to do so, the Court has not come across any concrete, compelling and cogent ocular or documentary evidence to show, that the petitioner for reasons, not though disclosed, wants to leave such a comfortable and suitable place, where she has been residing with her children and grandchildren and wants to move to the present 8 X 8'10" premises. Moreover, it is not an averment of the petitioner that she would be moving in with her children or grandchildren as what has surfaced from the facts and circumstances of the present case as her children are gainfully residing abroad and are permanent residents of USA / UK. It is not out of place to mention, that the Court is not convinced with the idea of the petitioner to live in such a place where her children would not be around in case of her dire need. It is well known, that in old age, the mobility of a person is generally affected and so is one of the averments of the petitioner in the present case and in such age, the possibility of emergent circumstances, whereby an old age person requires to be rushed to hospital cannot be negated. And in such circumstances, if the petitioner at the age of 97 shift to such sort of place, whereby already commercial tenancy operates in the vicinity, it would not primarily be safe for the petitioner as in such commercial areas, generally employees leave the place for their homes after duty hours and no one may come for help. Moreover, in the contemporary and self centered world, no one is obliged to help in such situation and nobody wants to involve himself in legal ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.47 of 48 entangles. The Court hereby seeks assistance and reliance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as "Harsh Vardhan Nayyar Vs. Shanti Mathur & Ors. 215 (2014) DLT 365", in which it has been held as under :-

"8. It has been consistently held by this Court as also by the Supreme Court that bonafide need is different than the expression "desire".

Also, bonafide need is not a mantra to be uttered for eviction of the tenants in the facts of the present case where petitioner and his family are well settled in U.S.A., and, the petitioner at his advance age of 66 years would really not be interested in shifting to India much less for opening of a so called school of acting and drama."

79. Thus, In the teeth of the above analysis, I am unable to convince myself that the petitioner has the bonafide need qua the premises in question. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled position of law and reasons as discussed above, I am of the considered view, that the petitioner has failed to prove all the ingredients entailed under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

As a sequel to the above discussion, the present petition hereby stands dismissed.

80. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

                                                                                   Digitally
                                                                                   signed by
                                                                                   RICHA
                                                                RICHA              SHARMA
                                                                SHARMA             Date:
                                                                                   2025.01.15
Announced in the open Court                                                        15:26:48
                                                                                   +0530
on 15.01.2025                                                    RICHA SHARMA
                                                                 SCJ-CUM-RC (West)
                                                                THC / Delhi / 15.01.2025

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.100/19 Shanti P Singh Vs. Manmohan Singh (deceased) Through LRs. Page No.48 of 48

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Shanti P Singh vs Manmohan Singh on 15 January, 2025