Delhi District Court
Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.) vs Sh. Vipin Babbar on 6 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR:
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E567/13 (Old), 78223/16 (New)
In the matter of:
Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.),
2764, Chatta Pratap Singh,
Kinari Bazaar, Delhi110006.
Through its Managing trustee
Sh. Jitender Kumar. ....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Vipin Babbar,
S/o Sh. Darshan Singh,
2764, Chatta Pratap Singh,
Kinari Bazaar, Delhi110006. ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 21.11.2013 Date of order when reserved : 24.08.2018 Date of order when announced : 06.09.2018 J U D G M E N T :
1. Vide this judgment, the undersigned shall decide the petition filed under Section 14 (1) (a) & (b) of the Delhi Rent Control E78223/16 Page 1/11 Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC), of the petitioner seeking eviction of the respondent in respect of one small room situated on ground floor of premises bearing Municipal No. 2764, Chatta Pratap Singh, Kinari Bazaar, Delhi110006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises'), as shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the petition.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that the tenanted premises was let out to respondent for nonresidential purpose at the monthly rate of rent of Rs. 60/ per month besides water, electricity, house tax and other charges. The rate of rent was subsequently enhanced by 10% as per law vide legal notice dated 17.02.2012 wherein the respondent was required to make payment of the rent at the increased rate after enhancement of 10% in future rent payable which comes to Rs. 66/ per month. The tenancy was oral one. The petitioner has already obtained the requisite permission from the Competent Authority (Slum) to file the present case vide order dated 01.11.2012.
3. It is further averred that the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.07.1996 till 17.02.2012 (the date of notice) @ Rs. 60/ per month alongwith interest @ 15% per annum and at the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 66/ per month excluding other charges after expiry of one month from the receipt of notice. The petitioner sent a legal E78223/16 Page 2/11 notice dated 17.02.2012 calling upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 60/ per month from 01.07.1996 to till date (the date of notice) along with interest @ 15% per annum and after expiry of one month from the receipt of notice at the enhanced rate of Rs. 66/ per month, but the respondent has not complied with the legal notice. The respondent has sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the tenanted premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for grant of an eviction order under Section 14 (1) (a) & (b) of the D.R.C. Act against the respondent.
4. Notice of the petition served upon the respondent by way of ordinary process on 08.05.2014 and written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent on which replication also filed on behalf of the petitioner.
5. In written statement it is contented by the respondent that the petition has not been signed and verified and filed by a duly authorized person on behalf of the petitioner trust. Sh. Jitender Kumar is neither the trustee, nor has been authorized by all the trustees of the petitioner trust to file and institute the present petition. The petitioner trust is not a registered trust as required under the provisions of law. It is stated that the petition is bad on account of nonjoinder of all the trustees of the trust. It is stated that the respondent has always E78223/16 Page 3/11 tendered the rent to the petitioner trust, but the clerk who sits in the office refused to accept the rent as and when tendered in person on the ground that there is no body to look after the affairs of the trust after the death of original trustees, no new trustee is appointed as per the terms and provisions of the trust. The rent was tendered every month and lastly the arrears of the rent for a period of three years amounting to Rs. 2,160/ was tendered on 15.03.2012, but the clerk/ person present at the office refused to accept the same and further stated that Sh. Jitender Kumar has no authority to collect the rent. There is no absolutely, no willful default of the tender of rent by the respondent. It is stated that there is no subletting, assignment or parting with the possession of premises in question. It is admitted by the respondent that he is tenant in the tenanted premises. It is further admitted by the respondent that the rate of rent is Rs. 60/ per month exclusive of water and electricity charges, however it is denied that the rent was subsequently enhanced by 10% as per law vide legal notice dated 17.02.2012. It is denied that the legal notice was served to the respondent. It is denied that the premises is used for noncommercial purpose. It is stated that no permission has been taken from the Competent Authority (Slum) on the ground of subletting, hence the petition is liable to be rejected as barred U/s 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act.
6. The petitioner has filed replication and the averments made E78223/16 Page 4/11 in the petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed. It is stated that Sh. Jitender Kumar has been duly authorized to institute the present petition. It is stated that the respondent never tender the rent in the office of the petitioner at any point of time and no clerk in the office of the petitioner refused to accept the rent.
7. In support of its case, the petitioner has got examined Sh. Jitender Kumar as PW1 and Sh. Narender Mohan Sharma as PW2. In rebuttal, the respondent has got examined himself as RW1.
8. PW1 has deposed almost on the same lines as averred in the petition. He exhibited on record minute book as Ex. PW1/1; certified copy of order dated 17.07.1989 and application dated 17.07.1989 by which the petitioner trust is executed as Ex. PW1/2; site plan as Ex. PW1/3, rent receipts issued by the previous order to the father of the respondent as Ex. PW1/4; legal notice dated 17.02.2012 as Ex. PW1/5; registered A.D. Postal Receipt and Speed Post receipt as Ex. PW1/6 and copy of order of Competent Authority (Slum) as Ex. PW1/7. It is pertinent to mention here that inadvertently in the statement of PW1 the documents on which he relied upon have been mentioned from Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/9, however in the affidavit only documents from Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW 1/7 have been mentioned. In his crossexamination, it is stated by him that he has little personal knowledge of the present eviction petition.
E78223/16 Page 5/11He denied the suggestion that he is not the Managing Trustee of the petitioner society, or that he has not authorized to file the present petition. It is stated by him that he has not filed any document to prove that the Dharamshala is registered under Trust Act. It is stated by him that the Trust was created by the order of the Court and no document was prepared after order of the Court. He could not tell if rent was used to be collected on monthly, quarterly or yearly basis. He could not tell how the rent was collected prior to 1996. It is stated by him that he never visited the respondent for collecting the rent. It is stated by him that he has not authorized anybody to collect the rent. It is stated by him that Sh. Subhash Chand might be the Karigar. He could not tell if Sh. Subhash Chand is the Karigar of the respondent, or not.
9. PW2 Sh. Narender Mohan Sharma has deposed that he has known to both the parties being the resident of the locality. The respondent is a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises. The respondent has sublet the tenanted shop to Sh. Subhash who is presently doing the business of Gold Smith from the suit premises independently. The respondent has no control over the tenanted premises. The respondent used to visit the suit premises once in two or three months to collect the rent from the subtenant.
10. No other witness has been examined on behalf of petitioner E78223/16 Page 6/11 and petitioner's evidence stands closed.
11. RW1 has deposed almost on the same lines as averred in the written statement. In his crossexamination, it is stated by him that he received a notice, Ex. PW1/5. After receiving the same he tried to tender the rent to Ms. Saroj Garg, one of the trustee, however she refused to accept the rent on the ground that there is some dispute in the trust. It is stated by him that he has given reply to the said notice.
12. The undersigned has heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
13. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (a) & (b) of D.R.C. Act. To succeed on this ground, a petitioner must satisfy the following ingredients :
(i) That there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) That there are arrears of legally recoverable rent;
(iii) That a valid legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent in accordance with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882;
(iv) That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the E78223/16 Page 7/11 entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of date of receipt of legal demand notice; and
(v) That the tenant has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord.
14. Now the undersigned shall deal with the evidence led by the parties to decide whether the aforesaid ingredients as required U/s 14 (1) (a) & (b) of DRC Act have been proved on the record or not.
(i) Relationship of landlord and tenant
15. Admittedly, the respondent is tenant of Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.) who is petitioner in the present petition, however the main contention of the respondent is that Sh. Jitender Kumar who has filed the present petition is not concerned with Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.) and is no one to file the present petition.
16. In order to show authority of Sh. Jitender Kumar to file the present petition, a document, Ex. PW1/1 has been filed on behalf of petitioner. The said document is written on a plain paper i.e. not on letter head of any society, or trust. The said document has been signed by ten persons namely Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma, Sh. Narender E78223/16 Page 8/11 Mohan Sharma, Sh. Bishan Swaroop Jain, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Sh. Mukesh Mathur, Sh. Shiv Kumar Khanna, Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta, Sh. Rakesh Jain, Sh. Sanjay Jain and Sh. Dhanesh Sharma. In this document, it has been mentioned that Sh. Jitender Kumar is Managing Trustee of petitioner trust and Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel has given his consent to contest the case on behalf of trust.
17. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the trust was created by the order of Sh. S.M. Aggarwal, the then Ld. Additional District Judge in suit titled as Ram Narain (deceased) now represented by his legal heirs Vs. Brij Mohan Sharma & Ors. Vide that order Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust consisting five trustrees namely Smt. Saroj Garg, Sh. Anupam Kumar, Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, Sh. Bishan Saroop Jain and Sh. Sat Narain Mittal was constituted. It was further provided that any vacancy of the trustee shall be filled in by appointing another trustee by majority decision of the surviving trustee. In case, the surviving trustee are not able to reach a majority decision in this regard, the decision of the then Metropolitan Councilor, or the M.L.A. of the area shall be final. It was further provided that the trust has got to be registered under the Societies Registration Act.
18. The judgment of Sh. S.M. Aggarwal filed by the petitioner provided the procedure for appointment of trust. The names of first E78223/16 Page 9/11 five trustees have also been mentioned. It is to be noted that none of the first five trustees has signed the document, Ex. PW1/1. No previous document whereby the trustees retired, or new trustees were appointed has been filed on record to show that the persons who have signed the document, Ex. PW1/1 are present trustees of the petitioner trust. Further, the name of petitioner is Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.), however, infact it is a society registered under Society Registration Act. As per Section 4 of the Society Registration Act every year list of members of society including office bearers has to be submitted to the office of Registrar. No such document has been filed on record to show who were members of the petitioner trust at the time of filing of the present petition. It was a document maintained by Registrar of Societies/ Companies which was required to be brought by the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to brought the same. The onus to prove that the petition has been filed by duly authorized person is upon the petitioner, however the petitioner has failed to brought on record any document which shows that Sh. Jitender Kumar is duly authorized person to file the present petition. In these circumstances, the self serving document, Ex. PW1/1 is not helpful for the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has failed to show that the case has been filed by duly authorized person, hence the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
19. Since the matter has been disposed off on the abovestated E78223/16 Page 10/11 technical ground there is no justification to give finding on other points. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed GAJENDER by GAJENDER
SINGH SINGH NAGAR
Date: 2018.09.07
NAGAR 15:58:24 +0530
Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
on 06.09.2018 Administrative Civil Judgecum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/ 06.09.2018
(This judgment contains 11 pages in total)
E78223/16 Page 11/11
E78223/16
06.09.2018
Present: None.
Vide separate judgment, the present petition of the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJ/ARC (Central), Delhi/06.09.2018 E78223/16 Page 12/11