Delhi District Court
Smt. Sneh Lata vs Sh. Charanjeet Madan on 7 December, 2018
In the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa : Additional Rent Controller02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E. No. 810/14/10
New No.80151/16
In the matter of:
Smt. Sneh Lata
W/o Sh. Shyam Lal Gupta
R/o 819, Chhota Bazar,
Kashmiri Gate,
Delhi-06. ................... Petitioner
Vs.
Sh. Charanjeet Madan
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Madan
R/o 516, (Madan House),
Mukherjee Nagar, Near Ramlila Ground,
Delhi-06.
Also At:
947/3, Tilak Gali, Chhota Bazar,
Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-06. .................... Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.11.2010
Date of Arguments: 12.09.2018
Date of Judgment : 07.12.2018
E810/14/10 Sneh Lata Vs Charanjeet Madan 1/8
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1) (b) & (c) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
JUDGMENT:
1. This is an application under clause (b) and (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 59 of 1958') made by applicant against respondent for recovery of possession of premises i.e. 819, Chhota Bazar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-06 more specifically shown red in the site plan annexed with the application.
2. As per contents of the petition, the respondent was tenant from September, 1974 till January, 2008 vide rent deed dt. 09.09.1974 and had been paying the rent to the petitioner. But the respondent had stopped payment of rent after January, 2008 and subletted the same to one Shiv Kumar admitted by the respondent in his reply to the notice dt. 25.08.2010 stating therein that the said Mr. Shiv Kumar was the employee of the respondent, whereas the said Shiv Kumar was sub- tenant inducted by the tenant for monthly rent of Rs.18,000/- p.m. The said sub-tenant had vacated the premises and the premises have been locked since then.
The petitioner issued a notice on 05.08.2010 to the respondent for vacating the premises and hand over the peaceful & vacant possession of the premises. In reply to the notice, the tenant E810/14/10 Sneh Lata Vs Charanjeet Madan 2/8 admitted the shifting of the business to the said address. The sub-tenant had vacated the premises and has shifted his business to 838, Shalwali Gali, Tilak Gali, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and after his shifting the premises have been locked and no business is being run by the tenant from the premises. Hence the petition.
3. The application of eviction is contested by the respondent by way of a written statement of defence on the grounds that Sh. Shiv Kumar has been staff/employee of the respondent and the suit property is very much in the possession & control of the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent had terminated the service of the said Shiv Kumar and now the said Shiv Kumar has not been in the service of the respondent. The respondent has neither sub-let, nor assigned nor parted with the possession of the tenancy premises, ever to anyone and that the same is in the possession of the respondent. Since the respondent has never inducted any sub-tenant, there was no question of taking any consent from the owner.
4. Replication has been filed by the applicant to the written statement of the respondent, wherein the averments made in the application for eviction have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondent in his written Statement is traversed.
5. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined two witnesses i.e. Sh. Shyam Lal Gupta(PW1) & Smt. Sneh Lata(PW2), Both the PWs tendered their evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A & P-2 and relied upon several documents i.e. PW-1/1 to PW-1/7. Both the PWs were E810/14/10 Sneh Lata Vs Charanjeet Madan 3/8 cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the respondent and on 10.07.2013, PE was closed.
6. In support of his case, the respondent got examined himself as RW1. RW1 during examination-in-chief, tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A by relying upon two documents i.e. Ex.RW1/1 & RW1/2. RW1 was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the petitioner and on 26.10.2017 RE was closed.
7. As far as the ground of eviction u/s 14 (1) (b) DRC Act is concerned, although the respondent has disputed the relationship of landlord & tenant between the parties, yet during his crossexamination he had admitted the execution of rent agreement dt. 09.09.1974 which is Ex. PW1/2. The respondent has also admitted payment of rent to the petitioner. Otherwise also, the rent agreement between the parties has been duly proved by the petitioner which is Ex. PW1/2. Therefore, it is clear that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent in this petition.
Now, it is to be decided whether the respondent has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the suit premises without the written consent of the petitioner.
As per petitioner, the respondent has sublet the shop in question to Sh. Shiv Kumar, without the consent of the petitioner.
In his W/S, the said contentions are denied by the respondent. However, it is the plea taken by him that the tenancy E810/14/10 Sneh Lata Vs Charanjeet Madan 4/8 premises was in the possession of the respondent and Sh. Shiv Kumar was just an employee of the respondent.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has parted with the possession of the demised premises as he has sublet the premises to one Sh. Shiv Kumar and the respondent is running his business from another property. The respondent has very categorically denied the averments putforth by the petitioner and stated that Sh. Shiv Kumar was just an employee and the respondent had never parted with the possession or never sublet the premises to anyone. To prove that Sh. Shiv Kumar was just an employee, the respondent has placed on record photocopies of his leisure account Ex. RW1/X and also details of the salary paid to Sh. Shiv Kumar which is Ex. RW1/1. On other hand, the petitioner has failed to bring anything on record to prove that the respondent has parted with the possession of the premises or that he has no control over the demised premises and has sublet the same. In fact in his cross examination, PW1 had admitted that for the last many years, Mr. Charanjeet Madan, respondent herein and M/s Spenco Industries are tenants in respective shops. He had further admitted that respondent & M/s Spenco used to open and close the respective shops and no other person. He further admitted that he had not seen Sh. Shiv Kumar opening & closing the shop but sitting in the shop. He again said that he had seen Sh. Shiv Kumar closing the shop which appears to be just an after thought. Whereas no contradiction came out from the crossexamination E810/14/10 Sneh Lata Vs Charanjeet Madan 5/8 of RW1 so far as issue of subletting is concerned. Merely because the respondent is also doing his business from another shop is not conclusive enough that he has parted with or sublet the demised premises. The photographs filed on record by the petitioner are also not conclusive enough to show that Sh. Shiv Kumar is in exclusive possession of the demised premises as such. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondent has parted with or sublet the demised premises and therefore, he is not found entitled to any relief u/s 14(1)(b) of DRC Act.
So far as petition u/s 14(1) (c) of DRC Act is concerned, as per contents of the petition, the demised premises has been let out only for nonresidential purpose but the respondent has locked down the premises and is not using the same for any puprpose, and is thus misusing the same.
In the W/s filed by the respondent, the said fact is denied by him by saying that he is not misusing the demised premises.
As per the contents of the petition, a notice dt.05.08.2010 (Ex. PW1/6) was served upon the respondent. Now, the question arises as to what was the misuse and how the suit premises was being misused by the respondent.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the said notice dt. 15.08.2010 (Ex. PW1/6) there is nothing requiring the respondent to stop the misuse of the premises as required u/s 14 (5) DRC Act. In the E810/14/10 Sneh Lata Vs Charanjeet Madan 6/8 absence of the proper notice, no question for the misuse of the suit premises arises at all.
On the basis of pleadings and the evidence available on record, it is also not clear whether any misuse is there or not. Mere locking down the premises does not amount to misuse. The legal notice dt. 05.08.2010 (Ex. PW1/6), the petition and even the evidence affidavit of the petitioner's witness (PW1) are silent in this regard.
Section 14 (5) DRC Act makes it obligatory on the part of the landlord to give one month notice to stop the misuse and if the tenant fails or refuses to stop the misuse only then he becomes entitled to file a petition u/s 14 (1) (c) DRC Act and in the absence of the same, I am unable to reach to the conclusion whether it is a public nuisance or it causes damages to the premises detrimental to the interest of the landlord.
For the sake of arguments, if the contents of the petition are presumed to be correct, there is no plea of the petitioner for the misusing the property by the respondent. There is no evidence led by the petitioner to show the misuse of the property in question. There is nothing on record even to suggest /show as to what was the misuse caused to the property as there is nothing on record to show the same. The pleadings of the petitioners are vague and do not specify as to what was the misuse caused.
In view of my above discussion, it is held that the petitioner E810/14/10 Sneh Lata Vs Charanjeet Madan 7/8 has failed in proving his case for the grounds of eviction against the respondent u/s. 14 (1) (b) & (c) of DRC Act. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
File be consigned to the record room.
PUNEET Digitally signed by
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date: 2018.12.07
16:29:56 +0530
Announced in the open court (Puneet Pahwa)
on this 7th December 2018 Additional Rent Controller-02
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E810/14/10 Sneh Lata Vs Charanjeet Madan 8/8