Delhi District Court
Smt. Kamlesh vs Sh. Mabassi Ram on 17 March, 2017
In the Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar : Additional Rent Controller02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E. No. 88/17/16
New No. 80226/16
In the matter of:
Smt. Kamlesh
W/o Late Sh. Rishi Parkash
Daughter and LRs of
Smt. Sona Devi
R/o 4837, Laddo Ghati,
Paharganj, New Delhi-55. ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Mabassi Ram
S/o Sh. Namo Naraian
R/o H. No. 5507, Gali Kumar Wali,
Shora Khothi, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-55 ................... Respondent
Date of Institution : 30.01.2016
Date of Arguments: 17.03.2017
Date of Judgment : 17.03.2017
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1)(a) (d) and (h) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
E-88/17/16 Kamlesh Vs. Mabassi Ram 1/5
JUDGMENT:
1. This is an application under clause (a) (d) and (h) 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 petitioner against respondent for recovery of possession of premises i.e. Property bearing No. 4837, Laddo Ghati, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 more specifically shown red in the site plan annexed with the application.
2. It is stated in the application that the mother of the petitioner, late Smt. Sona Devi purchased the property bearing No. 4837, Laddo Ghati, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 in the year 1986 from its erstwhile owner. That the respondent was already tenant in respect of one room, kitchen, common toilet on the ground floor of the aforesaid property. That after purchasing the property by Smt. Sona Devi, the respondent became th tenant of Smt. Sona Devi and started paying monthly rent to her or her children as per her direction. That each and every time of paying the rent by the respondent, Smt. Sona Devi or her children used to issue receipt to the respondent. That the rent was payable @ Rs. 45/- per month . That the respondent has not paid the rent of the aforesaid property to the landlord w.e.f. January, 2011 onwards. That Smt. Sona Devi expired on 21.09.2013 and after her death, all the LRs of Smt. Sona Devi executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner and authorised her to receive the rent from the tenants. That the respondent has acquired and purchased a house bearing No. E-88/17/16 Kamlesh Vs. Mabassi Ram 2/5 5507, Gali Kumar Wali, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi in the name of his wife Smt. Pushpa Devi from its previous owner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta vide Sale Deed dt. 15.06.2005 and the respondent alongwith his family members have shifted in the said house. That since last 3-4 years neither the respondent nor any family member dependent upon him is residing in the rented premises and the same is lying locked. That the respondent is a chronic defaulter in tendering the rent to the petitioner.
3. The summons of the application was sent to the respondent and the respondent refused to accept the same on 29.02.2016. Therefore, the respondent was proceeded Exparte on 19.05.2016 and thereafter, the matter was posted for Exparte Petitioner's Evidence.
4. Besides herself, the petitioner got examined one more witness in support of her case, namely Sh. Pawan Kumar Sondhi(PW2). Both the PWs during their examinationinchief, tendered their affidavits as Ex. PW1/A, PW2/A by relying upon several documents i.e. Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/8. Thereafter, P.E. was closed on 02.12.2016 and matter was taken up for Exparte Final Arguments.
5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material on record carefully.
As per petitioner, she is the owner / landlord of the suit premises and the respondent has not paid / tendered the rent w.e.f January 2011 onwards. It is also pleaded and stated in the evidence affidavit by the petitioner that the respondent has already purchased a E-88/17/16 Kamlesh Vs. Mabassi Ram 3/5 house in the name of his wife and that since the last 34 yrs, neither the respondent nor any of his family member is residing in the suit premises.
The petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the Sale Deed of the property which already been purchased on 15.06.05 by the wife of the respondent.
It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rup Chand Vs. Mrs. Shanti Devi 1987 RLR 415 that the law is well settled that if a house is purchased by wife, tenant is liable to eviction u/s 14 (1)
(h).
The evidence led by the petitioner remained unchallenged and unrebutted
6. Perusal of the record reveals that despite the service upon the respondent, he did not appear before the Court. Therefore, order under section 15(1) of Act 59 of 1958 was not passed. Therefore, in view of section 14(2) read with section 15(6) of The Act 59 of 1958 the respondent is not entitled to protection against the eviction.
7. As the applicant has succeeded, by leading cogent evidence, the ground of eviction under clause (a) (d) & (h) of proviso subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 against the respondent and therefore, the application for recovery of possession of the premises made by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is found entitled to recovery of possession of the premises i.e. Property bearing No. 4837, Laddo Ghati, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 as shown red in the site plan.
E-88/17/16 Kamlesh Vs. Mabassi Ram 4/5 As the respondent remained exparte and did not contest the application, therefore, there shall be no order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court (Rajinder Kumar)
on this 17th March, 2017 Additional Rent Controller
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
E-88/17/16 Kamlesh Vs. Mabassi Ram 5/5