Delhi District Court
Sh. Shanker Singh vs Sh. Mahavir Pershad on 24 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT03-000194/2010
ARC No: 79096/16
E.No-134/14/10
1. Sh. Shanker Singh
S/o Late Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat
2. Smt. Basanti Devi
W/o Sh. Ram Pershad
3. Sh. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Pershad
4. Sh. Rajinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Pershad
5. Sh. Roshan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat
All R/o H. No. 12115, Plot No. 13, Block-33,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. ......Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Mahavir Pershad
S/o Late Sh. Jai Narain
R/o 33/18 Shakti Nagar,
Delhi 110007 Digitally
signed by
AJAY NAGAR
AJAY Date:
NAGAR 2022.01.24
14:03:37
+0530
ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 1
2. Sh. Pramod Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Jai Narain
C/o M/s Ram provision store
L-24 FPS shop No.4579
JJ colony, Wazir pur, Delhi 110052
3. Sh. Mahender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Jai Narain
Service effected through
Sh. Pramod Kumar
S/o Late sh. Jai Narain
C/o M/s Ram provision store
L-24 FPS shop No.4579
JJ colony, Wazir pur, Delhi 110052
4. Sh. Narender kumar
S/o late sh. Jai Narain
Service effected through
Sh. Mahavir pershad ......Respondents
Date of filing : 30.07.2010
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case is that on 30.07.2010, petitioners filed present petition Under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2022.01.24 14:03:50 +0530 ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 2 of the petitioners and against the respondents in respect of premises consisting of one room, one kitchen and common latrine and bath on ground floor in premises MCD No. 12115, Plot No. 13, Block No. 33, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 as shown in Red colour in the attached site plan. (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioners that the tenanted premises was let out to Sh. Jai Narain who has already expired and his wife Smt. Munni Devi has also expired; respondent no.1 to 4 who are their sons are not residing in the tenanted premises for the last more than seven years; premises no. 12115, Block No. 33/13, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi was owned by Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat who let out the tenanted premises to Sh. Jai Narain @ Rs.50/- p.m.; Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat expired on 24.12.1984 and his wife also got expired; Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat left five sons and two daughters; after the death of Sh. Jai Narain, his legal heirs i.e. respondents have become the tenants in the tenanted premises; the tenanted premises is required by the petitioners for satisfying the bonafide residential requirements of themselves and their family members dependent upon them; due to shortage of residential accommodation, all the petitioners and their family members are facing a lot of troubles; petitioners have no other alternative Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY NAGAR Date:
NAGAR 2022.01.24
14:04:00
ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors +0530
3
accommodation for residence in the entire Territory of Delhi except tenanted premises; petitioner no.1 is having his wife, two married sons; one son Sh. Sunil Kumar is residing in the suit property along with his wife Smt. Anita Devi and their one minor son and two minor daughters; second son Sh. Dinesh Kumar and his wife along with their one minor daughter are also residing in the suit property; petitioner no.1 has one married daughter namely Smt. Promila; petitioner no.2 to 4 requires at least five rooms for themselves and their family members; petitioner no.5 Sh. Roshan Lal has wife Smt. Vidya Devi and their two sons namely Sh. Dharmesh Kumar and Sh. Pardeep Kumar are also residing in the suit property; three rooms are required for petitioner no.5 and his family members; three separate room are required for three families for guests and for the married daughters who often visits the house of her father; all the rooms are already occupied by the petitioners and their family members and other rooms are occupied by respondents and the other tenant. Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioners that an eviction order may be passed.
3. Written statement was filed by the respondents inter-alia stating that there is no existence of jural relationship of a landlord and tenants between the parties; Sh. Ghanshyam Dass had filed the objections against the respondent no.1 in respect of Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2022.01.24 14:04:12 +0530 ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 4 electricity connection applied by the respondent no.1; respondent no.1 neither accepts nor acknowledges the petitioners as legal heirs of late Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat; the petitioners and the other persons as mentioned in the petition are not the legal heirs of Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat; there has been chain of litigation between Late Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and Sh. Jai Narain i.e. father of the respondents in case No. S.A.O. No.16/1974 decided on 28.11.1984 by the Hon'ble High court of Delhi; petitioners are using the ground floor accommodation and the entire courtyard for commercial purposes; they are neither the co- owners nor the landlords of any portion of the premises no.12115, (33/13), Shakti Nagar, Delhi which includes the tenanted premises; petitioner no.3 and 4 are having independent accommodation at Pitam Pura, Delhi, i.e. Flat No. CD-102-A, Pitam Pura, Delhi; the petitioner no.3 has vehicle no.DL8CP5502 which is registered at the Pitam Pura address; petitioners are not the legal heirs of Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and his wife Smt. Parbati Devi; neither Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat nor Smt. Parbati Devi are the predecessors in interest of the petitioners and the petitioners are strangers to the eviction petition as well as the entire property no.12115 (33/13), Shakti Nagar; the petitioners have neither succeeded nor inherited any part of property no.12115; the respondents had never paid the rent of the tenanted premises to any of the petitioners as well as Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2022.01.24 14:04:21 +0530 ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 5 Sh. Ghanshyam Dass; after the death of Late Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and his widow Smt. Parbati Devi, no demand of rent had been raised by the petitioners which shows that they are not the landlords of the tenanted premises; tenanted premises is commercial cum residential and the respondent no.1 has been carrying on the business in the name of M/s Aggarwal & Sons since 1963 as its proprietor; all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Jai Narain, i.e. original tenant and Late Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat/Smt. Parbati Devi have not been impleaded ; respondents are the tenants having inherited their rights through Late Sh. Jai Narain and Smt. Munni Devi but the respondents are not the tenants under any of the petitioners as well as Sh. Ghanshyam Dass; respondent no.1 had got the electricity connection independently in his name in the year 2014 after resistance from petitioners; respondents after the death of Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and Smt. Parbati Devi had never paid the rent to any of the petitioners because Smt. Parbati Devi had refused to accept respondent no.1 as tenant; it is denied that Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat was the owner of the premises No.12115, (33/13), Shakti Nagar; petitioners have not obtained any legal document from any competent court to show their ownership qua tenanted premises; accommodation already with the petitioners is more than sufficient. Lastly, it is prayed by the respondents that present petition may be dismissed with Digitally exemplary cost.
signed by AJAY
AJAY NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2022.01.24
14:04:31
+0530
ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 6
4. The petitioners have examined petitioner no.1 Sh.
Shanker Singh as PW1. He relied upon several documents and he was cross examined at length by the opposite counsel. Thereafter, respondents also led evidence by examining respondent no.1 Sh. Mahavir Pershad as RW1 who relied upon several documents and he was cross examined by the opposite counsel. Thereafter, respondents closed their evidence.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced. I have carefully gone through the pleadings, testimonies, documents and material on record.
(i) Landlordship (ii) Ownership:-
6. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have claimed to be landlords and owners of the tenanted premises on the ground of inheritance. The plea of the petitioners is that their father Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat was the landlord and the owner of the suit property wherein the tenanted premises is situated. On the other hand, the respondents have vehemently disputed the landlordship as well as the ownership of not only the petitioners but also of the landlordship and ownership of Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and his wife Smt. Parbati Devi.
7. Perusal of written statement shows that although the Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date: ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors NAGAR 2022.01.24 7 14:04:42 +0530 respondents have disputed the landlordship and ownership of the petitioners as well as their father and mother Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and Smt. Parbati Devi, but they have not disclosed the names of the landlords and the owners of the tenanted premises and suit property, if not the petitioners and their predecessor in interest. It is well settled that mere denial is not sufficient. It is surprising that the respondents have claimed in the written statement that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and Smt. Parbati Devi. Perusal of written statement shows that the respondents have not given the details of the basis on which they are claiming that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and Smt. Parbati Devi.
8. Perusal of record shows that the respondents have filed the copy of the DR petition filed U/S 27 of DRC Act Ex.RW1/2 before the Ld. Rent Controller concerned in the year 1995. Perusal of which clearly shows that respondent no.1 Sh. Mahaveer Parshad Aggarwal has been shown as a tenant/petitioner and Smt. Parbati Devi wife of Late Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat, R/o 33/13, Shakti Nagar, Delhi has been shown as respondent. As such, on the one hand, the respondents have claimed in the present petition that Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and Smt. Parbati Devi are not the landlords and owners of the Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2022.01.24 14:04:51 +0530 ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 8 tenanted premises. On the other hand, he himself has filed petition U/S 27 of DRC Act admitting himself as tenant in the tenanted premises and also impleading the mother of the petitioners as landlord on the ground that Smt. Parbati Devi refused to accept the rent from him. The plea of the respondents is that Smt. Parbati Devi refused to accept him as tenant in the tenanted premises after the death of father of respondent no.1 i.e. Sh. Mahavir Parshad. but in the considered view of this court, by way of this order, the respondent does not cease to be tenant in the tenanted premises as the order passed in the DR petition dated 01.08.2003 clearly shows that the DR petition was allowed without prejudice to the rights. Moreover, perusal of written statement clearly shows that the respondents have admitted themselves as tenants by virtue of the tenancy of their father Sh. Jai Narain. It is well settled that after the death of the original tenant, the legal heirs of that tenant become statutory tenants.
9. It is also well settled that the tenant has no right to challenge the title of the landlord in view of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. In the petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, the petitioners need not prove their ownership in absolute term. The landlords merely have to prove that they are something more than the tenants. The court of Additional Rent Controller is not supposed to decide the title of the property. It is the Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date: NAGAR 2022.01.24 14:05:06 +0530 ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 9 prerogative of the civil court concerned. Perusal of record shows that petitioners have placed on record copy of the sale deed dated 31.01.1969 Ex.PW1/11 and the copy of the agreement to sell dated 21.09.1963 Ex.PW1/12 to show the ownership of their father Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat. One of the pleas of the respondents is that the petitioners have not filed any legal documents such as Will, Probate, Partition Deed etc. to prove their ownership after the death of Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat. In the considered view of this court, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of the suit property of the landlord. It is the prerogative of the legal heirs of landlord.
10. Moreover, as stated earlier, the respondents have not disclosed the name of the landlords and owners if not the petitioners. It is also undisputed fact that the present petition is U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act and it has not been resisted by the other co-owners. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can always file the petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act without impleading other co-owners and such petition is maintainable. One of the pleas of the respondents in the written statement is that there has been a chain of litigation s between Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat and the father of the respondents Sh. Jai Narain. Respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court passed in appeal bearing No. SAO No.16/1974.
Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY NAGAR
NAGAR Date:
2022.01.24
14:05:18 +0530
ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 10
Perusal of which clearly shows that no issue in respect of landlordship and ownership were decided by the Hon'ble High Court in favour of respondents herein. It is surprising on the one hand, he is disputing the landlordship and ownership of the petitioners herein. On the other hand, respondents themselves have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 28.11.1983 which clearly shows that Sh. Jai Narain father of the respondents herein was impleaded as tenant and Sh. Mool Chand Lalawat was impleaded as landlord. Perusal of record clearly shows that the respondents have taken the vague plea in respect of landlordship and ownership of the petitioners. In the considered view of this court, there exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioners have been able to show that they are something more than the tenants/respondents. As such, these ingredients are satisfied.
(iii) Bonafide Requirement (iv) Alternative Accommodation:-
11. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have sought the tenanted premises for satisfying the residential requirement of themselves and their family members dependent upon them.
On the other hand, the respondents have denied the averments of the petitioners and claimed that they are already Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2022.01.24 14:05:28 +0530 ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 11 having the sufficient accommodation and there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioners as mentioned in the petition.
12. I have carefully gone through the pleadings, documents, testimonies, case law relied upon and material on record.
13. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have sought the tenanted premises for residential requirement of themselves and other family members dependent upon them.
Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have given the full details of the petitioners and also the other family members residing in the suit property where the tenanted premises is situated. It is undisputed fact that the petitioners have the big family and many families are residing in the suit property. Moreover, it is undisputed fact that during the cross examination, RW1 Sh. Mahavir Prashad has not specifically denied the residence of petitioners and their families in the suit property except the petitioner No. 3 &4.
14. As such, the respondent has admitted that all the petitioners are residing in the suit property except petitioner no.3 &4. It is undisputed fact that present petition has been filed by the petitioners not merely for petitioner no.3 &4 but also for the Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY NAGAR Date:
NAGAR 2022.01.24 14:05:38 +0530 ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 12 other petitioners and the other family members dependent upon them. As such, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that petitioner no.3 & 4 are not residing in the suit property, it does not much matter in view of reasons given earlier.
15. Moreover, nothing has been proved by the respondents showing the malafide on the part of the petitioners. It is well settled law that landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. Tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord to adjust himself in a particular manner.
16. The respondents themselves have given the details of the petitioners and their family members and it is undisputed fact that the respondents have impliedly admitted that all the petitioners except the petitioner no.3 &4 are residing in the suit property. However, the respondents have dictated that petitioners are having the sufficient accommodation with them.
17. In the considered view of this court, it is not only the number of rooms available that matters but also the family members that matters. If the landlord is having many rooms in possession but the family members are in the large number, it cannot be said that landlord has sufficient accommodation. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondents in the written Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY NAGAR Date:
NAGAR 2022.01.24 14:05:48 +0530 ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 13 statement that many rooms have been let out or sold out by the petitioners. It is also not the case of the respondents that rooms are lying vacant in the suit property itself. As such, the petitioners have been able to prove their bonafide residential requirement and also the paucity of alternative reasonably suitable residential accommodation to satisfy the requirement as raised in the present petition. In other words, the respondents have failed to prove the malafide on the part of the petitioners or availability of alternative reasonably suitable residential accommodation with the petitioners to satisfy the requirement as raised in the present petition.
Conclusion:-
18. As such, in view of the exhaustive discussion and reasons, the present petition U/S 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in respect of tenanted premises consisting of one room, one kitchen and common latrine and bath on ground floor in premises MCD No. 12115, Plot No. 13, Block No. 33, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 as shown in Red colour in the attached site plan filed with the petition.
19. However, this eviction order shall not beDigitally executed signed by AJAY AJAY NAGAR Date:
NAGAR 2022.01.24
14:05:57
+0530
ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 14
before the expiry of six months from the date of this order in view of Section 14(7) of DRC Act.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced through V.C.
On 24th January, 2022
(This judgment contains 15 pages) Digitally
signed by
AJAY AJAY NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2022.01.24
14:06:05
+0530
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller-2,
Central District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 79096/16 Sh.Shankar Singh & Ors. Vs Sh. Mahavir Prashad & Ors 15