Delhi District Court
Jai Prakash Jaiswal vs Jainveer Sabha Through Its President / ... on 31 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA
SCJCUMRC (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
E. No. 78602/16
In the matter of :
Jai Prakash Jaiswal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Dulare
R/o 1360, Krishan Gali, Bazar Gulyan,
Dariba Kalan, Delhi - 110006 ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Jainveer Sabha Through its President / Manager
Having Office at : First Floor, 1116, Krishan Gali,
Bazar Gulyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi - 6
Also at :
2499, Naiwara, Chawri Bazar,
Delhi - 110006 ..... Respondent
Date of institution of case : 05.06.2015
Date on which judgment was reserved : 30.10.2018
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 31.10.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner, namely Jai Prakash Jaiswal, has filed present eviction petition, based on its bonafide need, u/s. 14(1)(e) read with Sec.25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short 'DRC Act') against respondent namely Jainveer Sabha alleging following facts :
"That petitioner is owner of premises bearing no. 1116, Krishan Gali, Bazar Gulyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6 (hereinafter property in question). Tenanted E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 1 of 18 premises in question, consists of first floor of the said property consisting of three rooms and covered space which is used as office by respondents and as such said tenanted premises are non residential in nature. Petitioner claimed that he is the landlord of said tenanted premises, occupied by respondents. As such respondent is an old tenant. Last paid rent by respondent was Rs.30/ per month. Petitioner claimed that he has become owner of property in question on the basis of registered gift deed dated 18.03.2009, executed by his father in his name. He explained his bonafide requirement by stating that he is running kiosks in the form of juice corner and another by selling soft drinks and mineral waters on the ground floor of property in question. He also stated that he wants to expand his business and therefore he is finding acute shortage of space. He claimed that he is not having sufficient income for meeting out his household expenses and therefore he has to do odd jobs for the same. Recently he had met with an accident, couple of years ago and is not in a position to move here and there. Since he wants to earn decent livelihood for meeting out requirement of his family, so he requires tenanted premises in question from respondent. He also stated that E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 2 of 18 respondent is in arrears of rent from April 1998 till November 2005 and in this regard he had sent legal demand notice dated 30.11.2005 but despite receiving that notice respondent has not paid the arrears of rent. Based on said averments, petitioner prayed for eviction of respondent from tenanted premises in question.
2. After filing of eviction petition, summons in prescribed proforma were issued to respondent. Respondent filed application for leave to defend which was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 02.08.2016. Consequently, respondent was directed to file written statement. Respondent in his written statement challenged the case of petitioner by denying the title of petitioner and petitioner being landlord of tenanted premises in question. He also stated that extent of tenanted premises in question as stated by petitioner in the petition is wrong as tenanted premises comprised of entire first floor and terrace over the same out of property no. 11111118, Bazar Gulyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6. He also claimed that one Suresh Kumar is claiming himself to be owner of tenanted premises in question and petitioner, in the garb of present eviction petition is seeking declaration of his title over premises in question. He explained that he was inducted as tenant in 1965 by a person namely Shree Ram and respondent started paying rent to him. The said person namely Shree Ram was in a habit of not issuing rent receipts and even respondent never bothered about the E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 3 of 18 same. Subsequently, whereabouts of Sh. Shree Ram are not known and nobody came up for claiming rent from respondent for a substantial long time. Later on one Ram Dulare started alleging himself to be Paropkar (Caretaker) on behalf of Shree Ram in respect of property in question and alleging that he has been authorized by Shree Ram to collect rent from respondent. The said paropkar did not show any title document or the authority to collect the rent. The said paropkar started harassing office bearers of respondent and started demanding rent. Respondent as such without prejudice to its legal rights and contentions and without admitting the claim of Ram Dulare continued to pay rent for some time. Subsequently, in December, 2010 petitioner started alleging himself to be a new paropkar/caretaker of property in question but did not show any title documents. In fact one Suresh Kumar claiming himself to be son of Shree Ram has appeared and is also claiming that he has become owner of property in question after demise of his father late Sh. Shree Ram. Said Suresh Kumar is disputing the title of petitioner. As such proper course for petitioner is to file suit for declaration of title of property in question in civil court and not present petition. He disputed the site plan filed by petitioner and filed his version of the site plan of premises in question. On merits, he refuted the version of petitioner by referring aforesaid averments. Besides that he claimed that petitioner has concealed commercial accommodations which are lying vacant viz. Two shops mark A and B in property no. 11111118, Bazar Gulyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6, property no. 1118A, Bazar Guliyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6, property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6 and property no. D31, Acarya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91. He stated that E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 4 of 18 petitioner himself was / is tenant in respect of two shops i.e. mark A and B on ground floor of property no. 11111118, Bazar Guliyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi from where he is not doing any business. For reaping out monetary gains, petitioner has carved out portion from the shop Mark B and subletted the same to unauthorized person namely Mohan Singh on daily basis from where petitioner is getting good usage charges. Recently, in June 2015. Petitioner has also given physical possession of remaining portion of shop Mark B and entire shop Mark A to sublettes and occupants whose names are not known to respondent. Petitioner is drawing handsome daily charges from the said illegal occupants in property no. 1118A, Bazar Guliyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6. There is one big shop on ground floor which is rented out but petitioner managed to get the said shop vacated from the sitting tenant and is now carrying out major renovation in the said shop after removing rolling shutters and by installing iron gate. The said property is lying vacant under the locks and keys of petitioner. Further, in property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6 entire ground floor is commercial in nature comprising of two shops and godown which are lying vacant. Upper floors of said property are also lying vacant under the locks and keys of petitioner. Property no. D31 Acarya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi has two big shops on ground floor from where petitioner is doing business of supply of fire crackers, marriage decoration articles including tents and statues etc on retail and wholesale business which is a fabulour business in which 20 employees are employed by petitioner. So, petitioner is having sufficient income for meeting out his livelihood. Earlier petitioner alongwith his family comprising of wife was residing on the first floor of said property E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 5 of 18 but during pendency of present petition, rather in second week of August 2016 petitioner vacated the said first floor of property no. D31, Acarya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91 and had let out the same to M/s. Popular Finance for commercial purpose on a hefty monthly rent of Rs.70,000/ per month. Health of petitioner is fine and as such he had not met with any accident so in these circumstance petitioner's bonafide need is not correct. Based on said reply, respondent prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition.
3. In response to the said written statement, petitioner filed replication in which he refuted the version of respondent and reiterated his version as mentioned in petition. Contents of same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
4. After completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
5. Petitioner examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the facts as mentioned in the petition in his examinationinchief Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon documents viz. Gift deed dated 18.03.2009 Ex.PW1/1, copy of sale deed dated 26.11.1969 and rectification deed dated 30.04.1970 Ex.PW1/2, copy of legal notice dated 30.11.2005 Mark A, site plan Ex.PW1/3, copy of sale deeds Ex.PW1/4, site plan of property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan Ex.PW1/5, photographs Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 (colly), copy of title documents Ex.PW1/8 (colly), site plan Ex.PW1/9, copy of license Ex.PW1/10. Petitioner also examined PW2 Sh. Pawan E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 6 of 18 Kumar Gupta who had prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW 1/9 pertaining to properties no. 1360, Gali Krishna, Bazar Guliyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi and D31, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi respectively. After examining this witness, petitioner closed his evidence and matter was fixed for respondent's evidence.
6. Respondent examined only one witness i.e. Sh. P. K. Jain s RW1 who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW1/A in which he deposed as the president of respondent sabha and reiterated the facts as mentioned in written statement. He relied upon documents i.e. site plan Ex.PW1/R1, photograph Ex.PW1/R2, visiting card Ex.PW1/R3. After examining RW1, respondent closed its evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. After hearing final arguments, matter was fixed for judgment.
8. Before proceeding further, I must mention here the relevant law and its interpretation in the background of relevant caselaws.
9. Proviso (e) to Section 14 (1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14 (1) are :
E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 7 of 18(a) The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
(b) The landlord or the family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
10. The satisfaction of the two requirements of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus:
"The Legislature in enacting the provisions has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The bonafide requirement' must be in present and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 8 of 18 provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in subsection (e) of Section 12 (1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the court is duty bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non residential accommodation in his occupation in the city / town is available. The judgment / order of the court / authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court / authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment / order in appeal / second appeal / revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 9 of 18 Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
11. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean "in good faith and genuine i.e. without fraud or deceit ". Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide" is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the 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 contradistinction with mere pretence 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. Looked at from his angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 10 of 18 residential standard of their own.
12. The meaning of "bonafide" in the context appears to be in two folds. (a) the need of the landlord must be a genuine one and not a frivolous one. (b) landlord is not motivated by extraneous considerations in trying to recover the possession from the tenant with a view to let it out again to another tenant at a higher rent.
Ownership / Landlordship:
13. Petitioner claimed himself to be owner of property in question including tenanted premises in question on the basis of registered gift deed Ex.PW1/1. Not only that petitioner placed on record previous chain of documents in the shape of sale deeds executed by father of petitioner Ex.PW1/2 which proved that status of petitioner is more than that of a tenant. Petitioner as such had legally obtained title of premises in question on the basis of registered gift deed Ex.PW1/1 and on the basis of previous chain of title documents Ex.PW1/2. Respondent as such did not deny the veracity of those documents. In fact, those title document were not objected to on the mode of proof by respondent. In these circumstances, petitioner was able to prove that he is the owner of premises in question. Being owner, petitioner can legally be said to be landlord of premises in question. Thus petitioner was able to prove that he is the owner of landlord of tenanted premises in question on the basis of those documents.
E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 11 of 1814. So far as respondent is concerned, respondent has examined RW1 Sh. P. K. Jain to claim that petitioner is not the owner of premises in question. In his crossexamination, this witness deposed that he did not know as to who is the owner of tenanted premises in question. He also deposed that he had not seen any title document of Sushil Kumar pertaining to tenanted premises in question till date. His said deposition indicated that respondent is ignorant about the correct owner of premises in question. Said deposition also indicated that respondent is simply denying the title documents of petitioner without any basis. As such respondent should have specified who is the owner of premises in question if it is not the petitioner but RW1 failed to do so in his testimonies. Not only that RW1 was ignorant about the rate of rent paid by respondent lastly. Also he did not know as to for what period rent was deposited u/s. 27 DRC Act when nobody was coming up for collecting rent after the death of Ram Dulare. As such, I find that respondent is simply trying to take benefit of being ignorant about the title documents of petitioner. Respondent is not tendering or depositing the rent as per law and therefore respondent itself is not following the requirement of payment of rent or tendering of rent as per DRC Act. As a tenant, respondent is supposed to pay or tender the rent as per law and since respondent is not doing so, so it is respondent who is malafide in this case. The net result is that denial of title of petitioner by respondent was a baseless denial in the given facts and circumstances of this case.
E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 12 of 18Bonafide Need :
15. Petitioner claimed in his petition and evidence that he requires tenanted premises in question for expansion of his business for which he is finding acute shortage of space. He also claimed that his present income is not sufficient to meet out his household expenses and therefore for earning decent livelihood he wants to utilize tenanted premises in question for expanding his business. Said bonafide need, cannot be denied just like that on the basis of mere asking of respondent. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled John Impex Pvt Ltd Vs. Dr. Surender Singh & Ors" 135 (2006) DLT 265.
16. Respondent claimed that petitioner is maintaining hail and hearty health and is not advised by any doctor to take rest. Said denial by respondent which remained bald denial which did not inspire confidence and as such petitioner in his evidence, refuted the said suggestion by respondent.
17. Moving further respondent in his written statement stated that petitioner is drawing handsome daily charges from unauthorized occupants who are occupying property no. 11111118, Bazar Guliyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. He did not place on record any documentary proof in support thereof. Similarly, respondent also claimed that petitioner is earning Rs.70,000/ per month from property no. D31, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91 which was let out to M/s. Popular Finance but did not place on record any proof in support thereof. Claim of respondent that 20 employees are working under petitioner in property E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 13 of 18 no. D31, Acharya Niketan again remained bald averment. In its evidence, respondent did not place on record any documentary proof in support of said contentions. Therefore, there remained bald claims of respondent regarding sufficient source of income of petitioner. Pitted against that, law is very clear, that in eviction petition based on bonafide requirements courts are not supposed to doubt the bonafide need of petitioner / landlord. Therefore, following that precedent, I find that respondent failed to make in roads in the bonafide need of petitioner.
Alternative Suitable Accommodation
18. Respondent claimed in his written statement that petitioner is having vacant space in property no. 11111118, Bazar Gulyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6, property no. 1118A, Bazar Guliyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi 6, property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6 and property no. D31, Acarya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91. In his evidence respondent has examined Sh. P. K. Jain as RW1 who in his cross examination deposed that except property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, there is no other commercial property of petitioner which is lying vacant. The said answer given by RW1 dismantle the case of respondent as mentioned in written statement. It only probabilize the situation that the claim regarding availability of alternative suitable accommodation in 11111118, Bazar Gulyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6, property no. 1118A, Bazar Guliyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6, property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi6 and property no. D31, Acarya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi91 were taken, just for the sake of it. So far as property no. 1360, E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 14 of 18 Dariba Kalan, is concerned, RW1 in his crossexamination deposed that he had not seen any title document of said property, which could indicate that said property is belonged to petitioner. His basis of the claim that property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi belonged to petitioner was an information which he had received from local residents. As such his said response indicated that his said claim regarding petitioner being owner of property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi was a hearsay fact without any basis. RW1 further deposed that he had never gone inside in property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi and therefore his claim that property no. 1360 is lying vacant cannot be affirmed by me. Once he had not gone inside the said property, I failed to understand as to what was the basis of his claim that said property is lying vacant. It was not his case that some specific person told him that said property is lying vacant.
19. Petitioner, on the other hand, had examined himself as PW
1. He reiterated the facts as mentioned in petition in his examinationin chief. He relied upon documents of title which are already appreciated above. He refuted the suggestion pertaining to defence of respondents in his crossexamination. No specific suggestion was given to him regarding the basis on which respondent had claimed that properties mentioned in written statement (as noted above) were lying vacant. In fact, he was given a suggestion to the effect that he is not doing any odd job. As such his testimony cannot be discarded being untrustworthy and unreliable. I believed his testimony to be credential in nature.
E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 15 of 1820. PW2 Sh. P. K. Gupta placed on record site plans which he had made i.e. Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/9. Those site plans as such did not show that any portion in property no. 1306, Dariba Kalan, Delhi and D31, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi are lying vacant. Respondent while crossexamining him did not put any suggestion that any portion in those properties is lying vacant. As such his testimony only probabilize the case of petitioner regarding true extent of properties no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi and D31, Acharya Niketan, Mayur Vihar, PhaseI, Delhi as mentioned in site plan Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/9 which he had prepared. The net result is petitioner was able to probabilize his case based on appreciation of his evidence as noted above. He was able to prove the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) DRC Act.
21. So far as respondent is concerned, it had examined RW1 Sh. P. K. Jain only. This witness placed on record photographs of property at Mayur Vihar Ex.RW1/R2 and business visiting card Ex.PW 1/R3. Those documents as such did not indicate that property at Mayur Vihar belonged to petitioner as those documents were not title documents of property at Mayur Vihar. Further, those documents were self serving documents which anybody can prepare for his / her own cause, they cannot be read against petitioner. Those documents also did not indicate that property at Mayur Vihar is lying vacant as on date. Therefore, those documents are discarded by me. Apart from that, PW1 had no knowledge about owner of premises in question, rate of rent, the period for which rent was last paid, whether rent was deposited u/s. 27 DRC Act or not, whether any property is mentioned in written statement E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 16 of 18 was lying vacant which belonged to petitioner, as on date. This witness only improbabilized the case of respondent. His evidence regarding property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi was hearsay in nature. He was not able to probabilize that petitioner's need is not bonafide, that petitioner is not the owner of premises in question and that petitioner has no alternative suitable accommodation to meet out his bonafide need. I discarded his testimony accordingly being untrustworthy.
22. During course of final arguments, Ld counsel for respondent argued that petitioner has not filed medical documents regarding his illness as stated by him in the petition. As such that argument is not tenable for the reason that claim of petitioner, cannot be doubted, just like that, on the mere asking of respondent. Since respondent has disputed the said claim of petitioner, so, onus rested upon respondent, to prove that status of health of petitioner is not what is stated by petitioner. Ld counsel for respondent also argued that site plan Ex.PW1/R1, filed by respondent is admitted by petitioner which indicated that petitioner admitted the vacant shops in property in question. Again that argument is not tenable as petitioner did not admit the vacant shops / spaces available in property no. 11111118, Bazar Guliyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi 6, regarding which said site plan was filed. Respondent's counsel also argued that petitioner did not file details of the tenants as mentioned in shops in Ex.PW1/R1 and also did not file the photographs of said shop. He also argued that petitioner did not file any proof regarding the fact that shops are not lying vacant. Further, he argued that title documents of property no.D31,Dariba Kalan, were not filed by petitioner.All the said E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 17 of 18 arguments are not relevant, for the reason that those arguments were based on negative claims of respondent as respondent has raised the issue that certain shops are lying vacant. So, it is for respondent to prove that those shops are lying vacant in some specific properties. Petitioner cannot be burdened with the onus of proving that those shops are not lying vacant, in the wake of his claim that he is not having vacant possession of any shop which is part of his bonafide need and as such that bonafide need, cannot be doubted, in the wake of observations made in case law titled as John Impex (supra). Even otherwise, once respondent's witness admitted that except property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, no shop is lying vacant, the aforesaid argument of ld counsel for respondent as such failed. With regard to property no. 1360, Dariba Kalan, Delhi respondent had the onus to prove that said property is lying vacant as respondent had claimed so in its pleadings. Respondent failed to do so, during course of its evidence. Thus, all the arguments of ld counsel for respondent were not tenable and are discarded by me.
23. Based on aforesaid appreciation and conclusion, present eviction petition accordingly stands allowed. Six months time period is given to respondent to vacate premises in question i.e. three rooms and cover space at First Floor, 1116, Krishan Gali, Bazar Gulyan, Dariba Kalan, Delhi110006 as shown in the site plan with red colour, filed by Digitally signed by petitioner alongwith the petition. PRASHANT PRASHANT SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2018.11.03 10:43:36 +0530 Announced in open court (Prashant Sharma) Dated 31st October, 2018 SCJCumRC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi E. no. 78602//16 Jai Prakash Jaiswal Vs. Jainveer Sabha Page 18 of 18