Delhi District Court
Sh. Ravinder Nath Chopra vs Sh. Kishan Lal Taneja on 9 May, 2018
In the Court of CCJ cum ARC, Pilot Court (Central District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Case No. E113/17
CIS No. 99/17
In the matter of :
Sh. Ravinder Nath Chopra
S/o Sh. Ram Nath Chopra
R/o 25/3873, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005. ...........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Kishan Lal Taneja
S/o Late Sh. Shanti Lal Taneja
Shop No. 25/3871, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi1100005. ........Respondent
Date of institution : 15.02.2017 Date of reserved for judgment : 14.03.2018 Date of judgment : 09.05.2018 Decision : Dismissed JUDGMENT :
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Sh. Ravinder Nath Chopra against the respondent Sh. Kishan Lal Taneja for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., Shop No. 25/3871, Ground Floor, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenanted premises'), as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition, on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 1 of 26
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the premises in question, i.e., Shop No. 25/3871, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 and the respondent is tenant therein. The premises in question is required by the petitioner bonafide for expanding his business. The petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation and the premises in question is more suitable for him as it is part and parcel of the premises wherein he is already running his business since 1977. He is running the business of manufacturing and selling of surgical equipments under the name and style of R. D. Surgicals and Scientific Company as proprietor thereof. He is running his business in the property bearing No. 25/38713874, Reghar Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 as shown in the site plan attached with and marked as portion A to G. The shop in question shown with red colour in the site plan adjacent to the business premises of the petitioner, in case, it is vacated, the petitioner will remove the wall between Point C, F and G for extending his business. The premises in question are required because the business of the petitioner has grown. The petitioner requires the premises in question due to paucity of accommodation for establishing showroom as the shop in question is situated at main road called Vishnu Mandir Marg. The entire ground floor is required by the petitioner as he had already filed eviction petition against tenant Brij Bhushan and Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, Ld. ARC, Pilot Court, has passed eviction order in respect of the said shop, however, possession has not been taken. The petitioner has also filed eviction petition against tenants, Pradeep and E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 2 of 26 Subhash and the same are pending adjudication. Due to paucity of accommodation, four machines are lying unused in varandah and passage shown at No. 7 in the site plan because of paucity of space. The petitioner wants to install more machines, i.e. milling machine, rod cutting machine, sand blasting machine and grinding machine to expand the business. These machines are the requirement of the business.
3. The accommodation in the premises has been marked as No. 1 to 9. The portion marked No. 1 is being used as officecumshop. The portion marked as No. 2 is store for semi finished items/goods, portion marked as No. 3 is used for electro cleaning machine. Portion marked as No. 4 is used as store for raw and packaging material. Portion marked as No. 5 is used as marking and packing room. Portion marked as No. 6 is used as fitter room (assembling room). Portion marked as No. 7 is verandah and passage, wherein the machines are lying unused due to paucity of accommodation. Portion marked as No. 8 is used for polishing machine. Portion marked as No. 9 is used as store of finished goods. The petitioner is filing nine photographs to show the user of the portions marked as No. 1 to 9 in the site plan.
4. Further, it is submitted that an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (a) & (j) of the DRC Act filed by the petitioner against the respondent is pending adjudication in the Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, Ld. ARC (Central), Delhi. The respondent has admitted in the said eviction petition that the predecessorininterest of the petitioner were the owner and landlady of the premises in question. The petitioner submits that the civil suit was E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 3 of 26 also filed by him against the respondent on the wrong legal advice of one Sh. Satish Bajaj, Advocate and later on, realizing the mistake on the advice of Sh. R. K. Saini, Advocate, the said litigation was withdrawn with permission to file fresh litigation.
On the above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
5. Summons were served upon the respondent, who filed leave to defend application, which was allowed vide order dated 06.04.2017, keeping in view the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that he has no objection if the leave to defend application filed by the respondent is allowed, the respondent was granted leave to contest the present eviction petition. Thereafter, written statement was filed by the respondent denying the contentions made by the petitioner in the eviction petition stating that there never was, nor is now in existence the relationship of 'landlord' and 'tenant' between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the 'premises in suit'. The 'premises in suit' which was at least today not owned (directly or indirectly) by the petitioner as his own property. The records and in particular the documents on record including the orders dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure 'RA') as well as 07.04.2017 [passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 27514 of 2016, challenging the earlier order dated 24.05.2016, supra]; copy of which is annexed hereto as Annexure 'RJ', establish that the petitioner, even today, is required to (first) fend for his remedy to establish his purported title inter alia to the 'premises in suit' E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 4 of 26 before the civil Court(s) in those matters. It is submitted that the petitioner herein has deliberately and maliciously concealed that extensive litigation instituted by the present petitioner seeking 'declaration' of title of the petitioner herein in respect of immovable property admeasuring 66 sq. yds. located on the main Vishnu Mandir Marg, Regharpura, Karol Bagh,New Delhi110005, including the 'premises in suit' is admittedly sub judice at the instance of the petitioner and is yet to be decided in his favour [so as to confer upon him the title qua the aforesaid property and in particular the 'premises in suit]'. The matter being sub judice and that too at the instance of the petitioner, this eviction petition must necessarily be rejected forthwith and/or at least adjourned sine die on the same line(s) as in the order passed by this Court on 25.03.2017 in the execution proceedings bearing No. 5 of 2017 titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Brij Bhushan' (copy of which order is annexed and is marked for the purpose of identification as Annexure 'RK'). The petitioner, on the face of the record, is apparently guilty of having deliberately and mischievously concealed the relevant and material facts.
6. Even on the face of what is alleged by the petitioner is, a case of additional accommodation. The petitioner has not been able to place on record any material or documents which may establish even prima facie that the respondent has ever acknowledged the petitioner herein to be the 'landlord' in respect of the 'premises in suit' or any part thereof. The petitioner pleads that he is the 'owner/landlord' in respect of the 'premises E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 5 of 26 in suit' in terms of an 'Agreement to Sell as also a Power of Attorney, besides an Indemnity Bond, Receipt, etc." executed in his favour by his 'bhabi' (Mrs. Renu Chopra) acting for herself as also for and on behalf of her minor daughter Km. Neha Chopra. These allegations of the petitioner are apparently untenable in law for, Mrs. Renu Chopra was not competent to execute the aforesaid Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, Indemnity Bond, Will, etc. in favour of the petitioner herein, for even according to the version of the petitioner, the coowners, at that point of time (1999), were Mrs. Renu Chopra and her minor daughter Km. Neha Chopra. A minor's property could/cannot be conveyed (and has never been conveyed) by her mother/natural guardian without the prior written permission of the learned District Judge of the locality where the minor resides or where the property (movable or immovable) is situated. Such permission was never obtained by anybody from the learned District Judge of Delhi in respect of the 'premises in suit'. Hence, the alleged conveyance (1999) propounded by the petitioner is farcical and/or inconsequential.
7. The petitioner has not placed on record any 'Conveyance Deed' that may have been executed in his favour, inter alia, in respect of the 'premises in suit' by his bhabhi and niece (Mrs. Renu Chopra and Ms. Neha Chopra). Smt. Renu Chopra and Ms. Neha Chopra, both permanent residents of GH14, Flat No. 392, Paschim Vihar,New Delhi1100063, who were once claiming to be the owners and consequently landladies in respect of a specific/specified portion of this building (including the E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 6 of 26 'premises in suit') have already revoked and/or cancel the Power of Attorney that they had executed in favour of the petitioner herein on 31.08.1999 in the office of Sub Registrar of Assurance at Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi110002 in terms of a Deed dated 28.06.2010, which was/is duly registered in the office of the Registrar of AssurancesIII, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi110002. The respondent has never recognized the petitioner to be the 'owner/landlord' in respect of the 'premises in suit' and/or has never paid unto him any rentals/usufruct in respect of the 'premises in suit' or any part thereof.
8. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has been instituting against the respondent, one after the other legal proceedings not only in the learned civil Courts at Delhi but also in the Court of the learned Rent Controller (District : Central), Delhi. The details of the legal proceedings instituted inter alia against the respondent by the petitioner including those instituted by his family members/relatives are as follows :
a) 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Ram Nath Chopra & Anr.', being Suit No. 625 of 2011, decided on 13.01.2012 by the Court, then presided over by Ms. Shunali Gupta, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi. It is alleged that it was instituted by the present petitioner against his own parents, in league and collusion with them, to obtain a fraudulent/collusive decree;
b) Suit No. 439 of 2011 titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v.
Nirmal Kumar Lamba' in the Court then presided over by Sh. E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 7 of 26 Brijesh Garg, Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi. This suit was dismissed as 'withdrawn' on 04.02.2012;
c) Suit No. 37 of 2012 (now Suit No. 136 of 2014/2010) titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Smt. Renu Chopra & Ors.', pending in the Court currently presided over by Ms. Neha, Civil Judge (District :
Central), Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi;
d) Regular First Appeal No. 311 of 2012 on the records of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, being the case titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Anil Gupta & Ors.', decided on 24.05.2016 (along with two inter connected contempt petitions under XXXIX Rule 2A CPC). Against this judgment dated 24.05.2016, the present petitioner had instituted a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (before the Apex Court) by the title 'Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Anil Kumar and Ors.' being SLP (Civil) No. 27154 of 2016 (which has also been dismissed on 07.04.2017; with another connected petition instituted by the petitioner herein);
e) SLP (Civil) No. 30863 of 2014 titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Anil Gupta and Ors.' [tagged to SLP (Civil) No. 27154 of 2016, supra), being a petition against the order dated 27.08.2014 passed in C.M. No. 13971 of 2014 in Cont. Cas (C) No. 196 of 2013 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. A true copy of the order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is annexed hereto and is marked for the purposes of identification as Annexure 'RJ'. This petition has also been E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 8 of 26 dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 07.04.2017;
f) Eviction petition titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Subhash Gupta', being Eviction Petition No. 88 of 2011 on the records of the Court of the learned Rent Controller (District :
Central) at Delhi seeking eviction of the tenant, Shri Subhash Gupta, in terms of clauses (a), (c) & (j) of the proviso to sub section 14 of the Act. The respondent is not aware of the final outcome, if any, of this petition;
g) Eviction petition titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Kamal Kishore Lamba', being eviction petition no. 196 of 2011, decided by Shri Pritam Singh, the then Ld. Second Additional Rent Controller at Delhi on 04.10.2012. The petitioner verily believes that this petition as decided ex parte, in as much as Shri Kamal Kishore Lamba had already vacated the demised premises long back before the day on which the judgment was delivered, by the learned ARC (and also handed over the actual vacant physical possession of the demised premises to Smt. Renu Chopra and/or her transferees);
h) Civil Suit, being Suit No. 136 of 2014, titled as 'Smt. Renu Chopra & another v. Shri Krishan Lal Taneja', lastly pending adjudication in the Court then presided over by Ms.Vrinda Kumari, the then learned Civil Judge (District : Central), Delhi; which was dismissed as 'withdrawn' on 16.08.2010 [Goshwara No. 279/CD];
E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 9 of 26
i) Eviction Petition titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Krishan Lal Taneja', pending in the Court of Shri Rajinder Kumar, ARC02 (District : Central), Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi, being Case No. 79961 of 2016 (DoH : 05.05.2017);
j) Suit No. 244 of 2003 titled as 'Smt. Renu Chopra and Anr. v. Jai Gopal Narain and Ors.', lastly pending adjudication in the Court then presided over by Shri Gorakh Nath Pandey, the then learned Civil Judge at Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi, which suit was also dismissed as 'withdrawn' on 06.04.2004 (Goshwara No. 15/Karol Bagh);
k) Eviction petition titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Brij Bhushan', being Case No. 48945 of 2016, decided on 24.01.2017/27.02.2017 by Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, Pilot Court, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi, under the DRC Act, 1958, on three grounds, namely, (a), (b) and (j) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act;
l) Eviction petition titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Shri Manpreet Singh Talwar', which was the subject matter of C. M. (Main) No. 1175 of 2012 titled as 'Shri Manpreet Singh Talwar v. Ravinder Nath Chopra & Anr.'. The matter, as per the website of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was disposed of on 05.03.2013;
m) C. S. (O.S.) No. 1679 of 2010 titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Renu Chopra & Anr.', which was transferred from the Hon'ble E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 10 of 26 High Court of Delhi (on the original side) for administrative reasons, to the Court of the Ld. District Judge (District :
Central/Headquarters), Delhi and is now sub judice before the Court of Dr. Kamini Lau, ADJ, (District : Central), Delhi [DoH :
20.04.2017] and
n) several others.
9. Further, it is submitted that Smt. Renu Chopra and/or her minor daughter Km. Neha Chopra (claiming to be the 'owners' of the 'premises in suit' had instituted on or about 13th May 2004 a civil suit (suit No. 136 of 2004) inter alia seeking against the respondent a decree for recovery of actual physical vacant possession of the 'premises in suit' inter alia submitting that the respondent (defendant therein) herein was in illegal use and occupation of the 'premises in suit'. In that action (being Suit No. 136 of 2004) the plaint was signed, verified and instituted (for and on behalf of the plaintiffs therein) by Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra (i.e., the present petitioner) propounding that the two plaintiffs in that cause (Renu and Nehaminor) were the "owners" of the 'premises in suit' (in that/this cause) and that he/petitioner herein was (allegedly) the duly constituted General Attorney of the plaintiffs therein (namely, Smt. Renu Chopra and Km. Neha Chopra; minor). The present petitioner even in 2004 did not claim/assert that he was the owner/landlord of the 'premises in suit' (as he is now claiming on the basis of the ostensible documents of 1999). The present petitioner (Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra) appeared as a witness E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 11 of 26 (PW4) for the plaintiffs in that cause (Suit No. 136 of 2004; which plaint was signed, verified and instituted by him personally, and inter alia, deposed as follows : Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra in his examination in chief by affidavit dated 05.05.2005 (Ex. PW4/A in that case) stated on oath as under : ".......3. That the plaintiffs are the owners of house No. 3873/25, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This House is constructed in 200 sq. yards and is an ancestral property. This house was originally owned by Raja Ram Chopra, the elder brother of the grand father of deponent....."
4. That Raja Ram Chopra died on 26.011.1966 and by the operation of law in the light of Will Ex. P2 this house was inherited by Shri Davinder Nath Chopra, who has also died leaving the plaintiffs as owner......"
12. That the plaintiff is paying the taxes of this property, being the owner and is also occupying the remaining portion of the suit property i.e.. House No. 3873/25, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as owner and is using the same as residence of the family........"
The crossexamination of Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra was recorded on 13.03.2007. The relevant portions thereof are as follows : ".......The 1/3rd portion of this building which is not the subject matter of the sale deed of 1999 is in possession of illegal occupants. They are Shri Krishan Lal Taneja, Shri Subhash Gupta, Shri Kuldeep Kumar, Shri Shivraj Tyagi, Smt. Shakuntala Lamba and Shri Nirmal E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 12 of 26 Kumar Lamba. Suits for possession are subjudice against all of them. All of them are in illegal possession of their respective portions for the last 1012 years..............It is wrong to suggest that the defendant and his forefathers have been in use and occupation of the premises (subject matter of this suit) for more than 50 years as tenants. It is wrong to suggest that this plaint is the result of sheer astute instructions issued by me and not by the plaintiffs jointly or severally through counsel. I cannot affirm or deny the suggestion that all suits referred by me earlier have been instituted under my signatures and not under the instructions or signatures of the plaintiffs jointly or severally ............... It is wrong to suggest that the defendant is a lawful tenant in the suit property.............."
10. The aforesaid suit was later on withdrawn (16.08.2010) by the plaintiffs therein and / or particularly by Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra, the petitioner herein, on the score that the aforesaid suit had been instituted by the plaintiffs an/or their general attorney (i.e., the petitioner herein) on wrong legal advice rendered by them by their then counsel, Shri Satish Bajaj, Advocate. The petitioner herein on 13.03.2007, supra, having deposed on oath in the aforesaid civil suit (Suit No. 136 of 2004) that the 'owner(s)'/'landladies' in respect of the 'premises in suit' were Smt. Renu Chopra and/or her minor daughter Km. Neha Chopra, the claim/s (to the contrary) now asserted by the petitioner herein is apparently a fictitious claim propounded by the petitioner herein. The petitioner deserves to be nonsuited on this ground alone as the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and/or that he has manipulated, fabricated E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 13 of 26 and/or procured 'documents' to propound his rights to the 'premises in suit'.
11. Further, it is submitted that on 02.07.2010, the respondent received from the petitioner herein a legal notice dated 27.06.2010. This notice dated 27.06.2010 (received on 02.07.2010) was duly replied to by the respondent. The respondent approached the Ld. RC (District : Central), Delhi and deposited in proceedings under Section 27 of the Act the rentals due qua the 'premises in suit', inter alia, submitting that the respondent did not know as to who was the actual/bonafide owner (and consequently the 'landlord') qua the tenanted premises demised to the respondent. The respondents in those proceedings under Section 27 of the Act had impleaded Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra, Mrs. Renu Chopra, Km. Neha Chopra and Shri J. G. N. Chopra, as the respondents. This petition under Section 27 of the Act was disposed of by the Ld Court of ARC concerned on 25.02.2011 necessarily without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
12. It is further submitted that the present petitioner instituted against the respondent an eviction petition propounding that the respondent had committed default (notwithstanding having received a notice of demand) in tendering/paying rentals in respect of the 'premises in suit'. That eviction petition (E79961/2016) is still sub judice in the Court of the Ld. ARC02 (District : Central), Delhi [DoH : 05.05.2017]. Smt. Renu Chopra and/or her minor daughter Km. Neha Chopra have already sold, transferred and/or conveyed their ownership rights in a major portion (66 E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 14 of 26 sq. yards or thereabout) of the building in reference, including the 'premises in suit', to (i) Sh. Anil Gupta and (ii) Sh. Manoj Gupta in terms of a registered Sale Deed dated 29.06.2010. The aforesaid Conveyance Deed executed by Smt. Renu Chopra and/or her (adult) daughter Km. Neha Chopra is the subject matter of Suit No. 136 of 2014/2010 (previous suit number being Suit No. 37 of 2012/2010) titled as 'Shri Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Smt. Renu Chopra & Ors.' now pending in the Court of Ms. Neha, Ld. Civil Judge (District :Central), Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi110054, in which the petitioner herein has sought (the respondent verily believes) from the learned Court concerned a decree inter alia of declaration that the aforesaid Sale Deed/Conveyance Deed dated 29.06.2010, inter alia in respect of the 'premises in suit' is 'bad' in law. The respondent has also ascertained that the aforesaid vendees, namely, Shri Anil Gupta and Shri Manoj Gupta [who had acquired the title to the 'premises in suit' in terms of the Sale Deed dated 29.06.2010, supra,] have sold, transferred and conveyed their ('ownership') rights, titles and interests (acquired by them in terms of the said sale deed dated 29.06.2010) in this building and in particular in the 'premises in suit' in favour of M/s Shree Ganpati Gold Projects Pvt. Ltd. in terms of a Sale Deed dated 24.09.2012 which was/is also duly registered [in the Office of Sub RegistrarIII at New Delhi on 25.09.2012. The petitioner herein apparently is not the owner/'landlord' in respect of the 'premises in suit', in as much as the owner/'landlord' thereof are either the said vendees, Shri Anil Gupta and Shri Manoj Gupta or the said subsequent purchasers, M/s E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 15 of 26 Shree Ganpati Gold Projects Pvt. Ltd. Till date, the petitioner herein has failed to secure any relief in respect of these two sale deeds and in particular regarding the 'premises in suit'.
13. The petitioner is not the owner/'landlord' in respect of 'premises in suit' at least till the day on which the other matters sub judice at his instance and in particular Suit No. 136 of 2014 (Old No. 37 of 2012) are finally disposed of. It is submitted that the petitioner, even on his own showings, is already in actual physical possession, use and occupation of the extensive accommodation (over 2,000 square feet in this building ground, first as well as second floors) in this very building bearing No. 3871 74, Gali Nos. 24/25, Rehgarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 (a portion of which accommodation he had earmarked alphabetically 'A to 'G' in the instant eviction petition. As per the version of the petitioner herein, he already has available with him more than 1,000 sq. ft. of prime commercial accommodation (on the ground floor) right next to the 'premises in suit', besides more than 1,000 sq. ft. of vacant space on the first (and/or second) floor/s of this building. The petitioner has concealed from this Court that notwithstanding the said sale deeds dated 29.06.2010 and 24.09.2012 referred to hereinabove, he has been mischievously instituting eviction petitions against lawful tenants in various portions of the premises which are the subject matter of the said sale deed/s. The petitioner, has already fraudulently got vacated from the erstwhile tenant therein, namely, "Lamba" a few months ago, albeit on payment of a substantial amount of money paid by the petitioner herein to the said E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 16 of 26 tenant (now erstwhile tenant) to NOT resist the eviction proceedings instituted for that shop by the petitioner against the said tenant. The petitioner having come into actual physical possession, use and occupation of the aforesaid shop way back in 2015/16through the process of executionhas been keeping the same locked and has continued to prosecute the other eviction petition (s) instituted by him on the records of this Court (being Eviction Petition No. 78945 of 2016) to finally [mischievously] secure from this Court an adjudication dated 24.01.2017/27.02.2017 directing eviction of Sh. Brij Bhushan. The petitioner [being the decree holder in that case (Eviction Petition No. 78945 of 2016)] had instituted before this Court Execution Petition No. 5 of 2017. After appreciating the rival contentions and the relevant documents, including the orders passed in certain cases to which the petitioner was/is a party, the Court adjourned the aforesaid execution proceedings sine die in terms of order dated 25.03.2017. A true copy of this order dated 25.03.2017 placed on record by the respondent as Annexure 'RK'.
14. The respondent further verily believes that the keys of the first floor portion, above the 'premises in suit' which premises are also the subject matter on the first floor of the Sale Deed dated 29.06.2010 is still in the care, custody and power of the Registrar General of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which fact does not also find mention in the judgment dated 24.05.2016 in RFA No. 311 of 2012. It is submitted that a very very large portion of the building in reference and particularly at least the E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 17 of 26 first floor (rear side) thereof has been lying vacant and locked under the lock and key of the petitioner herein since last 5 (five) years and more. As of today, nobody other than the present petitioner is using or occupying or even enjoying the aforesaid first floor of the building in reference. To the knowledge of the respondent, the petitioner is not the owner/landlord even for the first floor. The petitioner has available to him more than surplus business accommodation which is commodious enough to expand his purported business. The petitioner has also placed on record manipulated photographs. The petitioner has not been able to place on record anything to show that he has employed more than 10/20 persons in his aforesaid business. The petitioner owns a vast commercial complex (4 storey's) at the address 5/51, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 in which he has recently inducted several tenants. It is submitted that the petitioner has even concealed from this Court that the petitioner is the owner of a residential house at 8A/57, First Floor, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 where he and his wife are residing. The family of the petitioner comprises of only two members, mentioned above. The issues born from this wedlock of the petitioner are all settled abroad. Consequently, the petitioner is attempting to sell, transfer and /or convey the building in reference (including the 'premises in suit') after obtaining the vacant possession thereof, and, thus, shift from India.
15. Replication to the written statement of the respondent was filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has denied the averments made by E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 18 of 26 the respondent in his written statement, reaverring what was averred by him in the eviction petition.
16. During evidence, the petitioner has examined as much as eight witnesses. The petitioner himself stepped into the witness box as AW1 and deposed on the lines of the eviction petition. Further, he relied upon the following documents : a) Site plan : Ex. AW1/1
b) Photocopy of registered sale deed dated 05.07.1999 : Ex. AW1/2
c) Certified copy of Agreement to Sell dated 31.08.1999 : Mark 'A' (Ex. AW8/A)
d) Certified copy of registered receipt for consideration dated : Mark 'B' (Ex. AW8/B) 31.08.1999
e) Certified copy of GPA dated 31.08.1999 : Mark 'C' (Ex. AW2/1)
f) Certified copy of SPA dated 31.08.1999 : Mark 'D'( Ex. AW2/2)
g) Certified copy of registered Will dated 31.08.1999 : Mark 'E' (Ex. AW2/5)
h) Certified copy of possession letter dated 31.08.1999 : Mark 'F' (Ex. AW2/3)
i) Certified copy of Indemnity Bond dated 31.08.1999 : Mark 'G' (Ex. AW2/4)
j) Certified copy of affidavit of Smt. Renu Chopra dated : Mark 'H' (Ex. AW2/6) 31.08.1999
k) Certified copy of House Tax Assessment Return for the : Mark 'I'( Ex. AW6/1) Financial Year 20102011, dated 27.06.2010, 20042005, house tax show cause notice, 20042005, receipt dated 30.03.2011
l) Photocopy of factory license : Mark 'J'
m) Photocopy of sales tax return for the year 201516 : Mark 'K'
n) Certified copy of order dated 24.01.2017 in Re: Ravinder : Mark 'L' (Ex. AW4/1) Nath Chopra v. Brij Bhushan
o) Certified copy of order & judgment dated 04.10.2012 in Re: : Mark 'M' (Ex. AW5/1 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kamal Kumar Lamba & Ex.AW5/2)
p) Certified copy of order dated 13.01.2012 in Re: Ravinder : Mark 'N' Nath Chopra v. Ram Nath Chopra
q) Copy of application u/o 23 Rule 3 CPC moved in : Mark 'O' Re: Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Nirmal Kumar Lama alongwith site plan
r) Copy of order dated 04.02.2012 in Re: Ravinder Nath Chopra: Mark 'P v. Nirmal Kumar Lamba alongwith statement of Ravinder Nath Chopra and Nirmal Kumar Lamba
s) Nine original photographs : Mark 'Q'
t) Certified copy of written statement filed by the respondent in : Ex. AW1/24 the Court of Ld. ARC (Central), Delhi u) Photocopy of written statement of Sh. Kishan Lal Taneja : Mark 'R'
v) Certified copy of statement of Sh. Kishan Lal Taneja : Marl 'S' (Ex. AW7/1) E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 19 of 26
17. AW2, Sh. Manoj Kumar Sah, Ahlmad from the Court of Sh. Raj Kapoor, the then Ld. ADJ, Central, Delhi, produced the summoned record and got exhibited the documents which were earlier marked as Mark 'C', 'D', 'F', 'G', 'E' and 'H' as Ex. AW2/1 to Ex. AW2/6 respectively.
18. AW3, Sh. Nand Kishore, Assistant Ahlmad from the Court of Sh. Talwant Singh, Ld. RCT (H.Q.) Central, Delhi submitted that the summoned record, i.e. case file of E. No. 57/11 (New No. 78945/16) titled as Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Brij Bhushan & Anr, decided on 24.01.2017 by Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, the then Ld. CCJ cum ARC, (Pilot Court) Central, Delhi is not available as same has been sent back to the concerned Court.
19. Sh. Manoj, Ahlmad from the Court of undersigned as AW4, got exhibited the certified copy of judgment dated 24.01.2017 in case titled as 'Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Brij Bhushan & Anr.' in case No. 38/17/11 (Old) and 78945/16 (New) decided by Ms. Namrita Aggarwal, the then Ld. CCJARC, Pilot Court, Central, Delhi as Ex. AW4/1.
20. AW5, Sh. Anand Kumar, JJA, Record Room (civil), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, produced the summoned record and got exhibited the certified copy of order & judgment dated 04.10.2012 as Ex. AW5/1 and Ex. AW5/2 respectively.
21. Sh. Harish Kumar, UDC from the Court of Sh. Shirish Aggarwal, Ld. ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as AW6 produced the summoned record and got exhibited the documents already Mark I as Ex. AW6/1(colly.) E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 20 of 26
22. AW7, Sh. Mukesh Kumar, JJA, Record Room, (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, got exhibited the certified copy of chief and cross examination of Sh. Kishan Lal Taneja dated 27.08.2007, which was earlier marked as Mark 'S', as Ex. AW7/1.
23. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Vats, JJA from the Court of Sh. Viplav Dabas, CJI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi got exhibited the certified copy of agreement to sell and receipt, which were earlier marked as Mark 'A' & 'B', as Ex. AW8/A and Ex. AW8/B.
24. On the other hand, the respondent himself entered into the witness box as RW1 and deposed on the lines of his written statement. Further, he relied upon the following documents :
a) True copy of order dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Hon'ble : Ex. AW1/R1 Delhi High Court
b) Certified copy of order dated 07.04.2017 passed by Hon'ble : Ex. RW1/1 Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 27514 of 2016
c) Certified copy of order dated 25./03.207 passed in execution : Ex. RW1/3 proceedings bearing No. 5 of 2017 titled as Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Brij Bhushan
25. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record.
Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958. i. Petitioner is the owner/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises; ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for family members dependent upon him;
iii. He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. Ownership & existence of landlordtenant relationship :
26. In the present case, the respondent has disputed the ownership of E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 21 of 26 the petitioner over the premises in question as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties. On the other hand, the petitioner is relying upon the registered Sale Deed Ex. AW1/2 and the certified copy of Agreement to Sell Ex. AW8/A to submit that he is the owner of the property in question. However, during crossexamination, AW1 has admitted that the Sale Deed Ex. AW1/2 pertains only to portion admeasuring 134 sq. yds. and not relate to remaining portion of 66 sq. yds. of the suit premises in which the tenanted premises is located. He has also admitted that the tenanted premises is located in the remaining area of 66 sq. yds. which is not within the boundaries covered by the Sale Deed Ex. AW1/2. Even though, the petitioner has stated that the remaining 66 sq. yds. of the suit premises was conveyed to him by registered deed of attorney Ex. AW8A, however, he himself has admitted that he has instituted a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell which is subjudice in the Court of Ms. Dhanshree Deka, Ld. Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and no decree in the said suit has been granted in his favour till date. Thus, even though, it is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the premises in question on the basis of Agreement to Sell dated 31.08.1999 Ex. AW8/1, however, the specific performance of the same is still pending. The petitioner has also admitted the various litigations filed by him against Smt. Renu Chopra, who has allegedly executed the alleged Agreement to Sell in his favour and also against third parties, in whose favour Smt. Renu Chopra has executed registered Sale Deed. On the other hand, the respondent has relied upon E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 22 of 26 the order dated 24.05.2016 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court Ex. RW1/1 as well as order dated 07.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Ex. RW1/2, to submit that the petitioner even today is required to first fend his remedy to establish his purported title to the tenanted premises before the Civil Court. He has also referred to the earlier civil suit for possession and mesne profit bearing CS No. 136 of 2004 filed by Renu Chopra and Neha Chopra, through their attorney, i.e., the petitioner herein Sh. Ravinder Nath Chopra, to state that even in the year 2004, in his evidence Ex. AW1/R1A in the said suit, the petitioner has admitted that he is only the Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of Renu Chopra and Neha Chopra and he never claimed himself to be the exclusive owner. Hence, relying on the same documents of the year 1999, he cannot be allowed to take a contrary stand in this case that he has become owner on the basis of the said documents. It is also submitted by the respondent that the Power of Attorney was revoked/cancelled by Smt. Renu Chopra vide registered deed dated 28.06.2010. Moreover, in the execution petition bearing No. 05 of 2017 titled as "Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Brij Bhushan & Anr", objections have been filed against execution of the order/judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed in eviction petition No. 78945 of 2016, relating to the same suit premises of 66 sq. yds., in which the tenanted premises is located, the Ld. Predecessor of the Court has held that since the title of the parties with respect to the tenanted portion is a matter which is subjudice before different Courts, therefore, this Court cannot decide the ownership of the DH (petitioner E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 23 of 26 herein) or the objectors in the said execution petition over the premises in question. It was further held that substantial right of the objectors would be prejudiced if the DH (petitioner herein) is given possession over the premises in question since the question of title between the parties is subjudice before different Courts. On the basis of the abovefindings the said execution petition was adjourned sine die till the final decision on the title of the parties with respect to premises in question in other Courts. The Court of ARC is not to decide the title between the parties, which is already subjudice. Hence, on the basis of the various litigations pending regarding title with respect to suit premises, in which the tenanted premises is located, between the petitioner and third parties, the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question is doubtful. Moreover, the petitioner is not able to produce any document to show the existence of landlordtenant relationship between him and the respondent. AW1 has admitted that he had instituted a civil suit for recovery of possession of the premises against respondent Kishan Lal Taneja, as attorney of his sisterinlaw Smt. Renu Chopra. The respondent has categorically stated that he has never attorned to the petitioner as landlord.
27. RW1 has also stated that petitioner has concealed that Smt. Renu Chopra and her minor daughter Neha Chopra have already sold their ownership right in the premises in suit to one Anil Gupta and Manoj Gupta vide registered Sale Deed dated 29.06.2010 and the said persons have further sold the premises in favour of M/s Shree Ganpati Gold E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 24 of 26 Project Pvt. Ltd. vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.09.2012, which issues were learnt by RW1 from the record of RFA No. 311 of 2012 titled as 'Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Anil Gupta & Ors', which were disposed of by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in terms of judgment dated 24.05.2016 Ex. RW1/1 and the SLP filed against the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 07.04.2017 as Ex. RW1/2.
28. Since the question of title between the petitioner and third parties is already subjudice before different Courts, hence, petitioner is not able to prove the ownership & existence of landlordtenant relationship, which is an essential ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. As regards the bonafide requirement and availability of alternate suitable accommodation with the petitioner, AW1 during crossexamination has admitted that the entire first floor of the property, besides the roof above the first floor of this area admeasuring 66 sq. yds. is in his possession and his workers are residing in this portion. However, no documents have been produced by the petitioner to show that his workers are residing in the said portion. AW1 has also stated that the keys of one of the portion of the first floor, out of the 66 sq. yds. is deposited with Ld. Registrar General, Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He has also admitted that the entire portion admeasuring 134 sq. yds. of Sale Deed Ex. AW8/A is in his possession. He has also admitted to be the owner of one other property bearing no. 5/51, WEA, First Floor, Left Side Karol Bagh and his wife being owner of 8A/57, First Floor, WEA Karol Bagh but stated that the said properties are let out. Thus, from the submissions of the petitioner E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 25 of 26 himself, it is clear that he is having alternate accommodation in the form of property admeasuring 134 sq. yds. vide Sale Deed Ex. AW8/A as well as first floor of the suit premises. Even otherwise, since the ownership & existence of landlordtenant relationship has not been proved by the petitioner, the remaining ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act have not been discussed in detail as no purpose would be served.
29. Thus, in totality of the discussion made above, the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 14 (1)
(e) of the DRC Act, stands dismissed as rejected. In the facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Digitally signed SUSHEEL by SUSHEEL
BALA BALA DAGAR
Date: 2018.05.15
DAGAR 01:47:19 -0400
Announced in open Court Susheel Bala Dagar
th
on 09 Day of May, 2018 CCJ cum ARC
Pilot Court (Central)
(This judgment contains 26 pages.) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E. No. 113/17 Ravinder Nath Chopra v. Kishan Lal Taneja Page no. 26 of 26