Delhi District Court
Sh. Inderpal Singh Chadha vs Sh. Surinder Kr. Batra on 1 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. GOMATI MANOCHA, COMMERCIAL
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARC. No. 25921 of 16
Sh. Inderpal Singh Chadha
S/o Late Sh. Durlabh Singh Chadha,
Presently at:
House No. A-27, Front Side,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.
..........Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Surinder Kr. Batra,
S/o Sh. R.L. Batra
House No. Q-23, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027
Also at:-
289, High road, Tottenham,
London N15 4RS.
......... Respondent
Date of institution : 01.10.2012
Date of order : 01.09.2016.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The present eviction petition has been filed by Sh. Inderpal Singh against Sh. Surender Kumar Batra u/s 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act in respect of the premises consisting of two floors being the first ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 1/19 floor and second floor of property no. Q-23, Rajouri Garden, Delhi admeasuring 187 sq. yds., situated in the revenue estate of village Basai Darapur, bearing Municipal no. WZ-1559 (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises) and more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with the petition.
It is stated that a monthly tenancy was created by an agreement dated 03.07.1970 for a period of 11 months at monthly rent of Rs. 375/- excluding water/electricity and other maintenance charges. The landlord/petitioner has lately come to know that the respondent/tenant has left India and has stopped residing in the demised premises and the actual physical possession of the same has been handed over to Sh. Satish Kumar Batra without the written consent/permission of the landlord. The petitioner has also come to know that the respondent/tenant has no intentions of returning back to India to occupy the tenanted premises.
The petitioner has also stated that he has a big family consisting of about 09 members having a joint mess and are living in the same accommodation i.e. A-27, Front portion of ground floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. He has stated that his wife, his married sons etc. have visiting guests including the relatives/parents of the daughter- in-laws and relatives of the petitioner/landlord and the accommodation of three rooms occupied by them has proven insufficient and on several occasions this has caused them embarrassment before their relatives. Also, on religious functions and customary festivals Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur, the sister-in-law of the ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 2/19 petitioner visits the family of the petitioner and there occurs scarcity of accommodation for her to stay. The same happens when Sh. Saranjeet Singh Sethi, brother-in-law of the petitioner happens to come from Ludhiana (Punjab) to visit the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that there is no space for having a small temple for offering prayers at home. Also, the grandchildren of the petitioner require more space as study room. The petitioner has stated that the demised premises are ideally suited for him. Also, they have no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. It is further stated that since the respondent/tenant has also left the country and is residing permanently in London (U.K.), therefore, an appropriate order may be passed for eviction of the tenant from the suit premises.
The petitioner has pleaded that he is also in possession of the ground floor of property bearing no. Q-23, Rajouri Garden, Delhi but the same is not in a habitable condition and requires extensive repairs, which are not possible without causing renovation of the whole building at once and which may cause substantial damage to upper floors of the same building. Further even then the said accommodation would not be sufficient for the entire family of the petitioner. He has, thus stated that the alternative accommodation available with him is not suitable for his needs and that he needs the demised premises for the use and occupation by him and his family, as residence.
The petitioner has stated that on 19.02.1969, Sh. S. Durlabh ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 3/19 Singh Chadha, the deceased father of the petitioner had become the owner of the demised premises by virtue of a registered Sale Deed duly registered on 22.02.1969 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi as Document No. 1190 in Additional Book No. I, in Volume No. 2143 on pages 113 to 116. During his lifetime, Sh. S. Durlabh Singh Chadha had rented out the premises to the respondent/tenant vide Rent Agreement dated 03.07.1970 at the rate of Rs. 375/- per month excluding water, electricity and other charges for a period of 11 months commencing from 03.07.1970. Sh. S. Durlabh Singh Chadha died intestate on 03.12.1975. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the other legal heirs by virtue of separate Relinquishment Deeds, relinquished/released their respective shares in the said property in favour of the petitioner, who became the sole owner of the demised premises.
Even after expiry of the terms of lease, the tenant/respondent continued to remain in possession of the demised premises and after the death of Sh. S. Durlabh Singh Chadha, the respondent/tenant remitted monthly rent to his widow Smt. Man Mohan Kaur Chadha in cash or through money orders. It is stated that now the premises is in occupation of a sub-tenant, who was inducted without any permission from the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondent/tenant has left India and has no chance of returning back. In these circumstances, the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking his eviction from the demised premises on the ground of bonafide requirement.
ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 4/192. Seeking leave to defend the present petition, Sh. Satish Kr. Batra has filed his leave to defend application stating himself to be the attorney of the respondent. He has denied the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the suit property. He has also stated that the petition has not been properly signed and verified by a competent person. It is also stated that the petitioner has reasonably suitable alternative accommodation and that he has intentionally concealed details regarding the same. It is also stated that he himself i.e. Sh. Satish Kr. Batra is the actual tenant in the premises who has not been made party in the present petition and hence this petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. Also, existence of landlord- tenant relationship has been denied. It is stated that the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondent as the respondent has ceased to be a tenant since 1975 when he had left for London. It is stated that the father of the respondent Sh. R.L. Batra was a tenant in respect of the suit premises from 1975 till his death in the year 2002. Thereafter Sh. Satish Kr. Batra became the tenant of the premises and the petitioner received rent of 48 months amounting to Rs. 23,760/- from Sh. Satish Kr. Batra and issued receipt dated 10.10.2005 in the name of Sh. Satish Kr. Batra with respect to payment of rent upto October 2005. It is stated that the petitioner has received the rent upto 30.06.2012 from Sh. Satish Kr. Batra, but he has not issued receipts despite repeated requests.
ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 5/193. In reply filed by the petitioner to the application of the respondent seeking leave to defend, the petitioner has stated that this application has been filed by the respondent through his attorney Sh. Satish Kr. Batra, who is otherwise a sub-tenant in the tenanted premises. It is also stated that the Special Power of Attorney allegedly executed by the original tenant Sh. Surender Kr. Batra, can not be relied upon as being improperly stamped and executed as the same has not been apostilled by the Indian High Commission, U.K; a Notary in U.K. has not notarized it; and the Registrar of Stamps Delhi has not properly attested the same. It is also stated that the S.P.A. purportedly signed at Delhi by Sh. Surinder Kr. Batra could have not been done so on the said date as Sh. Surinder Kr. Batra was not personally present in India at that time and thus, the S.P.A. is nothing but a forged document. It is also stated that in the leave to defend application, though the tenant has denied the relationship of landlord- tenant, but has not stated as to who is the owner/landlord in respect of the suit property. It is also stated that the tenant has failed to bring on record any document to suggest the surrender of tenancy by Sh. Surinder Kr. Batra in favour of his father when he left for U.K. It is also stated that the tenant has not filed on record any written consent of the petitioner qua creation of sub-tenancy in favour of Sh. Satish Kr. Batra. It is stated that the petitioner has placed on record all the documents regarding his ownership of the demised premises and on the other hand, the tenant/respondent has failed to produce any document on record in support of his vague contention denying the ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 6/19 ownership of the petitioner. It is contended that except for bald averments regarding suitable alternative accommodation available with the landlord, the tenant has not disclosed any material or provided the details of address of any such properties, in support of his contention. It is hence, prayed that application seeking leave to defend may be dismissed as it is nothing but a sham to delay the eviction petition filed by the petitioner.
4. The respondent has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner to the application seeking leave to defend, in which he has relied upon the rent receipts dated 05.09.1981, 24.05.1990 and 10.10.2005 to prove that Sh. R.L. Batra was tenant in respect of the premises in question and that after his death in the year 2002, Sh. Satish Kr. Batra became the tenant.
It is stated that the petitioner has received rent upto 30.06.2012 from Sh. Satish Kr. Batra but he has failed to issue rent receipt despite repeated requests.
5. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has filed the following documents namely site plan of the demised premises, the attested copy of the Rent agreement dated 03.07.1970, site plan of property bearing no. A-23, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, photographs of the ground floor of the property bearing no. Q-23, Rajouri Garden, Delhi, copy of legal notice dated 22.06.2012 and postal receipts and proof of its delivery, copy of the Sale Deed dated 19.02.1969, copy of the ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 7/19 death certificates of late Sh. S. Durlabh Singh Chadha, Late Sh. Parvinder Pal Singh and late Smt. Man Mohan Kaur Chadha, copies of Relinquishment Deeds dated 01.03.2005, copy of the Release Deed dated 24.09.2010, copies of relevant rent receipts and postal money orders of the monthly rent, copy of House Tax Payment Receipt of demised premises and copy of identity cards of the family members of the petitioner.
On the other hand, the respondent has filed the following documents namely photocopy of visa of respondent, photocopy of passport of respondent, Special Power of Attorney and photocopies of rent receipts.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS:
6. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record.
A. Ownership of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises:-
In this case, the ownership of the landlord has been denied by the tenant. To prove his ownership, the petitioner has relied upon the entire chain of title documents including registered Sale Deed, Relinquishment Deed etc. to prove his ownership. Though, the tenant has denied the title of the landlord but he has nowhere stated as to who else is the owner/landlord in respect of the suit property.
In the context of Delhi Rent Control Act, what ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 8/19 appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. The use of the word 'owner' in the provision of Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act has to be construed in the background of the purpose and object of enacting it. The use of the word 'owner' in this clause seems to have been inspired by the definition of the word 'landlord' as contained in Sec. 2(e) of the Act which is wide enough to include a person receiving or entitled to receive the rent of any premises on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person. (Shantt Sharma vs. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR (SC) 2028).
In the present case though the respondent has denied the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the suit property but he has not stated that as to who else is the owner of the premises, if not the petitioner.
Further, cases U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act are not title cases involving adjudication regarding title of the property and ownership is not required to be proved in absolute terms.
"Mere denial of ownership of the landlord does not mean that every case must be sent for trial involving years. The Controller has to assess the strength of the case of the tenant regarding denial of ownership of the petitioner. For this, guidelines have already been laid down in various ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 9/19 decisions. Mere denial of ownership is no denial at all. It has to be something more. For this, first and foremost thing which has always been considered as a good guide is does the tenant say who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner ? In the present case, the tenant does not say anything except denying petitioner's ownership. The tenant is completely silent on this aspect. Merely by saying that the petitioner is not the owner, the tenant is trying to ensure that the case drags on for years for trial. If leave is granted on basis of such vague pleas, it will encourage the tenants to deny ownership of the petitioners in every case. The tenants are well aware that once leave to contest is granted, the cases go on for trial for years. Their purpose is achieved. Keeping this in mind, the Controllers should rather have positive approach in such matters so as to discourage such vague and frivolous pleas which are most of the time false to the knowledge of persons raising them."
(Reliance is placed upon Meenakshi vs. Ramesh Khanna And Anr. 60 (1995) DLT 524).
Thus, this plea denying ownership of the petitioner seems to be malafide intended solely to prolong this case. I find no substance in such a vague and frivolous plea on the question of ownership of the ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 10/19 petitioner especially, in view of the Estoppel contained in Sec. 116 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
B. Non disclosure regarding other available accommodation:-
The respondent has stated that the petitioner has other suitable alternative accommodation and that he has intentionally concealed this fact from this Court.
Perusal of the eviction petition reveals that the petitioner has mentioned about being in possession of the ground floor portion of property bearing no. Q-23, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. He has however stated that the same is not habitable and requires extensive repairs which are not possible without causing renovation to the whole building and without causing substantial damage to the upper floors of the said property. He has further stated that the said property is also not sufficient for his large family. On the other hand, the respondent has failed to bring on record the address of any other property nor has he filed any document in support of his allegation. Thus, the bald averment regarding the petitioner being owner of other properties appears to be baseless.
It is settled law that an alternative accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit property wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Thus, the present plea of the alternative accommodation raised by the respondent is also of no ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 11/19 consequence.
C. Bonafide requirement of the petitioner:-
The petitioner has stated in his petition that he is residing in property bearing no. A-27, front portion of ground floor, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi with eight other members of his family. He has stated that his relatives keep visiting him and due to dearth of accommodation they are unable to stay with him or his family members. Also, on religious and customary festivals and other occasions when his sister or brother-in-law visits him, there arises a scarcity of accommodation for them. He has also stated that he requires a small temple in his house for offering prayers, but due to dearth of accommodation, he is unable to have it made. He has submitted that the place where he is residing is not sufficient for the requirement of his grandchildren who require a separate room for study. He has averred that the demised premises are ideally suited for his requirements and of that of his family. The respondent has on the other hand, not said anything worthwhile to counter this averment of the petitioner.
It is settled law that the question of accommodation, actually in possession of the landlord, being 'reasonably suitable' is to be judged solely in the context of physical sufficiency of the accommodation and that the Court may hold that ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 12/19 accommodation is insufficient having regard to various circumstances, such as, the social status of the family or traditions and customs observed by it. As long as the landlord is able to establish that he in good faith and genuinely wishes to occupy the premises in possession of the tenant and that good faith or genuineness is of a reasonable man, it would not be open to the Controller to weigh the claim of the landlord in a fine scale. The law does not require the landlord to sacrifice his own comforts and requirements merely on the ground that the premises is with a tenant. (Adarsh Electricals & Ors. vs. Dinesh Dayal 173 (2010) DLT 518).
It has been held in a catena of judgments that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements and a tenant can not dictate the terms on which the landlord should live. (M/s John Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Surender Singh & Ors. 135 (2006) DLT 265).
Further, it has been held in case of Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507; by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean 'in good faith: genuine'. The word 'genuine' means 'natural': not spurious: real: pure :sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'.ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 13/19
Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. 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 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 a 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 this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself- whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the Court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 14/19 merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against."
Thus, in the present eviction petition, the petitioner has been able to establish his bonafide requirement in respect of the tenanted premises whereas the respondent has not been able to raise any triable issue in this respect.ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 15/19
D. Mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties:-
In the leave to defend application and the supporting affidavit therewith, it has been stated that Sh. Satish Kr. Batra is the actual tenant and that he has not been made a party in the present petition. It has been further stated that the respondent had ceased to be a tenant in the year 1975 when he left for London and that the father of the respondent Sh. R.L. Batra was the tenant in respect of the tenanted premises since 1975 till his death in the year 2002. It is stated that thereafter, Sh. Satish Kr. Batra became the tenant in respect of the suit premises and the petitioner received the rent of 48 months amounting to Rs. 23,760/- from Sh. Satish Kr. Batra and issued rent receipt dated 10.10.2005 in the name of Sh. Satish Kr. Batra in respect of the rent upto October 2005.
On the other hand, in reply to the leave to defend application, the petitioner has stated that the tenant has failed to bring on record any notice u/s 17 of the D.R.C. Act and that Sh. Satish Kr. Batra has not placed on record any document suggesting any written consent of the petitioner qua creation of tenancy in his favour. It is stated that the deceased father of the petitioner had inducted the respondent/ tenant vide written agreement dated 03.07.1970. However, the respondent without any written consent of the deceased father of the petitioner left the tenanted premises in favour of the sub-tenant i.e. his brother. Further, in the affidavit filed along with the leave to defend application also, Sh. Satish kr. Batra has deposed himself to ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 16/19 be the attorney of the respondent. Also, a look at the rent receipt reveals that it has been issued in favour of one Sh. S.K. Batra and does not clearly mention whether the same is in the name of Sh. Surinder Kr. Batra or Sh. Satish Kr. Batra.
It is no longer res-integra that the act of payment of rent does not itself create a binding relationship of landlord-tenant. Further, the receipts placed on record do not clearly convey the alleged acceptance of rent of Rs. 23,760/- by the petitioner from Sh. Satish Kr. Batra.
In a case of Ram Saran vs. Pyare Lal & Anr. (1996) 11 SCC 728; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that -
"By a unilateral action of the tenant of surrendering his right of tenancy in favour of a third party by delivering possession of the tenanted premises to the said third party, no new tenancy is created which may legally bind the landlord. By mere acceptance of rent for the tenanted premises tendered by the tenant, neither a new tenancy or a valid sub-tenancy is created in his favour."
Thus, Sh. Satish Kr. Batra has not been able to establish that he is a tenant in respect of the premises in question, or a valid tenancy was ever created in his favour after the death of his father Sh. R.L. Batra. As per the petitioner, the original tenant namely Sh. Surender Kr. Batra has already left the country with no intention of ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 17/19 returning back. Even if, the contention of Sh. Satish Kr. Batra that rent paid by him was accepted by the petitioner, is accepted as correct, this itself does not lead to creation of a valid tenancy between the petitioner and him. Thus, in these circumstances, no triable issue arises.
It is settled legal principle that leave to defend is granted to the tenant only in case any triable issue is raised before the court, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence. In Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal (1982) 3 SCC 270, the Apex Court has held that -
"the prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically and in a routine manner grant leave to defend. The onus is prima-facie on the respondent and if he fails, the eviction follows."
7. In the instant case, the respondent has miserably failed to raise any triable issue that could merit grant of leave to defend. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion and as no triable issue has been raised on behalf of the respondent, therefore, the application seeking leave to defend is hereby dismissed and as a necessary ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 18/19 consequence thereof an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the demised premises consisting of two floors being the first floor and the second floor out of property bearing No. Q-23, Rajouri Garden, Delhi admeasuring 187 sq. yds., situated in the revenue estate of Village Basai Darapur, bearing Municipal No. WZ-1559, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the petition which is now marked as Mark-P-1 (put by the court for the purpose of identification).
However, in light of Section 14 (7) DRC Act, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from the date of this order. The parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 1st September, 2016.
(This order contains 19 pages) (GOMATI MANOCHA) Commercial Civil Judge-Cum Additional Rent Controller, West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC. No. 25921 of 16 Inderpal Singh Chadha vs. Surinder Kr. Batra. Page 19/19