Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Vig vs (1) Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (Since ... on 4 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH,
SCJcumRC, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar Vig S/o Late Sh. Baldev Raj Vig R/o III 2/9, Second Floor, Shri Rampuri Building, Gopinath Bazar/Shastri, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi - 110 010. ..................Petitioner Versus (1) Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (since deceased) W/o Late Sh. Chadilal R/o House No.III, 2/2, Ground Floor, Shri Ram Puri Building, Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
Also at C - 5A/142, Ground Floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi.
Through LRs (as per latest amended memo of parties)
..................Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 10.05.2007
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 18.02.2021
DATE OF DECISION : 04.03.2021
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) qua one premises consisting of one bedroom, one toilet and kitchen at ground floor of property/house no.III, 2/2, Ground Floor, Shri Ram Puri Building, Shashtri Bazar/Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi - 110 010 (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises).
Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.1 of 22 PETITIONER SIDE CASE AS PER PETITION
2. Succinctly, the case of petitioner as discernible from petition is that father of petitioner namely Baldev Raj Vig acquired property bearing house no.III, 2/2, Shri Ram Puri Building, Shashtri Bazar/Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi
- 110 010 in year 1976. The respondent side was tenant in the tenanted premises at the time of said purchase. The respondent side has been residing in the rear portion of the tenanted premises. The father of petitioner executed a Will in his lifetime in favour of petitioner regarding the property where tenanted premises is situated. After demise of father of petitioner namely Sh. Baldev Raj Vig, the petitioner became absolute owner/landlord of tenanted premises which was acknowledged by the respondent side. The rate of rent of the tenanted premises was increased to Rs.100/ per month and respondent side through Sh. Jagdish was duly paying the said rent to the petitioner. Petitioner is suffering from various health issues including arthritis, asthma and heart problems. In year 2005, the petitioner has to undergo angiography. The doctors advised petitioner to remain careful in future. The doctors have also advised petitioner to avoid climbing stairs due to arthritis. The deceased respondent Smt. Sunaria Chadi Lal is not residing in the tenanted premises and has shifted to 5A/142/Ground Floor, Janak Puri, New Delhi. The petitioner has sold a part of the property of house no.III, 2/2, Shri Ram Puri Building, Shashtri Bazar/Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi - 110 010 to a third person and is now residing in a small portion consisting of one diningcumdrawing room, two bedrooms, two toilets and Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.2 of 22 one small study room. The family of petitioner consists of his wife, a daughter aged about 25 years and a son aged about 22 years. Both children of petitioner require separate rooms for study and accommodation. The petitioner does not have any other place of residence and does not have sufficient accommodation on the 2 nd floor of the property where they are now residing. The accommodation of petitioner at 2 nd floor is extremely insufficient. It is also difficult for petitioner to stay at 2 nd floor due to health issues. The petitioner has three sisters who are staying outside Delhi and two brothers, one of whom stays at Mussoorie. The three sisters of petitioner and his brother from Mussoorie frequently visit petitioner and stay with petitioner in his house which is not sufficient to accommodate them. They have to stay in drawingcum dining room only. The petitioner thus needs the tenanted premises for his own personal bonafide need of residence. The residential premises available with petitioner is extremely insufficient and inconvenient for him. With these averments, present petition has been filed by petitioner side for eviction of respondent side from tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide requirement of the same for his own need as residence. The petitioner has also stated that he has no other residential accommodation available with him except the tenanted premises.
3. The notice of this petition was given to the respondent side in prescribed format, same was served upon respondent side, respondent side filed leave to defend application and same was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2009. Respondent side filed written statement. The petitioner side filed replication to the same. Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.3 of 22 RESPONDENT SIDE CASE AS PER WRITTEN STATEMENT
4. Succinctly, the case of the respondent side as discernible from written statement is that tenancy of the tenanted premises was created in favour of late Sh. Chhadi Lal in year 1936 by erstwhile owner of the property. The tenanted premises consists of an area of 10 feet 6 inches x 72 feet which comprises of one shop ad measuring 10 feet 6 inches and remaining being residential house. The said situation is present since inception of tenancy. The tenancy was incepted for composite purposes. The front portion of tenanted premises is shop where the respondent side is running a shoe shop for last 70 years. The back portion of the same is used as residence by the respondent side. The father of the petitioner late Sh. Baldev Raj became owner of premises comprising of 63 feet in width and 72 feet in length. The ground floor of said premises consisted of six portions having equal front of 10 feet 6 inches in width and 72 feet in length. All the portions of ground floor were letout on rent for composite purposes including that of respondent side. Single rent is charged for tenanted premises. As per family settlement, all three sons of late Sh. Baldev Raj got two portions each out of the premises. The tenanted portion of respondent side and of one Neeraj came in share of petitioner and remaining four portions were shared by his brothers. The petitioner family has total living area equivalent to 4800 square feet at 2nd floor. The entire 2nd floor is in possession of petitioner and his family. The portion owned by petitioner comprises of two equal portions of ground floor, entire 1 st floor, 2nd floor and servant room thereupon. The 2 nd floor has been constructed by Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.4 of 22 petitioner after the demise of his father. There is no requirement of space of petitioner. The daughter of petitioner has already got married. The petitioner has filed wrong site plan concealing the area of the shop as part of composite tenancy. The petitioner has concealed to be in possession of one room on the backside of 1 st floor of around 100 square yards. The petitioner by way of concealment and suppression of material facts has tried to divide one composite tenancy in two parts. The petitioner has recently sold ground floor of adjacent part to Sh. Naveen Jain and Sh. Rakesh Jain for Rs.15,00,000/. The petitioner has also recently sold 1 st floor to one Mrs. Shakuntala Yadav for sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/. The respondent side is using the tenanted premises for composite purpose as they are residing in rear portion and are running a shoe shop in name and style of 'M/s Modern Shoes' for last 70 years in front portion. The correct description of tenanted premises is one shop ad measuring 10.6 feet x 36 feet, one bedroom and one kitchen on ground floor. The petitioner is not suffering from any ailment and has not been advised to avoid climbing stairs. The respondent side has denied almost all the averments of the petitioner vide their written statement. With these submissions, the respondent side has sought dismissal of petition.
FURTHER CASE OF PETITIONER SIDE AS PER REPLICATION TO WS
5. Succinctly, vide replication, the petitioner side has denied that their site plan is incorrect and that tenancy was incepted for composite purposes. The petitioner side however submitted that late Sh. Chhadi Lal was running shop in front portion and Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.5 of 22 was residing with his family in the rear portion. The shop and residence part is partitioned with brick wall, so, the shop and residence part are separate from each other. The residential portion is being used by the family of late Sh. Ashok Kumar only. The petitioner side denied that any of the portions were letout for composite purposes including that of the respondent side. The petitioner side however submitted that the tenancies of all the portions were incepted even before father of petitioner became owner of premises and the rent charged for both shop and residence parts is charged collectively. Petitioner side further submitted that now the portions of the shop and house are clearly marked, the front portion being used for commercial purposes and back portion being used for residential purposes, hence cannot treated to be letout for composite purposes. The petitioner side further stated that the petitioner owned two equal portions on ground floor, their entire first floor and second floor and servants rooms thereupon, however, at present, petitioner is having only 2 nd floor accommodation as he has already sold the accommodation of 1 st floor. The petitioner side admitted that one room on 1st floor measuring 8 x 10 feet is under the possession of petitioner which is rented out to some other tenant, however, it denied that the petitioner side has one room at backside of 1 st floor of 100 square yards. The petitioner side further submitted that it has sold the entire first floor barring one room which is rented out to meet the medical expenses. The 2 nd floor is actually under the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner sold the ground floor and the 1 st floor due to financial crises since he has no source of income.
Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.6 of 22
6. After completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for petitioner evidence. PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE 7.1 The petitioner initially examined himself as PW1, tendered his affidavit Ex.P1 as his examinationinchief reiterating almost similar facts as of their pleadings and further relied upon and exhibited documents i.e. site plan Ex.PW1/1, Voter ID of late Sh. Baldev Raj, Ex.PW1/2, copy of notice of demand under Section 91 of The Cantonments Act, 1921 Ex.PW1/3, Copy of receipt dated 12.08.2005 Ex.PW1/4 and electricity bill Ex.PW1/5 in his evidence. PW1 was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondent side which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged. On application moved under Section 151 CPC, the petitioner was allowed to lead further evidence vide order dated 01.10.2009. The petitioner further tendered his affidavit Ex.P1/A as his further examinationinchief reiterating some earlier facts and further deposing that petitioner is suffering from various health issues and has been advised to avoid climbing stairs. He needs further accommodation for his son who is of marriageable age. He further exhibited document i.e. prescription slips Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/12, copy of ration card Ex.PW1/13, his voter IDcard Ex.PW1/14, voter IDcard of his wife Ex.PW1/15 and voter IDcard of his daughter Ex.PW1/16 in his evidence. He was further crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondent side which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
7.2 No other witness was examined by petitioner side despite number of Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.7 of 22 opportunities given for the same.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE 8.1 The respondent side examined deceased Smt. Sumeria Chhadi Lal as DW1, who tendered her affidavit Ex.DW1/A as her examinationinchief wherein in gist, she deposed that tenancy is around 70 years old. It was incepted in name of her husband late Sh. Chhadi Lal and since then her family is in possession of ground floor of property no.III, 2/2, Shri Ram Puri Building, Shashtri Bazar/Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi - 110 010. Since inception of tenancy front portion is used as shop and back portion as residence. The entire ground floor of III, 2/2, Shri Ram Puri Building, Shashtri Bazar/Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi - 110 010 forms one tenancy. Due to old age she is not able to depose in length. The petitioner is a man of means and does not bonafidely require the tenanted premises. Her grandson Sumit Kumar knows all the facts of the case and she has authorized her vide Ex.DW1/1 to depose properly about this matter. DW1 was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
8.2 Sh. Sumit Kumar @ Pintu was examined as DW2 by respondent side, he tendered his affidavit Ex.DW2/A as his examinationinchief retreating almost similar facts as of their pleadings and exhibited documents i.e. voter IDcard Ex.DW2/1, photograph of the tenanted premises showing the premises from the front as well as back portion Ex.DW2/2 to Ex.DW2/7, site plan of the tenanted property Ex.DW2/8, Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.8 of 22 site plan of entire property Ex.DW2/9 (earlier Ex.PW1/R1), proof of charges paid to cantonment board Ex.DW2/10 to Ex.DW2/27, receipt dated 27.03.1987 of cantonment board Mark 'A', copy of ration card of Ashok Kumar Mark 'B', copy of ration card Ram Dulari Mark 'C', copy of ration card of Jagdish Kumar Mark 'D' and rent receipts Ex.DW2/32 to Ex.DW2/162 in his evidence. DW2 was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
8.3 DW3 Rakesh Kumar @ Bunty has tendered his affidavit Ex.DW3/A as his examinationinchief and further exhibited documents copy of driving license Ex.DW3/1 and original mutation/renewal letter dated 29.06.2009 as Mark 'DW3/X' in his evidence. He further produced and exhibited receipt dated 13.09.1983 Ex.DW3/Z1, receipt dated 09.09.1993 Ex.DW3/Z2, receipt dated 01.02.2000 Ex.DW3/Z3, receipt dated 22.12.2000 Ex.DW3/Z4, receipt dated 18.11.2005 Ex.DW3/Z5, receipt dated 14.02.2008 Ex.DW3/Z6, receipt dated 21.03.2011 Ex.DW3/Z7 and three other documents Ex.DW3/Y, Ex.DW3/P1 and Ex.DW3/P2 pertaining to Modern Shoe Maker in his crossexamination. DW3 was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner which is not reproduced herein for sake of brevity and was discharged.
8.4 DW4 Pranab Chaudhary, Senior Assistant, Office of SubRegistrar IX, Kapashera, New Delhi exhibited relinquishment deed dated 13.12.2002 as Ex.DW4/1, saledeed dated 24.05.2003 as Ex.DW4/2, saledeed dated 30.01.2004 as Ex.DW4/3, Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.9 of 22 saledeed dated 06.09.2005 as Ex.DW4/4, saledeed dated 18.10.2005 as Ex.DW4/5 and saledeed dated 26.10.2005 as Ex.DW4/6 in his evidence. DW4 was examined, was not crossexamined by petitioner side despite opportunity given and was discharged.
8.5 DW5 Ranbir Singh, UDC, SubRegistrar VIIA, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi exhibited saledeed dated 25.04.2017 as Ex.DW5/1 in his evidence. DW5 was examined, was not crossexamined by petitioner side despite opportunity given and was discharged.
8.6 DW6 Pragya Tiwari, Draftsman, GradeII, Delhi Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi in gist has deposed in her examinationinchief that owner of Sh. Ram Puri Building, Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantt is Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Its lease was given to Sh. Ram Puri, was extended from time to time and finally got expired on 28.02.2017. As per MOD policy, letter dated 10.03.2017, all lessees and their legalheirs including purchasers of leasehold rights were given option for extension of lease up to 31.12.2018 subject to conditions mentioned in said letter. In present case, conditions are not fulfilled. Initially, property was given on lease for period of 90 years and was required to be renewed after every 30 years. In present case, same expired in year 1987 and was not renewed. On 28.02.2017, even the 90 years have expired. A person cannot sell the leasehold rights of lease property by execution of saledeed or by any other means. For execution of saledeed, permission of cantonment board is required. She exhibited the Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.10 of 22 extracts of general land register pertaining to survey no.52/5, Delhi Cantonment Board as Ex.DW6/1 in her evidence. DW6 was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner side and was discharged.
8.7 DW7 Sunil Kumar, JA, Record Room (Civil), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi exhibited petitions and judgments of eviction petition no.12/2009/2008 dated 22.01.2009 titled as 'Swatantra Kumar Vig Vs. Surender Kumar' and petition no.45/2014/2010 titled as 'Raj Kumar Vs. Pyare Lal' as Ex.DW7/A and Ex.DW7/C, Ex.DW7/B and Ex.DW7/D respectively. He exhibited the examination of Dr. Dheeraj Diwan of said petitions as Ex.DW7/E and Ex.DW7/F respectively. DW7 was examined, not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner side despite opportunity given and was discharged.
8.8 DW8 Narender Singh, Marketing Assistant, Office at C123, Lawrence Road, Delhi brought the record of sales of HPMC, Kiosk at DDU Hospital, Delhi. He brought the agreement dated 01.07.1999 executed with Neeru Vig on record. He also brought on record records of Sales as Ex.DW8/1 in his evidence. He further deposed that he has not brought the agreement pertaining to Anil Kumar Vig as same is not available with his office. In his crossexamination, he deposed that the petitioner Anil Kumar Vig is vendor for HPMC at DDU Hospital, Delhi and is running same for last 15 - 16 years without default. DW8 was examined, crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and was discharged.
8.9 No other witness was examined by respondent side.
Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.11 of 22 ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS 9.1 In gist, it is submitted/contended by the respondent side vide oral and written submissions that late Sh. Chhadi Lal was inducted as tenant in the tenanted premises in year 1936 for composite tenancy, the front side being used for Shoe making and selling business and rear side being used as residence. The petitioner has filed this petition only qua part portion of tenancy i.e. rear portion used for residence by respondent side mainly on ground that he is not well, is unable to take stairs and require the ground floor for his residence. The petitioner has filed this petition breaking the tenancy into two parts as per his own whims and fancies, pleading incorrect facts and filing incorrect site plan to justify his pleadings. A single rent receipt for whole premises is issued since beginning which establishes that the tenancy of whole premises available with respondent side is a single tenancy. The petitioner side has averred in connected petition no.4439/2016 that the front portion is used by respondent side as commercial in paragraph no.04 of their said petition. It has further averred in paragraph no.05 of said petition that respondent side is occupying the said shop as residence. Had it been so, the petitioner side could have filed petition qua whole of premises available with the respondent side under Section 14 (1) (e) read with its explanation. The petitioner side has thus concealed material facts regarding the nature of premises available with respondent side and it being a single tenancy. The petition of the petitioner side needs to be rejected on this account alone as it could not have split a single tenancy into two parts as per their convenience to bring their Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.12 of 22 case under Section 14 (1)(e) as per law applicable on the date of filing of the petition. The petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court regarding availability of one room with the petitioner at the first floor of the premises. He has also concealed fact of sale of 1st floor of the premises to one Shakuntala around three years before filing of this petition which he would not have sold, had he have any health issues. The petitioner has also concealed the factum of availability of accommodation at 3 rd floor/top floor of the premises at the time of filing of the present petition. The petitioner has no medical issues as have been alleged by him. The prescriptions and diagnoses filed by the petitioner to prove his health issues have been issued by Dr. Dheeraj Diwan who is soninlaw of brother of petitioner. He has issued almost similar receipts and diagnoses to the brothers of petitioner for filing similar eviction petition against their tenants and has also deposed in favour of brothers of petitioners in their petitions. The petitioner letout accommodations at 1st floor to two contractors after filing of this petition which itself proves that the petitioner has no health issues otherwise he would have utilized them for his own residence. The one portion of the property vacated vide orders of the Court was sold by the petitioner side to the same tenant vide saledeed Ex.DW5/1 on record which proves that there is no bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises by the petitioner. The petitioner sold the ground floor portion of property bearing no.III, 2/2, Shri Ram Puri Building, Shashtri Bazar/Gopinath Bazar, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi - 110 010 vide Ex.DW4/3 to the tenant before preferring the present petition which also shows that the petitioner has Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.13 of 22 no bonafide requirement instead has tried to create fake one. The petitioner has sufficient accommodation available with him at 3rd floor for the need of his extended family on visits. The petitioner has filed this petition malafidely and has attempted to create artificial requirement of the tenanted premises by selling and giving on rent many of the part of premises available with him. With these submissions and contentions, the respondent side has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9.2 Per contra, in gist, it is submitted/contended by petitioner side vide oral and written submissions that tenanted premises was purchased by father of petitioner and at that time, it was in occupation of respondent side. Most of family members of respondent have now shifted to other places. The relationship of landlordtenant is admitted by the respondent side. The rate of rent is also admitted. The petitioner is suffering from various health issues and has undergone angiography in year 2005. Doctors have advised petitioner not to climb stairs. The petitioner is presently residing at 2nd floor which is a uphill task for him. He has only one diningcum drawing room, two bedrooms, two toilets and one small study room which is insufficient accommodation for him and his family. The petitioner has terminated the tenancy vide legal notice dated 22.09.2008. The petitioner needs the present tenanted premises for his own residence and of his family as residence of ground floor would be more convenient to him considering his age and illness. The petitioner has no other alternative accommodation as on date of filing of petition. The petitioner side has specifically denied the tenancy to be for composite purposes as it is separated with Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.14 of 22 brickwall. With these submissions and contentions, the petitioner side has prayed that their petition be allowed. The petitioner side has relied upon the judgments of "Sarvate T.B. Vs. Nemi Chand" 1965 Jab LJ 973 : 1966 MPLJ 26 (SC), "Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta" AIR 1999 SC 2507 : AIR 2005 SC 996, "Maganlal Kishan Lal Godha Vs. Nanasaheb Uddhaorao Gadewar" 2008 AIR 2009 SC 278, "Sudesh Kumari Soni Vs. Prabha Khanna" 153 (2008) DLT 652, "Shakuntla Gupta Vs. Surinder Kumar" 1994 (53) DLT 767, "Sushila Devi Vs. Raghunandan Prasad"
1996 (61) DLT 426, "Ajit Singh Vs. Inder Saran" 1979 (1) RCR 602 : 1979 (1) RCJ 152 (170) (Del), "Freddy Fernandes Vs. P. L. Mehta" 1973 RCR 53 (Del) and "Prativa Devi (Smt) Vs. T. V. Krishnan" (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 353 in support of their contentions.
9.3 Arguments/submissions/contentions of both sides considered. Records perused.
DISCUSSION 10.1 To bring home success to a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of The DRC Act, the petitioner is obliged to establish/prove the following :
(i) Ownership in respect of tenanted premises,
(ii) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,
(iii) Petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted premises for himself or his family member(s)/dependent(s) and ;
(iv) Petitioner does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.15 of 22 available with him/her/it.
Beside above requirements to successfully establish a case for eviction, the petitioner is also required to clear the hurdle of maintainability of the present petition raised by the respondent side. Let, it be given number (v).
POINTWISE DISCUSSION
(v) Issue of maintainability.
10.2 Before discussion upon other requirements for success of petition under
Section 14.1 (e) of The DRC Act, it would be appropriate to first discuss the legal issue of maintainability of the petition raised by the respondent side as to nature of tenancy of the present tenanted premises and of the shop of connected rent petition. The case of the respondent side since inception (even before filing of connected petition qua shop) is that the present tenanted premises and the shop are composite tenancy. The said factum was denied by the petitioner side vide their replication to the WS. Now, if we go through the pleadings and evidence of the petitioner side, petitioner has admitted in his replication that rent is collectively charged for both portions and has also admitted in his crossexamination that only one rent receipt is issued qua whole of the premises available with the respondent side. It implies that there is no bifurcation of admitted rent of Rs.100/ for premises available with the respondent side consisting of tenanted premises and shop. It is also admitted case as per pleadings of petitioner side that the respondent side was tenant in the premises even before purchase of property by the father of petitioner. The only factum pleaded Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.16 of 22 by the petitioner side in support of their case of tenancy of shop and the residence premises being different tenancies is that residence part and shop part of premises available with the respondent side is partitioned with a brickwall. Now, if we go through the evidence available on record, the respondent side has brought on record the photographs of the premises available with them as Ex.DW2/2 to Ex.DW2/7 which shows that there exists a door between both parts making it one. In given circumstances, the only inference which could be drawn from the facts available on record is that the whole of the premises available with the respondent side consisting of present tenanted premises and tenanted premise of shop of connected petition constitutes a single composite tenancy charged with a single/composite rent of Rs.100/ per month. The present petition was filed on 10.05.2007 i.e. prior to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "Satyawati Sharma (dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr." (2008) 5 SCC 287 which extended the scope of section 14 (1) (e) to the commercial tenancies. It appears that to bring out case from a case of commercial premises, the petitioner side filed this petition qua only residence part knowingfully well that shop also forms part of same tenancy. Had it been that the shop part was letout for residential purpose as is averred in connected petition no.4439/2016 and the respondent side was using it for commercial purposes without consent/permission of the petitioner side, the petitioner would have certainly preferred petition for whole of the premises being enabled so by explanation provided to Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. The petitioner side could have preferred Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.17 of 22 petition under Chapter II of DRC Act for fixation of separate rent of both parts before filing of this petition and once that have been done, could have filed the present petition on the ground of bonafide need of only of the residence part. In the opinion of this Court, filing of the present petition concealing/suppressing the aspect of a single composite tenancy itself entitles rejection of this petition.
(i) (Ownership in respect of tenanted premises) & (ii) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties 10.3 Both these points/aspects/issues are interrelated and are interconnected with each other and can be decided by way of common discussion, therefore, they are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity. It is not in dispute that the premises including the tenanted premises was acquired by the father of petitioner in year 1976 vide Ex.PW1/2. The respondent side has also admitted vide their written statement that after demise of father of petitioner, two portions out of total six portions of the premises owned by father of petitioner fell into the share of petitioner. The tenanted premises forms part of the premises which fell into the share of the petitioner. The respondent side has accepted the petitioner as landlord/owner of the tenanted premises and has been paying admitted rent of Rs.100/ to the petitioner. The respondent side has also specifically admitted that the petitioner is landlord of the respondent side. It is well settled preposition of law that landlord/owner is not supposed to prove his absolute ownership/title and has to merely show that he is something more than tenant. Reliance can be placed upon decisions of matters of Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.18 of 22 "Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Leelawati" 155 (2008) DLT 383 and "Milk Food Limited Vs. Kiran Khanna" 51 (1993) DLT 41. In totality of circumstances, where the petitioner has been able to show that father of petitioner had lease hold rights qua tenanted premises, the deposition of the petitioner that tenanted property devolved upon him by Will of his father is not disputed, the respondent side has admitted the petitioner to be its landlord and has been paying rent to the petitioner, the petitioner side has been able to establish better title to the tenanted premises than the respondent side and has been able to establish landlordtenant relationship between both sides. Hence, said issues/aspects/points stands decided accordingly.
(iii) Petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted premises and (iv) Alternative suitable accommodation not available.
10.4 Both these points/aspects/issues are interrelated and are interconnected with each other and can be decided by way of common discussion, therefore, they are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity. The petitioner has preferred this petition on the ground that the residential accommodation available/in occupation of petitioner is only one drawingcumdining room, two bedrooms, two toilets and one small study room that too at 2 nd floor. The family of petitioner consists of his wife, his daughter aged about 25 years and his son aged about 22 years. His both children require separate rooms and study rooms. Petitioner has three sisters, two of whom are living outside Delhi and two brothers, one of whom is staying at Mussoorie. His distant sisters and brother frequently visit him and he has no residential space Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.19 of 22 available with him to accommodate them. Beside same, petitioner is also suffering from various health issues. He underwent angiography in year 2005. He has arthritis also and doctors have advised him to avoid climbing stairs. Hence, the tenanted premises is required by petitioner for his bonafide requirement of his own residence and of his family. He has also filed the petition averring that he has no other place of residence. Now if we go through the pleadings of this case, the respondent side submitted vide their WS that the petitioner has available with him one room on backside of 1st floor of around 100 square yards. He recently sold remaining 1 st floor to one Shakuntala. The petitioner has also available with him the entire top floor/third bloor above the 2nd floor. The petitioner sold the ground floor portion some years prior to filing of this petition. The petitioner vide his replication admitted to have available with him one room at 1 st floor, but stated that the same is rented out to another tenant. In his crossexamination, he has admitted that same was available with him at time of filing of this petition. He has sold the portions stated by the respondent side to meet his medical expenses. The petitioner did not respond to the averments of respondent side qua space available with him upon top floor vide his replication. He, however admitted in his crossexamination that entire 3 rd floor was available with him when he filed the present petition. So, it is clear that petitioner had no dearth of space for his son, daughter and kins who used to visit him at the time of filing of this petition. Now, we come to the other aspect that plaintiff being suffering from arthritis, other health issues and have been advised not to climb stairs, so need Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.20 of 22 premises for residence at ground floor. The petitioner has brought in evidence medical prescriptions/slips/receipts Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/12 to prove the same. The petitioner has admitted in his crossexamination that Dr. Dheeraj Diwan who has written prescriptions Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/12 is soninlaw of his brother. The said Dr. Dheeraj Diwan was not brought as witness in evidence by the petitioner side despite filing his affidavit of evidence and despite grant of number of opportunities to examine him. In given circumstances, this Court sees force in the contention of the respondent side that prescriptions were not genuinely issued, but were issued by said doctor to help his relative to file eviction petition against his tenant on ground of bonafide requirement. This Court is also convinced so because same doctor appeared as witness in eviction petitions filed by brothers of the petitioner against their tenants records of which are available as Ex.DW7/A to Ex.DW7/F on record. Though, persons of old age may suffer from such health issues, but prescriptions of almost similar ailments by same relative doctor to all the three brothers including petitioner raises number of doubts. It appears that since the respondent side has elicited admission from the petitioner in his crossexamination that Dr. Dheeraj Diwan is son inlaw of his brother and has suggested that the prescriptions are procured one and are prepared on a single day with a similar pen, therefore, the petitioner side dropped the idea of examining Dr. Dheeraj Diwan as witness despite furnishing his affidavit of evidence on record. So, the authenticity of documents Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/12 is highly doubtful. Ex.PW1/6 pertains to receipt of payment of glucometry charges Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.21 of 22 only. As far as angiography of the petitioner is concerned, there is no prescription/advise of any doctor brought on record to show that he should avoid stairs. The deceased respondent Smt. Sumeria Chhadi Lal has deposed in her cross examination that she has seen petitioner climbing stairs and taking dog for strolling number of times. Same was not controverted by petitioner side in her further cross examination. In given circumstances, it is clear that petitioner had sufficient accommodation for his family and kins at the time of filing of this petition. Petitioner has also failed to establish case of requirement of residential accommodation at ground floor. Petitioner has thus failed to establish/prove both these issues/aspects/points in his favour. Hence, said issues/aspects/points stands decided accordingly.
CONCLUSION
11. In view of the above discussions, the present petition of petitioner is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
12. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER Announced in open Court SINGH SINGH Date: 2021.03.05 on 04.03.2021. 05:31:40 +0530 (HARVINDER SINGH) SCJcumRC/SouthWest, DWK/ND/04.03.2021 Anil Kumar Vig Vs. Smt. Sumeria Chadilal (through LRs) RC No.4411/2016 [04.03.2021] Page No.22 of 22