Delhi District Court
Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma vs Sh. Gulshan Jahan on 10 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR, SCJ-CUM-RC,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. RC ARC No.110/2014
Unique Case ID/CNR no.DLET03-000005-2014
Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. Inderjit Sharma,
R/o D-7/2, Dilshad Colony,
Delhi-110095
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Gulshan Jahan
W/p Late Mohd. Jahid
R/o B-114, Rajiv Garden,
Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
...Respondents
Date of Institution of Petition : 04.09.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 12.12.2022
Date of decision : 10.02.2023
Decision : Application seeking leave to
defend filed on behalf of the
respondent is dismissed.
Eviction order is passed.
Petition No. 110/14 Page 1 of 17
ORDER
1. This is a petition for eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This order shall dispose off the application seeking leave to defend filed by respondent.
2. The application of the respondent under Section 151 CPC to transfer the present petition to another Court having territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present petition was dismissed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022.
3. The application of the respondent under Order VII Rule 10A along-with section 16 of CPC for returning of the plaint was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2022.
4. The petitioner claims to be the landlord and owner of the tenanted shop admeasuring 10' X 7/3' at the ground floor of premises bearing no.E- 4/24, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan and respondent as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.600/- per month excluding electricity charges. The current rate of rent paid by the resopndent is Petition No. 110/14 Page 2 of 17 Rs.726/- per month.
5. It is pleaded that mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Raj Rani W/o Sh. Inderjit Sharma was the owner of the property bearing no.E- 4/24, (Block No.E-4, Plot No.24) situated at Village Ghaundli, Ilaqa Shahdara, Delhi-110051 vide sale deed dated 30.01.1963. Smt. Raj Rani executed a Will dated 18.12.2006 in favour of the petitioner. Smt. Raj Rani expired on 01.04.2007 and after the death of his mother, petitioner has become the sole and absolute owner/landlord of premises bearing no.E-4/24,Krishna Nagar, Delhi. It is further stated that respondent had been inducted as a tenant by the mother of the petitioner in a shop admeasuring 10' X 7/3' at the ground floor of the premises bearing no.E- 4/24, Krishna Nagar, Delhi w.e.f. 01.05.2006 at a monthly rent of Rs.600/- per month. The said portion was earlier tenanted to the husband of the respondent late Mohd. Jahid and before him, it was in possession of Late Abdul Rahim, father in law of the respondent. The rent of the aforesaid premises was being paid by the respondent on monthly basis. The current rate of rent paid by the respondent in respect of aforesaid Petition No. 110/14 Page 3 of 17 shop of the premises is Rs.726/- per month. The copies of rent receipts are annexed with the petition. The respondent had taken the said shop on rent for the purpose of running a barber shop.
6. It is stated that petitioner has been working as special assistant with the State Bank of India, Branch Janpath, Delhi. Petitioner has one son namely Sh. Ketan Sharma. He is around 24 years of age. He passed BA Programming through correspondence from Delhi University in March, 2012. At present, he has been doing one year course in Diploma in Corporate Accounting and Applied Finance from NIIT, Preet Vihar, Delhi and said course would complete in January, 2015. The son of the petitioner desires to establish the business of real estate and property dealing by employing 5-10 employees for which he needs a space of around 200 Sq. feet. Thus, he requires the tenanted shop as well as other two shops situated in the premises in question. It is further stated that other two shops are occupied by tenants namely Dharam Singh who runs an auto/scooter repair and services shop while the other shop is tenanted to two brother namely Sachin Yadav and Rahul Yadav who took Petition No. 110/14 Page 4 of 17 the premises for running a shop for the sale of mile and milk products. However, the shop in possession of said Sachin and Rahul is lying closed for a long time. The petitioner and his son do not have any other suitable, alternative accommodation for establishing the said business in Delhi.
7. The petitioner has prayed that eviction order may be passed in respect of the tenanted shop in terms of under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
8. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent. The respondent filed application seeking leave to defend. It is pleaded that the premises were given on rent to Late Mohd. Jahid i.e. the husband of the respondent and before that it was in possession of Late Abdul Rahim. Therefore, after the daath of Late Mohd. Jahid i.e. the husband of the respondent, the tenancy right being inheritable, the tenancy rights devolved on all the legal heirs of Late Mohd. Jahid namely Roshan Jahan (wife), Mohd. Wasim, Mohd. Parvez, Aftab (all sons), Roshan Jahan, Rubina, Sania (all daughters) and hence they are necessary parties. Since, the petitioner has failed to implead the legal heirs of Late Mohd. Jahid, Petition No. 110/14 Page 5 of 17 the present petition is liable to be dismissed for not impleading them as parties as they are also the joint tenants in the suit shop. It is stated that son of the petitioner is not dependent on him for the alleged purpose. The petitioner has nowhere pleaded that son of the petitioner Ketan Sharma is dependent on the petitioner. It is further stated that petitioner is not the owner of the suit premises as other petitions filed by his sister Ushma Sharda in eviction petitioner no.114/2014 titled as Ushma Sharda Vs. Renu Sood & Anr. and another eviction petition being petition no.E- 115/2014 titled as Ushma Sharda Vs. Daulat Ram Kapoor wherein she has pleaded that the suit property was purchased by one Deen Dayal on 30.11.1957 from DLF Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, said Deen Dayal sold the said property to Sh. Madho Singh vide sale deed dated 31.05.1961. The said Madho singh sold the property to Suhag Wanti D/o sh. Shanti Ram W/o Pt. Thakur Dass vide sale deed executed on 30.01.1963. The said Suhag Wanti during her life time executed a Will dated 26.07.1990 in favour of Sh. Inderjeet Sharma. Thereafter, inderjeet Sharma executed a gift deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Ushma Sharda i.e. sister of Petition No. 110/14 Page 6 of 17 petitioner. Thus, it is alleged that Ushma Sharda is the owner of the suit property whereas in the present petition, the petitioner has annexed a sale deed dated 13.01.1963 wherein it is shown that Sh. Madho Singh sold the property to Smt. Raj Rani and on the basis of sale deed, Smt. Raj Rani has executed a Will in favour of petitioner herein on the basis of which, petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the suit property. Thus, on the one hand, petitioner is claiming ownership of the suit property whereas on the other hand, sister of the petitioner Ushma Sharda is claiming to be the owner of the suit property bearing no.E-4/24, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and that too from a different source and chain of documents. It is further stated that the education of the son of the petitioner as mentioned in the petition does not show that his son is interested in the business of Real Estate. The need of the petitioner is not bonafide, genuine, honest and the same is flimsy and created by ill motive. It is further stated that petitioner kept one tenant namely Abhshek in the suit property arount 6-7 months back. Thus, it shows that petitioner has no bonafide requirement for his son.
Petition No. 110/14 Page 7 of 17
9. The petitioner filed reply to the application seeking leave to defend. The petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of his eviction petition. It is denied that petitioner do not have a bonafide requirement of his son and wants to get the tenanted property vacated by hood or crook. It is stated that tenanted property along-with the other two shops is requirement by the petitioner for his son, who is dependent on him, to start up a business of Real Estate and property dealing by employing 5-10 employees for which he needs a space of around 200 Sq. ft. It is further stated that question of impleading the legal heirs of late Mohd. Jahid does not arise as the tenancy was transferred in favour of Gulshan Jahan on her request and the remaining legal heirs do not have any right in the said tenanted premises. It is stated that property bearing no.E-4/24, Krishan Nagar, Delhi is divided into two parts, each part being owned by petitioner and Smt. Ushma Sharda respectively. The petitions as mentioned in the para under reply are filed by Smt. Ushma Sharda in regard to the shops in her property and does not have any relation with the tenanted property in the present petition. The tenant/respondent has Petition No. 110/14 Page 8 of 17 admittedly paying rent to the petitioner since 01.05.2006 and at this stage, cannot raise the objection that the petitioner is not the owner of the said property. It is further stated that petitioner is the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and has also filed the relevant documents of ownership along-with the eviction petition.
10. The respondent filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner and denied the averments made in the reply of the petitioner and simultaneously reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the application.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and carefully gone through the record.
12. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner must establish that:
i. He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
ii. That he requires the premises for the bonafide need for his son for the purpose of his business ; & iii. That he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.Petition No. 110/14 Page 9 of 17
Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord-tenant between petitioner and respondent :
13. The respondent in her leave to defend application contended that petitioner is not the owner of the suit premises as his sister Ushma Sharda filed two eviction petitions bearing no.E-114/2014 and E- 115/2014. In support of her contention, she has filed the copy of gift deed allegedly made by one Inderjeet Sharma in favour of Ushma Sharda.
14. Petitioner in reply to his leave to defend application specifically denied that Ushma Sharda is the owner of the property. It is specifically contended that property bearing no. E-4/24, Krishna Nagar, Delhi is divided into two parts, each part owned by the petitioner and Smt. Ushma Sharda respectively. It is specifically contended that said Ushma Sharda filed the eviction petitions with regard to the shops in her property. Respondent filed the incomplete gift deed. Respondent has not filed any other document to show that both the properties are same and belong to the alleged Ushma Sharda.
Petition No. 110/14 Page 10 of 17
15. Respondent admitted that suit property was given on rent to Late Mohd. Zahid i.e. husband of the respondent. Petitioner has filed rent receipts earlier issued by Raj Rani and later on by the petitioner. One rent receipt signed by Gulshan Jahan and other rent receipts signed by Mohd. Waseem. In one of the rent receipts, it is mentioned that Mohd. Waseem signed on behalf of Gulshan Jahan. Thus, law is well settled that once a tenant is always a tenant.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Allahrakha & Anr. Vs. Allahwala & Anr." 2014 (2) RCR 279 held that "neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of India Evidence Act creates estoppal against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacate the tenanted premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts Petition No. 110/14 Page 11 of 17 dishonestly.".
16. Thus, in view of the above stated decision of the Hon'ble High Court Court, I am satisfied that there is landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
17. The respondent contended that after the death of Mohd. Jahid, the tenancy right devolved upon all the LRs of late Mohd. Jahid. However, other LRs are not made party in the present case. It is further contended that Mohd. Waseem and Mohd. Parvez are running the salon in the suit shop.
18. Petitioner in reply to the leave to defend application specifically contented that after the death of Mohd. Jahid, the respondent herself wrote a letter dt. 27.11.2006 to the mother of the petitioner i.e. Raj Rani requesting her to transfer the tenancy rights in her favour and allow her to continue the business of Barber Shop in the tenanted premises with the help of her two sons namely Mohd. Waseem and Mohd. Parvez. The alleged letter dt. 27.11.2006 supports the contention of the petitioner. Even otherwise, law is well settled that once the original tenant dies, the Petition No. 110/14 Page 12 of 17 legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenants is occupation of all the joint tenants.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs. Leela Wati" 155 (2008) DLT 383 held "when the original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the property as joint tenant and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal hears of the deceased tenant, whether they are living in the property or not."
19. The respondent further contended that petitioner has not pleaded that his son is dependent upon him. He further submitted that no document filed by the petitioner to show that his son is dependent on him. However, I am not satisfied with the arguments of the respondent as law is well settled in this regard.
The following was held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Naresh Khanna Vs. Saroj Gupta RC Rev. 281/2017 dated 28.08.2017 :-
"...The said question is no longer res integra and it has been settled that the words 'requirement of the landlord' Petition No. 110/14 Page 13 of 17 within the meaning of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is not only confined to requirement of the landlord but of all members of the family of the landlord who are dependent upon the landlord for accommodation and with whom landlord is residing as a family or who constitute family of landlord. It is for this reason only that eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been ordered for the requirements of financially well off sons as well."
20. Thus, I am satisfied that son of the petitioner is dependent upon him for the purpose of his accommodation.
Petitioner requires the premises for the bonafide need of his son for running his business and non-availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
21. Respondent contended that qualification of the son of the petitioner does not show that he is interested in the business of real estate. Respondents have not filed any document to show that son of the Petition No. 110/14 Page 14 of 17 petitioner is doing any other work. Moreover, there is no specific qualification required for starting real estate business.
22. The respondent further contended that qualification of the son of the petitioner is not correlative to the kind of business he is going to start, has no merit as a person can start any business he wants. A person's over qualification or lack of skill cannot be ground to stop a person from starting a new business. Even otherwise, law is well settled that a person can start new business if he has no experience.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jai Kishan Dass" (2010) 1 SCC 164 held that "A person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business that does not mean that his claim for starting new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim".
23. Thus, in view of the settled law, the son of the petitioner can start a new business irrespective of his qualification.
Petition No. 110/14 Page 15 of 17
24. Respondents have not filed any document to show that petitioner and his family have any other property. Respondents have not disclosed the details of other alternate suitable accommodation for starting the business of the son of the petitioner. Respondent has not filed any document to show that one Abhishek Shandilya was the tenant in the suit property. Thus, the contention of the respondents in this regard not supported by any material on record.
25. The net result is that petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted shop is required bonafide by petitioner for his son for starting the business of real estate and he has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for this purpose. The respondent has failed to raise any reasonable triable issue. The application for leave to defend is dismissed.
26. Since the application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed, so, the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent Petition No. 110/14 Page 16 of 17 directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. shop admeasuring 10' X 7.3' at the ground floor of premises bearing no.E-4/24, Krishna Nagar, Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner, in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The owner, however shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
Digitally
signed by
MANOJ
MANOJ KUMAR
KUMAR (MANOJ KUMAR)
Date:
2023.02.10
17:05:22
SCJ-cum-RC, East District,
+0530
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
(Announced in open court
on 10th of February, 2023)
Petition No. 110/14 Page 17 of 17