Delhi District Court
Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta on 8 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs)
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RCT No. 132/2018
SHRI RAMESH ARORA
S/o LATE SHRI MEHAR CHAND
C/o M/s ARORA WATCH COMPANY
6A, GROUND FLOOR, KAMLA NAGAR
DELHI 110007
.....APPELLANT
VERSUS
SMT. NEETU GUPTA
W/o SHRI NITIN GUPTA
R/o 1, FLAG STAFF ROAD
CIVIL LINES, DELHI 110054
.....RESPONDENT
Date of filing: 05.04.2018
First date before this court : 24.07.2019
Date of arguments :05.02.2022
Date of Decision :08.02.2022
Appearance : Shri Hemant Malhotra, counsel for appellant
Shri Lalit Gupta, counsel for respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, brought under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the appellant tenant has assailed the judgment and order dated 31.07.2018 of the learned Rent Controller, whereby the eviction petition filed by the present respondent against the appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was allowed. On service of notice, respondent landlord entered appearance through counsel to oppose the appeal. I heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the trial court record.
RCT No 132/2018 Page 1 of 19 pages
Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2022.02.08 13:37:51 +05'30'
2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present appeal are as follows.
2.1 The present respondent, claiming herself to be the landlord and owner of the complete premises bearing no. A-6, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the appellant tenant qua one shop on the ground floor (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenanted shop') pleading that she became owner of the complete premises, having purchased the same jointly with Smt. Anita Pahwa by way of four registered sale deeds dated 17.07.2009 related to different portions of the premises, followed by release of share by Smt.Anita Pahwa in her favour by way of registered release deed dated 19.03.2013; that earlier, Smt. Shanti Devi was the tenant in the tenanted shop but she passed away, leaving behind her son, the appellant as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 35.75paise; that the appellant was a habitual defaulter regarding payment of rent for long time; that however, the present respondent claimed rent for the period from execution of the sale deeds in her favour and accordingly, the appellant was liable to pay Rs. 856.80 paise towards rent for the period from 01.08.2009 and 31.07.2011 along with interest at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum; that the present respondent sent legal notice dated 14.08.2011 through registered acknowledgment post dated 20.08.2011 and the same was duly received by the appellant, but he neither tendered nor paid any rent to the present respondent within the stipulated period of two months, so the appellant was liable to vacate the tenanted shop.
2.2 In his written statement filed before the Rent Controller,
RCT No 132/2018 Page 2 of 19 pages
Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2022.02.08 13:37:31 +05'30'
the appellant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further pleaded that the alleged title of the present respondent with regard to the premises is already in dispute, being subject matter of a civil suit pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court; that tenancy of the tenanted shop is in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi and sons, who are carrying out their business under the name and style of M/s Arora Watch Company; that initially the tenancy was in the name of Shri Mehar Chand Arora, the now deceased father of the appellant; that Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of the appellant also passed away leaving behind the appellant as only one of the legal heirs of Shri Mehar Chand Arora and Smt. Shanti Devi Arora; that the appellant and other legal heirs of Smt. Mehar Chand Arora are in possession of the tenanted shop, being tenants in common; that correct rate of rent for the tenanted shop is Rs. 60/- per month and not 35.75paise and the rent is being regularly paid by the tenants to the landlords namely Shri Narender Swaroop Vats and brothers, which rent is collected by the landlords as per their convenience once or twice a year; that there has been no lawful attornment of tenancy by the tenants in favour of the present respondent at any stage; that initially, the tenanted shop was let out by Pandit Bishan Swaroop Girjadhar Vats to Shri Mehar Chand Arora who started his business under the name and style of M/s Arora Watch Company from the tenanted shop and after his death, the tenancy was transferred to Smt. Shanti Devi and sons, being legal representatives of late Shri Mehar Chand Arora who continued the same business; that subsequently Shri Narender Swaroop Vats and brothers started taking rent from Smt. Shanti Devi and sons; that Smt. Shanti Devi also passed away on 18.12.2006 and thereafter business of M/s Arora Watch Company RCT No 132/2018 Page 3 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:37:09 +05'30' was continued by her legal heirs as tenants in common; that lastly the rent was paid for the period from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006 at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month against receipt issued by M/s Narender Swaroop Vats & Brothers but thereafter nobody came forward to claim rent; that when the appellant and other legal representatives of Shri Mehar Chand Arora offered to pay rent, the landlords informed that since certain disputes regarding title of the premises had arisen, they would wait for the time being till the litigation got decided; that on account of title dispute, the landlords never came forward to claim or receive rent; that the alleged notice dated 14.08.2011 was never received by the appellant; that therefore the eviction petition deserves to be dismissed.
2.3 The present respondent filed a detailed replication denying the contents of the written statement and reaffirmed the petition contents.
2.4 In the light of above rival pleadings, trial was carried out before the learned Rent Controller and the proceedings culminated into the impugned eviction order.
2.5 Hence, the present appeal.
3.1 During final arguments, learned counsel for appellant took me through trial court record and contended that the impugned order and judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law, so the appeal deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for appellant argued that there was no attornment of tenancy by the appellant in favour of RCT No 132/2018 Page 4 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:36:50 +05'30' the respondent. Further, since all legal heirs of Shri Mehar Chand Arora were not impleaded, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for appellant also argued that since the present respondent did not step into the box, testimony of her attorney cannot be relied upon in view of settled legal position. It was also argued by learned counsel for appellant that in the above mentioned title suit, which was earlier pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and subsequently got transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, if the sale deeds in favour of the present respondent are set aside, there would be no evidence of ownership of the tenanted premises in favour of the present respondent, so the eviction petition must fail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the judgments in the cases titled Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs Indusind Bank Ltd., 2005 (2) SCC 217; Man Kaur (dead) by LRs vs Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512; Ram Prasad vs Hari Narain, AIR 1998 Rajasthan 185; Ishwarbhai C Patel vs Harihar Behera, AIR 1999 SC 1341; Vidyadhar vs Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441; Mohd. Ilyas vs Mohd. Adil, AIR 1994 Delhi 212; and Bismillah Bee (dead) by LRs. vs Majeed Shah, (2017) 1 Supreme 164.
3.2 On the other hand, taking me through the rival pleadings and evidence on record, learned counsel for respondent argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, much less any question of law, which can be the only basis of bringing an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Taking me through the material on record including the order whereby the interim injunction application in the said civil suit was dismissed, learned counsel for RCT No 132/2018 Page 5 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:36:28 +05'30' respondent argued that even if the said suit was decided against the present respondent, she would continue to be at least co-owner of the tenanted premises and thereby fully entitled to seek eviction of the appellant. Learned counsel for respondent also argued that there is no law prescribing any specific legal notice of attornment and once the respondent stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner, it was the duty of the appellant tenant to start paying rent instead of sitting idle for 17 years. Learned counsel for respondent also took me through documentary evidence and contended that despite clear service of notice Ex.PW1/8 dated 14.08.2011 and despite there being no other claimant of rent, the appellant wrongly opted to ignore the notice and did not pay or even tender the rent. On the aspect of testimony of attorney of the present respondent, it was argued by learned counsel that the said attorney is father-in-law of the respondent and was personally aware of all facts related to this dispute.
4. To recapitulate, the appellant tenant has assailed the impugned eviction order on the grounds that since the present respondent, allegedly holds derivative title over the tenanted shop, the doctrine of estoppel does not operate to preclude the appellant from challenging title of the present respondent; that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties since the tenancy was not attorned by the appellant tenant in favour of the present respondent; that testimony of attorney of the present respondent is inconsequential; and that since the remaining legal representatives of Shri Mehar Chand Arora were not impleaded, the eviction petition was not maintainable in the eyes of law.
RCT No 132/2018 Page 6 of 19 pages
Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2022.02.08 13:36:08 +05'30'
5. The admitted position is that Shri Mehar Chand Arora was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted shop by Pandit Bishan Swaroop Girjadhar Vats. It is also the admitted position that the appellant, against whom the eviction petition was filed and allowed is one of the legal representatives of Shri Mehar Chand Arora. Contention of the learned counsel for appellant that after death of Shri Mehar Chand Arora, his legal representatives inherited the tenancy as tenants in common is not correct according to the settled legal position, discussed hereafter.
6. In the case of Narender Kaur vs Mahesh Chand & Sons, R.C.Rev.29/2012 decided on 17.08.2012 MANU/DE/4127/ 2012, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court rejected the contention that eviction petition was not maintainable due to non-joinder of some of the legal representatives of the deceased tenant, and held that it is settled legal position that it is not necessary for the landlord to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant and it is sufficient if the eviction petition is filed against any one of the joint tenants and all joint tenants would be equally bound by the eviction order.
7. In the case of Harish Tandon vs Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, UP & Ors., (1995) I SCC 537, the admitted factual position was that the premises in question were let out to Shri Sheobux Roy who died in the year 1941 leaving behind five sons out of whom three carried on their business in the subject premises; on the question of contravention by one of the legal representatives of Shri Sheobux Roy, the Hon'ble High Court took a RCT No 132/2018 Page 7 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Date:
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA2022.02.08 13:35:45 +05'30' view that after death of Shri Sheobux Roy, his five sons became tenants in common, so contravention by one of them shall not be a ground for eviction as regards the other co-tenants. After a detailed discussion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed thus :
"21. ...However, this court in the case of H.C. Pandey vs G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 in connection with the same Act said :
"It is now well settled that on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. The incidence of tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor. That is the position as between the landlord and the heirs of the deceased tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants."
22. ...According to us, it is difficult to hold that after the death of the original tenant, his heirs become tenants in common and each one of the heirs shall be deemed to be an independent tenant in his own right. This can be examined with reference to Section 20 (2) which contains the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted.
Clause (a) of Section 20 (2) says that if the tenant is in arrear of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand, then that shall be a ground on which the landlord can institute a suit RCT No 132/2018 Page 8 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:35:25 +05'30' for eviction. Take a case where the original tenant who was paying the rent dies leaving behind four sons. It need not be pointed out that after death of the original tenant, his heirs must be paying the rent jointly through one of his sons. Now if there is default as provided in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 in respect of the payment of rent, each of the sons will take a stand that he has not committed such default and it is only the other sons who have failed to pay the rent. If the concept of heirs becoming independent tenants is to be introduced, there should be a provision under the Act to the effect that each of the heirs shall pay the proportionate rent and in default thereto such heir or heirs alone shall be liable to be evicted. There is no scope for such division of liability to pay the rent which was being paid by the original tenant, amongst the heirs as against the landlord what the heirs do inter se, is their concern. Similarly, so far as ground (b) of sub- section (2) of Section 20, which says that if the tenant has willfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building, then the tenant shall be liable to be evicted; again, if one of the sons of the original deceased tenant willfully causes substantial damage to the building, the landlord cannot get possession of the premises from the heirs of the deceased tenant since the damage was not caused by all of them.
Same will be the position in respect of clause (c) which is another ground for eviction i.e. the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made, any such construction or structural alteration in the building which is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. Even if the said ground is established by the landlord, he cannot get RCT No 132/2018 Page 9 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Date:
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA2022.02.08 13:35:07 +05'30' possession of the building in which construction or structural alterations have been made diminishing its value and utility unless he establishes that all the heirs of the deceased tenant had done so......
23. It appears to us, in the case of H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1985) 2 SCC 683 it was rightly said by this court that after the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant jointly. The incidence of the tenancy is the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants"
8. In the case of Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain, AIR 2018 SC 2708, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recapitulated various judicial pronouncements on the aspect of inheritance of tenancy and concluded thus :
"20. We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra) the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is RCT No 132/2018 Page 10 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:34:46 +05'30' one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs."
9. Going by the above cited legal position, the irresistible conclusion in the present case is that all the legal representatives of Shri Mehar Chand Arora inherited the tenancy of the tenanted premises as joint tenants, in the sense that all the said legal representatives together constitute a single body tenant to the extent that act of one organ binds all the remaining organs of the body. That being so, it cannot be said that the eviction petition against only the appellant, without impleading the remaining legal representatives of Shri Mehar Chand Arora, was bad in law.
10. Then comes the question of relationship of tenancy between the parties, which is claimed by the present respondent on the basis of acquisition of ownership over the complete premises, which include the tenanted shop.
11. In that regard, it would be necessary to take a note of the transactions, through which the complete premises came into the hands of the present respondent. For that purpose, the recitals in the said registered sale deeds Ex.PW1/2-5 are important. The plot of land underneath the premises was transferred by virtue of a registered Indenture dated 28.05.1941 to Pandit Ram Chandra, who constructed the premises with his funds and after his death in the year 1942, the premises were inherited by his sons Shri Bishan Swaroop Vats and Shri Girjadhar Vats. Shri Bishan Swaroop Vats, owner of the half undivided share in the premises passed away on 01.03.1997 leaving behind his six sons. Five sons of Shri Bishan RCT No 132/2018 Page 11 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:34:23 +05'30' Swaroop Vats released and surrendered all their rights, title and interest in the premises in favour of their brother Shri Narender Swaroop Vats by way of registered relinquishment deed. Shri Girjadhar Vats, owner of the remaining half undivided share in the premises, died on 16.10.2002 leaving behind his widow and three sons. Thereafter, by way of oral partition, the premises were equally divided between Shri Narender Swaroop Vats as one part and Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vats and her sons as second part in the manner that eastern portion of the premises came to the share of Shri Narender Swaroop Vats while the western portion of the premises fell to the share of Smt. Shakuntala Devi and her sons. Shri Narender Swaroop Vats died on 05.08.2007 leaving behind his widow, three sons and one daughter. The widow, two sons and one daughter of Shri Narender Swaroop Vats relinquished their rights, title and interest in the premises in favour of Shri Bhanu Pratap Vats, son of Shri Narender Swaroop Vats by way of registered relinquishment deed, thereby making Shri Bhanu Pratap Vats absolute owner of the half portion of the premises on eastern side. Shri Bhanu Pratap Vats sold away his portion in the premises consisting of two shops on the ground floor with undivided proportionate share in the land underneath the premises in favour of Shri Arjun Sharma and Shri Suresh Sharma by way of registered sale deed. Shri Arjun Sharma and Shri Suresh Sharma sold away the said two shops by way of registered sale deed Ex. PW1/3 to the present respondent and Smt. Anita Pahwa. Similarly, Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vats, widow of Shri Girjadhar Vats, and her children also sold away their portion in the premises to the present respondent and Smt. Anita Pahwa by way of registered sale deed Ex. PW1/2. Similarly, by way of another RCT No 132/2018 Page 12 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:34:00 +05'30' registered sale deed Ex. PW1/4 Smt Shakuntala Devi Vats, widow of Shri Girjadhar Vats, and her children sold away another portion of the premises to the present respondent and Smt. Anita Pahwa. By way of registered sale deed Ex. PW1/5 Shri Arjun Sharma and Shri Suresh Sharma sold away another portion of the premises to the present respondent and Smt. Anita Pahwa. Thus, by way of registered sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/5, the premises were sold away to the present respondent and Smt. Anita Pahwa. Subsequently, by way of registered release deed Ex. PW1/6, Smt. Anita Pahwa, for consideration paid to her, released her share in the premises in favour of the present respondent. Thus, the present respondent became owner of the complete premises.
12. The civil suit referred to by the appellant is a partition suit, as reflected from copy of plaint of the said suit filed before this court during final arguments by the appellant side. Plaint of the said suit is dated 03.03.2010 and there was no prayer in the said suit challenging the registered sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/5. However, subsequently an amendment in the plaint was sought seeking a declaration that the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs of the suit. None of the plaintiffs of that suit is vendor in the registered sale deeds. Vendors of the said registered sale deeds are defendants no.8-21 in the said suit.
13. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for respondent that outcome of the said civil suit would not have any bearing on the present proceedings, insofar as the vendors from whom the premises were purchased by the present respondent, RCT No 132/2018 Page 13 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:33:39 +05'30' admittedly being male descendants of the original owner Pandit Ram Chandra, are admittedly co-owners of the premises and they have not challenged the sale deeds. Even if the said registered sale deeds are declared not binding on the plaintiffs, status of the present respondent as co-owner of the premises would remain unaltered, because she stepped into the shoes of the defendants no.8-21 of the said civil suit.
14. It is settled legal position that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners, as consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement. Reference in that regard can be drawn from the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Prasad Jain vs Manohar Lal Jain, (2006) 2 SCC 624; and M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Company vs Bhagadandei Aggarwala, AIR 2004 SC 1321. Besides, in various other judicial precedents, consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been that a co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of the entire property and what is to be seen is not as to whether the co-owner who did not join the issuance of quit notice or institution of eviction petition had consented for issuance of notice or institution of eviction petition, but whether the co-owner who did not join the issuance of quit notice or institution of eviction petition had objected to the issuance of notice or institution of eviction petition. In the present case, admittedly there is nothing on record to reflect objection of any of the parties embroiled in the RCT No 132/2018 Page 14 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:33:20 +05'30' said civil suit with regard to ejecting the appellant tenant out of the tenanted shop.
15. Then comes the issue of attornment. Admittedly, there is no specific statutory provision as regards attornment of tenancy. Attornment, basically implies continuity of tenancy though title in the subject premises might have passed on to someone other than the landlord by way of sale or otherwise. Once a tenant attorns a new owner of the subject premises as landlord, the tenant cannot challenge title of the landlord thereafter. In the case of Mohd. Ilias (supra) referred to by learned counsel for appellant also there was no specific document of attornment on record, but the documentary evidence reflected that contrarily, stand of purchaser of the subject property was that after death of the licensee, the license had got terminated and the defendants were unauthorized occupants of the subject property and it was subsequently that the purchaser accepted the defendants as tenants, so it was not the continuation of the earlier tenancy.
16. In the present case, the appellant's own document Ex. DW1/1 is a rent receipt pertaining to the period from 01.03.2005 to 31.07.2006 and according to the same, Smt. Shanti Devi, mother of the appellant, paid rent of the tenanted shop to Narender Swaroop Vats & brothers. In other words, Shri Narender Swaroop Vats is admitted to be landlord of the appellant. The document Ex. PW1/8 is a copy of notice dated 14.08.2011 which was sent to the appellant by registered post and even its acknowledgment card is on record. In his cross examination as DW1, the appellant though denied that the RCT No 132/2018 Page 15 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:32:58 +05'30' signatures of the recipient on the acknowledgment card are his, but admitted that the notice Ex. PW1/8 as well acknowledgment card bear his correct address and he could not say as to who had signed the acknowledgment card as recipient. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it is difficult to believe that notice Ex. PW1/8 was not served on the appellant.
17. In notice Ex. PW1/8, the present respondent through counsel called upon the appellant to pay the arrears of rent and also expressed her decision to terminate the contractual tenancy since the appellant was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. In the said notice, the appellant was also informed complete details of the registered sale deeds, whereby the premises had been sold to the present respondent. Despite that, the appellant neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent nor sent any reply to the notice. The appellant did not even try to contact his admitted landlord Shri Narender Swaroop Vats with the request to accept rent or to verify the transfer of title in the premises to the present respondent. In the registered sale deeds Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/5, there are clear averments that the premises are occupied by tenants and the vendees shall have full right to receive, recover, realize and collect rent/ damages from the tenants. More specifically, the sale deed Ex. PW1/3 disclosed that the tenanted shop is under tenancy of M/s Arora Watch Company, under which name and style the appellant is working from the tenanted shop and it specifically conferred on the present respondent full right to receive, recover, realize and collect rents and damages from the tenant named in the sale deed. Despite having received complete particulars of the registered sale deeds RCT No 132/2018 Page 16 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:32:38 +05'30' through notice Ex. PW1/8, the appellant tried not to recognize the present respondent as landlord. The person who purchases a property occupied by a tenant cannot be rendered helpless where the tenant refuses to recognize the purchaser as landlord under the garb of attornment.
18. Under these circumstances, argument of learned counsel for appellant that the appellant never issued any attornment letter to the respondent must fail.
19. Even if claim of the appellant is believed that for payment of rent he was told by the landlords to wait till the decision of the said civil suit, it would in no way absolve the appellant tenant of his duty to pay rent. Appellant ought to have deposited the rent with the Rent Controller but opted not to do so after 31.07.2006.
20. As regards the argument of learned counsel for appellant that testimony of PW1 is liable to be discarded because he was only an attorney of the eviction petitioner, suffice it to say that the legal position as culled out of the judicial precedents referred to by learned counsel for appellant himself is otherwise. In the case of Man Kaur (supra) {which was also referred to by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of S. Kesari Hanuman Goud vs Anjum Jehan & Ors, 2014 (2) RLR 30}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recapitulated the legal position as follows:
"18. We may now summarise for convenience, the position as to who should give evidence in regard to matters involving personal knowledge:
RCT No 132/2018 Page 17 of 19 pages
Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2022.02.08 13:32:19 +05'30'
(a) .......
.......
.......
.......
(g) Where the law requires or contemplates the plaintiff or other party to a proceeding, to establish or prove something with reference to his "state of mind" or "conduct", normally the person concerned alone has to give evidence and not an attorney holder. A landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant, on the ground of his "bonafide" need and a purchaser seeking specific performance who has to show his "readiness and willingness" fall under this category. There is however a recognized exception to this requirement. Where all the affairs of a party are completely managed, transacted and looked after by an attorney (who may happen to be a close family member), it may be possible to accept the evidence of such attorney even with reference to "bonafide" or "readiness and willingness". Examples of such attorney holders are a husband/wife exclusively managing the affairs of his/her spouse, a son/daughter exclusively managing the affairs of an old and infirm parent, a father/mother exclusively managing the affairs of a son/daughter living abroad".
21. In the present case, the attorney of the eviction petitioner is her father-in-law, who in his chief examination affidavit as PW1 specifically testified that he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case, and he even verified contents of his chief examination affidavit on the basis of his knowledge. In his cross examination, PW1 explained that the eviction petitioner is unable to appear and depose in court because she has two school going children. From extensive cross examination of PW1, it does not appear that he is not personally aware about facts of this case. Therefore, I find no reason to discard the testimony of PW1.
RCT No 132/2018 Page 18 of 19 pages
Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2022.02.08 13:32:00 +05'30'
22. In view of the above discussion, I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
23. Trial Court Record be sent back with a copy of this judgment and appeal file be consigned to records, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Announced through videoconferencing on this 08th day of February, 2022 GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2022.02.08 13:31:35 +05'30' (GIRISH KATHPALIA) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQs) RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI RCT No 132/2018 Page 19 of 19 pages Shri Ramesh Arora vs Smt. Neetu Gupta