Delhi District Court
Yogesh Kumar Verma vs Mangal Singh on 9 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. TISTA SHAH, ARC-1, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC No. 97/18
1. Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh. Ballabh Verma
2. Smt. Anita Verma
W/o Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma
Both R/o L-13, Naveen Shahdara,
Delhi - 110032. ...........Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Mangal Singh
S/o Sh. Banarsi Dass
R/o 499, Gali Ghosian,
Mantola, Paharganj, New Delhi - 110055. .....Respondent
Date of Institution of the case : 17.01.2018
Date of Judgment reserved : 30.07.2024
Date of Judgment pronounced : 09.08.2024
Under Section : 14 (1) (a) Delhi Rent Control Act
JUDGMENT
This is an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (or in short "DRCA") filed by the petitioners against the respondent for non-payment of rent.
PETITION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners are that the original owner and landlord of the premises bearing no. 495-499, measuring 662 sq. yrds or 533.72 sq. mtrs situated at Gali Ghosian, mantola, Paharganj, Delhi was Smt. Manju Jain W/o Lt. Sh. Bhagwati Parsad RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 1 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh Jain. It is further stated that the respondent was inducted as a tenant by Smt. Manju Jain in respect of the tenanted premises specifically which is one room on the first floor of the abovementioned property.
2. It is further stated that Smt. Manju Jain sold the entire property to the present petitioners by means of sale deed dated 08.10.2012 along with possession of the tenanted premises of the respondent. It is further submitted that after the purchase of the said property the petitioner also sent a letter of attornment to the respondent who accepted and acknowledged the same but did not reply to the same.
3. It is further submitted that the respondent was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 110/- per month excluding electricity charges and had paid the rent to the erstwhile owner i.e. Smt. Manju Jain upto 30.06.2011.
4. That since the petitioners had purchased the said property as such by operation of law and in view of the sale deed and the letter of attornment, the respondent became the tenant under the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners demanded for the arrears of rent as well as the future rent from the respondent who refused to pay the same.
5. It is further submitted that the respondent was a habitual defaulter in the payment of the monthly rent as such the petitioner RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 2 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh got issued a legal notice dated 12.02.2014 demanding the rent @ Rs. 110/- per month w.e.f. 01.07.2011 which was duly acknowledged by the respondent who choose not to reply to the same and neither paid nor tendered the rent w.e.f. 01.07.2011.
6. It is further submitted that the property falls under the Slum as such the petitioners also obtained the necessary permission from the Competent Authority (DUSIB), Tis Hazari, Delhi vide order dated 31.05.2017. It is further submitted that even during the proceedings pending before the Competent Authority (DUSIB), the respondent did not tender the monthly rent as demanded in the notice dated 12.02.2014.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioners got served another legal notice dated 09.09.2017 calling upon the respondent to pay or tender the rent in terms of the previous legal notice and enhanced the rate of rent in terms of the DRC Act to Rs. 133.10/- per month. Thus, it is prayed that present petition u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act be allowed.
Written Statement
8. After service of the summons, the respondent has filed written statement wherein he stated that the petitioners are neither owners nor the landlords qua the respondent in respect of the property in question. It is further submitted that the property bearing no. 495 to 499 belongs to Mrs. Manju Jain and the respondent is a tenant in a small portion of the said premises for last several decades RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 3 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh and was paying rent @ Rs. 110/- per month excluding electricity, water and other charges. It is further submitted that there is landlord and tenant relationship between Mrs. Manju Jain and the respondent. It is further submitted that respondent is regularly making payment of rent to the owner and owner issued rent receipt to the respondent after gap of some time
9. It is further submitted that there is dispute over ownership of property bearing no. 495 to 499, Gali Ghosiyan, Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 and legal proceedings are going on between Smt. Manju Jain, Yogesh Verma, Mohd. Shafiq and Sh. Harish Arya, all alleging owners of the property. It is further submitted that in the month of October, 2012 respondent received a notice dated 10.10.2012 stating that the erstwhile owner has sold the aforesaid properties to Mr. Yogesh Kumar and Smt. Anita Verma claiming themselves as owner of the property bearing no. 495 to
499.
10. It is further submitted that respondent received one more notice dated 23.10.2012 on behalf of Mohd. Safiq and Sh. Harish Arya stating that smt. Manju Jain has dishonestly sold the property no. 495 to 499, Gali Ghosiyan Mantola, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi to Mr. Yogsh Kumar Verma and Smt. Anita Verma since Manju Jain had made an agreement to sell with them but she did not comply the agreement to sell and sold the property to Mr. Yogesh Kumar Verma and Smt. Anita Verma.
RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 4 of 12Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh
11. It is further submitted that respondent sent reply dated 09.11.2012 to the notice of Mrs. Manju Jain and also sent reply dated 09.11.2012 of notice of Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma and Smt. Anita Verma. It is further submitted that respondent met Smt. Manju Jain and she said that she is still the landlady and entitled to claim rent of the property from the tenants.
12. It is further submitted that respondent has already paid rent till October, 2012 to Smt. Manju Jain but despite request, she did not issue any rent receipt. It is further submitted that since there was dispute about the ownership qua the property, and hence, the respondent was constrained to deposit the rent in respect of the property under section 27 of DRC Act. It is further submitted that petitioners appeared before the Ld. ARC in the proceedings but failed to file any objections. However, Mohd. Shafiq and Harish Arya appeared and filed objections. Further Ld. ARC allowed the application filed by the respondent and the entire rent stands deposited in the said proceedings. It is thus prayed that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Replication.
13. No replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioners.
14. It is seen that the respondent in the present case had stopped appearing and hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 5 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh 28.11.2022.
TRIAL Petitioner's Evidence
15. In order to prove their case, petitioner no. 1 Sh. Yogesh Kumar Verma entered the witness box as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(1) Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) i.e. copy of sale deed dated 08.10.2012 (2) Ex. PW-1/2 i.e. true certified copy of site plan (3) Ex. PW-1/3 i.e. certified copy of order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Competent Authority (Slum). (4) Mark A i.e. copy of legal notice dated 15.02.2014.
(5) Ex. PW-1/12 i.e. legal notice dated 09.09.2017
(6) Ex. PW-1/13 i.e. postal receipt.
16. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and perused the records carefully.
FINDINGS
17. I have heard arguments and carefully gone through the record.
In order to succeed in a petition under section 14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has to establish the following: -
(i) Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) That the respondent was in arrears of rent, legally recoverable on and before the date of notice of demand;
(iii) Service of notice of demand in the manner as provided in RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 6 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act;
(iv) Failure of the tenant to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from her within two months of the date of service of notice of demand;
18. The petitioners have claimed to be the owner and landlord of premises bearing No. 495-499 which is stated to include the tenanted premises by virtue of a sale deed dated 08.10.2012 stated to have been executed by the erstwhile owner namely Smt. Manju Jain.
19. In the written statement, the respondent has stated that the respondent was the tenant of Smt. Manju Jain and had been paying the rent to Smt. Manju Jain only and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondent.
Thus, it has been admitted by the respondent in the written statement that the owner of the property was Smt. Manju Jain and that he was a tenant of Smt. Manju Jain. The petitioners has claimed title as regards the tenanted premises from Smt. Manju Jain herself, where Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) is the copy of the sale deed executed by Smt. Manju Jain in favour of the petitioners. A transferee of the landlord's right steps into the shoes of the landlord and even if the tenancy is not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease continues. In the present case, the respondent in his WS has also admitted receipt of a notice dated 10.10.2012 stating that the erstwhile owner had sold the property in question to the petitioners.
20. A plea has been raised by the respondent in his written RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 7 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh statement that he has received a notice dated 23.10.2012, on behalf of one Mohd. Shafiq and Sh. Harish Arya stating that Smt. Manju Jain had dishonestly sold the property to the petitioners as she had made an agreement to sell with them but did not comply with the said agreement to sell. Although the respondent has stated that he had sent a reply to the aforementioned notices, neither have the notices been filed by the respondent nor have their replies been filed on record. It is further submitted that on account of a dispute as to who was the owner of the tenanted premises, the respondent was constrained to deposit the rent in respect of the property under Section 27 of the DRC Act in court.
21. There is nothing filed on record by the respondent to show that the title of the petitioners upon the tenanted premises was disputed or there was any confusion with regard to who was the landlord of the tenanted premises. As per the averment of the respondent himself, he was aware that there was a sale deed that had already been executed by the erstwhile owner in favour of the petitioners. The averment of the respondent that as per the notice dated 23.10.2012 received by him on behalf of Mohd. Shafiq and Sh. Harish Arya, the petitioners had made an agreement to sell with them as regards the tenanted premises, has not been proven by the respondent. The copy of the alleged notice dated 23.10.2012 has not been filed on record. Even otherwise, an agreement to sell would not confer title upon any party and ownership of the tenanted premises cannot be stated to have passed by virtue of a mere agreement to RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 8 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh sell. It is also a well settled law that a tenant is estopped from denying the title of his landlord by virtue of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
22. In the present case, the petitioners deposed as PW-1/witness and has relied upon Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) which is the copy of sale deed dated 08.10.2012 and Ex. PW1/3 which is the certified copy of the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the competent authority (Slum), which all show that there existed landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent. The testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted.
Hence, the petitioners has been able to establish a landlord- tenant relationship between the parties in the present case.
23. As far as the question of whether the respondent was in arrears of rent is concerned, the respondent has contended that he has deposited the rent by way of filing of petition u/s 27 of DRC Act. Alongwith the written statement filed by the respondent, a copy of an application filed under Section 27 DRC Act, has been filed alongwith the copy of the cash receipt of deposition of rent and a challan. The originals or the certified copies of the said documents were not filed by the respondent. The respondent did not even enter into the witness box and the said documents were never tendered in evidence and hence, the said documents being merely photocopies cannot be relied upon at this stage. Moreover, nothing has been filed to show whether the said DR petitions were allowed or dismissed by RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 9 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh the court. Thus, the statement of the respondent that the rent of the premises was already deposited u/s 27 of the DRC Act cannot be relied upon.
24. The petitioners have stated that the rate of rent of the tenanted premises was Rs. 133.10/- per month and a legal notice demanding the arrears of rent issued by the petitioners was duly received by the respondent.
25. Ex. PW-1/12 is the legal notice that has been issued on behalf of the petitioners to the respondent demanding arrears of rent and Ex. PW-1/13 is the postal receipt showing issuance of the said notice.
26. In the evidence affidavit of petitioner no.1 as PW1, it has been stated that the demand notice dated 09.09.2017 was duly issued and served upon the respondent. It is also stated that previously another notice dated 12.01.2014 was issued to the respondent which was received by the respondent, however, the copy of the said notice which is present on record as Mark-A, cannot be relied upon since neither the original notice was filed on record nor was a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act filed in support of the said document. The respondent has not disputed his address upon the said legal notice dated 09.09.2017. Hence a presumption of due service under Section 27, General Clauses Act can be raised that the respondent had duly served the demand notice. Despite such service, RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 10 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh the respondent failed to comply with the notice and clear the arrears of rent within two months of service.
27. The testimony of PW1 has gone unchallenged and unrebutted, in the absence of any cross-examination by the respondent. As already discussed above, the legal notice dated 09.09.2017 is also deemed to have been served upon the respondent. Despite such service, the respondent failed to comply with the notice and clear the arrears of rent within two months of service. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 and no contradictions have emerged therein.
Hence, all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(a) DRC Act stand proved.
CONCLUSION
28. In view of the foregoing, it is held that the petitioners has succeeded in establishing his case u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent. As such, the petition under Section 14(1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act is allowed.
29. Since no order u/s 15 (1) DRC Act was passed in the present case because the respondent did not appear before this court, therefore, eviction order u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act cannot be passed straight away without affording the opportunity to the respondent to the benefit of section 14 (2) of DRC Act. The present case has been filed on 17.01.2018. The petitioners are entitled to legally recover rent from the respondent for a period of three years prior to filing of the present case. Accordingly, an order u/s 15(1) of DRC Act is RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 11 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh passed directing the respondent to pay or deposit the rent @ Rs. 133.10/- per month alongwith interest @15% per annum for the period starting from on 17.01.2015 till date within one month of service of notice upon the respondent informing him of this order & to continue to pay or deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 133.10/- per month by the 15th day of each succeeding English calender month.
30. Issue notice for service upon the respondent informing him of this order. Copy of this order be sent with notice. Notice and copy of the order be served by way of affixation. Endorsement to this effect be made on the notice.
31. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate file for the consideration of benefit u/s 14 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Nazir is also directed to file report on 29.10.2024 regarding compliance of order u/s 15 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act as passed today.
Digitally File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
TISTA signed by TISTA SHAH Date:
SHAH 2024.08.09 18:20:01 (Announced in the Open Court) +0530 (Tista Shah) ARC-01, Central District, is Hazari Courts, Delhi/09.08.2024 RC ARC NO. 97/18 Page 12 of 12 Yogesh Kumar Verma & Anr. Vs Mangal Singh