Delhi District Court
Shri Chander Sen Saini vs Smt. Shanti Devi on 21 September, 2011
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
64/10
E
21.09.2011
1. Shri Chander Sen Saini
2. Shri Sultan Singh Saini
Sons of Late Sh. Budh Singh,
R/o 8947/14B, Shidipura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
...Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Smt. Shanti Devi
w/o Late Sh. Ram Gupta
2. Sh. Rajinder Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ram Gupta
3. Sh. Subhash Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ram Gupta
4. Mrs. Meenu Gupta (Babli)
D/o Late Sh. Ram Gupta
5. Sh. Rakesh Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ram Gupta
6. Sh. Rajiv Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ram Gupta
All residents of 8944/14B,Shidipura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi5. ...Respondents
Petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case : 30.03.2010
2. Date of Judgment Reserved : 15.09.2011
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 21.09.2011
//2//
JUDGMENT
By this order I shall dispose of an application under section 25 B (4) of DRC Act filed on behalf of the respondents. The present petition was filed by the petitioners under section 14(1) (e) r/w section 25 B of the DRC Act on the ground of bonafide requirements. The brief facts of the case are that originally Sh. Budh Singh son of Sh. Badlu Ram was the owner of the suit property bearing no. 8944, situated at Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The entire ground floor being used for commercial purposes. The said Sh. Budh Singh let out the suit premises consisting of one room 8' X 15' and one verandah 7' X 15' on the first floor of the said property to Sh. Ram Gupta son of Sh. B.Prasad for residential purposes on the monthly rent of Rs. 75/ exclusive of the electricity and water charges. The suit premises are being used for residential purposes since the inception of the tenancy. The water and electricity charges are being paid by tenant as per bills received. After death of Sh. Budh Singh, the petitioners became the joint owners of the suit property and the said Sh. Ram Gupta became their tenant on the same terms and conditions by operation of law and he started paying the monthly rent of Rs. 75/ to the petitioners. Sh. Ram Gupta died on 13.09.1999 and after his death the respondents claiming to be his heirs and using the suit premises for residential purposes and claimed themselves to be the tenants by operation of law. The respondent no. 1 even filed a false //3// and frivolous suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners which is pending disposal in the court of Ms. Vrinda Kumar, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is further stated that the respondents have neither tendered nor paid the arrears of rent which are due from them since October, 1997.
2. It is further stated that the family of the petitioner no. 1 consists of himself, his wife, two married sons, their wives and three grandsons/daughters, three married daughters, their husband and their five children. Family of the petitioner no. 2 consists, himself, his wife, two sons, their wives and two grandsons/daughters, two married daughter, their husband and their five children. The daughters of the petitioners alongwith their children often visit the petitioners and stay overnight. It becomes difficult to accommodate all in the present accommodation. The children have to sleep on floors. Considering the size of the families, the petitioners at least need 2 guest rooms to accommodate outstation guests and relatives who often visit the petitioners and stay over night. It is further stated that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 alongwith their sons and their respective family members are living together having separate kitchens. It is further stated that the petitioner no. 1 and his son Sh. Anil Kumar are carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Moon Tent House having office and godowns in ground floor of property no. 8944 and 8947, Gali No. 14B, //4// Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 for hiring tent and furniture for functions and his second son Sh. Vimal Saini is running a tempo. The petitioner no. 2 is a retired pensioner and his elder son Sh. Shekhar Saini is running a shop and godown in ground floor of property no. 8944, Gali No. 14B, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5, under the name and style of Charu General Store and his second son Sh. Vikas Saini is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Vikas Electricals having shop in property no. 8944, Ground floor and having godown in property no. 8947, Ground floor, Gali no. 14B, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5. The total family income of the petitioner no. 1 is approx. Rs. 30,000/ per month while total family income of the petitioner no. 2 is approx. Rs. 32,000/. The petitioner no. 1 & 2 alongwith their wives need separate bed rooms. Similarly the sons of petitioner no. 1 and 2 with their wives need separate bed rooms and at least three rooms/bed rooms/study rooms for five grand children. It is further stated that the petitioners are also the owners of the property bearing no. 8947, Gali No. 14B, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 which is adjoining to the suit property. The entire ground floor of this property no. 8947, is being used for commercial purposes and the rooms on the first floor, second floor and barsati having six rooms are in possession of the petitioners and their family members. Petitioner no. 2 is also in possession of one room on the first floor in the property in question.
//5// Petitioners and their family members have no drawing room, no dining room, no pooja room and even the rooms occupied by them are insufficient to accommodate the family members and the suit premises is required by the petitioners bonafidely for residence of themselves and their family members as they have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.
3. Leave to defend application was filed alongwith affidavits of the respondents no. 1,5 and 6. It is stated in the affidavits that the petitioners became the owners of the two building bearing no. 8944 and 8947, situated at Shidhipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 after the death of their father and mother and have got vacated the premises from their six tenants and thereafter the petitioners started various business such as electrical shop, tent house and godown, general store illegally without getting any permission from the various competent authorities of the govt. It is further stated that presently the petitioners have sufficient accommodation for their residence in the premises bearing no. 8947, Gali No. 14B, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 and one residential room on the first floor of the property in question. It is further stated that the site plan of property no. 8947 and 8944 filed by the petitioners are wrong. The actual accommodation in the property no. 8947 consisting of 1 shop, 5 rooms //6// (used as godown), 1 latrine, 1 bathroom and big galary on the ground floor. On the first floor there are 5 rooms, two kitchens, latrine and bathroom. On the second floor there are 5 rooms, 2 kitchens and on the third floor there is one residential room lying vacant, one water tap and open terrace. The actual accommodation in the premises no. 8944 consists 3 shops out of which one shop is used as a electrical shop, second shop is used as a general store and third shop with attached big rooms is used as a godown. One room is used for screen printing work/business, one store is used as a godown, one latrine and one staircase are on the ground floor. On the first floor one room and one verandah are used by the respondent no. 1 alongwith her son for residential purposes. The other room is used by Sh. Shekhar Saini s/o Sh. Sultan Singh, petitioner no. 2 for residential purposes and another room is used as a godown by the petitioners with open terrace. It is further stated that petition is bad for misjoinder of parties as respondent no. 2 to 4 are not residing in the premises.
4. Reply to the leave to defend application alongwith counter affidavit filed by the petitioners wherein they denied the accommodation as alleged by the respondent in property no. 8947. It is stated that the property no. 8947 has 1 shop measuring 9'X14', two rooms measuring 8'X8' and rest of two rooms are 12'6" X8' and one latrine, verandah, courtyard and passage //7// on the ground floor. 4 rooms measuring 8'8 X9'4, 8'3 X16'6, 8' X 12'6' and 8'3 X 12'6', two kitchens, 1 latrine and passage on the first floor. Two rooms measuring 8'3 X 16'6 & 25'X8' alongwith attached toilet and 1 kitchen on the second floor and one barsati measuring 8'8 X 9'4 on the third floor. It is further denied that the actual accommodation in the premises no. 8944 is three shops, one rooms is used for screen printing work, one store is used as a godown. It is stated that actual accommodation of the said premises is used as electric shop, general store, workshop as a godown, latrine, staircase and passage. It is further denied that on the first floor one room is being used as a godown. It is stated that the said room is a tin shed and not usable. All other averments made in the application were denied.
5. The respondent no. 1, 5 and 6 have filed rejoinder to the reply/counter affidavit of petitioners in which the respondents have reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the leave to defend application and those made in the reply had been controverted.
6. Arguments heard. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of the parties. Record perused and considered.
7. Ld. c ounsel for the petitioners relied upon the following rulings :
(i) Harivansh Lal Vs. Madan Lal, 1997 RLR 383 //8//
(ii) Benson shoes Vs. Chunni Lal Takkar, 167 (2010) DLT 678
(iii) Sudershan Dutta Vs. Krishan Narain, 1997 RLR 534
(iv) Anand Gopal Jhingan Vs. K.D.Beri
8. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1 ) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove
(i) Ownership of the suit premises ; (ii) Purpose of letting; (iii) Alternative accommodation; and (iv) bonafide requirement;. Let the same be discussed in detail.
Ownership and purpose of letting
9. There is no dispute regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondents have also not disputed the ownership of the petitioners. So far the purpose of letting is concerned, after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union Of India III (2008) SLT 553, an eviction petition is maintainable on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of the property which were let out for commercial purposes. Hence both the ingredients are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
//9// Alternative accommodation and bonafide requirement
10. The respondents contended that petitioners have sufficient accommodation for their residence in the property bearing no. 8947 which is having one shop, five rooms (used as godowns) on the ground floor and five rooms alongwith two kitchens, latrine, bathroom on the first floor and five rooms with two kitchens on the third floor and one room on the terrace. The respondent further contended that petitioners also have one residential room on the first floor in property in question. On the other hand the petitioners stated that there are two rooms measuring 8 X 8 ft and two rooms measuring 12'6'' X 8' on the ground floor. 4 rooms measuring 8'8'' X9'4'', 8'3 X16'6'', 8' X 12'6'' and 8'3'' X 12'6'', two kitchens, 1 latrine and passage on the first floor. Two rooms measuring 8'3'' X 16'6'' & 25'X8'' alongwith attached toilet and 1 kitchen on the second floor and one barsati measuring 8'8 X 9'4 on the third floor. It is not in dispute that the shop/rooms on the ground floor in both the property no. 8947, 8944 are being used for commercial purposes. The respondents themselves stated in their affidavits that as per notification dated 07.02.2007 no commercial activities permitted/allowed on the first floor of the building. All the shops/rooms on the ground floor are used and in occupation for commercial activities and no space is lying vacant on the ground floor. According to the respondents, the petitioners have five rooms each on the first and second //10// floor, with two kitchens and one residential room on the third floor in property no. 8947. The respondents have merely stated that there are five rooms each on the first and second floor in the property no. 8947. The respondents have not filed even a site plan showing five rooms on first and second floor in property no. 8947. It is well settled law that if respondent/tenant do not file a site plan than the site plan filed on behalf of the landlord would be deemed to be correct. So far the first floor of property no. 8944 is concerned there is no dispute that the petitioners have one room in the said property. Both the petitioners and their families are in use and occupation of seven rooms whereas the total number of families are 17 excluding married daughters who used to visit their parents house. Out of 17 members there are six married couples. Each couples need atleast one bed room each. There are five school going children, therefore, they also need separate bed rooms and study rooms. Each petitioners need one room for his married daughters. Petitioners also needs drawing room and pooja room. Thus, the need of the petitioners are of about 12 rooms but they are in possession of only 7 rooms. The accommodation available with the petitioners for themselves and their family members is highly insufficient and they bonafidely needs the tenanted premises for residential purposes. It is held in Harivansh Lal Vs. Madan Lal that landlord is not supposed to huddle his family in a small accommodation for the sake of tenant. Each //11// married son requires atleast two rooms, one for self and wife and another for stores and visitors. Barsati is not a living room. A living rooms should not be of less than 100 sq. ft. If landlord produces site plan and tenant does not produce counter site plan than landlord plan has to be accepted as correct. The contention of the respondent that the suit premises falls in slum area has also no substance because it is well settled law that no permission is required from the competent authority slum before filing an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement even, if the premises located in the slum area. The further contention of the respondents in that petition is bad for misjoinder of parties as respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 are not residing in the suit premises. This contention has no substance because earlier Sh. Ram Gupta, husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent no. 2 to 6 was tenant in the suit premises and after his death all the respondents became joint tenants by operation of law, therefore, it cannot be said that the present suit is bad for misjoinder of parties.
11. In view of the above discussions, the respondents have failed to raise any triable issue. On the other hand, the petitioners have successfully established that petitioners require the tenanted premises bona fide for the residence of themselves and their family members who are dependent upon them. The petitioners have no other suitable alternate accommodation with //12// them. Hence the petitioners are entitled for an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act.
12. Accordingly, the application of the respondents seeking leave to defend is dismissed and the petitioners are entitled for an eviction order and therefore an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of D.R.C. Act is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises i.e forming part of property no. 8944, Gali No. 14B, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5, more specifically shown in red color in site plan EX. C1 (exhibited today while passing the order). However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry of six months running from today. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court
on 21.09.2011) (Pritam Singh)
ARC/Central/Delhi