Delhi District Court
Rajesh Verma vs Sharanjeet Singh on 14 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER SINGH: ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER: KKD
COURTS: DELHI
E126/10
Case I.D. No.02402C0181802010
Rajesh Verma
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Verma
R/o A16, Welcome Apartments,
Sector9, Rohini, Delhi. ....Petitioner
Versus
Sharanjeet Singh
S/o Bhagat Singh
Shop no.6 in property no.28/18/A3,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi. ....Respondent
Date of filing of petition : 05/07/2010
Date of argument : 08/11/2011
Date of Judgment : 14/11/2011
Petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w 25B of DRC Act.
JUDGMENT:
1. Sh. Rajesh Verma (hereinafter called petitioner) filed this eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w S. 25B of DRC Act against Sharanjeet Singh (hereinafter called respondent) in respect of the shop no.6 in property no.28/18/A3, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi shown in red in site plan attached s(hereinafter called tenanted premises).
2. Petitioner alleged that tenanted premises was let out to respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.450/ by his grand father for running the business of electric goods. E126/10 Page 1 of 10 Petitioner further alleged that after the death of his grand father and in the light of the Will executed by his grand father, he became the owner of tenanted premises and therefore respondent became his tenant and he has been paying the rent to him. Petitioner further alleged that he requires the tenanted premises bonafide for himself as he has no other premises to run his business and earn his livelihood. Petitioner further alleged that he was earlier working with Ashakamal Creations Pvt. Ltd. where he was not satisfied with the job and he was compelled to resign the same and his resignation was accepted by his employer on 20/2/2010 so he is jobless since then and therefore he wants to start his business in the tenanted premises to earn his livelihood hence he filed the present petition.
3. Summons served upon respondent under Schedule III of DRC Act.
Respondent put his appearance and filed an application seeking leave to defend alongwth his affidavit wherein respondent alleged that petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises as petitioner has nowhere disclosed the date of execution of alleged Will. He further alleged that Will dated 20/11/1990 suggests that one master Rajesh Verma is s/o Sh. Man Mohan Verma whereas petitioner claimed himself to be the son of Mohan Lal Verma in his petition. Respondent further alleged that tenanted premises is actually shop no.A3 in property bearing no.28/18, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi32 but petitioner in his petition wrongly stated that tenanted premises is shop no.6 even in Will dated 20/11/90 his shop is shown as shop no.6. Respondent further alleged that bequeathed portion allegedly bequeathed to master Rajesh Verma is all marked in site plan attached with the Will but same is not filed alongwith petition. Respondent further alleged that the tenanted premises is shop no. A3 not shop no.6. Respondent further alleged that petitioner concealed the material fact as one Smt. Hiramani W/o Baij Nath Verma was his landlord as Baij Nath was his original landlord/owner. Respondent further alleged he also received notice of one advocate Sh. Sanjay Agarwal wherein Smt. Hiramani claimed that she collected rent upto E126/10 Page 2 of 10 31/12/02. Respondent further alleged that he also received the notice of Kamal Verma s/o Sh. Baij Nath Verma dated 20/10/03 wherein he claimed rent of shop no.3. Thereafter he filed a petition u/s 27 DRC Act against Hiramani and Kamal Verma. Respondent further alleged that Hiramani and family members had a family settlement then petitioner received rent @ Rs.450/ p.m. till 31/3/08 from him by force claiming himself the owner of the tenanted premises and issued rent receipts but failed to issue rent receipt for the period w.e.f. 01/4/08 to 30/9/09 and threatened him to vacate the tenanted premises however the other landlord remained silent. Respondent further alleged that on 18/3/2010 he filed a petition for deposit of rent against Rajesh Verma and Kamal Verma but both have not filed their objections, hence his petition was disposed off on 26/7/2010. Respondent further alleged that the Will dated 20/11/1990 is a manufactured document and not within the knowledge of the owners Smt. Hiramani or Sh. Kamal Verma. Respondent further alleged that petitioner has not specified what business he want to do in the tenanted premises and even he has not placed the copy of resignation letter on record. Respondent further alleged that document dated 24/3/10 the alleged full and final receipt is procured and manufactured document. Respondent further alleged that petitioner has other reasonable suitable accommodation and as per his own showing, he is resident of A16, Welcome Apartment, Sector9, Rohini, Delhi. In his petition he has not shown the business or his qualification or his designation in case he was on ordinary employee and he wished to do business he can safely do the said business from his own spacious accommodation. Respondent further alleged that petitioner and Kamal Verma are hand in glove to oust the respondent from tenanted premises so they prepared the documents accordingly respondent prayed for leave to contest the petition.
4. Petitioner filed the reply to leave to defend application alongwith counter affidavit wherein petitioner alleged that respondent admitted the payment of rent to him. E126/10 Page 3 of 10 Further respondent also sent the rent to him through money order and thereafter deposited the same in court in his name and therefore there is no question of forcibly taking the rent from the respondent. Petitioner further alleged that respondent has no right to challenge the ownership right of the landlord /owner as he has admitted him the owner in previous litigation. Petitioner further alleged that the full no. of property is A3/28/18, Bhola Nath Nagar, but for the sake of convenience as per Will, the petitioner has shown 6th beneficiary of Will of his grand father and therefore portion no.6 was given to him and thereby he showed tenanted premises in red colour in site plan. Petitioner further alleged that respondent is in occupation of only one shop which is owned by him. Petitioner further alleged that after death of his grand father, the Will became operative by law w.e.f. 15/2/94 and since then respondent is his tenant. He further alleged that he wants to start artificial jewellery business in tenanted premises for his livelihood. Accordingly he prayed for dismissal of leave to defend application.
5. Rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the respondent wherein respondent stated that petitioner is supposed to prove his ownership to claim relief u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act. He further alleged that petitioner has made improvement in his counter affidavit stating that he wants to run the business of artificial jewellery in the tenanted premises but that is afterthought. Respondent further reiterated the contents of the leave application and denied the facts of petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel for the parties and also perused the material placed on record.
7. In order to claim eviction u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w S. 25 (B) of the DRC Act, petitioner has to plead and prove the following ingredients that:
i) he is owner of the tenanted premises;
ii) the tenanted premises was let out to respondent;
E126/10 Page 4 of 10
iii) the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation; and
iv) the premises is required bona fide by the petitioner for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
8. Petitioner claimed that tenanted premises was let out to respondent by his grand father Sh. Baij Nath Verma who executed a Will in respect of property comprises tenanted premises in favour of his legal representatives and he is among one. Petitioner also claimed that Will was executed by Sh. Baij Nath on 20/11/90 and it became operative on the death of his grand father i.e. 15/2/94 so he became the owner of the tenanted premises as same was devolved in his share.
9. The respondent alleged that Will is a manufactured document as the name of father of petitioner in Will is different from the name of father of petitioner mentioned in the petition. It is admitted that the name of father of petitioner in petition mentioned as Mohan Lal Verma whereas in Will dated 20/11/90. The name of father of petitioner is written as Man Mohan Verma. Petitioner placed Election Identity Card, PAN card and ration card of his father in which the name of his father is shown as Man Mohan Verma. It is also admitted that respondent deposited the rent in court against petitioner vide DR no. 217/10 in which respondent had written the name of father of petitioner as Mohan Lal Verma. Admittedly it is not the case of respondent that petitioner is not the son of Man Mohan Verma or petitioner is the son of Mohan Lal Verma. Further respondent has not alleged that Mohan Lal Verma and Man Mohan Verma are two different persons. So under these circumstances I am of considered opinion that the Will is in favour of petitioner being son of Man Mohan Verma.
10. The respondent has admitted that Sh. Baij Nath Verma is his original E126/10 Page 5 of 10 owner/landlord of the tenanted premises. Respondent has also admitted that there was a family settlement and petitioner claimed and received the rent. The only point of the respondent is that the petitioner was receiving the rent from him by force claiming the owner of tenanted premises. It is admitted that respondent paid the rent to the petitioner and petitioner issued rent receipt for the rent paid by the respondent @ Rs.450/p.m. One of such receipt dated 13/11/06 is on record. Further respondent also deposited the rent in favour of petitioner claiming that petitioner is his landlord. Further petitioner also claimed that respondent sent the rent through money order also. The said fact has not been disputed by the respondent in his rejoinder affidavit so under these circumstances it cannot be said that petitioner forcibly taken the rent from respondent claiming himself to be the owner of the tenanted premises. It is pertinent that respondent has not disclosed who other than petitioner claimed the ownership of tenanted premises after his tendering/payment of the rent to petitioner. Admittedly petitioner claimed his ownership on the basis of Will executed by Baij Nath Verma the original owner/landlord of the respondent. It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Tekchandani 153 (2008) DLT 247 that "it is not domain of tenant to challenge the Will of deceased/landlord."
11. It is well settled that the landlord should be more than a tenant and a landlord is not required to prove the absolute ownership. It was held in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi 157 (2009) DLT 450 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "it is settled proposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the court has to see the title and the right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the court is that the landlord has been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner howsoever imperfect his title E126/10 Page 6 of 10 over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, 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 the rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the 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 dishonestly". It was also held in Rajender Kr. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati and Ors. 155 2008 DLT 383 that "landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act, he is required to show only that he is more than tenant".
12. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of considered opinion that respondent raised moonshine defence of ownership of petitioner for which no trial is required and therefore petitioner has established that he is owner of the tenanted premises which was let out to respondent. Accordingly issue no. (i) & (ii) stand satisfied.
13. The ingredient that petitioner has no other reasonable and suitable accommodation and tenanted premises is required bonafide by the petitioner for his occupation are intermingled and therefore both are taken up together.
14. Respondent claimed that in rent receipt dated 13/11/06 petitioner himself stated that he is tenant in shop no.3 whereas in the present petition petitioner claimed that tenanted premises is shop no.6 on basis of Will dated 20/11/90 so it is a triable issue whether description of tenanted premises is for which eviction is sought is correct or not.
15. Admittedly rent receipt dated 13/11/06 pertains to shop no.3 of property bearing 28/18, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara. In Will dated 20/11/90 the property devolved in share of petitioner at point no.6 which reads as under:
6. Master Rajesh Verma one shop and open space on ground E126/10 Page 7 of 10 floor and open space on first floor (all marked (6) and (pink in the plan attached).
16. Admittedly the Will dated 20/11/90 pertains to property comprises tenanted property and same devolves into 6 beneficiaries. It is admitted that petitioner's name appears at sl. no.6 in Will dated 20/11/90 hence his portion marked as Mark (6) and therefore his share was differentiated by giving no.6 in the property. The respondent has not claimed that the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect. Even otherwise he has not disputed that his shop shown as shop no. 6 in red colour in site plan is facing front of road and further it is in the middle of the shops between gallery and others property. The identity of the tenanted premises is not disputed by the respondent in the site plan. It is also pertinent that respondent has not filed his site plan so the site plan filed by petitioner is admitted to be correct as it was held by Hon'ble High court in R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargava 1986 RLR 232 that if a tenant does not file a site plan showing that plan filed by owner is incorrect, then owner plan would be assumed to be correct. In the absence of respondent site plan it cannot be said that the site plan filed by the petitioner is wrong. In view of above discussion, the defence raised by the respondent that petitioner shown shop no.6 in the petition whereas he has given rent receipt pertaining to shop no.3 is not a triable issue.
17. Further the respondent has not disputed that petitioner was earlier working with Ashakamal Creations Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner claimed that he has resigned from Ashakamal Creations and now he is jobless. Petitioner placed his resignation acceptance letter alongwith full and final receipt dated 24/3/10. The resignation acceptance letter issued to petitioner on a letter head of Ashakamal Creations Pvt. Ltd. Respondent claimed that petitioner procured and manufactured the documents dated 24/3/10 i.e. the full and final E126/10 Page 8 of 10 receipt. He has simply alleged that the letter dated 24/3/10 is a procured and manufactured document. He has not produced any document pertaining to falsify the claim of petitioner qua the document dated 24/3/10. In view of above discussion, petitioner has established that he requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for himself as he has resigned from his earlier job and his resignation was accepted on 24/3/10 and now he is jobless.
18. Respondent also claimed that petitioner has other reasonable suitable accommodation at A16, Welcome Apartment, Sector9, Rohini where he can do his business from his own spacious accommodation. It is admitted by the respondent that premises no.A16, Welcome Apartment, Rohini is a residential premises whereas tenanted premises is situated in a commercial area. Petitioner wants to start his business which can be done in commercial area and not in residential premises. In John Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Surender Singh & Ors. 135 (2006) DLT 265 Hon'ble High Court held that "it has to be kept in mind that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and a tenant cannot dictate the terms on which landlord should live. The bonafide requirement of landlord would also depend on his financial status and his standard of living. Further in Arun Ahuja Vs. S.C. Mehra (1999) 1 A.I.R.C.J. 360 Hon'ble Court also held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is entitle to make a decision in this regard. In view of this discussion, petitioner has established that he has no reasonable suitable accommodation to start his business except the tenanted premises.
19. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is considered that the defence raised by the respondents is sham and baseless. Respondent has failed to disclose such acts, in his affidavit, as would disentitle the landlord/petitioner from obtaining an order for recovery of possession and has, thus, failed to raise any triable issue. Accordingly, the application for leave to defend the present petition moved by the respondent is hereby dismissed and E126/10 Page 9 of 10 accordingly the petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.
20. An eviction order is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the shop no.6 in property no.28/18/A3, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi shown in red in site plan attached.
21. However this order shall not be executed and the respondent shall not be evicted from the tenanted premises before expiry of a period of six months from today. The respondent is directed not to part with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of any third party or cause any damage to the same and to continue to make regular payment of rent etc. to the petitioner. No order to cost.
(Announced in the open (RAVINDER SINGH)
court on 14/11/2011 ADDL. RENT.CONTROLLER2(E)
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
E126/10 Page 10 of 10