Delhi District Court
Sh. Vineet Singal vs Sh. Prem Nath Verma on 29 July, 2013
// 1 //
IN THE COURT OF SATISH KUMAR ARORA, ARC-1 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
E-31/12
Sh. Vineet Singal
S/o Late Sh. Shabad Prakash Singal
BH-410, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Prem Nath Verma
S/o Sh. R.R.M. Verma
2. Dr. Mrs. Prem S. Verma
W/o Sh. Prem Nath Verma,
Both at: 1st floor, 9/2483, Beadon pura,
Gurdwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
Also at:
E-205, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi ...Respondents
Petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case : 21.02.2012
2. Date of Judgment reserved : 18.07.2013
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 29.07.2013
JUDGMENT
1. By this final order, I shall dispose of the application u/s 25-B (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, 'DRC Act') filed by the respondents seeking leave to contest the eviction petition. Before I take up the grounds as taken up by the respondents in their application, the brief facts of the eviction petition may be taken note of.
2. Petitioner Vineet Singal has filed the present eviction petition u/s 14 (1)
(e) r/w section 25-B of the DRC Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. Petitioner claims that he is the owner/landlord of the 1 st floor of property no. 9/2483, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 and respondents are the tenants thereof in the portion as shown in red in the site plan filed with the E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 1 to 9 // 2 // eviction petition and hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises'. It is stated that the suit premises was earlier owned by Sh. Shabad Singal, predecessor in interest of the petitioner and after his death on 19.08.1997, the suit premises fell into the share of the petitioner by virtue of a family settlement arrived at between the petitioner, his mother Smt. Swaran Singal and his elder brother Sh. Navneet Singal. It is stated that the respondents were inducted as tenants in the suit premises by Sh. Shabad Singal by executing a rent deed dated 30.07.1982 to be used by them for their office purposes. It is further stated that the suit premises is required bona fide by the petitioner for his residence and for the residence of his family members consisting of himself, his wife and two children aged 10 years and 6 months respectively. It is further stated that petitioner has no other alternative accommodation for his residence and is presently living with his mother Smt. Swaran Singal at her house no. BH-410, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi who is pressurizing him to leave the house. It is further stated that the remaining accommodation available with the petitioner on the first floor of the property no. 9/2483, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi consists of two small rooms of the size of 6 X 5 ft which are not fit for habitation and can be used as bathroom and toilet only. It is on the basis of these facts that a prayer has been made to pass an eviction order in respect of the suit premises in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
3. Now, coming on to the leave to defend application of the respondents, they have challenged the bona fide requirement of the petitioner on the following grounds:-
(i) That as per the rent deed dated 30.07.1982 executed between the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the respondents, the suit E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 2 to 9 // 3 // premises was a commercial property let out for office purposes to the respondents and that the said premises cannot be used as a residence/dwelling unit. Also, the entire area where the suit premises is situated is commercial area which cannot be used for residence. Further, as per the legal notice dated 05.12.2011 issued on behalf of the petitioner, it was mentioned therein that the premises is meant for commercial use. Thus, when the premises is commercial in nature, it cannot be believed that the same can be used by the petitioner for the residence of himself and of his family members.
(ii) That as per the Memorandum of family settlement dated 10.03.2006 by virtue of which the three co-owners/LRs of Late Sh. Shabad Singal who are the petitioner, his mother Smt. Swaran Singal and elder brother Sh. Navneet Singal have partitioned their respective shares in the family assets, the property at Shalimar Bagh no. BH 410, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 has fallen into the share of the petitioner and his mother and they both are occupying two floors in the said four storey building. Even otherwise, mother of the petitioner is an old lady who is not keeping good health and is entirely dependent upon the petitioner for her treatment and care and that the petitioner is also looking after his mother.
(iii) That the petitioner, as already stated, by virtue of family settlement arrived at between him and his family members on 10.03.2006 got a share in the property no. BH 410 as aforesaid alongwith his mother. The elder brother was required to vacate the said premises on account of the said settlement and that petitioner and his family are comfortably living in the said house.
(iv) That the allegation of the petitioner that respondents have trespassed into the kitchen and balcony in the premises in dispute is false and incorrect E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 3 to 9 // 4 // as it was part and parcel of the rent agreement dated 30.07.1982 which is evident from the site plan annexed with the rent agreement. Thus, the site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct as per the actual site. Also, petitioner has wrongly mentioned that the two rooms of 6 X 5 ft are small and not fit for habitation as the same are being used by the petitioner for his personal use and occupation.
4. Petitioner by filing his reply to the leave to defend application of the respondents controverted and denied the averments made therein and reiterated the averments made in the eviction petition. Respondents filed rejoinder to the said reply of the petitioner and reiterated their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for the respondents were heard and the file was carefully perused and considered.
6. Respondents in their leave to defend have neither challenged the ownership of the petitioner nor the relationship of landlord-tenant between them and the petitioner. What has been challenged is that the suit premises cannot be used as a residence by the petitioner or his family members as it is a commercial property and is also situated in a commercial area. Further, it has been stated that by virtue of the memorandum of family settlement dated 10.03.2006 executed between the petitioner and his family members, petitioner alongwith his mother got a share in the property bearing no. BH 410, East Shalimar Bagh. Also, that the petitioner is having cordial relations with his mother and has not been pressurized by her to leave the said premises at Shalimar Bagh. Ld. Counsel for the respondent while relying upon the following citations:- (i) Jawahar Lal Vs. Ravinder Kumar Khanna & Anr., 195 (2012) DLT 239. (ii) Rakesh Kumar Vs. Pawan Khanna, 195 (2012) DLT 341. (iii) Sukhdev Raj Sharma Vs. Kuljeet Singh Jass, 195 (2012) DLT E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 4 to 9 // 5 //
56. (iv) Aggarwal Papers Vs. Mukesh Kumar, 194 (2012) DLT 605. (v) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Lt. Col. Satya Pal Wadhwa & Anr, 194 (2012) DLT
244. (vi) Mohd Jafar & Ors Vs. Nasra Begum, 191 (2012) DLT 401 and (vii) S.K. Seth & Sons Vs. Vijay Bhalla, 191 (2012) DLT 722, submitted that the respondents have prima facie raised the triable issues insofar as the availability of alternative accommodation and the bona fide requirement of the petitioner is concerned. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that merely because the property is situated in the commercial area, it cannot be said and believed that no person in the said area of Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh is using any of the property for residential purposes. Ld. Counsel further argued that insofar as the plea of the respondent that petitioner has a share in the property no. BH 140, East Shalimar Bagh as per the family settlement dated 10.03.2006 is a misreading of the said document itself as on page no. 3 of the said registered document, in column no. 3 it has been specifically stated that Party of the first Part who is Smt. Swaran Singal, mother of the petitioner, is the absolute owner of the said property as per conveyance deed registered at serial no. 5109, additional book no.1, volume 6849, page no. 135-137 registered on 22.06.1995. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondents have nothing available with them to make a claim either with respect to the health of the mother of the petitioner or the nature of their relations. It was thus submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that respondents have failed to even prima facie raise any triable issue in their leave to defend application.
7. Having heard the respective contentions and having gone through the citations relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, the law insofar as the grant and refusal of leave to defend is concerned, it has been settled E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 5 to 9 // 6 // that at the said stage, the real test should be whether the facts disclosed in the affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima facie shows that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an eviction order and not whether at the end the defence may fail. Applying the said principles to the grounds taken up by the respondents challenging the bona fide requirement of the petitioner, it is apparent that the first ground which is with respect to non user of the suit premises as a residence by the petitioner is falsified by the rent deed dated 30.07.1982 itself. The said deed shows the respondent no.1 Prem Nath Verma to be a chartered accountant and his wife/respondent no.2 to be a doctor. The nature and extent of the suit premises has also been mentioned in the said document itself which gives the description of the suit premises as comprising of three rooms set with common toilet on the first floor except bathroom. The words 'kitchen and balcony' have been deleted and it bears the initials/signatures of the respondent no.1 Prem Nath Verma. Nowhere in the entire leave to defend application, respondents have challenged the authenticity of the said rent deed or the initials of the respondent no.2 appearing at the cutting made on the first page of the said deed. This answers the dispute raised by the respondents regarding the filing of incorrect site plan by the petitioner. The said site plan is as per the description of the suit property as given in the rent deed itself. Further, respondents have not disputed and rather have themselves mentioned about the filing of an earlier eviction petition by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner herein against them. In the said petition as well, the description of the premises is the same as given in the site plan filed with the eviction petition. Further, merely because the suit premises has been given on rent for office purposes to the respondents, it cannot be said that the said premises cannot be put to use by E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 6 to 9 // 7 // the petitioner for the purpose of residence of himself and his family members. The premises in question also has second, third and fourth floor which as per the family settlement dated 10.03.2006 has gone to the share of Navneet Singal, brother of the petitioner herein. Moreover, it is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken note of that notwithstanding that the area of Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh is predominantly a commercial area, still it is used by many as a residential area as well. Thus, insofar as the plea of the respondent that the suit premises cannot be used for the purpose of residence by the petitioner fails to even prima facie raise any triable issue.
8. Now, coming on to the plea of availability of alternative accommodation, what the respondents have alleged is that by virtue of family settlement dated 10.03.2006, petitioner alongwith his mother got a share in the property no. BH 410, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. This plea as rightly pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is baseless and is a misreading of the said document as in page no. 3 thereof, mother of the petitioner Smt. Swaran Singal has been shown as an absolute owner by way of registered conveyance deed dated 22.06.1995. There is not even a whisper in the leave to defend of the respondents that the said fact of the absolute ownership of the property BH 410 as aforesaid in the name of the mother of the petitioner has been wrongly stated or mentioned. Insofar as the availability of other two rooms in the premises in question is concerned, respondents did not challenge the measurement of the said two rooms which as per the petitioner is 6 X 5 ft. The area of the said two rooms can clearly be said to be not meant to be used as a living room by the petitioner or his family members. At the most, it can be used as a store or as stated by the petitioner as a bathroom or a toilet. Thus, the plea of the respondents regarding the E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 7 to 9 // 8 // petitioner having alternative residential accommodation available with him is again without any basis and fails to raise any triable issue.
9. Another plea of respondents has been that the relationship between the petitioner and his mother are cordial and that the mother of the petitioner is not keeping well and is dependent upon the petitioner for her living. Again, in the entire leave to defend application, there is nothing as to on what basis the respondents have gathered such information. Moreover, as the petitioner by placing on record the family settlement which shows his mother to be the absolute owner of property no. BH 410 as aforesaid, has prima facie established that the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim his residence in the said property of his mother. There is nothing on record to disbelieve that the petitioner has not been called by his mother to reside separately from her. Moreover, petitioner being the owner of the suit premises can assert his right of residence in his own property. Thus, even with respect to this plea respondents have failed to raise any triable issue.
10. In view of the above discussion, it is held that whereas respondents have failed to raise any triable issue, on the other hand, petitioner has successfully established that he requires the tenanted premises bona fide for the purpose of residence of himself and of his family members consisting of his wife and two children and that no other alternative residential accommodation is available with him. Hence, the petitioner is held entitled for an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC Act.
11. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to defend preferred by the respondent is dismissed and an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the suit premises which is three rooms with E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 8 to 9 // 9 // common facility of toilet on the first floor of the property no. 9/2483, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi more specifically shown in red in the site plan filed with the eviction petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry of six months running from today. No orders as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court (Satish Kumar Arora)
on 29.07.2013) ARC-1/Central/Delhi
Tis Hazari Court
E-31/12 Sh. Vineet Singal Vs. Sh. Prem Nath Verma & Anr Page 9 to 9