Delhi District Court
Ms. Alveena Lal vs . Ms. Dolly Chandra on 4 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK VATS
Administrative Civil Judge - Commercial Civil Judge
Additional Rent Controller
SouthEast, Saket Courts, Delhi
RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016)
Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra
Ms. Alveena Lal
W/o late Sh. Reginald Lal,
R/o House No.145, Laxmi Bai Nagar,
New Delhi110023.
.... Petitioner
Versus
Ms. Dolly Chandra
W/o Sh. A.K. Chandra
R/o House No.288/9, DDA,
Janta Flats, Kalka Ji,
New Delhi.
.... Respondent
EVICTION PETITION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(e) READ WITH
SECTION 25B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
1. Date of Institution of Petition : 12.08.2016
2. Date of Judgment : 04.07.2022
3. Decision : Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent for eviction from House No.288/9, Third Floor, DDA Janta Flats, Kalkaji, _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 1 of 20 New Delhi comprising of one bedroom, kitchen, bathroom and court yard at the third floor (hereinafter called suit premises).
Case of the petitioner
2. It is the case of petitioner that the suit premises were originally allotted in the name of one Ms. Suhagwanti. The suit premises were transferred by Ms. Suhagwanti to one Sh. S.K. Goyal. Sh. S.K. Goyal transferred the same to Sh. B.M. Jacobs who eventually sold the suit premises to the petitioner through GPA, Affidavit, Agreement to Sell and Will dated 06.07.1993. The respondent was inducted as a tenant in June, 1995 at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/. It is averred on behalf of the petitioner that the last paid rent of the suit premises was Rs.4,000/ per month and thus a civil suit no.198/2013 for possession, injunction and recovery of rent (hereinafter referred to as civil suit) was filed by the petitioner against the respondent which was dismissed by the court of Ms. Jyoti Kler, Ld. Additional Sr. Civil Judge vide judgment dated 02.06.2015 on the ground that the rent of suit premises were found to be Rs.1500/ per month (not Rs.4,000/ per month as claimed by the petitioner) and the suit was barred U/Sec. 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Thus, in the present petition, it is averred on behalf of the petitioner that the monthly rent of suit premises is Rs.1500/ per month.
3. At the time of institution of the petition, the petitioner was working at S.J. Hospital as Nursing staff and had about 3 years of remaining service. The petitioner was residing with her family _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 2 of 20 (consisting of the petitioner, her husband and two children namely Ashish & Ananya) in Govt. accommodation in Sarojini Nagar. The daughter of the petitioner got married in the year 2016 and was not residing with her. The two children namely Ashish and Ananya were to be got admitted to a school and since the petitioner was about to retire in three years, she required permanent residence for herself and her family. It is further stated that the suit premises were the only accommodation available with the petitioner and since it was very difficult to get the children admitted to a school or to migrate them after admission, the petitioner wanted to get her children admitted in a school in the vicinity of suit premises and thus the petitioner had a bonafide requirement of the suit premise.
4. It is alleged that the despite various requests the respondent refused to vacate the suit premises. As elicited above, the civil suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondent which was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 05.05.2016 to the respondent for vacation of the suit premises but she failed to vacate the same despite the service. Hence, the present petition U/Sec.14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
5. Summons of the petition were issued upon the respondent and the respondent entered appearance and filed application seeking leave to defend. Vide order dated 28.03.2017 leave to defend application of the respondent was allowed and she was granted _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 3 of 20 conditional leave to defend on two grounds only, namely,
(i) Whether the petitioner can be treated as the owner of the suit premises on the basis of the documents annexed by her and
(ii) Whether the petitioner is the landlord or her husband is the landlord of the respondent.
Written Statement on behalf of the respondent
6. WS was filed on behalf of respondent wherein the averments made in the petition were denied. It is contended on behalf of respondent that the present petition was filed to grab government built up property of DDA upon which the petitioner has no right. The petitioner never purchased the suit premises nor the DDA ever allotted the same to the petitioner. The suit premises were allotted to Ms. Suhagwanti by DDA on licence basis which could not have been transferred by her through lease, sale or any other mode. The documents furnished by the petitioner were forged. Ms. Suhagwanti never executed nor signed the transfer documents qua the suit premises in favour of anybody. The suit premises still belong to DDA and the petitioner has no right over the same. The relationship of landlord tenant has been denied by the respondent. The respondent came in possession of suit premises somewhere in the month of June, 1989 and not in 1995. The suit premises were let by one Sh. R. Lal as attorney of Ms. Suhagwanti. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the respondent has not disclosed in the WS that the said Sh. R. Lal is the husband of the petitioner. The respondent paid the rent @Rs.700/ per month to Sh. R. Lal as attorney of Ms. Suhagwanti. The respondent never paid _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 4 of 20 rent to the petitioner nor received any acknowledgment/receipt from the petitioner regarding rent of suit premises. It is alleged that there is no landlordtenant relationship between the parties. The respondent filed an injunction suit against the husband of the petitioner wherein the latter made a statement that he shall not forcefully disposes the former from the suit premises. The husband of the petitioner got the electricity connection of the suit premises disconnected pursuant to which the respondent filed an application No.M458/08 U/Sec.45 Delhi Rent Control Act against the petitioner and her husband for issuance of NOC for installation of electricity connection which was allowed vide order dated 26.08.2008. It is further averred that the respondent has never admitted the petitioner to be the landlord of the suit premises and the petitioner has no right over the same.
Petitioner's Evidence
7. That in order to prove her case, the petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A in which she reiterated the contents of the petition. She also relied upon and tendered in evidence certain documents which are as under : S. Exhibit Number Documents No.
1. Ex.PW1/1 Site plan of Suit property
2. Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) Certified copy of GPA attested dated 06.03.1989
3. Ex.PW1/3 (Colly. Certified copy of affidavit to Ms. 4 pages) (OSR) Suhagwanti, both dated 06.03.1989 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 5 of 20
4. Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) Certified copy of Agreement to Sale dated 06.03.1989 executed by Ms. Suhagwanit, in favour of Sh. S.K. Goel.
5. Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) Certified copy of GPA executed by S.K. Goel in favour of Sh. B.M. Jacobs attested dated 06.07.1989
6. Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) Certified copy of SPA executed by S.K. Goel in favour of B.M. Jacobs attested dated 06.07.1989
7. Ex.PW1/7 (Colly. Certified copy of affidavit of Sh. S.K. Goel, Two pages) attested dated 06.07.1989 (OSR)
8. Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) Certified copy of Agreement to Sale between Sh. S.K. Goel and Sh. B.M. Jacobs dated 06.07.1989
9. Ex.PW1/9 (OSR) Certified copy of GPA executed by Sh. B.M. Jacobs in favour of Alveena Lal defendant attested dated 06.07.1993
10. Ex.PW1/10 Certified copy of affidavit of Sh. B.M. (OSR) Jacobs attested dated 06.07.1993
11. Ex.PW1/11 Certified copy of Agreement to Sale between (OSR) Sh. B.M. Jacobs and Ms. Alveena (defendant) dated 06.07.1993.
12. Ex.PW1/12 Certified copy of Will of Sh. B.M. Jacobs (OSR) dated 06.07.1993
13. Mark A Copy of petition U/Sec.45 of DRC Act filed by respondent Ms. Dolly Chandra against petitioner and her husband.
14. Ex.PW1/13 Certified copy of order dated 26.08.2008 passed by Sh. Deepak Garg, Ld. Rent Controller, Delhi in case No.M458/08.
15. Ex.PW1/14 Certified copy of judgment dated 02.06.2015 by Ms. Jyoti Kler, Ld. SCJ Court, New Delhi in case No.CS198/2013 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 6 of 20
16. Ex.PW1/15 Legal notice dated 05.05.2016 alongwith (Colly. 5 pages) postal receipts dated 10.05.2016
8. PW1 was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
9. The petitioner also examined PW3 Sh. Yashpal, Assistant Personnel Officer from BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Alakhnanda, GK II, New Delhi and he was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Respondent's Evidence
10. In her defence, the respondent has examined herself as RW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A in which she deposed on the lines of her written statement. DW1 was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
11. The respondent also examined RW2 Mr. Dharmender Kumar, Physical Education Teacher from Sant Nirankari Public School, Govindpuri, New Delhi and RW3 Sh. Inder Singh Rawat, LDC from Zonal Office, H Block, Dakshinpuri, Delhi Urban Center improvement Board (DUSIB). They were crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Discussion and Decision
12. Before adverting to the facts of the present case I deem it _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 7 of 20 appropriate to reproduce Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which reads as follows:
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction : (a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provide that the Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: XXXXX
(e) that the premises let for residential purpose are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation."
13. The essential ingredients which a landlord is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bonafide need are:
(i) The petitioner is the landlord/owner of the suit premises.
(ii) The suit premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself and any of his family members dependent upon him.
(iii)The landlord or such other family members has no other reasonably suitable accommodation [Naresh Kumar Vs. Surender Kumar Gulati 2017 (2) RCR (Rent) 278 Delhi].
14. Vide order dated 28.03.2017 the respondent was granted a conditional leave to defend on two grounds only, namely _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 8 of 20
(i) Whether the petitioner can be treated as owner of the suit premises and
(ii) Whether the petitioner is the landlord or her husband is the landlord of the respondent.
Title of petitioner over suit premises
15. In the present case the source of title of the petitioner is one Ms. Suhagwanti. The suit premises were alloted to Ms. Suhagwanti on license fees basis. Ms. Suhagwanti transferred the suit premises to one Sh. S.K. Goyal through GPA, affidavit, Agreement to Sell all dated 06.03.1989. The said Sh. S.K. Goyal transferred the suit premises to one Sh. B.M. Jacobs through agreement to Sell, SPA and Affidavit dated 06.07.1989. Sh. B.M. Jacobs transferred to the suit premises to the petitioner through GPA, Affidavit, Agreement to Sell and Will dated 06.07.1993. On the strength of the GPA, etc. dated 06.07.1993 the petitioner claims to be the owner of the suit premises. All the aforesaid documents of transfer were produced during the trial and complete chain has been established by the petitioner.
16. The respondent has claimed that Ms. Suhagwanti was alloted the suit premises on license basis and she had no right to transfer the same and thus there is a defect in the title of the petitioner. Another defence taken on behalf of respondent is that the documents of transfer of suit premises are forged and fabricated.
17. So far as the plea of respondent regarding the documents _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 9 of 20 of transfer of suit premises being forged is concerned, no case for declaring the documents as null and void has been filed by the respondent. The respondent has only made bald averments that the documents are forged and has not placed on record any iota of evidence to prove the same. On the other hand, in the judgment dated 02.06.2015 in the Civil Suit No.198/2013, it has been mentioned that the petitioner herein had examined Sh. B.M. Jacobs in the said civil suit, who deposed that he sold the suit premises to the petitioner herein. As no evidence has been placed on record showing the documents of transfer of suit premises to be forged, I am of the considered opinion that the documents are genuine and there is no strength in the claim of the respondent to the contrary.
18. So far as the assertion of the respondent that Ms. Suhagwanti had no power to transfer the suit premises and the consequent defect in the title of the petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that for the purpose Delhi Rent Control Act the landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership over the premises. She is only required to prove that she has a claim on the premises better than that of the tenant. In the case of Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 2028 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as follows:
"The word 'owner' has not been defined in this Act and the word 'owner' has also not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be is that owner _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 10 of 20 ship means absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereupon. Ordinarily, the con cept of ownership may be what is contended by the counsel for the appellant but in the modern context where it is more or less admitted that all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some term from the Govt. or the authorities constituted by the State and in this view of the matter it could not be thought of that the Legislature when it used the term 'owner' in the provision of Sec. 14(1)(e) it thought of ownership as absolute ownership. It must be presumed that the concept of ownership only will be as it is un derstood at present. It could not be doubted that the term 'owner' has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. This Act has been enacted for pro tection of the tenants. But at the same time it has pro vided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bona fide requirement is one of such grounds on the basis of which landlords have been permitted to have eviction of a tenant. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is visavis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. Admittedly in these cases where the plot of land is taken on lease the struc ture is built by the landlord and admittedly he is the owner of the structure. So far as the land is concerned he holds a long lease and in view of the matter as against the tenant it could not be doubted that he will fall within the ambit of the meaning of the term 'owner' as is contemplated under this Section."(Emphasis Supplied)
19. From the above observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is clear that the concept of ownership in landlordtenant _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 11 of 20 litigation governed by rent control law has to be distinguish from the one in a title suit. Ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. What may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in a landlordtenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit.
20. If the above principal is applied to the facts of the present case, one thing that emerges is that Ms. Suhagwanti had a legal right to use and remain in possession of the suit premises which she subsequently transferred and which was eventually transferred to the petitioner. In contrast to this, admittedly, the respondent was inducted in the suit premises by the husband of the petitioner. Thus, if at all, the respondent has any right to remain in possession of the suit premises, she derived the same from the petitioner. Thus the respondent's title/right to the suit premises is certainly inferior to that of the petitioner.
21. In a similar case titled as B. K. Gupta Vs. Sh. Sudershan Chaudhary 82 (1999) DLT 1925, the petitioner U/Sec.14 (1) (e) was a licensee in a premises and created a tenancy in the same. The tenant therein pleaded that since the petitioner therein had no right to create tenancy, the petitioner could not be said to be the owner of the property withing the meaning of Section 14(1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rejected the claim of the tenant therein _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 12 of 20 and held that for the purpose of Section 14(1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioner therein was the landlord/owner. Applying the same logic in the present case, the petitioner has derived her right from the original allottee/licensee Ms. Suhagwanti, I see no reason to hold that she is not the owner/landlord of the suit premises for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) only because Ms. Suhagwanti had no right to transfer the suit premises.
22. Moreover Section 116 Indian Evidence Act provides as follows:
"Section 116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of per son in possession.--No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be per mitted to deny that such person had a title to such pos session at the time when such licence was given."
23. In view of Section 116 Indian Evidence Act, the respondent is estopped from denying the ownership of the petitioner because admittedly, the respondent was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant by the husband of the petitioner. Here, it bears mention that the respondent has claimed that the husband of petitioner disclosing himself to be the attorney of Ms. Suhagwanti inducted her in the suit premises as tenant. Thus, it is claimed by the respondent that the _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 13 of 20 husband of petitioner had inducted the respondent as tenant on behalf of Ms. Suhagwanti and not on the basis of his own or his wife's right over the suit premises. This defence of the respondent appears to be an afterthought. Admittedly, the respondent had filed an application, M 458/08 U/Sec. 45 (3) Delhi Rent Control Act against the petitioner and her husband in the year 2008 before the then Rent Controller. The said petition U/Sec.45 (3) Delhi Rent Control Act is Ex.RW1/D1 which has been admitted by the respondent in her crossexamination. In para no.1 of the said petition the respondent herein has categorically admitted that she was inducted as tenant by the husband of petitioner herein. In para no.2 the respondent herein has also admitted that she has paid rent to the husband of the petitioner herein till March, 2008. In para no.4 the respondent herein has also admitted that Ms. Suhagwanti was the erstwhile owner of the suit premises. The said Ms. Suhagwanti was not made a party to the said petition U/Sec. 45 (3) Delhi Rent Control Act. Further, the petitioner herein was made respondent no.1 in the said petition U/Sec. 45 (3) Delhi Rent Control Act and her husband was made respondent no.2 thereby clearly showing that the petitioner herein was the landlord and the suit premises was let on rent by her husband to the respondent herein on behalf of the petitioner.
24. The above categorical admission of the respondent herein in the petition U/Sec. 45 (3) Delhi Rent Control Act clearly disclose that the respondent has not made truthful statement in this petition and has tried to mislead by stating that the husband of the petitioner inducted her as attorney of Ms. Suhagwanti. From the above discussion _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 14 of 20 it can safely be concluded that the respondent was inducted as tenant in the suit premises by the petitioner and in view of Section 116 Evidence Act the respondent is precluded from denying the title of the petitioner.
25. Thus for the purpose of this petition I hold that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the suit premises.
Landlord - Tenant relationship between the parties
26. Leave to defend was also granted to the respondent for disproving the landlordtenant relationship between the parties as at the stage of grant of leave to defend the petitioner could not satisfy the then Ld. ARC about the landlordtenant relationship between the parties. At the stage of grant of leave to defend it was not clear as to whether the petitioner or her husband was the landlord. A detailed discussion has already been done in the forgoing part of this judgment, suffice it to say that in the petition U/Sec. 45 Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein, the petitioner herein was impleaded as respondent no 1 and her husband respondent no.2. This suggests that the respondent herein knew since the commencement of the tenancy that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises and her husband collected rent on her behalf.
27. Further the matter may be looked at from a different perspective also. In the civil suit between the parties, Ld. Civil Court held that there exists a landlordtenant relationship between the parties. The said suit was heard on merits and final judgment was passed. In _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 15 of 20 the said matter issue no.2 was whether there is a landlordtenant relationship between the parties. After discussing the evidence between the parties Ld. Civil Court decided that there was a relationship of landlordtenant between the petitioner and the respondent herein. By virtue of Section 50 (4) Delhi Rent Control Act and Explanation VIII to Sec.11 CPC the above finding of the Ld. Civil Court operates as Res Judicata between the parties. Section 50 (4) Delhi Rent Control Act provides as follows :
"(4) Nothing in SubSection (1) Shall be construed as prevailing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises.
Section 11 CPC, Explanation VIII reads as follows:
"Section 11 Res judicata - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court."
xxxxxx "Explanation VIII An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as resjudicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised." _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 16 of 20
28. A bare perusal of Sec.50(4) Delhi Rent Control Act shows that it authorizes a Civil Court to decide the question of relationship of landlordtenant between the parties regarding a premises governed by Delhi Rent Control Act and Explanation VIII Section 11 CPC provides that an issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue shall operate a Res Judicata in a subsequent suit. Thus the Ld. Civil Court in Civil Suit No.198/13 was competent to decide the question of landlordtenant relationship between the parties herein and did decide the same in favour of the petitioner herein. As discussed above the decision of Ld. Civil Court in the civil suit on this issue shall operate as Res Judicata and in my opinion same issue could not have been opened in this proceeding.
29. Ld. Counsel for respondent placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhagwana Vs. Radhey Shyam 1995 (35) DRJ to prove that the aforesaid finding of the Ld. Civil Court is not binding upon the respondent. In my opinion the reliance of Ld. Counsel upon the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is completely misplaced. In the said judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that where a court wrongly decides a question of jurisdiction and entertains any suit which it does not have the jurisdiction or refuses to entertain any suit which it has the jurisdiction, the said wrong decision regarding jurisdiction shall not _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 17 of 20 operate as Res Judicata and the question of jurisdiction/competence of a court may be opened again in a subsequent suit.
30. In the judgment dated 02.06.2015 in Civil Suit No.198/13 Ld. Civil Court did not decide the question of jurisdiction wrongly. Instead, it was rightly held that the Ld. Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief of possession, injunction etc. to the petitioner herein due to bar of Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, despite the court finding that there was a landlordtenant relationship between the parties. There was no error in the judgment regarding the jurisdiction of court and thus the decision of Bhagwana Vs Radhey Shyam (Supra) is not applicable to the present case.
31. Ld. Counsel for respondent also stressed that since the respondent could not challenge the said judgment dated 02.06.2015 in an appeal as the suit was dismissed, the findings therein shall not operate as Res Judicata upon the respondent. I am not convinced with the reasoning furnished by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent as first of all, the claim of respondent that he could not have filed an appeal to the said judgment/finding is debatable. Secondly, even if it is believed that the respondent herein could not have filed appeal against the said judgment/finding, Explanation II to Section 11 CPC provides that the competence of a court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such court. Thus the contention of the respondent that the said judgment dated _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 18 of 20 02.06.2015 shall not be binding upon the respondent as he could not file an appeal against the same is without any force. In my opinion the said judgment dated 02.06.2015 is binding upon the respondent and shall operate as Res Judicata so far as the question of landlordtenant relationship between the parties is concerned.
32. Thus, the petitioner has proved on merits that she is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in the suit premises. Moreover, this question has already been answered by Ld. Civil Court and the finding to this effect is binding on the respondent. Accordingly, considering the evidence led by parties, the admission made by the respondent in petition U/Sec. 45 Delhi Rent Control Act and the bar of Explanation VIII Sec. 11 CPC r/w Sec. 50(4) Delhi Rent Control Act, I hold that the petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant of the suit premises.
Bonafide requirement of the landlord
33. As discussed above the respondent herein was granted conditional leave to defend only on two grounds both of which have already been decided against her. The respondent was not granted leave to defend to prove that the petitioner does not have bonafide requirement of the suit premises. The said order granting conditional leave to defend to the respondent was not challenged. Accordingly, it may be deduced that the bonafide requirement of the petitioner was not denied by the respondent and thus a details discussion is not required on this aspect also.
_____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 19 of 20
34. The petitioner sought the eviction of respondent on the ground that earlier she was residing in government accommodation allotted to her and she was about to retire whereafter she would be required to vacate the government accommodation and thus she needed a property for her residence. This fact of retirement of the petitioner and vacation of government accommodation by her was not challenged by the respondent. Thus, it is held that the suit premises are required bonafide by the petitioner and she is entitled to relief U/Sec.14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to vacate the suit premises within six months from today. The parties to bear their own costs.
35. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS Announced in open Court on 04th July, 2022 VATS Date: 2022.07.04 (Deepak Vats)13:17:33 +0530 ACJcumCCJcumARC (South East) Saket Courts, New Delhi _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No.63/2016 (New No.5207/2016) Ms. Alveena Lal Vs. Ms. Dolly Chandra Page no. 20 of 20