Delhi District Court
Roop Kishore Rastogi (Huf) vs . Pritpal Singh & Anr. on 24 November, 2012
Roop Kishore Rastogi (HUF) Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SONU AGNIHOTRI,
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER, DISTRICT: NORTH, DELHI.
E No. 18/2011
Unique ID No. 02401C0090152011
SH. ROOP KISHORE RASTOGI (HUF)
Through its Karta & Manager,
Sh. Roop Kishore Rastogi
S/o. Sh. Harish Chand Rastogi,
Barwali Kothi, Nai Sarak,
Delhi-110 006. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. SH. PRITPAL SINGH
S/o. Sh. Harbans Singh
R/o. WZ-350A/2, Jail Road,
Shiv Nagar, New Delhi.
2. SH. MAHINDER SINGH
S/o. Sh. Harbans Singh
R/o. WZ-350A/2, Jail Road,
Shiv Nagar, New Delhi. ...Respondents.
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT 24.11.2012 Vide this ex-parte judgment, I shall decide the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner U/sec. 14 (1) (a) & (b) of the D.R.C. Act, E no. 18/2011 Page 1/7 Roop Kishore Rastogi (HUF) Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.
1958.
Brief facts as mentioned in the present petition are as follows:
1. As per petitioner, originally premises bearing Municipal No. 1710, Private no. 14, Second floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') was let out to tenant Mr. Harbhajan Singh on 14/07/1986. It is stated that after death of tenant Harbhajan Singh, Smt. Harbans Singh, mother of deceased Harbhajan Singh and after death of his father ( here instead of word father, brother should have been mentioned by petitioner in the petition but it appears that on account of typographical mistake, the same was mentioned as father instead of brother. Clarification in this regard was taken from counsel for petitioner and correct relationship finds mention in Ex. PW-1/13 also as pointed by counsel for petitioner during clarification), Pritpal Singh and Mahinder Singh, who are brothers of deceased became legal representatives of Sardar Harbans Singh and are thus bound to pay arrears of rent.
2. It is stated that respondents have failed to pay arrears of rent w.e.f. 01/02/2007 amounting to Rs. 11,357/-. It is stated that despite repeated requests by petitioner, respondents have failed to pay arrears of rent. It is stated that tenancy of respondents is monthly and @ Rs.E no. 18/2011 Page 2/7
Roop Kishore Rastogi (HUF) Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.
293/- per month.
3. It is stated that respondents have also subletted, assigned and parted with possession of suit property to M/s S.K. Builders without written consent of petitioner.
4. It is stated that notice dated 26/12/2005 was sent in consonance with provisions of Sec. 106 T. P. Act which was duly served upon respondents. It is stated that petitioner has been granted permission from Competent Authority (Slum) vide judgment dated 14/05/2010.
5. Petitioner has prayed for passing eviction order in favour of petitioner and against respondents in respect of suit property alongwith cost.
6. Initially present petition was filed against three persons i.e Smt. Harbans Singh, Mr. Pritpal Singh and Mr. Mahinder Singh. On 03.05.2011, it was submitted by counsel for respondents Mr. Pritpal Singh and Mr. Mahinder Singh that respondent Smt. Harbans Singh had already expired prior to filing of present petition. Petitioner thereafter moved an application U/o 22 Rule 2 R/w Section 151 CPC for deletion of name of Smt. Harbans Singh from array of parties on 12.07.2011 which was allowed and name of Smt. Harbans Singh was E no. 18/2011 Page 3/7 Roop Kishore Rastogi (HUF) Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.
deleted from array of parties.
7. Written Statement was filed on behalf of respondent Pritpal Singh and Mahender Singh in which they denied that they did not pay rent with regard to suit property intentionally and rather submitted that it is petitioner who always avoided to receive rent from respondent in order to create ground of eviction. Respondent denied that they have parted with possession of suit property in favour of M/s S.K. Builders without consent in writing of the petitioner.
8. Replication was filed by petitioner to written statement of respondents in which he asserted averments made in the petition.
9. Respondents were proceeded ex-parte on account of their non- appearance on 26.03.2012.
10. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in Ex-parte evidence and thereafter closed Ex-parte evidence.
11. Petitioner has relied upon Ex. PW1/1 which is site plan, Ex. PW1/2 which is copy of rent deed dt. 14.07.1986 (inadvertently in examination in chief on account of typographical mistake, number of Ex. PW1/2 while mentioning of seeing of its original has been mentioned to be Ex. PW1/1), Ex. PW1/3, which is copy of legal notice E no. 18/2011 Page 4/7 Roop Kishore Rastogi (HUF) Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.
dt. 26/12/2005, Ex. PW1/4 to Ex. PW1/6 which are copies of registered AD receipts, Ex. PW1/7 which is copy of UPC receipt, Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/10 which are copies of registered AD cards, Ex. PW1/11 which is carbon copy of rent receipt issued by petitioner in favour of original tenant Mr. Harbhajan Singh for period from October,1998 to December,1998, Ex. PW1/12 which is true copy of order of Ld. Competent Authority (Slum) dt.14.05.2010, Ex. PW1/13 which is certified copy of judgment dt. 28.04.2005 in a case of suit for recovery against respondents passed by Ms. Smita Garg, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and Ex. PW1/14 which is certified copy of decree in the same case. Affidavit of petitioner has been exhibited vide Ex. PW-1/A.
12. Present petition was initially filed by petitioner U/s 14 (1) (a) and
(b) of DRC Act but vide statement of counsel for petitioner dt. 05.09.2012, petitioner stated that petitioner does not wish to press the ground for eviction U/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act. Hence, present judgment now pertains only with regard to Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act.
13. The fact that the petitioner is landlord of suit property stands proved in view of rent deed dt. 14.07.1986( Ex. PW1/2) and rent receipt Ex. PW1/11 remaining unrebutted and hence proved.
14. The fact that respondents subletted suit property to M/s S.K. Builders also stands proved as the same fact has remained E no. 18/2011 Page 5/7 Roop Kishore Rastogi (HUF) Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.
unrebutted.
15. Permission to institute present eviction proceedings against respondents also stands proved in view of Ex. PW1/12 remains unrebutted.
16. In view of the fact respondents were proceeded Ex-parte, contentions of petitioner as stated in the petition and affidavit remains unrebutted and hence proved. All other documents filed by petitioner also stands proved as they remained unrebutted.
17. One judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Uttam Singh Vs. Raghubir Singh, 1997(2) RCR 400" was filed on behalf of petitioner in order to show that subtenant is not a necessary party and eviction order can be passed even if subtenant is not made a party. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this case discussed judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Rupchand Gupta Vs. Raghuvanshi Private Limited and Another, AIR 1964 SC 1889". In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down as below :
" Taking the last action first, viz., Raghuvanshi's omission to implead the appellant, it is quite clear that the law does not require that the sub-lessee need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out by the high court that in all cases where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid E no. 18/2011 Page 6/7 Roop Kishore Rastogi (HUF) Vs. Pritpal Singh & Anr.
notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub- lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. This act harashly on the sub lessee. The act harshly on the sub lessee; but this is a position will understood by him when he took the sub- lease. The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act."
In view of law laid down in case titled as Uttam Singh's case and in view of the fact that testimony of petitioner remained unrebutted and documents also stood proved on account of they remaining unrebutted, petitioner has been able to prove that respondents subletted/parted with possession of suit property without obtaining written consent of landlord in writing and hence been able to prove ground of eviction U/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act. An eviction order is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of suit property bearing Municipal No. 1710, Private no. 14, Second floor, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as shown in the red colour in the annexed site plan Ex. PW-1/1. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. 24th November, 2012. Sonu Agnihotri A.R.C. (North)/Delhi. 24.11.2012 E no. 18/2011 Page 7/7