Delhi District Court
Ms Savitri Bansiwal vs ) Shri Mahinder Lal Nanda on 3 September, 2011
In the Court of Dr. Rakesh Kumar: Additional Rent Controller of
North Delhi District at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Eviction Petition No. E120/09
Unique ID No: 02401C0088882000
In the matter of :
Ms Savitri Bansiwal
D/o Ram Lal Bansiwal
R/o 8780 Roshanara Road,
Delhi ..... Applicant
Versus
1.) Shri Mahinder Lal Nanda
2.) Shri Navin Nanda
S/o Shri Mahinder Lal Nanda,
Both R/o First Floor Portion of property No. 8736A
Roshanara Road, Delhi. .....Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.08.1998.
Reserved for Judgment: 01.09.2011 Date of decision : 03.09.2011 Application for Eviction of Tenant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act.
Judgment
1. This is an application for the recovery of possession of portion shown red in the site plan of property No.8736A, Roshanara Road, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises') made by the landlord Ms. Savitri Bansiwal against tenants Mahinder Lal Nanda and Navin Nanda on the ground mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso of subsection (1) of section 14 of the A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 1/10 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act').
2. It is stated in the application that the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the premises and are under the tenancy of the respondent and the premises under the tenancy of the respondent are residential and let out for residential purposes; that the premises under the tenancy of the respondents are required bonafide by the petitioner for her residence and the petitioner has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation; that in fact except the premises under the tenancy of the respondent the petitioner has no other accommodation of her own nor the petitioner owns any other accommodation in Delhi; that presently, the petitioner is residing in premises No.8780, Roshanara Road, Delhi which accommodation is owned by Ram Lal Bansiwal and Ms. Savitri Bansiwal and the petitioner has no right to reside in the said accommodation and the petitioner was only occupied the same as the licensee being their daughter but they also warned the petitioner to vacate their accommodation and live in her own accommodation. It is further stated in the application that an eviction order be passed against the respondents.
3. In the written statement, the respondents contended that from the inception of the tenancy, the respondents are using the same for commercial use having its office for running its motor A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 2/10 parts business; that the petitioner is residing at 877880, Roshanara Road, Delhi for the last around 40 years along with her mother and is in occupation of more than four spacious rooms, one drawing cum dining room, kitchen, latrine, bathroom, open courtyard in the said premises; that the petitioner is spinster and all her brother and sisters are happily married and are residing separately with their respective families; that the petitioner is also owner of properties and farm houses, situated at Rohtak Road in around Delhi; that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit property and the erstwhile owner Kishan Lal had written a attornment letter to the respondents attorning Ram Lal Bansiwal to be the owner of the tenanted premises and directing the respondents to pay the rent to him; that the petitioner who was earlier staying at premises bearing No.877577, Kaluram Building, Roshanara Road, Delhi occupying the first floor of the same, have got more space on the said floor itself after her father namely Ram Lal Bansiwal and the mother Smt. Shanti Devi have shifted out of the said property and have gone to Property bearing No.8736A, Roshanara Road, New Delhi; that the petrol pump at Nizamuddin area under the name and style of M/s Savitri Filling Station under the dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd has also come to the share of petitioner by way of allotment situated at prime location of South Delhi, i.e. Nizamuddin East, New Delhi110053.
A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 3/10
4. It is denied by the respondents that the petitioner is the owner of the premises. It is also denied that the premises under the tenancy of the respondents are residential and let out for residential purposes. It is also denied that the premises are required bonafidely by the petitioner for her residence and the petitioner has no reasonable suitable residential accommodation. It is also denied that the petitioner has no right to reside in premises No.8780, Roshanara Road, Delhi. It is also denied that the petitioner is only licensee and has been warned by her father to vacate the accommodation and live in her own accommodation. Other allegations are denied and disputed by the respondents and prayed for dismissal of present application.
5. The applicant filed replication wherein she denied the contentions raised by the respondents in the written statement and reiterated the allegations made in the application.
6. The applicants examined as much four witnesses. AW1 is Ram Lal Bansiwal. AW2 is A. Rehman. AW3 is Raj Kumar. AW4 is Tej Ram. During the evidence the applicant produced the documents from Ex. AW1/1 to Ex. AW1/3, Ex. PW4/1 and Ex. PW4/2.
7. The respondents examined three witnesses. RW1 is Mohinder Lal Nanda. RW2 is S.K. Sehgal. RW3 is Naveen Nanda. During his evidence, the respondent produced the documents Ex. RW1/1 to Ex. RW1/11 and Ex. RW3/1 and Ex. PW3/2.
A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 4/10
8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record carefully and my finding are as follows.
9. For deciding application under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act the first question arises is whether there exists a landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
10. To prove the relationship, it is stated by PW1 Ram Lal Bansiwal in his affidavit that the petitioner Km. Savitri Devi is owner of the premises, having purchased the same from Kishan Lal Bansiwal, the previous owner/landlord vide sale deed (Ex. PW1/2) dated 25.09.1992, duly registered with the SubRegistrar. The respondent has admitted in his cross examination that the petitioner had become owner of the suit property in the year 1992. The respondent has further admitted that Kishan Lal Bansiwal had informed him that he had sold the suit property to the petitioner. It is further admitted by the respondent that he started making of payment of rent to the petitioner after he was informed by the previous owner and he has also admitted that he has been depositing rent in the bank account of the petitioner. In view of the above, the landlord tenant relationship between the parties is proved.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to judgment in Devi Das v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1982 SC 1213 to argue that the tenant has right to raise plea that sale in favour of the petitioner was sham transaction. The learned counsel for the A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 5/10 respondents has drawn my attention on sale deed Ex. PW1/2 and cross examination of AW1 Ram Lal Bansiwal and submitted that sale deed in favour of the petitioner was a sham transaction. It is further argued that the petitioner is an unmarried lady and she should reside with her father and her relationship with her father are not soar.
12. Facts of present case and of Devi Das' case (supra) are not similar. In the present case, the suit premises was earlier owned by Kishan Lal Bansiwal. The petitioner purchased the suit property by way of sale deed from the earlier owner. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that sale consideration was paid by father of the petitioner, so, it was a benami transaction. This plea was not raised by the respondents in their written statement. It is well settled that the parties should first plead and then prove any contention. So, the contention taken on behalf of the respondents cannot be considered. Even otherwise, it was quite reasonable and probable for father of petitioner to purchase a property for her unmarried daughter.
13. Moreover, for deciding application under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, landlordtenant relationship between the parties is to be proved and not ownership. The use of the word owner in clause (e) of the proviso of subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act seems to have been inspired by the definition of the word landlord as contained in Section 2(e) of the A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 6/10 Act which is wide enough to include a person receiving or entitled to receive the rent of any premises on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person. Construed in the context in which the word owner is used in clause (e), the concept of ownership in a landlordtenant litigation governed by Rent Control Law has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Tenant cannot challenge the title of his landlord so long as he remains in possession. In the present case, it is admitted by the respondent that he has been depositing rent in the bank account of the petitioner which establishes a landlordtenant relationship between the parties.
14. Next comes the question of bonafide requirement of the premises by the landlord.
15. It is stated by AW1 Ram Lal Bansiwal that the portion under the tenancy of the respondent is bonafide required by the petitioner for her residence as the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation except the said premises.
16. To disprove the bonafide requirement of the petitioner, it is stated by RW1 Mohinder Lal Nanda that the petitioner is residing at 877880, Roshanara Road, Delhi for the last around 40 years along with her ailing mother and is in occupation of more than four specious rooms, one drawing cum dining room, kitchen, latrine, bathroom, open courtyard in the said premises. It is A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 7/10 further stated that the petitioner is also owner of properties and farm houses, situated at Rohtak Road in and around Delhi. It is further stated that the petitioner who was earlier staying at premises bearing No.877577, Kaluram Building, Roshanara Road, Delhi occupying the first floor of the same, have got more space on the said floor itself after her father namely Ram Lal Bansiwal and the mother Smt. Shanti Devi have shifted out of the said property and have gone to property bearing No.8736A, Roshanara Road, New Delhi.
17. RW1 Mohinder Lal Nanda has admitted in his cross examination that the kitchen mentioned in the rent agreement Ex. PW1/6 has been referred by him as a store in his WS and affidavit. It is further admitted by RW1 that the suit property can be comfortably used for residence. In view of the above admission, it is proved that the premises can be used by the petitioner for residence purpose.
18. Admittedly, the petitioner is a post graduate and has a good status. It is not specifically denied that the petitioner has taken a male child in adoption through a registered deed of adoption copy of which is Ex. RW1/P1, which is deemed to be admitted. Admittedly, the suit premises are correctly shown in the site plan (Ex. AW1/2).
19. In his examination in chief, the respondent has stated that the petitioner is residing at 877880, Roshanara Road, Delhi for A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 8/10 the last around 40 years along with her ailing mother and is in occupation of more than four specious rooms, one drawing cum dining room, kitchen, latrine, bathroom, open courtyard in the said premises. However, in his cross examination, the respondent has deposed that he does not know who is the owner of the property no.877880, Roshanara Road, Delhi. The respondent has also not denied if Ram Lal Bansiwal and Smt. Savitri Devi are owner of the suit property. The respondent has also admitted that he has not seen any sale deed of any other property in the name of the petitioner. In the light of above testimonies, it is proved that the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. The respondent has failed to prove that the petitioner has any other accommodation than the premises.
20. Next comes the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the premises were let out for commercial purposes and it is being used for that purpose and it cannot be evicted under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) the DRC Act. The said contention has been set at rest by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead) thr. LRs v. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 5 SCC 287 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that even a premises let out for commercial purpose can be got vacated for bonafide requirement. The distinction between residential and commercial purpose as envisaged under A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 9/10 Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been held to be ultra virus of the Constitution.
21. For the reasons stated above, the premises is bonafidely required by the applicant and her family members.
22. In the result, the application for the recovery of possession on the ground mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso of sub section (1) of section 14 of the DRC Act is allowed. An eviction order is passed against the respondents in respect of the portion shown red in the site plan of property No.8736A, Roshanara Road, Delhi. The eviction order shall not be operative for a period of six months.
Announced in the open court (Dr. Rakesh Kumar) on 03.09.2011. Additional Rent Controller North District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
A NO: E120/09 Savitri Bansiwal v. Mahinder Lal Nanda etc. Page 10/10