Delhi District Court
Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.) vs Sh. Datta Ray @ Subhash on 13 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR:
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E431/13 (Old), 78306/16 (New)
In the matter of:
Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.),
2764, Chatta Pratap Singh,
Kinari Bazaar, Delhi110006.
Through its Managing trustee
Sh. Jitender Kumar. ....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Datta Ray @ Subhash,
S/o Sh. Jyoti Ram,
2764, Chatta Pratap Singh,
Kinari Bazaar, Delhi110006. ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 21.11.2013 Date of order when reserved : 29.08.2018 Date of order when announced : 13.09.2018 J U D G M E N T :
1. Vide this judgment, the undersigned shall decide the petition filed under Section 14 (1) (a) & (d) of the Delhi Rent Control E78306/16 Page 1/7 Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC), of the petitioner seeking eviction of the respondent in respect of one room situated on second floor of premises bearing Municipal No. 2764, Chatta Pratap Singh, Kinari Bazaar, Delhi110006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises'), as shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the petition.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that the tenanted premises was let out to respondent for residential purpose at the monthly rate of rent of Rs. 65/ per month besides water, electricity, house tax and other charges. The rate of rent was subsequently enhanced by 10% as per law vide legal notice dated 21.02.2012 wherein the respondent was required to make payment of the rent at the increased rate after enhancement of 10% in future rent payable which comes to Rs. 71.50 per month. The tenancy was oral one. The petitioner has already obtained the requisite permission from the Competent Authority (Slum) to file the present case vide order dated 21.08.2012.
3. It is further averred that the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till date (the date of petition). The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 21.02.2012 calling upon the respondent to pay the arrears of rent @ Rs. 65/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.1996 till 21.02.2012 (the date of notice) and at the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 71.50 per E78306/16 Page 2/7 month excluding other charges after expiry of one month from the receipt of notice alongwith interest @ 15% per annum, but the respondent has not complied with the legal notice. It is averred that no one is residing in the tenanted premises for the last more than six months. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for grant of an eviction order under Section 14 (1) (a) & (d) of the D.R.C. Act against the respondent.
4. Notice of the petition served upon the respondent and no written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent. However, a written statement was filed on behalf of one Sh. Raj Kumar Ghosh. It was observed by the Court on 10.05.2016 that Sh. Raj Kumar Ghosh has appeared without any authority. It was further observed that despite repeated opportunities written statement had not been filed by respondent. It was held that there is no valid representation on behalf of the respondent, hence he was proceeded exparte. It is to be noted that to the written statement filed by Sh. Raj Kumar Ghosh replication has also been filed on behalf of petitioner, however, the written statement filed by Sh. Raj Kumar Ghosh cannot be read.
5. In support of its case, the petitioner has got examined Sh. Jitender Kumar as PW1.
E78306/16 Page 3/76. PW1 has deposed almost on the same lines as averred in the petition. He exhibited on record minute book as MarkA; certified copy of order dated 17.07.1989 and application dated 17.07.1989 alongwith list of tenants by which the petitioner trust is executed as Ex. PW1/2; site plan as Ex. PW1/3, legal notice dated 21.02.2012 as Ex. PW1/4; registered A.D. Postal Receipts (two in number) are Ex. PW1/5; return envelops (two in number) are Ex. PW1/6; copy of order dated 10.09.2012 of Competent Authority (Slums) is Ex. PW 1/9 and rent receipt is Ex. PW1/10. It is to be noted that Ex. PW1/7 and Ex. PW1/8 are deexhibited.
7. PW2 Sh. Narender Mohan Sharma has deposed that he is aware about the facts of the present case being the resident of the locality. The respondent was a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises. The respondent has left the suit premises long time back and the suit premises had been lying locked. The respondent has sublet the tenanted shop to Sh. Raj Kumar Ghosh. The respondent has no physical, or legal control over the tenanted premises and Sh. Raj Kumar Ghosh is in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises.
8. No other witness has been examined on behalf of petitioner and petitioner's evidence stands closed.
9. The undersigned has heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel E78306/16 Page 4/7 for the parties and perused the record.
10. In the present matter, landlord is a juristic person i.e. Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.). Thus, it has to be seen if present case has been filed by a duly authorized person, or not, hence the only question to be decided is whether Sh. Jitender Kumar has authority to file the present petition, or not.
11. In order to show authority of Sh. Jitender Kumar to file the present petition, a document, MarkA has been filed on behalf of petitioner. The said document is written on a plain paper i.e. not on letter head of any society, or trust. The said document has been signed by ten persons namely Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma, Sh. Narender Mohan Sharma, Sh. Bishan Swaroop Jain, Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Sh. Mukesh Mathur, Sh. Shiv Kumar Khanna, Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta, Sh. Rakesh Jain, Sh. Sanjay Jain and Sh. Dhanesh Sharma. In this document, it has been mentioned that Sh. Jitender Kumar is Managing Trustee of petitioner trust and Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel has given his consent to contest the case on behalf of trust.
12. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the trust was created by the order of Sh. S.M. Aggarwal, the then Ld. Additional District Judge in suit titled as Ram Narain (deceased) now represented by his legal heirs Vs. Brij Mohan Sharma & Ors. Vide that order Ram E78306/16 Page 5/7 Nath Inder Devi Trust consisting five trustees namely Smt. Saroj Garg, Sh. Anupam Kumar, Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma, Sh. Bishan Saroop Jain and Sh. Sat Narain Mittal was constituted. It was further provided that any vacancy of the trustee shall be filled in by appointing another trustee by majority decision of the surviving trustee. In case, the surviving trustee are not able to reach a majority decision in this regard, the decision of the then Metropolitan Councilor, or the M.L.A. of the area shall be final. It was further provided that the trust has got to be registered under the Societies Registration Act.
13. The judgment of Sh. S.M. Aggarwal filed by the petitioner provided the procedure for appointment of trust. The names of first five trustees have also been mentioned. It is to be noted that none of the first five trustees has signed the document, MarkA. No previous document whereby the trustees retired, or new trustees were appointed has been filed on record to show that the persons who have signed the document, MarkA are present trustees of the petitioner trust. Further, the name of petitioner is Ram Nath Inder Devi Trust (Regd.), however, infact it is a society registered under Society Registration Act. As per Section 4 of the Society Registration Act every year list of members of society including office bearers has to be submitted to the office of Registrar. No such document has been filed on record to show who were members of the petitioner trust at the time of filing of E78306/16 Page 6/7 the present petition. It was a document maintained by Registrar of Societies/ Companies which was required to be brought by the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to brought the same. The onus to prove that the petition has been filed by duly authorized person is upon the petitioner, however the petitioner has failed to brought on record any document which shows that Sh. Jitender Kumar is duly authorized person to file the present petition. In these circumstances, the self serving document, MarkA is not helpful for the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has failed to show that the case has been filed by duly authorized person, hence the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. Since the matter has been disposed off on the abovestated technical ground there is no justification to give finding on other points. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed GAJENDER by GAJENDER
SINGH SINGH NAGAR
Date: 2018.09.14
NAGAR 14:58:03 +0530
Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
on 13.09.2018 Administrative Civil Judgecum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/ 13.09.2018
(This judgment contains 7 pages in total)
E78306/16 Page 7/7
E78306/16
13.09.2018
Present: None.
Vide separate judgment, the present petition of the petitioner is dismissed. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJ/ARC (Central), Delhi/13.09.2018 E78306/16 Page 8/7