Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Hazari Courts vs Bharat Bhushan on 7 December, 2011

                                       //1//

   IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS
                       HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
                                        E­27/11
07.12.2011
Allied Promoters Ltd.
Krishna Niketan, 3455­64,
Delhi Gate, Delhi­110002.
through its AR Sh. Y.K.Gupta                                      ...Petitioner
                                   VERSUS
1. Bharat Bhushan
  S/o Late Sh. Prem Raj,
  R/o 301, DDA Janta Flat,
  Khirki, Malviya Nagar,
  New Delhi.
2. Vijay Kumar
  S/o Late Sh. Puran Lal,
  R/o House No. 260, Gali Gunna Missar,
  Delhi Gate, New Delhi.
  Service be also affected to
  both the respondents
  At : Krishna Niketan, 3455­64,
  Delhi Gate, Delhi­110002.                                    ...Respondents
  Petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25­B of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case        :       02.02.2011
2. Date of Judgment Reserved              :       23.11.2011
3. Date of Judgment pronounced :                  07.12.2011


E­27/11                                                           Page 1 of 18
                                             //2//

JUDGMENT

By this order I shall dispose of the applications u/s 25 B (3), (4) & (5) of DRC Act r/w section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the respondents. The present petition was filed by the petitioner u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act on the ground of bonafide requirements. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company is the owner/landlord of the property bearing no. 3455 to 3464, Krishna Niketan, Delhi Gate, Delhi­110002, which is known as Krishna Niketan. The respondents are joint tenants in respect of one shop i.e shop no. 3458 measuring 148.5 sq. ft on ground floor, Krishna Niketan, Delhi Gate, Delhi­110002 hereinafter called as suit premises. The property known as "Krishna Niketan" bearing municipal no. 3455 to 3464 was transferred in favour of M/s Delton Cables Limited by virtue of a conveyance deed dated 26.10.1970. Thereafter by virtue of conveyance deed dated 19.06.1983 the holding of the company M/s Delton Cables Limited conveyed and transferred the property Krishna Niketan to M/s Delton Resources Limited which was formally known as Delton Harbour Limited. Subsequently the company M/s Delton Resources Ltd. is changed to M/s Allied Switchgears Resources Ltd. on 08.06.1990 in the Department of Company Affairs, New Delhi. Thereafter, the name of M/s Allied Switchgears Resources Ltd. was changed as M/s E­27/11 Page 2 of 18 //3// Allied Promoters Ltd. by way of notification issued by Department of Company Affairs, New Delhi. It is further stated that since the day of change of the name of the company as M/s Allied Promoters Ltd., Petitioner, the company has been issuing the rent receipts in the name of M/s Allied Promoters Ltd. as landlord to all of its tenants. It is further stated that initially the tenanted suit premises was under the enjoyment of Sh. Chunni Lal and after his demise the tenancy rights devolved upon his sons namely Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj. During the passage of time Sh. Puran Lal and Prem Raj also expired and after their death the tenanted premises is under the occupation and enjoyment of respondents i.e Bharat Bhushan and Vijay Kumar who are the sons of Prem Raj and Puran Lal respectively. None other legal heirs of deceased Puran Lal and Prem Raj is in occupation and possession of the suit premises. The petitioner is limited company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and Sh. Y.K.Gupta and Sh. N.K.Gupta are authorized representatives of the petitioner company. Petitioner company requires the tenanted premises for its bonafide need as the petitioner company does not have any other reasonable and suitable accommodation with itself in entire Delhi. The tenanted premises is required by the petitioner company for commercial business activity which can be run E­27/11 Page 3 of 18 //4// only at Ground floor. Presently the petitioner company does not have any business. As whatsoever business petitioner company starts to do, the same does not continue for the reason that all the corners and front of the property in question has been occupied by various tenants. The tenanted premises in question is situated at the corner of the building that have two ways to enter in the tenanted premises one is from main entrance and another from staircase and the petitioner company could have run any business like sale of motor car, departmental store, selling of electronic products and restaurant from there. It is further stated that the relationship among the parties is admitted in Slum Petition filed by petitioner against the ancestor of respondents.

2. Separate leave to defend applications alongwith affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. However almost similar averments was made. It is stated that as per the knowledge of the respondents the landlord is M/s Allied Switch Gear Resources Ltd. and not as M/s Allied Promoters Ltd. and the respondents had never received any notice to the effect of changing of the name of the landlord company. It is further stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The site plan filed by the petitioner is wrong as the property in question i.e bearing no. 3455­64 E­27/11 Page 4 of 18 //5// included a portion of Piao and the same had been demolished by the landlord company and subsequently thereafter the same portion had been given to another tenant on higher rent illegally and subsequently the other portions of the property have been transferred by the landlord company to other new tenants. It is further stated that the landlord and its associates have also intention to give the suit property to other tenants on higher rate of rent. The premises in question was let out by M/s Delton Cables Ltd. to Late Sh. Chunni Lal, grand father of the respondents. The petition is bad for misjoinder and non­joinder of necessary parties, as firstly Sh. Chunni Lal, grand father of the respondents was the tenant in the said property and after the death of the said Chunni Lal, the father of the respondent no. 1 and 2 namely Sh. Prem Raj and Sh. Puran Lal respectively had became the tenant in the suit property and thereafter both Sh. Prem Raj and Sh. Puran Lal also expired and now being the legal heirs of the said person, both respondents have became the co­tenant as co­share in ratio of ½ each in the said property, as now both respondents have equal tenancy right in the tenanted suit property. It is further stated that at the time of purchasing of the property in question, the petitioner had not got any permission/no objection certificates from the concerned authority MDC, Slum and Tehasildar etc. The petitioner company E­27/11 Page 5 of 18 //6// & landlord company and its predecessor company are the owner and in possession of number of properties in different area of Delhi, Rajpur Road, Connaught Place, South Delhi and Noida, Greater Noida and in Gurgaon for residential, industrial, commercial purposes. The landlord company is in the possession of vacant number of rooms & shops in the property in question, which was taken by the landlord company & its associates from the different persons. Actually the landlord company is doing the business of property dealer and property builder alongwith other associates so they want to construct a multi story commercial complex upon the property in question after demolishing the present structure of the property. It is further stated that most of the adjoining portion of the properties out of property bearing no. 3455, 3456, 3457, 3458, 3459, 3460, 3461, 3462, 3463 & 3464 including the ground floor, first floor, second floor & third floor are fully vacate and in the possession of the petitioner but the landlord company is not using the said vacated portion because the landlord company is not in necessity of the same.

3. It is further stated that one portion of the said property which is said to be in ownership of the landlord company, was under the tenancy of one Sh. Ram Lal, but after getting possession the said shop, the petitioner has given E­27/11 Page 6 of 18 //7// the said portion to Mohd. Swalin on rent again, which shows that the landlord company is not in necessity of the same as it has already sufficient commercial cum residential properties in its possession in different part of Delhi and other states. It is further stated that respondents have numbers of rent receipts issued by the landlord company including the receipts dated 22.06.1964, 07.05.1973, 16.10.1980, 20.08.1982, 21.02.1984, 02.05.1986 and 06.08.1991 in respect of the tenancy of suit premises. It is further stated that the premises is for commercial purposes since its inception. The petitioner company has no intention to start any business at the property no. 3455­3464, therefore, the petitioner is not sure about the exact business whether it would be of electricity items or show room for vehicles or for general store or for departmental stores at the said property. All other averments made in the petition were denied.

4. Reply to the leave to defend applications of the respondents alongwith counter affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner company wherein it is denied that petitioner is not the owner or landlord of the property in question. It is stated that the respondents have not disclosed, if the petitioner is not the owner or landlord of the property then who is the owner/landlord of the property. It is further stated that the petitioner had also filed another eviction E­27/11 Page 7 of 18 //8// petition against the respondents initially under the name of Allied Switchgears Resources Limited and subsequently the change of the name of the petitioner company has already been allowed by the predecessor of this Court in another eviction petition pending before this Hon'ble Court among the same parties. It is further denied that the respondents have been using the shop for running the business under the name of M/s Chunni Lal & Sons. It is admitted that all the shops owned by the petitioner in the same building are all occupied by different tenants. It is denied that petition is bad for non joinder or misjoinder of parties. The only legal heirs of the predecessor in interest of the tenant occupied and enjoying the tenanted premises have been impleaded as party in the present petition. It is further denied that the site plan filed by the petitioner company is wrong. It is further stated that the petitioner company cannot run any business activities from the upper floors as the commercial activities could have been run from the ground floor. The portion which has been stated as piao was misused by anti social person which had been got cleaned by the petitioner and thereafter same was let out to Mohd. Swalin about 8 years ago. All other averments made in the leave to defend applications were denied.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered.

E­27/11 Page 8 of 18

//9//

6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following rulings :­

(i) Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450.

(ii) John Impacts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Surender Singh and others, 2007 (1), RCR 509.

(iii) Balwant Singh Chaudhary Vs. The Hindustan Petroleum, (2004) 137 PLT 198.

(iv) Mohd. Shamim Ahmed @ Mohd. Shamim Vs. Smt. Naseeban, 74 (1998) DLT 247.

(v) Sham Singh Bisht Vs. Sushil Bhatia, 1992 (1) 678.

7. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1 ) (e) r/w section 25­B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove (i) Ownership of the suit premises ; (ii) Purpose of letting; (iii) Alternative accommodation; and (iv) bonafide requirement;. Let the same be discussed in detail.

8. Ownership & Purpose of Letting The respondents have disputed the ownership of the petitioner as well as denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to the respondent, the suit premises was let out by M/s Delton Cables Ltd. to Late Sh. Chirangi Lal, grand father of the respondents. The E­27/11 Page 9 of 18 //10// respondents have admitted that M/s Allied Switch Gears is their landlord in respect of the suit premises but not M/s Allied Promoters Ltd., the petitioner. On the other hand according to the petitioner, the property in question including suit premises was transferred in favour of M/s Delton Cables Ltd. by virtue of a conveyance deed dated 26.10.1970. Thereafter M/s Delton Cables Ltd. conveyed and transferred to M/s Delton Resources Ltd. which was formally known as Delton Harbour Ltd. Subsequently, M/s Delton Resources Ltd. was changed to M/s Allied Switch Gears Resources Ltd. on 08.10.1990 and later on M/s Allied Switch Gear Resources Ltd. was further changed as M/s Allied Promoters Ltd. vide notification issued by Department of Company Affairs, New Delhi. The petitioner has filed copy of rent receipts issued by M/s Allied Switchgear Resources Ltd. to Sh. Chunni Lal, the original tenant. The petitioner has also filed the Certificate of Incorporation wherein it has been specifically stated that the Allied Switch Gear Resources Ltd. has changed its name to M/s Allied Promoters Ltd. vide notification dated 24.06.1985. From the rent receipts and the Certificate of Incorporation it is established that petitioner is landlord of the suit premises. It is well settled law that a landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. It was held in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & E­27/11 Page 10 of 18 //11// Ors., 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 that "A landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. He is required that he is more than a tenant". It has also been held in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that, "It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner howsoever imperfect his title over the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly".

E­27/11 Page 11 of 18

//12//

9. The respondents further contended that the petition is bad for non­ joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. It is not in dispute that Sh. Chunni Lal, grand father of the respondents, was the original tenant in the suit premises, after his death his son Sh. Puran Lal and Sh. Prem Raj became tenant. Both the sons of Late Sh. Chunni Lal expired and the respondents are son of Late Sh. Puran Lal and Prem Raj. The respondents contended that there are co­tenant and have equal half share in the suit premises. This contention of the respondents has no substance. It is well settled law that after death of original tenant his legal heirs become only joint tenants, who are tenant in common but not co­tenants. A landlord is not required to implead all the joint tenants in an eviction petition. It was held in Inderpal Khanna Vs. Commander Bhupinder Singh Rekhi, 2008 VIII AD (Delhi) 328 that "It is settled law that on death of tenant, tenancy devolves upon legal heirs as a joint tenancy. LRs are joint tenants and not tenants in common. Where out of many, only one or two LR of deceased tenant are in occupation of premises, an eviction petition by landlord against those who are in occupation of the premises is a valid petition. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant or to implead even those who are not in occupation and possession of the premises". E­27/11 Page 12 of 18

//13//

10. So far the purpose of letting is concerned, after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union Of India III (2008) SLT 553, an eviction petition is maintainable on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of the property which were let out for commercial purposes. Hence both the ingredients is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

11. Alternative accommodation & Bonafide requirement The respondents contended that the petitioner is in possession of a number of properties in various parts of Delhi i.e Rajpur Road, Cannought Place, South Delhi. The petitioner is having a number of rooms and shops adjoining to the property number 3455, 3456, 3457, 3458, 3459, 3460, 3461, 3462, 3463 & 3464 including the ground floor, first floor, second floor & third floor. The respondent further contended that the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect. On the other hand, according to the petitioner, various portion in the property in question are occupied by different tenants and the petitioner is not in possession of any front portion of the property in question. The petitioner has filed a site plan showing the property in its possession in green color and the suit property has been shown in red color. The portion shown in green color is towards back side. On one side of the property in E­27/11 Page 13 of 18 //14// possession of the petitioner is temple and on the other side there is a Raghunath Mandir Lane. The property which are on the corner and on front sides are in possession of other tenants. The petitioner has specifically stated in its petition that it requires the front side portion of the property to starts any commercial activity after getting possession of the same. The respondents have not filed any site plan. The respondents have even not disclosed any other property which is on the front side and lying vacant. It is well settled law that if respondent/tenant do not file a site plan than the site plan filed on behalf of the landlord would be deemed to be correct. It is held in Harivansh Lal Vs. Madan Lal that "if landlord produces site plan and tenant does not produce counter site plan than landlord plan has to be accepted as correct".

12. The petitioner has specifically stated in the petition that whatsoever business it wants to start, same could not continue for the reason that all the corners and front of the property of the property in question have been occupied by various tenants. The tenanted premises is also at the corner of the building that have two ways to enter, one is from main entrance and another from stair case and the petitioner company could have run any business like sale of motor car, departmental store, selling of electronic products or restaurant from there. From the averments made in the petition it E­27/11 Page 14 of 18 //15// is clear that the petitioner wants to start commercial activity from front portion of the property in question and at present it does not have any vacant portion on the front side in the suit property. It is held in John Impacts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Surender Singh and others that "Landlord is best judge of his requirement. Tenant cannot dictate terms on which landlord should live. Requirement of law is not that every desire of landlord has to be looked at with a suspicion and matter proved beyond reasonable doubt applying test of criminal jurisprudence". It is held in Siddalingamma and another Vs. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561 that "Law does not demand that landlord be prevented from living in comfort in his own house and be forced to live in inadequate premises in order that tenant's occupancy of tenancy premises may be protected. Only provisions regarding eviction of tenant on ground of bona fide requirement treat landlord with some sympathy. Generally rent control legislation lean in favour of tenant".

13. The respondent further contended that there was a piao in the property in question and the same had been demolished by the landlord company and thereafter the said portion had been given to another tenant on higher rent and some other portions were also let out to other tenants. It is further E­27/11 Page 15 of 18 //16// contended that the petitioner company is doing the business of property dealer and wants to built a multi storeyed commercial complex after demolishing the present structure. It is further contended that a portion of the property in question was under the tenancy of one Sh. Ram Lal who had vacated the said portion/shop but the petitioner had given the said portion to Mohd. Swalin on higher rent. On the other hand the petitioner stated that the portion which was stated by the respondent as piao was misused by anti social persons and had been creating nuisance therefore, the same had been cleaned by the petitioner and was let out to Swalin about 8 years ago. The petitioner denied that any portion was vacated by Sh. Ram Lal. The respondents have not stated when the piao was demolished by the petitioner and let out to other tenant whereas the petitioner has specifically stated that the portion where the piao was situated was got cleared and let out about 8 years ago. The period of 8 years is a long period and in the absence of any material it cannot be said that the petitioner was in need of accommodation when it let out the said portion to other tenant. So far the question of tenant Ram Lal the respondents have not filed anything on record to show which portion was vacated by Ram Lal and when it was vacated. The other contention of the respondents that petitioner wants to convert the suit E­27/11 Page 16 of 18 //17// property into a commercial complex has no substance because there is a protection to the tenant u/s 19 of DRC Act that in case the landlord let out or sell the property within three year of its acquisition, tenant can file a petition to get back the possession. The petitioner is a company but presently not doing any business due to want of suitable accommodation in the front portion of the property in question. The petitioner needs the suit premises to start a new business after getting the possession of same. The petitioner has given the name of 4­5 commercial activity which it is planning to start from the suit premises. Even otherwise, if the petitioner does not disclose any business, it cannot be bound to disclose the same. It was held in Balwant Singh Chowdhary and anothers Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 2004 (1) RCR 487 that it is not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove the specific business he wants to set up if the landlord wanted premises for business purposes.

14. In view of the above discussions, the respondents have failed to raise any triable issue. On the other hand, the petitioner company has successfully established that the petitioner bona fidely needs the suit premises for commercial business activity. The petitioner has no other suitable alternate accommodation with it except the suit premises. Hence the petitioner is E­27/11 Page 17 of 18 //18// entitled for an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25­B of DRC Act.

15. Accordingly, the applications of the respondents seeking leave to defend are dismissed and the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order and therefore an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25­B of D.R.C. Act is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises i.e shop no. 3458 situated at ground floor, Krishna Niketan, Delhi Gate, Delhi­110002 more specifically shown in red color in site plan Ex. C­1 (exhibited today while passing the order). 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 order as to cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.


(Announced in the open court 
on 07.12.2011)                                                       (Pritam Singh)
                                                                ARC/Central/Delhi




E­27/11                                                                Page 18 of 18