Delhi District Court
M/S Solace Exports P. Ltd vs M/S Jupiteer Engineers on 24 December, 2021
`IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT03-000494-2008
ARC No: 79591/16
E.No-759/14/08
M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd.
having its registered address at
1-E/2, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055
Through its Director/Authorised Representative
Mr. M.K. Mahajan,
1-E/2, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055. ......Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Jupiteer Engineers
Front Mezzanine,
1-E/2, Jhandewalan Extension,
New Delhi-110055
Through his proprietor
S. Charanjeet Singh (Now Deceased)
Through his legal representatives
R/o 75/2, W.H.S. Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015.
a. Smt. Bachan Kaaur
Wd/o Late S. Charanjeet Singh
b. S. Rajveer Singh
ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15
S/o Late S. Charanjeet Singh
c. S. Vikram Singh
S/o Late S. Charanjeet Singh
All R/o 16/19, 2nd Floor,
East Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008. ......Respondent
Date of filing : 21.07.2008
Date of Judgment : 24.12.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case is that on 21.07.2008, petitioner filed present petition Under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of premises, i.e. mezzanine floor of the front side of portion of the building No.1E/2, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi more specifically shown in red colour in the attached site plan. (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
2. It is inter-alia submitted by the petitioner that the tenant i.e respondent has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of 20.02.2008 i.e. the date on which the notice of demand returned ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 back from the said tenanted premises with remarks 'left' on account of the same being locked; the said property/building i.e. 1E/2, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi-110055 belonged to Late Smt. Sarla Devi Agnihotri W/o late Sh. Durga Dutt Agnihotri, who was its sole and absolute owner vide registered perpetual lease deed dated 03.12.1956 executed by Delhi Improvement Trust in her favour; all the sons and daughters of Smt. Sarla Agnihotri executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of their father Sh. D.D. Agnihotri; Sh. D.D Agnihotri died on 13th January 1975 leaving behind his Will dated 21st April 1974; inter-se disputes between the legal heirs of late Sh. D.D. Agnihotri resulted in civil suits between the said heirs; it ended on a compromise between the legal heirs, which was reduced in writing in the shape of compromise deed dated 25.03.1987; in terms of the said compromise each legal heirs of late Sh. D.D. Agnihotri got 1/8th share in the said premises, which was jointly held by them in co-ownership; petitioner no 1, being one of the sons of late Sh D.D. Agnihotri and being his legal heirs, is, thus, the co-owner of 1/8th undivided share in the said premises and the petitioner no. 2 is wife and legal heirs of late Sh. B.S. Agnihotri, again one of the sons and co-owner of 1/8th undivided share in the said premises; after whose death, the property has further devolved on his legal heirs; tenanted premises was given on rent on the respondent/tenant by Sh D.D. Agnihotri; present petition is ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 being filed by Sh. Varun Mahanjan, GPA holder on behalf of petitioner no. 1 and 2; earlier Sh. T.R. Anand on behalf of one M/s. Aman Associates P Ltd filed a petition for the eviction of the respondent i.e. DPC from the said premises, alleging that M/s Aman Associates P Ltd is the landlord of the tenanted premises /respondent therein; the respondent has denied the relationship of tenant aand landlord between him and M/s. Aman Associates P Ltd and has asserted that it is Sh. D.D. Agnihotri & his legal heirs who are the actual and real landlords of the tenant/respondent; the tenant has, in fact, further stated in the reply to the said eviction petition that for all these years, he, as a tenant, was paying rent to the petitioner no. 1 i.e. Sh. I.D. Agnihotri. Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that eviction order may be passed.
3. In the W.S, it is inter-alia stated that Sh Varun Mahajan has not been duly empowered by the petitioner to file and plead with the present petition against the respondent; alleged demand notice dated 17.02.2008 has never been served upon the respondent as the same was intentionally and deliberately sent at the previous address of the respondent; the actual rate of rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 150/- per month exclusive of other charges and the actual landlord i.e. the petitioner no. 1 used to collect the said rent annually in advance from the respondent @ Rs. 1800/- per annum, but he never issued any rent receipt in ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 favour of the respondent despite repeated requests and demands and the respondent has paid the rent to the petitioner no. 1 upto 31.03.2010 in advance and the same was paid in the month of April 2009 in cash by the respondent; another eviction petition on the same ground has been filed by M/s Aman Associates against the present respondent, which is still pending for adjudication in which M/s Aman Associates is claiming itself to be the owner of the tenanted premises being the bonafide purchaser; however, the respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in the said petition between M/s Aman Associates and M/s Jupiter Engineers; in the said petition, the petitioner no. 1 and Mrs. Shanta Agnihotri have jointly moved an application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC for their impledment as necessary party but the said application has been dismissed; in reply to para no. 3 (a) of the petition is admitted up to the extent of the landlordship of Sh. I.D. Agnihotri over the tenanted premises, but rest of the content is denied because Smt. Roopi Agnihotri has no concern, right or title with the tenanted premises; para no 3 of the petition is admitted; the respondent is the tenant in respect of mezzaine portion area measuring 10' x 22' approximately in the property bearing no. 1E/2, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-55; it is denied that the rate of the rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 1300/- per month excluding the electricity and water charges; in fact the rate of the rent of the ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 tenanted presmies is Rs. 150/- per month exclusive of other charges and the respondent has paid the same on annual basis in advance to the petitioner no. 1 and has paid the rent up to 31.03.2010 to the petitioner no. 1 in advance; the petitioner no. 1, Sh. I.D Agnihotri started collecting the rent from the respondent being the legal heirs of late Sh. D.D. Agnihotri and he became the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises. Lastly, it is prayed by the respondent that court may graciously be pleased to dismiss the petition.
4. Petitioner examined PW1 Sh. M.K Mahajan who was cross examined. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed.
On the other hand, respondent examined RW 1 Sh. S. Rajveer Singh who was cross examined and thereafter, respondent evidence was closed.
5. I have perused the pleadings, documents, case relied upon, testimonies and material on record. I have also heard the argument advanced carefully.
(i) Landlorship:-
6. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have claimed to be landlord and owner of the tenanted premises on the basis of ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 inheritance as they have claimed that father of petitioner no.1 i.e Sh. I.D. Agnihotri was the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises and after his death, tenanted premises has come to share of petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2.
On the other hand, the respondent has admitted to be tenant in the tenanted premises and has admitted that the petitioner no.1 is his landlord and has also admitted to have paid rent to the petitioner no.1. In the paragraph no.19(vii) of the written statement, the respondent has inter alia stated as under:-
"that after the death of Shri I.D.Agnihotri, the petitioner no.1, I.D.Agnihotri started collecting the rent from the respondent being the legal heir of late Shri D.D.Agnihotri and he became the landlord in respect of tenanted premises."
7. As such, the respondent has admitted the landlordship of the petitioner no.1 Sh. I.D.Agnihotri and has specifically admitted that petitioner no.1 became the landlord in respect of tenanted premises. Perusal of material of record and discussion as earlier, clearly shows that there exists the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that initially, the present petition was filed by petitioner no.1 Sh. I.D.Agnihotri and petitioner no.2 Smt. Roopi Agnihotri but later on, two separate ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 applications were filed by M/s Solace Export which were allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of the court and by virtue of which, present petitioner M/s Solace Exports became the petitioner. As such, the present petitioner has become the landlord by virtue of law and it is undisputed fact. As such, there exists the relationship of landlord-tenant between parties.
(ii) Legal Demand Notice:-
9. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have claimed that the respondent has neither tendered or paid the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from it despite legal demand notice dated 17.02.2008. On the other hand, the respondent has replied that legal demand notice has never been served upon him as the same was deliberately sent at the previous address of the respondent despite having the knowledge of new address of respondent.
10. Perusal of record shows that the petitioners have placed on record documents, in respect of service of legal demand notice dated 17.02.2008 upon the respondent such as legal demand notice Ex. PW1/12, Postal Receipt Ex. PW1/13, Proof of service Ex. PW1/14.
ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15
11. I have carefully and minutely gone through the documents relied upon and the material on record. Perusal of written statement shows that the respondent has claimed that the petitioners deliberately sent the legal demand notice on the wrong address. But perusal of petition shows that the address given in the title of petition is "Jupiter Engineers,1E/2, Jhandewalan extension, New Delhi-55" which is address of property in which tenanted premises is situated. As such, it is clear from record that the legal demand notice was sent on the address of tenanted premises and it is undisputed fact. The allegation of the respondent is that it was deliberately sent on the wrong address despite having the new address of respondent. In the considered view of this court, nothing has been placed on record to prove such malafide on the part of the petitioners. Moreover, in the present petition also, the petitioners initially mentioned the same address i.e. of the tenanted premises but when the summons could not be served upon the respondent, petitioners filed the fresh address of the respondent.
12. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the petitioners had the knowledge of other addresses of the respondent, in the considered view of this court, petitioners was not required to send legal demand notice to the Kirti Nagar address and all other addresses of the respondent as the address ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 of the tenanted premises is appropriate address for the purpose of service of legal demand notice. Nothing has been placed on record to show that written notice was given by the respondent to the petitioners about the change of address from tenanted premises to Kirti Nagar address. The respondent can not advantage of his own default or negligence. Moreover, it is undisputed fact that legal demand notice was issued and sent to the respondent on the address of tenanted premises but returned with the report 'left'. Moreover, in the present petition, the claim of the respondent is that he has already paid the rent to the petitioners in advance in cash and there is no outstanding rent against it. It is not the case of the respondent that since the legal demand notice has not been served upon time, he could not have the opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within two months of service of legal demand notice. Perusal of the documents, testimonies of witnesses and discussion as earlier manifestly shows that there is deemed service of legal demand notice.
(iii) Non-Payment of rent:-
13. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have claimed the legally recoverable arrears of rent from the respondent at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month. Since the present petition was filed on 21.07.2008, the petitioners are claiming the rent w.e.f ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 21.07.2005 at the rate of Rs.1300/- per month. On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that rate of rent is Rs.150/- per month instead of Rs.1300/- as claimed by the petitioners.
14. Perusal of record shows that it is undisputed fact that no rent agreement in writing was executed between the parties. Moreover, it is also clear from record that no rent receipts have been filed by the either of the parties. I have carefully and minutely gone through the testimonies on record. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of testimony of P.W1 which is as under:-
"I am in the suit property no.1E/2, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi 110055 since last more than 51 years. It is correct I was earlier tenant in the said property. There was the eight landlord earlier. Suit property was undivided property having 1/8 share of each. I use to pay rent to Sh. O.D.Agnihotry. I used to pay rent to Sh. O.D.Agnihotry as per mutual understanding. I paid the rent to Sh. O.D.Agnihotry @ 150/- pm from 1970 to 2013. After the death of Sh. O.D.Agnihotry I paid rent to the Lrs of Sh. O.D.Agnihotry. It is correct that I have not paid rent to anybody at all after the year 2013. It is correct that the property concerned is undivided property. It is correct that no rent receipts was issued by Lrs of Sh. O.D.Agnihotry in respect of property concerned. At this stage, he says I do not remember The respondent has been in possession of the tenanted premises for the last 30 to 35 years. I do not know what was the rate of rent at the time of induction of respondent in the tenanted premises. I was told by the landlords that rate of rent of the respondent was Rs.1300/-p.m. I do not know whether there was an written agreement between the ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 respondent and previous landlords.
I have not filed any application anywhere stating that rate of rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.1300/- p.m. I do not remember the name of the landlords who informed me that rate of rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.1300/- p.m. I don't remember at the moment that the name of the tenanted suit premises. It is around 2006-07, the landlords informed me regarding the rent as Rs.1300/-
I don't have any documentary proof to shows that Mr. I.D.Agnihotry was collecting the rent of the tenanted premises, amounting of Rs.1300/-."
15. As such, perusal of testimony of PW1 manifestly shows that although he has claimed that he was informed the rate of rent as Rs.1300/- p.m by the previous landlords but he could not recollect the name of such landlords despite the fact that cross examination was conducted on different dates and every time, he did not disclose the name of such landlords and deposed that he does not remember. This version of the PW1 casts doubt over the story of petitioner in respect of Rent as Rs.1300/- per month.
16. As far as the payment of rent is concerned, the petitioners are claiming the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from the respondent, i.e. from 21.07.2005 as the petition was filed on 21.07.2008. On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that he has already paid the rent to the petitioner no.1 upto 31.03.2010 in advance which was paid in the month of ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 April, 2009 in cash by the respondent.
17. As such, the respondent has claimed the payment of rent to the respondent in cash but no rent receipt at all has been produced by the respondent to prove such facts. It is well settled law that it is duty of the tenant to prove that entire rent has been paid and nothing is outstanding at the time of legal demand notice but the respondent has fail to prove it. The claim of the respondent is that petitioners never issued rent receipts to the respondent despite receiving the rent from the respondent.
18. In the considered view of this court, the respondent/tenant had the remedy to approach the Rent Controller concerned for redressal of such grievance U/S 26 of DRC Act. Moreover, he also had the opportunity and right to deposit the rent U/S 27 of DRC Act but the respondent has not taken any steps at all.
In the considered view of this court, the respondent/tenant can not take advantage of his own default or negligence. As such, the petitioners have been able to satisfy this ingredient also in respect of non-payment of rent. Moreover, it is not the case of the respondent that he complied with the legal demand notice within two months of service thereof.
It is pertinent to mention that respondent has relied upon certain case law. Perusal thereof shows that it does not assist to ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 the respondent by reason of peculiar facts of the present petition and also the exhaustive reasons as mentioned above.
Conclusion:-
19. As such, petitioners have been able to satisfy all the ingredients of Section U/S 14(1)(a) of DRC Act. Hence, the petition U/S 14(1)(a) of DRC Act is allowed.
It is pertinent to mention that an order dated 29.04.2013 was passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court U/S 15(4) of DRC Act directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent w.e.f. July, 2008 till the date of order @ Rs.150/- p.m within 30 days from the date of order and also directed the respondent to keep depositing the future rent at the same rate per month by 15 th of each succeeding English Calander month and it was directed that petitioners shall not be entitled to withdraw the rent without specific orders of this court.
20. In view of discussion as earlier, there is no requirement of modification of the aforementioned order dated 29.04.2013, however, the aforementioned order passed U/S 15(4) of the DRC Act will now be treated as an order passed U/S 15(1) of the DRC Act as the petitioners have satisfied all the ingredients U/S 14(1)
(a) of DRC Act.
As such, Nazir is directed to file his report for ascertaining ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15 the benefits U/S 14(2) of DRC Act on 28.01.2022.
21. Miscellaneous file be prepared for ascertaining benefits U/S 14(2) of DRC Act.
22. This file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
on 24th December, 2021 AJAY AJAY NAGAR
(This judgment contains 15 pages) NAGAR
Date:
2021.12.24
17:46:54
+0530
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller-2,
Central District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 79591/16 M/s Solace Exports P. Ltd. Vs M/s Jupiter Engineers 15