Delhi District Court
Sh. P. S. Malik vs Sh. Rajinder Bhalla on 11 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. E-60/13
Unique I.D. No. 02402C0196792013
In the matter of:
Sh. P. S. Malik
........ Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Rajinder Bhalla
...... Respondent
Dated : 11.03.2014
ORDER
The present case is filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "the Act") by stating that the flat No. 48B, First Floor, DDA MIG Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi (in short "the flat in question") was let out to Shri Jeetender Singh Bhalla, the father of respondent vide rent agreement dated 21.09.1988. It is alleged that after death of Shri Jeetender Singh Bhalla (who was unmarried), his mother is residing in the flat in question as limited tenant and his sister Smt. Anu Singh Bhalla is residing there illegally. It is specifically stated that the petitioner is having no other property except the flat in question and he is presently residing at the property of his brother, namely, Shri M.L. Malik at K-4, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It is also added that after expiry of Shri M.L. Malik, his legal heirs are requesting the petitioner and his wife to vacate the said property and E. No. : 60/13 Page No. 1 of 6 the petitioner has no other alternative accommodation than the flat in question. As regards family of the petitioner, it is stated that petitioner is 72 years of age and presently he is residing with his old age wife of 70 years and he has two married daughter and the said daughters used to visit the petitioner along with their families from time to time and there is no space even for their stay.
2. The petitioner also narrated many other facts like non- payment of rent, enhancement of rent, serving of notice about termination of tenancy, numbers of the rooms in his possession, etc. but in my considered opinion, in order to decide the present case, the said facts are not relevant.
3. The summons of the case were served upon the respondent and the respondent filed the present application for leave to defend within the period of limitation. A reply is also filed by the petitioner.
4. When the present application was pending, the respondent filed another application under Section 151 CPC to place on record certain additional facts. A reply was also taken. This application has been contested mainly on the ground that this application is not maintainable as the same was beyond the period of limitation, or that the Section 151 CPC does not apply in cases under the DRC Act and that there is no provision of law which permits placing on record additional facts subsequently.
E. No. : 60/13 Page No. 2 of 65. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the application for leave to defend as well as the application under Section 151 CPC.
6. As far as the second application is concerned, it is appropriate to quote the ratio of the Jagdish Kumar vs. Smt. Pushpa Kalia, 1994(2) RCR 509 wherein it was held that:
"An application for amendment seeking to raise a legal plea should be allowed. Similarly, application for amendment seeking to plead subsequent events should be allowed. However, an application seeking to set up a new case and withdrawing admission already made should not be allowed."
7. In the second application, the respondent seeks to place on record some documents to show alternative accommodation of the petitioner and details of such properties. In my opinion, the said facts/details are not in contradiction to the previous case of the respondent, and accordingly the said application to place on record additional facts is allowed.
8. Now coming to the facts of the application for leave to defend, it is seen that the relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant is explicitly admitted though it is denied that the petitioner is the owner of the flat in question. The respondent has not disclosed the name of the person who is the owner of the property in question than E. No. : 60/13 Page No. 3 of 6 the petitioner. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioner established the relationship between him and respondent as landlord/owner and tenant. In this connection, I rely on the case of Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi [157 (2009) DLT 450] which has been decided by our own High Court wherein it was held 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 may be. The imperfectness of the title of 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...."
9. The second and last plea of the respondent is to the effect that the deceased brother of the petitioner, namely, Shri M.L. Malik and his legal heirs were/are having many other properties and as such, the petitioner does not require the flat in question genuinely. It is further stated that the petitioner is residing at the property of his E. No. : 60/13 Page No. 4 of 6 brother at West Patel Nagar from a decade and his shifting to the trans-yamuna area will not be in his interest. It is further argued that the petitioner and his wife are very old and they need protection and assistance of the legal heirs of his deceased brother.
10. From the conjoint reading of the application for leave to defend and the subsequent application, it is clear that the respondent has not disclosed any other property/accommodation which belongs to the petitioner instead he heavily relied on the properties of his brother or the legal heirs of his brother. It is the established principle in law that the property of brother or other distant relative cannot be taken into account for terming it as an alternative accommodation, howsoever big or small that property may be in so far as the requirement of petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is concerned and accordingly, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no other property available than the flat in question.
11. As far as the bona fide requirement of the petitioner is concerned, it is specifically stated by the petitioner that he an aged person of age of 72 years and presently he is living with his wife who is 70 years old at the property of his brother, namely, Shri M.L. Malik. It is also stated that the two married daughters of the petitioner also visit the petitioner and keeping in view their old age, the daughters of the petitioner and their family members want to stay with them but due to non-availability of the sufficient space/accommodation, they could not do so. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner E. No. : 60/13 Page No. 5 of 6 succeeded in establishing the essential ingredients of bona fide requirement also. Consequently, the application for leave to defend is dismissed. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to hand over possession of the flat i.e. flat No.48B, First Floor, DDA MIG Flats, GTB Enclave, Delhi (more particularly shown in red colour in site plan attached with the petition) to the petitioner within 06 months. The file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 11.03.2014 (Naresh Kumar Laka) Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
E. No. : 60/13 Page No. 6 of 6