Delhi District Court
Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam on 12 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI GIRISH KATHPALIA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (HQ)
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RCT No. 61/2018
Smt. SUMAN LATA SHARMA
W/o Sh. PURAN CHAND
R/o 3728, 4th FLOOR, DHOOMI MAL STREET
CHAWARI BAZAR, DELHI 110006
....APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. Shri MANSOOR AZAM
S/o Sh. ABDUL HANNAN
R/o 559, CHURIWALAN
DELHI 110006
2. Smt. KUSUM LATA SHARMA
D/o Late Sh. SHREE RAM SHARMA
R/o K-985, SANJAY NAGAR,
RAJ NAGAR, SECTOR-23, GHAZIABAD (UP)
.... RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 24.05.2018
First date before this court : 16.08.2019
Arguments heard on : 05.04.2021
Date of Decision : 12.04.2021
Appearance : Shri Gaurav Sharma, counsel for appellant
Shri D.S. Chauhan, counsel for respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, brought under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Objector to the execution of eviction order before the learned Additional Rent Controller has assailed order dated 01.05.2018, whereby her Objections to the execution were dismissed. Upon service of notice, respondent no.1 (landlord) and respondent no.2 (tenant) entered appearance through counsel to oppose the appeal.
RCT No. 61/2018Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 1 of 11 pagesHowever, after filing of vakalatnamas, counsel for respondent no. 2 stopped appearing. I heard learned counsel for appellant and respondent no. 1 and examined the trial court record.
2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to this appeal are as follows.
2.1 The present respondent no. 1, claiming himself to be the owner and landlord of the first floor of premises bearing no. 3439, Delhi Chamber Building, Behind Telephone Exchange, Delhi Gate, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises") filed an eviction petition on the ground stipulated under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the present respondent no. 2 tenant, which culminated into an ex parte eviction order dated 25.08.2017.
2.2 Since the present respondent no. 2 did not vacate the demised premises after expiration of 06 months from 25.08.2017, the present respondent no. 1 initiated execution proceedings. By way of order dated 06.04.2018, the execution court of learned Additional Rent Controller recorded that vacant peaceful possession of the demised premises had been obtained by the DH (the present respondent no. 1) from the JD (the present respondent no. 2), so the execution stood satisfied; and accordingly, the execution file was consigned to records.
2.3 Thereafter, on 26.04.2018, the appellant filed Objections to the execution petition, which were taken up by the execution court of learned Additional Rent Controller on 01.05.2018 and dismissed by way of the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.
3. In her Objections dated 26.04.2018, filed subsequent to satisfaction of the execution proceedings, the appellant pleaded that RCT No. 61/2018 Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 2 of 11 pagessince the year 1974, the demised premises were in possession of her mother Smt. Satyawati as tenant under landlordship of Shri Abdul Hannan, father of the present respondent no. 1; that in the demised premises, Smt. Satyawati was residing with her husband Shri Sri Ram Sharma, son Shiv Kumar, and daughters Kusum Lata, Suman Lata and Sunita; that daughters of Smt. Satyawati got married and settled in their respective matrimonial homes; that the appellant got settled in her matrimonial home in Daryaganj, near the demised premises, so she and her children used to frequently visit the demised premises; that on 10.05.2001 Smt. Satyawati passed away and at that time, the demised premises were occupied by her husband Shri Sri Ram Sharma, son Shiv Kumar and her granddaughter (daughter of the appellant) Abha Sharma; that on 29.08.2005 Shri Shiv Kumar passed away, so the demised premises continued to be occupied by Shri Sri Ram Sharma and Abha Sharma; that on 03.06.2011, Abha Sharma got married and shifted to her matrimonial home abroad, so the demised premises continued to occupied by Shri Sri Ram Sharma, who passed away on 15.04.2012 after bequeathing his estate in favour of the appellant, as the appellant and her children used to visit the demised premises and take care of Shri Sri Ram Sharma; that after death of Shri Sri Ram Sharma, the appellant and her son Gaurav took over possession of the demised premises; that after death of Smt. Satyawati, the present respondent no. 1 had got issued legal notices dated 05.06.2002 and 28.04.2003 to all legal heirs of Smt. Satyawati and had also filed a petition before the Competent Authority (Slums) seeking permission to file eviction petition against Shri Sri Ram Sharma and Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, but had withdrawn the same vide order dated 09.10.2006; that the present respondent no. 1 was fully aware that the present respondent no. 2 was residing in Ghaziabad and never resided in the demised premises after her marriage and that it is the appellant who had become tenant in the demised RCT No. 61/2018 Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 3 of 11 pagespremises after death of her father; that on 28.03.2018, the appellant got shocked when court bailiff came to the demised premises with police aid and forcibly dispossessed the appellant, who was never aware about pendency of any eviction petition or any execution petition; that the present respondent no. 1 connived with the present respondent no. 2 and forged a rent agreement dated 08.05.2006 to obtain the eviction order dated 25.08.2017.
4. By way of the impugned order, the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the objections holding that the same are not maintainable since the Controller had become functus officio upon satisfaction of the execution proceedings; and that going by the case setup by the appellant herself, the appellant was a joint tenant with the present respondent no. 2 in respect of demised premises, so present respondent no. 2 represented all legal representatives of Shri Sri Ram Sharma in the eviction proceedings.
5. During final arguments, learned counsel for appellant took me through records and contended that the eviction order was obtained by the respondents in collusion after concealment of true facts. It was argued on behalf of appellant that there is no reason for not impleading all legal representatives of predecessor of respondent no. 2. Learned counsel for appellant took me through documents on execution file including a notice dated 05.06.2002 which shows that tenant in the demised premises was Smt. Satyawati, but the eviction petition was filed impleading only one daughter of Smt. Satyawati, though it is the appellant who being the other daughter of Smt. Satywati was in possession of the demised premises and was evicted in execution of the eviction order. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vidyawanti vs RCT No. 61/2018 Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 4 of 11 pagesTaken Dass, (1974) ILR Delhi 835.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 argued that since respondent no. 2 was subsequently inducted as a tenant in her independent capacity by way of a rent agreement, there was no need to implead the remaining legal representatives of the previous tenant Smt. Satyawati. It was further argued on behalf of respondent no. 1 that even if contention of the appellant is accepted that tenancy in the name of Smt. Satyawati was never terminated, impleadment of the appellant in the eviction petition was not necessary as respondent no. 1 had already impleaded respondent no. 2, one of the legal representatives of Smt. Satyawati. It was also argued that under proviso to Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, objections can be filed only by a person claiming independent title, whereas the appellant herself claims to be a joint tenant.
7. In nutshell, the case set up by the appellant by way of Objections before the execution court of the Additional Rent Controller was that originally in the year 1974, Smt. Satyawati was inducted as tenant in the demised premises and she started residing there alongwith her husband, son and three daughters; that on 10.05.2001 Smt. Satyawati passed away and the demised premises continued to be occupied by her husband, son and granddaughter; that during period from 29.08.2005 to 15.04.2012, son and husband of Smt. Satyawati passed away and granddaughter of Smt. Satyawati got married abroad; that after 15.04.2012, appellant and her son shifted to the demised premises; and that on 28.03.2018, the appellant was shocked when court bailiff came with police aid and evicted the appellant.
8. On the other hand, according to the trial court record, the RCT No. 61/2018 Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 5 of 11 pagespresent respondent no. 1 had filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act seeking permission to institute eviction proceedings against husband and son of the deceased tenant Smt. Satyawati to which the said respondents filed reply, pleading that tenancy rights of Smt. Satyawati were inherited by her husband and children, all of whom became joint tenants. The said proceedings under the Slums Act were withdrawn vide order dated 09.10.2006 on the ground that parties had settled the disputes out of court. The said settlement was in the form of a Surrender Deed executed by husband of Smt. Satyawati and the present respondent no. 1, in which the former requested that his daughter Ms. Kusum Lata (the present respondent no. 2) be inducted as tenant in the demised premises by way of separate rent note. Accordingly, rent note dated 08.05.2006 was executed between the present respondent no. 1 and the present respondent no. 2, which was at the foundation of the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
9. From above record, it comes out that according to the present respondents, tenancy in the name of present respondent no. 2 was created afresh after the previous tenancy was surrendered by husband of Smt. Satyawati. That being so, the appellant had no right, title or interest in the demised premises.
10. Going a step deeper, even if it is assumed that the tenancy of the demised premises was never surrendered by the husband of Smt. Satyawati, at the most, the appellant was a joint tenant in the suit property having inherited the tenancy and similarly, even the present respondent no. 2 was a joint tenant.
11. In the case of Harish Tandon vs Addl. District RCT No. 61/2018 Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 6 of 11 pagesMagistrate, Allahabad, UP & Ors., (1995) I SCC 537, the admitted factual position was that the premises in question were let out to Shri Sheobux Roy who died in the year 1941 leaving behind five sons out of whom three carried on their business in the said premises; on the question of contravention by one of the legal representatives of Shri Sheobux Roy, the Hon'ble High Court took a view that after death of Shri Sheobux Roy, his five sons became tenants in common, so contravention by one of them shall not be a ground for eviction as regards the other co-tenants. After a detailed discussion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed thus :
"21. ...However, this court in the case of H.C. Pandey vs G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 in connection with the same Act said :
"It is now well settled that on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. The incidence of tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor. That is the position as between the landlord and the heirs of the deceased tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants."
22. ...According to us, it is difficult to hold that after the death of the original tenant, his heirs become tenants in common and each one of the heirs shall be deemed to be an independent tenant in his own right. This can be examined with reference to Section 20 (2) which contains the grounds on which a tenant can be evicted. Clause
(a) of Section 20 (2) says that if the tenant is in arrear of rent for not less than four months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a RCT No. 61/2018 Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 7 of 11 pagesnotice of demand, then that shall be a ground on which the landlord can institute a suit for eviction. Take a case where the original tenant who was paying the rent dies leaving behind four sons. It need not be pointed out that after death of the original tenant, his heirs must be paying the rent jointly through one of his sons. Now if there is default as provided in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 in respect of the payment of rent, each of the sons will take a stand that he has not committed such default and it is only the other sons who have failed to pay the rent. If the concept of heirs becoming independent tenants is to be introduced, there should be a provision under the Act to the effect that each of the heirs shall pay the proportionate rent and in default thereto such heir or heirs alone shall be liable to be evicted. There is no scope for such division of liability to pay the rent which was being paid by the original tenant, amongst the heirs as against the landlord what the heirs do inter se, is their concern.
Similarly, so far as ground (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, which says that if the tenant has willfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the building, then the tenant shall be liable to be evicted; again, if one of the sons of the original deceased tenant willfully causes substantial damage to the building, the landlord cannot get possession of the premises from the heirs of the deceased tenant since the damage was not caused by all of them. Same will be the position in respect of clause (c) which is another ground for eviction i.e. the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or permitted to be made, any such construction or structural alteration in the building which is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it. Even if the said ground is established by the landlord, he cannot get possession of the building in which construction or structural alterations have been made diminishing its value and utility unless he establishes that all the heirs of the deceased tenant had done so......
RCT No. 61/2018Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 8 of 11 pages23. It appears to us, in the case of H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1985) 2 SCC 683 it was rightly said by this court that after the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant jointly. The incidence of the tenancy is the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and there is no division of the premises or of the rent payable therefor and the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants"
12. In the case of Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain, AIR 2018 SC 2708, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India recapitulated various judicial pronouncements on the aspect of inheritance of tenancy and concluded thus :
"20. We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra) the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenants is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs."
13. Therefore, even if case set up by the appellant is assumed to be true that tenancy in favour of Smt. Satyawati had never ceased, RCT No. 61/2018 Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 9 of 11 pagesfailure to implead the appellant in the eviction proceedings would be inconsequential, because another joint tenant (the present respondent no.2) already stood impleaded as eviction respondent, and all joint tenants were bound by the eviction order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one single tenancy, not a tenancy split into different legal heirs of Smt. Satyawati.
14. It would also be significant to note that at the time of execution of the eviction order the appellant herself or her family was not in possession of the demised premises. As reflected from report dated 28.03.2018 of the bailiff, at the time of execution of the eviction order, the demised premises were found to be in possession of one Shariffudin Malik and his family, who introduced himself as tenant of the present appellant; and on being apprised of the eviction order, Shariffudin spoke with the present appellant over telephone, and she along with her sister reached the spot, whereafter Shariffudin vacated the demised premises.
15. Most importantly, when on 01.05.2018, the objections were filed by the appellant, the eviction order dated 22.08.2017 already stood executed and the execution petition already stood satisfied on 06.04.2018. Consequently, the learned Additional Rent Controller had already become functus officio, so could not have upheld the objections. So far as the judgment in the case of Vidyawanti (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for appellant is concerned, the same was on completely distinct factual matrix. In the said case, the tenant Pishori Lal died leaving behind his widow, three sons and three daughters in the year 1957; in the year 1964, the landlord filed eviction petition against the eldest son of Pishori Lal alleging that he alone was the tenant, without disclosing that original tenant was Pishori Lal who left behind other RCT No. 61/2018 Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 10 of 11 pageslegal heirs as well; the landlord obtained eviction order against the eldest son of Pishori Lal; the widow of the tenant filed a civil suit against the landlord, alleging therein that after death of Pishori Lal, the tenancy was inherited by all his legal heirs and since her eldest son did not pull on well with other heirs of Pishori Lal, a partition took place whereby the tenanted premises fell to the share of other legal heirs, so no interest in the tenanted premises was left with the eldest son of the tenant. The issue before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was as to whether the widow of the tenant could file objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act or not. After detailed discussion, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the widow could file the objections under Section 25 of the Act before the Rent Controller. But in the present case, the eviction order had already been executed by the time the objections of the appellant were filed.
16. Therefore, I am unable to find any infirmity in the impugned order, so the same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
17. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment and appeal file be consigned to records.
Announced through videoconferencing due
to Covid lockdown on
this 12th day of April, 2021
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2021.04.12 12:18:12 +05'30'
(GIRISH KATHPALIA)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQ)
Rent Control Tribunal, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
RCT No. 61/2018
Smt. Suman Lata Sharma vs Shri Mansoor Azam & ors.
Page 11 of 11 pages