Delhi District Court
Shri Ravel Singh vs Shri Rattan Singh Son Of Late Shri ... on 4 December, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH KAPOOR: DISTRICT JUDGE-I:
DELHI.
RCT APPEAL No.34/2010
UNIQUE ID NO. 02401C0363742010
1. Shri Ravel Singh
son of Shri Gopal Dass
H.No.10395, Bagichi Peerji, SubziMandi,
Delhi.
2. Pooran Chand
Son of Shri Ami Lal,
resident of 11036, Gali Peepalwali,
Motia Khan,
Paharganj,
New Delhi 55. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri Rattan Singh son of late Shri Bhagwan Dass,
alias Bhagwan Singh,
r/o. H.No.5554, Basti Harphool Singh,
Sadar Bazar,
Delhi -6.
......... Respondent
Date of institution of appeal: 17.08.2010
Date on which judgment was reserved :01.12.2010
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.12.2010
JUDGEMENT :
This appeal under section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the appellants herein against the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi under section 15(1) of the Act whereby the respondent no.1 (appellant No.1 herein) has been (RCT APPEAL No.--34/2010) (page 1 of 7) directed to pay to the petitioner (respondent herein) or to deposit in the court the arrears of rent @ Rs.40/- per month for the last three years preceding to filing of the present petition i.e. from 1-2-2003 to 30-6-2010 within one month of the date of the order and to continue to pay or deposit future rent at the said rate month by month by 15th of each succeeding English calender month.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under:
3. The petitioner (respondent herein) had filed a petition for eviction under section 14(1) (a) & (b) of the Act against the respondents (appellants herein) alleging that the premises bearing one room/shop on the ground floor of property No.11036 Gali Peepalwai, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi was let out to the respondent No.1 (appellant no.1 herein) for residential purposes vide rent agreement dated 5/12/1960 and then tenancy was changed on 6/7/1983 for commercial purposes vide rent note dated 6/7/1983. The respondent no.1 being a statutory tenant is in arrears of rent since 1/1/2000 @ Rs.125/- p.m. which he had failed to pay despite the service of legal demand notice dated 8-11-2005. The tenancy of the respondent No.1 was terminated and rent was enhanced by 10 per cent and the rate of rent became Rs.137-50 paise but the respondent no.1 gave evasive reply dated 17-11-2005 through his (RCT APPEAL No.--34/2010) (page 2 of 7) counsel. It is also alleged that respondent no.1 sub let the premises to respondent No.2.. The respondents (appellants herein) had contested the petition and had claimed that the petitioner (respondent herein) is neither the landlord nor the owner of the suit premises and the rent receipts are fabricated, manipulated and forged. According to them, in fact the petitioner (respondent herein) was the tenant in respect of open land under the landlordship of Shri Umrao Singh vide agreement dated 18-12-1980 and the petitioner was Parokar of Shri Umrao Singh and the ground floor was constructed by respondent no.1 from his hard earnings and first floor was constructed by respondent No.2 after purchasing the structure from the respondent no.1 in good faith vide sale documents dated 9/5/2001. It is contended that the open land does not come within the purview of Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore the eviction petition is not maintainable. It is also contended that they had never executed any rent note in favour of any person. It is denied that the respondent no.1 (appellant no.1 herein ) is a statutory tenant or that he is in arrears of rent since 1/1/2000 at Rs.100/- per month.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and documents filed on record, the learned Addl. Rent Controller had passed the impugned order dated 21/7/2010 under section 15(1) of the Act.
(RCT APPEAL No.--34/2010) (page 3 of 7) Aggrieved by the said order the respondent No.1 and 2 (appellants herein) have come in appeal in this court.
5. I have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the record 6- The appellants have sought to dispute the title of the respondent in the suit property and his right to sue inasmuch as, as per the appellants, Shri Umrao Singh was holding the possession of the Evacuee property. The appellants claim that rent receipts and rent note are forged and fabricated documents and since there was no relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties, the order under Section 15(1) is incorrect and liable to be set aside. 7- At the outset I may mention that an order under section 15(1) of the Act is always passed on a prima facie view of the facts. In 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporter-289 Sushil Kanta Vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, our own High Court had observed that a restricted meaning can not be given to the owner for the purpose of the Act. In yet another case reported in 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times-383, Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors our own High Court had held that the landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show that he is more than a tenant. .
(RCT APPEAL No.--34/2010) (page 4 of 7) 8- Let me first examine the case of the appellants as set up in the court below. The appellant No.1 had claimed to be the
owner of the suit property. He had claimed that he had taken on rent piece of land measuring 13 sq. yards from one Umrao Singh and thereafter had constructed a shop at his own cost. It was in these circumstances, as per the appellant No.1 that he had become owner of the suit property.
9- Respondent on the other hand has claimed ownership of the suit premises on the basis of decree dated 23-10-1974 passed in suit No.88/67 (titled as Rattan Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others) by the court of Ms. Manju Goel, the then learned Sub Judge, Class I, Delhi. One of the specific issue in the aforesaid suit was as to whether the plaintiff i.e. Rattan Singh was the owner of the suit property. This issue was dealt with in para 15 of the judgement wherein it was held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. In the said case, Ms. Manju Goel, Sub-Judge Ist Class (as she then was) had recorded the statement of Umrao Singh who had specifically stated that he had transferred the land in favour of Rattan Singh. An appeal was filed by Union of India against the jufdgement/decree passed by Ms.Manju Goel, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge vide judgement dated (RCT APPEAL No.--34/2010) (page 5 of 7) 17/9/1977. Therefore, the aforesaid finding with regard to the ownership of the suit property of Shri Rattan Singh had attained finality. This therefore, belies the case set up by the appellant No.1 that he had become owner of the suit premises having purchased the land underneath from one Umrao Singh.
10- There was an earlier litigation between the parties vide suit No. 1118 of 1981 pending in the court of Shri Satpal, the then Sub Judge. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant no.1 conceded that in the said litigation the appellant No.1 had admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties qua the suit premises. Therefore, on a prima facie view of the facts, there was ample evidence on record before the learned Additional Rent Controller to hold that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
9- Learned Additional Rent Controller has passed an order under Section 15(1) of the Act and has directed the appellant No.1 herein to pay or deposit rent @ Rs.40/- per month on the basis of rent note dated 6/7/1983 placed on record. Since appellant no.1 had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and had not set up any rate of rent different from the one on which order has been passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, I am of the (RCT APPEAL No.--34/2010) (page 6 of 7) considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that the order has been passed only on prima facie view of the matter and will have no affect on the merit of the case. .10- No other ground has been advanced. The appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-
Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court while returning the records. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court. .
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (RAKESH KAPOOR)
on 4th December, 2010 RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
DELHI.
(RCT APPEAL No.--34/2010) (page 7 of 7)