Delhi District Court
Smt. Hansa Soni vs Smt. Bina Roy on 9 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT03-000482-2008
ARC No: 79571/16
E.No-525/14/08
Smt. Hansa Soni,
W/o Sh. Yogesh Kumar Soni
R/o H. No. 2212, Kucha Alam Chand,
Kinari Bazar, Dariba Kalan
Delhi-110006. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Smt. Bina Roy
W/o Late Sh. Barun Kumar Roy
R/o H. No. F-89,
New Lahore Colony, Shastri Nagar,
Tri Nagar Delhi.
2. Smt. Sunita Dass,
Daughter of Late Shri Barun Kumar Roy
R/O H. No. F-89,
New Lahore Colony, Shastri Nagar,
Tri Nagar, Delhi.
3. Shri Sandeep Barun Royal
Son of Late Shri Barun Kumar Roy
Shop at H.No. 2212,
Kucha Alam Chand,
Kinari Bazar, Delhi.
ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 1
4. Smt. Sonia Roy
Daughter of Late Shri Barun Kumar Roy
R/O H. No. 45/56/1A,
East Azad Nagar,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi. ...Respondents
Date of filing : 12.11.2008
Date of Judgment : 09.11.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case is that on 12.11.2008 petitioner filed present petition Under Section 14 (1) (b) and (c) 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 respondents in respect of premises i.e. one room on the ground floor of property bearing No. 2212, Kucha Alam Chand, Kinari Bazar, Delhi more specifically shown in Red colour in the attached site plan. (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioner that the petitioner purchased whole of the property bearing Municipal No. 2211-12, Kucha Alam Chand, Kinari Bazar, Dariba Kalan, Delhi from its erstwhile owner Shri Bishan Sarup Aggarwal and Shri Bhagwan vide duly registered sale deed dated 20.03.1985; the tenanted premises were let out to the predecessor-in-interest ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 2 of the respondents by the erstwhile owner exclusively for commercial purpose; the respondents have started misusing the tenanted premises for residential purposes also by allowing the sub-tenants to reside, prepare food and to sleep in the night therein without obtaining the consent in writing of the owner/landlady; the mis-user of the tenanted premises was not stopped by the respondents/sub-tenants despite filing of a suit for permanent injunction by the petitioner against he respondents in the civil court; after the demise of the erstwhile tenant Shri Barun Kumar Roy, the respondent being his son came in effective control and possession of the tenanted premises and he, without obtaining the consent in writing of the petitioner, sub-let, assigned and parted with possession of the tenanted premises to several Bengali artisans from whom he is charging hefty amounts for user of the tenanted premises during day and night; the said Bengali artisans, who are mostly involved in manufacturing of diamond jewellery, are now in effective control and possession of the tenanted premises; the respondent No-1, while contesting the civil suit, had described and stated those artisans as his employees, however, no document of employment was ever placed on record even in the civil suit. Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that an order of eviction may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with costs.
3. Written Statement was filed by the respondents in ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 3 response to petition filed by the petitioner U/S 14 (1) (b) (c) of D.R.C Act, praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs.
4. In the written statement, the respondents have stated that the petitioner is not the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises; no notice under Sec. 14(5) of the DRC Act has been given or served on the respondents prior to the filing of the petition; the alleged sub tenant has not been made party to the petition; the para no. 3(b) of the petition is not denied; the tenanted premises were let out to Sh. B.K. Roy and on his death, the tenancy rights were devolved upon the respondents; the documents alleged to be the ownership documents filed by the petitioner are fabricated documents; father of the respondent no.3 had attorned in favour of the petitioner; it is denied that the respondent has allowed any sub tenant to reside, prepare food and to sleep at night in the tenanted premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the owner/landlord; the respondent is carrying on the job work of making jewellery with the help of artisans who are his employees at the tenanted premises; the respondent has neither sub-let the tenanted premises nor is misusing the same. Lastly it is prayed by the respondents that present petition may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner examined PW1 Sh. Anil ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 4 Kumar Gupta, Administrative Officer, LIC of India, Branch Unit- 11B, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi, PW2 Sh. Mukesh Chawla, UDC from the Competent Authority, Slum Area, Tis Hazari, Delhi, PW3 Sh. Amit Gupta, Data Entry Operator from the office of Sub Registrar-1, Kashmere Gate, Delhi and PW4 Sh. Jitender, Axis Bank, Branch Operation Head, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi-110006. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed vide order dated 24.09.2021.
On the other hand, respondent examined herself as RW1 and thereafter respondent evidence was closed.
6. I have carefully gone through the pleadings, documents, testimonies and material on record.
Landlordship:
7. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioner has claimed to be landlord and owner of the tenanted premises on the basis of purchase from erstwhile landlord and owner of the tenanted premises vide registered sale deed dated 20.03.1985.
On the other hand, although respondents have disputed the landlordship and ownership of the petitioner in the written statement paragraph No.2 yet they have not denied the paragraph No.3(b) of the petition. As such, they have admitted that they are tenants in the tenanted premises. It is also admitted ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 5 by the respondents that Sh. B.K Roy was let out the tenanted premises and the tenancy rights were devolved upon them after his demise.
8. Perusal of written statement shows that although, the respondents have claimed that petitioner is not the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises yet they have not disclosed the name of the actual landlord and owner of the tenanted premises if not the petitioner.
9. It is well settled that bare denial is not sufficient. Moreover, the petitioner need not prove his/her ownership in absolute terms. The court of A.R.C is not supposed to decide the title of property while dealing with the petition under DRC Act. In the considered view of this court, material on record manifestly shows that the petitioner has been able to show that she is more than the tenant/respondents and there exists the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties.
14(1)(b) of DRC Act
10. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioner has alleged that the respondents have allowed the sub-tenants to reside, prepare food and to sleep in the night without obtaining the consent in writing of the petitioner. It is further alleged by the ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 6 petitioner that respondents have sub let the tenanted premises to several Bengali artisans from whom they are charging hefty amount and these Bengali artisans who are mostly involved in manufacturing of diamond jewellery are now in effective control and possession of the tenanted premises who are carrying on commercial activities during the day and using it during the night for cooking and sleeping.
11. On the contrary, the respondent no.3 has claimed that the respondent is carrying on the job work of making jewellery with the help of artisans who are his employees at the tenanted premises and has further claimed that they have not sub-let the tenanted premises.
12. I have carefully gone through the petition, written statement filed by respondent no.1 and also separate written statement filed by respondent no.3, replication, testimonies, documents and material on record.
13. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioner has claimed that some Bengali artisans are in effective control and possession of the tenanted premises. On the other hand, the respondents have not denied the presence of third party at the tenanted premises but the explanation given by the respondents is that they are their employees of diamond jewellery job work.
ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 7 As such, the duty is cast upon the respondents to prove that they are their employees and not the sub-tenants.
14. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has summoned record from various departments to prove her case such as PW1 from LIC, PW2 from Slum Authority, PW3 from Sub-Registrar Office, PW4 from Axis Bank.
15. I have gone through the entire record produced by such officials. Perusal of such record shows that address of tenanted premises has been mentioned in such documents. But in the considered view of this court, these documents do not show that the third party in exclusive physical as well as legal possession of the tenanted premises. Moreover, the petitioner has merely examined such official witnesses and restrained herself from entering into the witness box for the reasons best known to her.
16. Moreover, perusal of record shows that RW1 Ms. Bina Roy tendered her evidence by way of affidavit on 23.10.2021 but despite ample opportunity given by the court, she was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner as a result of which contents of affidavits of RW1 remained unrebutted and unchallenged.
17. Perusal of record manifestly shows that the petitioner has ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 8 miserably failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 14(1)(b) of DRC Act. As such, the petition U/S 14(1)(b) of DRC Act is dismissed.
14(1)(c) of DRC Act
18. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioner has claimed that tenanted premises was let out for commercial purposes but the same is being misused by the sub-tenants for residential purpose also. On the other hand, the respondents have denied these allegations and have claimed that there is no sub-tenants in the tenanted premises and persons at the tenanted premises are their employees.
19. As discussed earlier by this court while dealing with Section 14(1)(b), the petitioner has failed to prove the sub- tenancy in the tenanted premises. Moreover, the petitioner has merely produced the record from various departments and has not examined herself or any other on her behalf to prove the contents of petition.
20. Moreover, Section 14(5) of DRC Act directs that no application U/S 14(1)(c) of DRC Act shall lie unless the landlord has given to the tenant a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him to stop the misuse of the premises and the tenant ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 9 has refused or failed to comply with such requirement within one month of the date of service of such notice.
21. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioner has no where stated in the petition that such notice as prescribed U/S 14(5) of DRC Act was given by the petitioner before filing the present petition.
22. Section 14(5) of DRC Act further directs that no eviction order shall be passed by Controller unless he is satisfied that misuse of the tenanted premises is of such a nature that it is a public nuisance or it causes damage to the tenanted premises or otherwise detrimental to the interest of the landlord.
23. Although, the petitioner has claimed in the petition that cooking, sleeping and doing household work by the sub-tenants is hazardous for safety and security of the property and other tenants and a nuisance for all yet perusal of record shows that these averments in the petition are merely averments and no explanation has been given how the cooking, sleeping and doing household work has become hazardous to the property/tenanted premises or tenants or nuisance for all.
24. Moreover, as stated earlier, the petitioner has not examined herself on or her behalf to prove the averments in the petition. ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 10 Moreover, RW1 has not been cross-examined due to which the evidence of RW1 has been unrebutted and unchallenged.
25. As such, perusal of record and discussion as earlier clearly shows that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 14(1)(c) and Section 14(5) of DRC Act. As such, petition U/S 14(1)(c) of DRC Act is also dismissed.
CONCLUSION:-
26. In view of above discussion, the present petition is dismissed.
27. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on 09th November, 2021. AJAY by AJAY NAGAR
Date:
(This judgment contains 11 pages) NAGAR 2021.11.09
15:58:30 +0530
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller-2,
Central District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 79571/16 Smt. Hansa Soni Vs Smt. Bina Roy & Ors. 11