Delhi District Court
Srichand S/O Late Bidhu vs Smt. Chanderwati W/O Sh. Mangeram on 2 April, 2019
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM A. BAMBA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
RCT No. 21/17
Srichand S/o late Bidhu
R/o H. No. 305, Village Munirka
New Delhi110067. .......... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Chanderwati w/o Sh. Mangeram
(Through Legal Heirs)
(a) Sh. Naubat S/o Sh. Mangeram
(b) Smt. Manju W/o Sh. Ajay
R/o Jhuggi/ Hut No. 2, of H. No. 22A
Village Munirka, Near Budh Vihar
New Delhi110067. ...... Respondent
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 38 OF THE
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT,1958
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.05.2017 OF LD.ARC/ACJ/CCJ, NEW
DELHI.
Date of filing of appeal : 10.08.2017
Arguments concluded on : 02.04.2019
Date of judgment : 02.04.2019
J U D G M E N T : 1.0 Vide this appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act" in short), the appellant has RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 1 of 20 :: 2 ::
challenged the judgment of Ld. ARC/ACJ/CCJ, New Delhi dated 29.05.2017 ("impugned judgment" in short) whereby the Ld. ARC/ACJ/CCJ, dismissed the appellant's petition u/s 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act ("DRC Act" in short) with respect to Jhuggi No.2, on plot 22A, Village Munirka, Near Budh Vihar, New Delhi67 ("suit property" in short).
2.0 The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2017 inter alia, on the grounds that:
i) the Ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that respondent did not produce any evidence/ document, which showed that appellant was not the owner of the suit premises;
ii) the Ld. ARC failed to appreciate that the respondent admitted that the appellant is the owner of the premises; the only plea which was taken by the respondent was that the premises in question belongs to JJ Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi; the respondent even admitted that the respondent used to pay rent to the appellant/ family members of the appellant and some rent was due and recoverable.
RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 2 of 20:: 3 ::
iii) Ld. ARC failed to appreciate that the appellant has duly proved landlord/ tenant relationship between the appellant and the respondent;
iv) Ld. ARC dismissed the appellant's petition without appreciating the above facts and that it was a HUF property.
3.0 The respondent vide his reply has sought dismissal of this appeal pleading that the appellant has not approached this court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts; there is no cause of action in favour of the appellant and the eviction petition was rightly dismissed. It is submitted that the municipal number of the suit property is B22 and the appellant utterly failed to prove his right, title or interest in the suit property. The respondent has denied that the appellant is the owner of Jhuggi no. 2 and had given it on rent to the respondent. It is stated that jhuggi B22, Village Munirka, Budh Vihar belongs to the respondent/ Smt. Chandrawati, who has been residing there for the last 20 years and even document pertaining to the same i.e. election identity card was produced before the Ld.Trial Court. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the eviction petition after duly considering the same.
RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 3 of 20:: 4 ::
4.0 I have heard Sh. R.K. Sonkiya, Ld. Counsel for the appellant and Sh. G.K. Sachdeva, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and have perused the record carefully.
5.0 Let me briefly mention the facts as per record. The appellant vide his petition u/s 14(1)(a), bearing E. No. 15/13 stated that
(i) the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community; he and his forefathers have been the permanent residents and natives of village Munirka since its inception hundreds of years ago. They were allowed to settle in south direction of the village by land owning class ; they had occupied vacant land measuring 216.16 sq. yards;
(ii) to meet the requirement of residence and to house the cattle, their community had constructed huts/ kaccha houses on the said plot. With the expansion of the families, the land was divided and plot no. 22A came to be occupied by the appellant's forefathers namely Late Sh. Bidhu and his brother Late Sh. Bihari Lal. After the death of Sh. Bidhu and Sh. Bihari Lal, the plot was distributed RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 4 of 20 :: 5 ::
amongst their sons and legal heirs namely Sh. Rattan Singh and Srichand (the appellant herein), both sons of Late Sh. Bidhu and Sh. Med Singh & Sh. Dharambir, both sons of Late Sh. Bihari Lal. Now Sh. Dharambir is also not alive. Smt. Urmila is the wife and legal heir of Late Sh. Dharambir;
(iii) subsequently, the only live senior member Smt. Phool Kaur, i.e., mother of the appellant transferred the property through a Registered General Power of Attorney and will in favour of Sh. Rattan Singh and Sh. Med Singh on 15.05.1998;
(iv) as per distribution, Jhuggi no.1 belongs to Sh. Rattan Singh who personally lives in it having water and electricity connection in his name. Appellant is the owner of Jhuggi No.2 and had given the same on rent to respondent Smt. Chandrawati. Sh. Med Singh is the owner of Jhuggies no. 3, 4 & 5 and has rented out the same to Smt. Manju, Sh. Kallu Ram and Sh. Raju, respectively. Smt. Urmila is the owner of Jhuggies no. 6 & 7, given on rent to Smt. Sumantra and Smt. Ramkunwar. Smt. RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 5 of 20 :: 6 ::
Sumantra vacated the premises on 01.03.2013;
(v) Residents Welfare Association Munirka (Regd.) had surveyed all temporarily constructed and permanently constructed properties and houses in Munirka Village during 19981999;
(vi) about five years ago, the respondent along with his family came to Delhi from other States of M.P. and U.P., in search of employment. They stayed on rent in the village in House No. 22B of Deshraj for some time and then, requested the appellant to give the premises/ jhuggi on rent @Rs.800/ to Rs.1000/ pm. The respondent paid the rent regularly @Rs.1000/pm but stopped payment of rent for last seven months. On being called upon to pay arrears of rent, the respondent quarreled and became dishonest and lodged false reports with police and other authorities. The respondent subsequently compromised the matter in the police station on 25.09.2012 and gave an undertaking to vacate the premises by the end of December, 2012;RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 6 of 20
:: 7 ::
(vii) but later, the respondent did not vacate the premises, therefore, notice dated 05.12.2012 was issued calling upon her to vacate the suit property. Said notice was duly delivered at the above address. Neither was the said notice replied nor did the respondent pay the rent/arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. Therefore, statutory legal notice dated 14.02.2013 was also issued to vacate premises within two months of receiving the notice. Instead of vacating the suit property, the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against false names showing them as sons of Umed Singh and one Tejpal S/o Sh. Hari Singh.
6.0 Vide her written statement, the respondent herein denied landlordtenant relationship between the appellant and the respondent and sought dismissal of the petition. The respondent even disputed the property number. She submitted that the correct municipal number of the suit property in her occupation is B22, Budh Vihar, Munirka, New Delhi. Jhuggi on the suit property B22 was raised by the respondent herself more than 15 years ago. She disputed that the appellant is the owner/ landlord of the suit property and pleaded that the suit property belongs to Slum & JJ Department RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 7 of 20 :: 8 ::
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. She submitted that para 18(a) of the appellant's petition itself shows that the appellant and his forefathers themselves were unauthorised occupants.
7.0 The appellant vide his replication denied the averments made by the respondent in her written statement and reiterated his averments in the petition. He submitted that the respondent has made evasive denial of facts, which amounts to admission. He reiterated that the municipal number of the suit premises is 22A and house no. 22B belongs to one Desh Raj and the respondent is the tenant of the appellant and had been paying rent regularly. But subsequently, the respondent became dishonest to grab the property in connivance with other tenants and stopped paying rent. The appellant has also submitted that the respondent has himself admitted the suit property no. as 22A vide Annexure XVI. The respondent has further admitted being the tenant of the appellant vide Annexures X & XI.
8.0 It is seen that the Ld. Trial Court after considering the evidence led by the appellant dismissed his petition observing various contradictions in the appellant's version regarding rent and other facts; and finding that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the landlord/ owner of the suit property.
RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 8 of 20:: 9 ::
9.0 Before I consider the appellant's contention, let me at the outset refer to subsection (1) of Section 38 of DRC Act, which reads as under :
"38. Appeal to the Tribunal (1) An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act (only on questions of law) to the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
(Provided that no appeal shall lie from an order of the Controller made under Section 21)"
9.1 From the plain reading of the above provision, it is evident that an appeal before this Tribunal lies against the order of Ld. Rent Controller, only on question of law. From the above grounds of appeal, it is apparent that the appellant is only challenging the findings of the facts by the Ld. Trial Court. The appellant has simply stated that the impugned judgment has been passed without appreciating facts and law but has not specified the law/proposition of law which has not been considered by the Ld. ARC. Thus, the appeal does not raise any specific question of law. Hence, as per Section 38(1) DRC Act, the present appeal is not maintainable.RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 9 of 20
:: 10 ::
10.0 Be that as it may. Even if the appellant's contentions are considered for a while, let me examine whether the same help the appellant in any manner. The appellant's case is that as they belong to scheduled caste community, his forefathers were allowed to settle in south direction of Village Munirka; and have been residing there for hundreds of years. Subsequently, on expansion of the family the property was distributed by the senior member Smt. Phool Kaur, i.e., mother of the appellant herein. The appellant had built jhuggies/ huts on his share of the property/ plot no. 22A and had rented jhuggi no. 2/ suit property to the respondent herein. These facts were reiterated by the appellant in his examinationinchief filed by way of affidavit before Ld. Trial Court.
10.1 In support of his case, the appellant placed on record, GPA and Will, Ex.PW1/A & Ex.PW1/B, respectively executed by Smt. Phool Kaur w/o Sh. Bidhu in favour of Ratan Singh s/o late Bidhu and Med Singh s/o Sh. Bihari Lal, survey & site plan of the area, Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW5/B, respectively and certificate issued by Munirka Village Resident Welfare Association (Regd.) Ex.PW1/D, copy electricity bill Ex.PW1/E, copy of water bill Ex.PW1/F, copy of house tax receipt of MCD Ex.PW1/G, copy of site plan of suit property Ex.PW1/H, copies of affidavits of Smt. Samantra & Sh. Ram RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 10 of 20 :: 11 ::
Kunwar Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW1/J, respectively, copy of admittance/ writing by Smt. Manju Ex.PW1/K, copy of statement of respondent dated 25.09.2013 before PS Vasant Kunj Ex.PW1/L, original AD Card Ex.PW1/M, copy of notice dated 05.12.2012 addressed to 6 persons including the respondent herein Ex.PW1/N and Ex.PW1/O copy of legal notice dated 14.02.2013 addressed to Kalluram.
11.0 As far as GPA (Ex.PW1/A) and Will (Ex.PW1/B) executed by Smt. Phool Kaur w/o Sh. Bidhu are concerned, it is seen that same is executed by Smt. Phool Kaur, (who claimed to be owner of Plot No. 22A, Khasra No. 825/1/ ancestral property of her late husband Sh. Bidhu) in favour of Rattan Singh and Med Singh. The appellant in his crossexamination admitted that his name does not appear in those documents. Even if the said document is looked into in view of appellant's submission about the plot of land belongs to his forefathers. It is seen that appellant has failed to demonstrate as to how does these documents help him show that he is the owner/ landlord of the suit property.
11.1 Further, in support of his claim of ownership of the suit property, the appellant has placed on record, the electricity bill, water bill and the house tax receipt of MCD, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G, respectively. Perusal of the said documents show that all RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 11 of 20 :: 12 ::
the documents are in the name of Rattan Singh and not the appellant and bear the address as 22A/1, GF. Thus, neither do the same pertain to the appellant nor the suit property. Therefore, these documents are of no assistance to the appellant in any manner.
12.0 Interestingly, the appellant's own witness, his brother Sh. Ratan Singh s/o late Bidhu, who stepped into the witness box as PW2 stated in his crossexamination that the land in question/ suit property came to be occupied by their forefathers on the directions of Nambardar. He also stated that he has no document to show that the Nambardar had directed them to occupy the land. Further, PW2 admitted in his cross examination that there is no electricity meter/ water connection in the suit property in occupation of the respondent. He also admitted that house tax receipt does not show that the tax was paid with respect to the suit property.
13.0 Now coming to Map (Ex.PW5/B) and the certificate issued by RWA (Ex.PW1/D). The appellant has pleaded that in the year 19981999 Resident Welfare Association (Regd.) ('RWA' in short) had surveyed temporarily/ permanently constructed properties/ houses in Munirka Village; and the Survey map shows the property in question in the names of the appellant, Sh. Umed, Sh.Dharamvir and RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 12 of 20 :: 13 ::
Sh. Ratan Singh and a certificate to that effect was also issued by the RWA.
13.1 In this respect, the appellant examined PW4 Sh.Bhagwan Dev, President, RWA Munirka Village who deposed that a survey by RWA Munirka was conducted in 1997. Copy of the survey is Ex.PW4/2 and the certificate issued by RWA is Ex.PW4/1. PW4 further stated that in survey report at serial no. 156 Shrichand, Dharamveer, Umed and Ratan, all sons of Bidhu Singh r/o New House No.154 (Old House No.22A), Block G, Munirka Village are shown; and on that basis, the appellant is owner of H. No. 22A. In his cross examination, PW4 stated that he does not know whether the survey conducted by earlier President was after seeking permission from any Govt. authority. He further stated that the said survey was conducted by him and others members of RWA of the concerned locality. No official of any Government Organization was member of said surveying committee. In view of these facts & circumstances, the said survey report/ certificate issued by RWA hardly has any legal sanctity. Even otherwise, it only talks about plot/ house no. 22A and not specifically about suit property/ jhuggi no. 2 on plot no.22A.
14.0 Another document relied upon by the appellant in support of his claim of owner/ landlord of the suit property, is Ex.PW1/K, RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 13 of 20 :: 14 ::
which is a copy of a page of diary, which mentions rent due from different persons. Same is disputed by the respondent herein. It is seen that the same only mentions the rent payable for different periods by different persons and further records that the rent has not been paid/ is due to Dharambir and his daughter in law and Bhim Kaur, and thereafter, it records the names of six persons, which does not even include the name of the respondent herein/ Chandrawati. This document firstly, does not mention any detail of the property w.r.t. which the outstanding rent is indicated. Secondly, it does not even mention the name of the landlord. Thus, this document is hardly relevant to the present proceedings. In view of these facts & circumstances, this document, Ex.PW1/K can hardly be looked into; and even otherwise, the same is hardly of any assistance to the appellant in any manner to demonstrate relationship of landlordtenant between him and the respondent.
15.0 In support of his case, the appellant had also produced PW3 Smt. Sumantara. PW3 in her testimony simply stated that she used to reside as a tenant in a house in Budh Vihar and has not specified the house number. Ex.PW3/A is a copy of affidavit of Smt. Samantra. This affidavit simply mentions that PW3 resided at plot no. 22 A, the property of late Ratan Singh on rent and that she vacated the RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 14 of 20 :: 15 ::
jhuggi on 01.03.2013. Interestingly, in her cross examination, PW3 stated that she is not aware about the contents of the said document/ affidavit Ex.PW3/A. In view of these facts, even the testimony of PW 3/ the copy of affidavit Ex.PW3/A, is hardly of any help to the appellant.
16.0 The appellant also argued that vide his reply in proceedings under Section 107/ 111 Cr. P.C., the respondent has admitted the number of the suit property as '22A'. My attention was drawn to AnnexureXVI, i.e., copy of reply to the notice under Section 107/111 Cr. P.C., placed on record by PW2/W/HC Sunita. It is pertinent to mention here that during the examinationinchief of PW2, proceedings under Section 107/111 Cr. P.C. were exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. However, there is no document with exhibit mark 'Ex.PW2/A'. Reply to notice under Sections 107/111 Cr. P.C. was also filed by the appellant by way of AnnexureXVI. Even if the same is referred to, it is seen that it only mentions that the applicants Chanderwati, Manju, Raju, Shanti and Ajay are residents of 22A, Budh Vihar, Munirka, New Delhi and that they have been falsely implicated by Srichand, Med Singh & Ors; and that they have already complained to DCP mentioning about trespassing by Srichand, Med Singh, Urmila and Dharambir and that Chandrawati/ respondent herein and his daughterinlaw were beaten up over property dispute.RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 15 of 20
:: 16 ::
Even this document does not in any manner show that the appellant is the owner/ landlord of the suit property and the respondent is his tenant.
17.0 In support of landlordtenant relationship between him and the respondent, the appellant also placed on record, legal notice dated 05.12.2012 Ex.PW1/N and AD card Ex.PW1/M to show service of the said notice. Perusal of the aforesaid notice Ex.PW1/N shows that it was issued on behalf of the appellant, Rattan Singh, Urmila and Med Singh and was addressed to 6 persons, including Smt. Chandrawati/ respondent herein, showing them as residents of "22A, Budh Vihar, Munirka Village, New Delhi - 110 067". It does not specify any Jhuggi number and does not even indicate as to who has issued the notice to whom. In view of these facts & circumstances, this document is also hardly of any help to the appellant.
17.1 Perusal of the other notice dated 14.02.2013, which is Ex.PW1/O shows that the same is addressed to one Kalluram and not the respondent. Therefore, the same is hardly relevant to the matter.
Close scrutiny of the record shows that there is one similar notice dated 14.02.2013, which is addressed to Smt. Chandrawati/ respondent herein. But, the same has not been exhibited. Even if the same is looked into, it also simply mentions that Chandrawati was RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 16 of 20 :: 17 ::
inducted as a tenant in a jhuggi in Plot No. 22A, Village Munirka. It also does not specify any jhuggi number.
18.0 The appellant has pleaded that on being called upon to pay arrears of rent, the respondent quarreled and became dishonest and lodged false reports with police. Subsequently, the respondent compromised the matter in the police station on 25.09.2012 and gave an undertaking to vacate the suit premises by the end of December, 2012 and placed on record, statement of the respondent Ex.PW1/L, in support.
18.1 Perusal of the Ex.PW1/L shows that the respondent herein had given a statement before SI Amit Tyagi, PS Vasant Vihar to the effect that that she is residing in the jhuggi of one Umed Singh; Umed Singh wants to build a pakka house in place of jhuggi; on which, differences between them arose. Thereafter, she states that the matter has been resolved; and that she and her daughter would vacate the jhuggi by 01.12.2012. It is also seen that in this document (Ex.PW1/L), the address of Chandrawati/ respondent herein is mentioned as B22 and she has stated that the said jhuggi was rented out to her by one Umed Singh. Nowhere in the said statement, she has mentioned that she was residing in jhuggi no. 2, which belonged to the RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 17 of 20 :: 18 ::
appellant herein. It is noteworthy that during his crossexamination, the appellant's attention was drawn to Ex.PW1/L. He admitted that in the said document, respondent Chandrawati's address is written as B 22, Village Munirka. The appellant has failed to show as to how does it help him in demonstrating that he is the landlord of the suit premises and the respondent is his tenant. Rather, the same shows that the respondent was the tenant of one Umed Singh.
18.2 The appellant in his crossexamination stated that they were allowed to use the land (in para3 of the affidavit) by the villagers and that they had started using the permitted land for keeping wood planks and residence.
19.0 In view the above, it is evident that appellant could not produce any document to show that he was the owner of the suit premises or that any right was transferred in his favour. Further, the appellant in his crossexamination admitted that there is no written proof of the respondent being his tenant.
20.0 As per the appellant, the tenancy between the appellant and the respondent is oral; there is no written rent agreement. It is noteworthy that in his petition (Column No. 8), the appellant has RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 18 of 20 :: 19 ::
described the rented property as "Jhuggi No. _ Plot No. 22A", i.e., he did not specify the jhuggi number. Whereas, in the details of grounds of eviction, given in Column No. 18(a) of the petition, the appellant stated that he had rented out jhuggi no. 2 to the respondent herein. Whereas, in the prayer clause, he has sought eviction of jhuggi no. 5. Further, in the petition and in his examinationinchief, the appellant has stated the respondent herein had approached him for letting out the suit premises on rent at the rate of Rs.800/ to Rs.1000/monthly rent; and was paying rent regularly at the rate of Rs.1000/ per month. Whereas, in his crossexamination, the appellant stated that the respondent used to pay rent, which varied from Rs.500/ to Rs.600 to Rs.1000/. Thus, there is no consistency in the appellant's version even about the rate of rent of the suit property. The appellant testified the rate of rent to be Rs.1000 whereas, in crossexamination, he himself stated that it varied from Rs.500/ to Rs.600 to Rs.1000/.
21.0 Considering the above facts and circumstances and the material placed on record in entirety, I find that the appellant has failed to prove that he is the landlord of the suit premises and the respondent is his tenant. The impugned judgment, therefore, does not call for interference.RCT No. 21/17 Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 19 of 20
:: 20 ::
22.0 Appeal is therefore, dismissed.
23.0 Trial court record be returned along with copy of this judgment.
24.0 Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.Digitally signed by
POONAM POONAM A BAMBA
A BAMBA Date: 2019.04.02
16:53:36 +0530
Announced in the open court (Poonam A. Bamba)
on this 02nd day of April, 2019 District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District : PHC
New Delhi
RCT No. 21/17
Srichand Vs. Chandrawati Page No. 20 of 20