Delhi District Court
Ajit Gogna vs Samit Gupta on 12 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE(SOUTH)/
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
RCT No.23/2019 CNR No.DLST010067432019
MEMO OF PARTIES
AJIT GOGNA
S/o Late Hans Raj Gogna
R/o 107/11, Saman Bazar,
Bhogal, New Delhi14
Appellant......
Vs.
1 SAMIT GUPTA
S/o Sh.Radha Raman Gupta,
R/o A33, East of Kailash, New Delhi
2 NARESH CHAND
S/o Sh.Samman Lal
R/o 38C, Church Lane,
Bhogal, New Delhi14
3 JITENDER GOGNA
S/o Late H.R.Gogna,
R/o Flat No.N200, Sec.25,
(Jalvayu Vibhag Air
Force Naval Quarters)
Noida, Uttar Pradesh
Also at:
107/11, Saman Bazar,
Bhogal, New Delhi14
RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-1 of 9
4 VIJAY KUMAR GOGNA
S/o Late Sh.H.R.Gogna,
R/o Flat No.718, PocketV,
Mayur Vihar PH1, Delhi
Also at:
107/11, Saman Bazar,
Bhogal, New Delhi14
5 SATYA
W/o Ramlal Verma
784, Gali No.7, Gobindpuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi19
Also at:
107/11, Saman Bazar,
Bhogal, New Delhi14
6 SUSHIL GOGNA
W/o Late Satpal Gogna,
R/o 35/1, Pant Nagar,
Jungpura, New Delhi110014
Also at:
107/11, Saman Bazar,
Bhogal, New Delhi14
7 DEEPAK GOGNA
S/o Late Satpal Gogna,
R/o 35/1, Pant Nagar,
Jungpura, New Delhi110014
Also at:
107/11, Saman Bazar,
Bhogal, New Delhi14
RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-2 of 9
8 BIMLA
W/o Sh.Jaswinder Singh
R/o Gali No.19, Gobindpuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi19
Also at:
107/11, Saman Bazar,
Bhogal, New Delhi14
9A RAM MURTI DESORE
9B DEEPAK DESORE
9C ANKIT DESORE
All R/o 762, Pocket5,
Mayur Vihar, Delhi91
10 MEENA SEHDEV
W/o Sh.Ashok Sehdev,
R/o 59C, Pocket1,
Mayur Vihar, Delhi91
Respondents....
DATE OF INSTITUTION :21.04.2016
DATE OF RESERVING OF JUDGEMENT :29.07.2022
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT :12.08.2022
Argued by: Sh.Sunil Lalwani, counsel for the petitioner
Sh.Sunil Gupta, counsels for respondents no.1 & 2
RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-3 of 9
JUDGMENT
1 Present rent appeal is directed against judgment dated 10.03.2016 passed by Ld. Additional Rent Controlller (South), District Court Saket, New Delhi. Vide the impugned judgment present appellant/ tenant (along with other tenants) has been held to have defaulted in payment of rent for the period 31.03.1990 onwards and, accordingly, petition u/sec.14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') was allowed. Nevertheless, holding the same to be the first default, the tenants were provided statutory protection u/sec.14 (2) under the DRC Act.
2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, only one of the tenants or one of the LRs of the original tenant has preferred the appeal.
3 Sh.Sunil Lalwani, counsel for the appellant has argued that trial court has committed an error in ignoring the fact that the landlords had split the tenancy, which is not permissible under the DRC Act. Premises in question constitutes of four rooms, bathroom, kitchen & balcony on the first floor and a shop on the ground floor. These were separately numbered as 107/1 & 107/11 respectively, Samman Bazar, Bhogal, Jungpura constituted in Khasra no.660 & 661. Premises was initially RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-4 of 9 owned by one Chandrawati, who was succeeded by Surender Kumar Jain and, thereafter, the present respondents no.1 & 2/ the petitioners before the Ld. ARC claimed to have purchased a property in different shares. Respondent no.1 purchased first floor portion, whereas, respondent no.2 purchased the ground floor portion; whereas, the entire premises i.e. the ground floor & the first floor were jointly under the tenancy of the predecessor in interest of appellant. It is, therefore, argued that by two persons purchasing the property in two different shares, they have split the tenancy and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the trial court. Sh.Lalwani has relied upon law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SK Sattar SK Mohd. Choudhari Vs. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate reported as (1996) 6 SCC 373. It is next argued that the Ld. Trial Court committed an error in holding that the rent tendered by way of cheque dated 04.09.2002 in the sum of Rs.2,500/ drawn on behalf of M/s. Gogna Enterprises was not a valid tender. It is argued that M/s. Gogna Enterprises is a proprietorship concerned and its identity is not distinct from the identity of the proprietor. The rent was thus validly tendered for the period in question.
4.1 Sh.Sunil Gupta, counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2/ landlords has strongly contested the appeal. It is argued that judgment does not call for any interference. Trial Court has RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-5 of 9 committed no error in holding that tender of rent by M/s. Gogna Enterprises was not a valid tender. There was no relationship between landlords and M/s. Gogna Enterprises. This fact was brought to the notice of the tenants by way of a notice. However, the rent was not deposited, thereafter, as well. Moreover, rent could have been deposited in court if the tenants so desired.
4.2 It is next argued that there is no splitting of tenancy, as the petition has been filed jointly by the current landlords and owners. Reliance has been placed upon law laid down in Adv. K.G.Sharma Vs. Kimti Lal Malhotra reported as 1980 Rajdhani Law Reporter 187 to argue that the present was not a case of splitting of tenancy.
5 I have heard Sh.Sunil Lalwani, counsel for the appellant and Sh.Sunil Gupta, counsel for respondent no.1 &2 and with their assistance perused the trial court record, judgments of reliance and the impugned judgment. No other respondent has addressed arguments.
6.1 The issues raised by the appellant before this court do not convince this court so as to upset the wellreasoned judgment passed by trial court. The first argument that tender of rent by way of a cheque dated 04.09.2002 in the sum of Rs.2,500/ drawn on behalf of M/s. Gogna Enterprises was a RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-6 of 9 valid tender does not impress this court. Admittedly, the tenancy was with Hansraj Gogna and not with his proprietorship concerned and after the death of Hansraj Gogna, the tenancy was inherited by his LRs. Therefore, tender of rent by cheque dated 04.09.2002 in the sum of Rs.2,500/ drawn on behalf of M/s. Gogna Enterprises was rightly refused to be accepted by the present respondents no.1 & 2/ landlords. Vide letter dated 22.09.2002 Ex.PW1/35, they informed the tenants about non acceptance of the cheque as valid rent. It is the admitted case of the appellant that after receipt of the aforesaid cheque on return, none of the heirs of the original landlord Hansraj ever deposited rent in court. Therefore, in such circumstances, the trial court has rightly held default in payment of rent in terms of Sec.14 (1)
(a) of the DRC Act. Since M/s. Gogna Enterprises was never a tenant and the cheque having been returned, it was incumbent upon the LRs of the tenant to deposit the rent with the landlords and in case of refusal by the landlords to accept the same, they should have adopted the course of law and deposited the rent in court. It was thus a deliberate attempt of the tenants to substitute the tenancy by paying rent through the cheque drawn on M/s. Gogna Enterprises, which was rightly rejected by the landlords. Thus, this court finds no infirmity in the finding of the trial court on this aspect.
RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-7 of 96.2 Second argument raised by Sh.Lalwani, counsel for the appellant that the respondents no.1 & 2/ landlords by purchasing the property in two different shares have split the tenancy is factually incorrect. It may be noticed that the notice for payment of arrears of rent Ex.PW1/6 has been jointly issued on behalf of both the landlords. Similarly, the petition for eviction u/sec.14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act has also been jointly filed by both the purchasers/ landlords. Therefore, it is not a case of splitting of tenancy, as has been sought to be argued. Reliance upon law laid down in SK Sattar SK Mohd. Choudhari's case (supra) is misplaced. In the cited case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a cosharer can not initiate action for eviction of the tenant from one portion of the tenanted accommodation. Nor can he sue for his part of rent. The tenancy can thus be not split. However, in the present case, it is both the cosharers, who have jointly sued for eviction and jointly sought for arrears of rent. Relevant portion from the law laid down in SK Sattar SK Mohd. Choudhari's case (supra) is reproduced hereinblow: '37.....As pointed out earlier, a cosharer cannot initiate action for eviction of the tenant from the portion of the tenanted accommodation nor can he sue for his part of the rent. The tenancy cannot be split up either in estate or in rent or any other obligation by unilateral act of one of the coowners.....' RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-8 of 9 7 For the reasons submitted, this court is of the opinion that both the points raised by counsel for the appellant before this court are not meritorious. The same are, therefore, rejected. There being no illegality, irregularity or infirmity in appreciation of evidence or application of law by the trial court; judgment dated 10.03.2016 passed by Ld. Additional Rent Controller (South), District Court Saket, New Delhi is upheld.
8 Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this judgement. Appeal Digitally file be consigned to record room. signed by NAROTTAM NAROTTAM KAUSHAL KAUSHAL Date:
2022.08.12 15:23:02 +0530 Announced in (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL) the open court on Principal District & Sessions Judge (South) 12.08.2022 Saket Courts, New Delhi RCT No.-23/2019 Page No.-9 of 9