Delhi District Court
Rahul Grover vs Vidhya Wanti on 12 February, 2013
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
E-162/10
1. Rahul Grover
2. Sh. Harjeev Grover
both S/o Sh. Joginder Lal,
both R/o B-68, (FF) Gali Post Office,
Shakarpur, Delhi-92.
...Petitioners
Vs.
1. Vidhya Wanti
W/o Late Sh. Karnail Singh
2. Sh. Paramjit Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Karnail Singh
both R/o 7699/2-A, Ram Nagar, Delhi
3. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur,
D/o Late Sh. Karnail Singh
4. Smt Kulviner Kaur,
D/o Late Sh. Karnail Singh
service is to be effected through their mother
Smt. Vidya Wanti
R/o 7699/2-A, Ram Nagar, Delhi ...Respondents.
Petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case : 05.07.2010
2. Date of Judgment Reserved : 02.02.2013
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 12.02.2013
JUDGMENT
The brief facts as stated in the petition are that petitioners are joint owners of property bearing no. 7698 to 7703, Plot no. 2A, Ram Nagar, Gali no.1, Delhi and the petitioner no.1 is landlord/owner of the suit premises. It is further stated that previous owner Smt. Madhu Jain let out two rooms, kitchen, store, bathroom and latrine alongwith a right to use common Chowk on ground floor to late Sh. Karnail Singh for residential purposes on monthly rent of Rs. 66.70/-. The petitioners purchased the above said property vide //2// Registered Sale Deed dated 06.08.2003. Sh. Karnail Singh expired in the year 2006 and after his death the respondent no.1 and 2 alongwith their family members are residing in the suit premises. Respondent no.3 and 4 are married daughters of late Sh. Karnail Sigh who are residing in their matrimonial home. Late Sh. Karnail Sigh had not paid rent of the suit premises after 31.05.2002 and he had also filed a suit for permanent injunction against the previous owner as well as the petitioners in which the petitioners gave statement that they would not dispossess him from the suit premises without due process of law. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 is residing with his father and other family member at B-68, Gali Post Office, Shakarpur, Delhi but due to some family squabbles and in order to restore harmony among the family members it has been decided by the petitioner no. 1 to leave his parental house at Shakarpur Delhi. The family of the petitioner no.1 consists of himself, his wife and two children of age 11 and 5 years. The Petitioners needs three rooms i.e two bedroom and one living room for himself and for his family members. It is further stated that the remaining portion of the suit property has been occupied by other tenants except one barsati on the top floor and three shops on the ground floor in possession of petitioner no.2 which cannot be used for residential purposes. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 is suffering from high blood pressure and not medically advice to reside at the upper floors therefore, petitioner no.1 needs accommodation at the ground floor. The petitioners are not having any other suitable alternative accommodation available with him in Delhi.
2. Leave to defend applications alongwith affidavit of the respondents. It is stated that present petition has been filed U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w 25-B of DRC Act and also U/s 14 (1) (h) of DRC Act but the procedure for both these grounds are different therefore, cannot be filed in a one petition and the respondents are entitled for leave to defend on this ground alone. It is further stated that the petitioners deliberately did not show the entire premises on the //3// first and second floor of the suit property and have concealed the material facts from the court. The respondents have filed their own site plan showing the exact position of the suit property. It is further stated that the petitioners are already in actual and physical possession of three rooms, one store and one toilet on the ground floor of the suit property. There are six rooms, four store and one toilet on the first floor and four rooms, one store, one bathroom and one toilet on the second floor of the suit property. It is further stated that the petitioners have got right, title and interest in property no. B-68, Gali Post Office, Shakarpur Delhi and the petitioner no.1 has been residing there happily. It is further stated that the alleged need of the petitioners for additional accommodation is mala fide and the respondents are entitle for leave to defend. All other averments made in the petition were denied.
3. Reply to leave to defend application filed on behalf of the petitioners along with counter affidavit. It is stated that the present petition is maintainable in the present form and the petitioners have filed correct site plan. It is denied that petitioners have suppressed and concealed any material fact from the court. It is denied that petitioners are in physical possession of three rooms, one store, and one toilet on the ground floor. It is submitted that the petitioners are in possession of two rooms, one store and one toilet on the ground floor and the four shops situated at the ground floor are in possession of petitioner no.2. It is further stated that the remaining portion of the suit property is occupied by other tenants except one barsati on the top floor. It is further stated that property no. B-68, Gali post office, Shakarpur Delhi is owned by brother of the father of the petitioners in which the father of the petitioners owned only one flat and on the demise of the father of the petitioners the said flat has been devolved upon the petitioner no. 2 alongwith his family members and petitioner no.1 has no right, title or interest in said property. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 is not having harmonious relations with the wife of petitioner no.2. All other averments //4// made in leave to defend application were denied.
4.. Rejoinder to the reply of leave to defend application filed on behalf of the respondents. The averments made in the leave to defend application were reaffirmed and reiterated. The averments made in reply of leave to defend application were denied and controverted.
5. Argument heard from both the sides. Record perused and considered.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents relied upon following rulings:-
i) Sh. Siri Pal Jain Vs. Brij Kishore & Ors. 1982 (2) RCR 187
ii) Lt. Col. S.S Puri Vs. S.P Malhotra 95 (2002) DLT 399
6. The present petition has been filed U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such petition, petitioners have to prove (i) Ownership of the suit premises; (ii) Purpose of letting; (iii) Alternative accommodation; (iv) bonafide requirement;. Let the same be discussed in detail.
OWNERSHIP AND PURPOSE OF LETTING
7. The respondents have not disputed the ownership of the petitioners. Even otherwise the petitioners have filed copy of sale deed executed by previous owner in their favour. Thus, it is established that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. So far as the purpose of letting is concerned after, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India III (2008) SLT 553, an eviction petition is maintainable on the ground of bona fide requirement in respect of the property which was let out for commercial purposes. Hence, both the ingredients are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION AND BONA FIDE REQUIREMENTS
8. The respondents further contented that the petitioners were already in actual and physical possession of three rooms, one store and one toilet on the ground floor, six rooms, four stores and one toilet on the first floor and four rooms, one store and bath room and toilet of the second floor of the suit //5// property. The respondents further contended that petitioners have also right, title, interest in the property no. B-68, Gali post office, Shakarpur Delhi and petitioner no.1 is residing happily there. On the other hand the petitioners denied that they are in physical possession of three rooms, one store, and toilet on the ground floor. It is stated that petitioners are in possession of only two rooms, one store and one toilet on the ground floor. The four shops situated on the ground floor are in possession of petitioner no.2. It is further stated that remaining portion of suit property has occupied by other tenant except one barsati on the top floor. The petitioner no.1 denied that he has any right, title, interest in the property no. B-68, Gali post office, Shakarpur Delhi. It is further stated that property no. B-68, Gali post office, Shakarpur Delhi has been devolved upon petitioner no.2 after death of their father. It is further stated that petitioner no.1 is not having harmonious relationship with the wife of petitioner no.2. The respondents have stated that petitioners are in possession of three rooms, one store, one toilet on the ground floor, whereas, the site plan filed by the respondents shows that there are only two rooms, and one store on the ground floor excluding the portion in possession of the respondents as shown in red colour. Even the middle room between the store and another room cannot be used privately as the door of said store and another room opens in said middle room. Even the size of corner room is only 7 X 9 ft which cannot be termed as living room. The petitioners have categorically stated that the first and second floor are in occupation of tenants. Thus, it is established that petitioners have no suitable alternative accommodation in the suit property as alleged by the respondents. However, the contention of the respondents that petitioner no.1 is also having right, title, interest in the property no. B-68, Gali post office, Shakarpur Delhi have no substance as the petitioner no.1 due to differences in the family of the petitioners wants to shift in the suit property alongwith his wife and children. The petitioners have categorically stated in the eviction petition that due to //6// some family scrabbles and in order to restore harmony among family members, petitioner no.1 has decided to leave the house at Shakarpur and to shift in the suit property. As the petitioner no.1 wants to leave the property no. B-68, Gali post office, Shakarpur Delhi due to family differences and to restore harmony among the family members thus, it is bona fide need of the petitioner and not mala fide as alleged by the respondents. The further contention of the respondents that the petitioners have concealed the exact accommodation available in the suit property has no substance because the site plan filed by the respondents is almost similar to the site plan of the petitioner. The further contention of the respondents that the present petition has also been filed U/s 14 (1) (h) of DRC Act therefore, the petition U/s 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act should be treated as an ordinary petition has also no substance because the petitioners have withdrawn the petition U/s 14 (1) (h) and even otherwise, there is no bar in filing petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B alongwith other provisions grounds under DRC Act.
9. In view of the above discussions, the respondents have failed to raise any triable issue. On the other hand, the petitioners have successfully established that the petitioners requires the suit premises bona fide for petitioner no.1 as they have no other reasonably suitable accommodation with them except the suit premises. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for an eviction order U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC Act.
10. Accordingly, the application of the respondents seeking leave to defend is dismissed and the petitioners are entitled for an eviction order and therefore, an eviction order U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC Act is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises bearing no. 7698 to 7703, Plot no. 2A, Ram Nagar, Gali no.1, Delhi more specifically shown in red colour in site plan Ex C-1 (exhibited today while passing the order) . However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry //7// of 6 months running from today. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court on 12.02.2013) (Pritam Singh) ARC/Central/Delhi Tis Hazari Courts