Delhi District Court
Rattan Singh (Huf) vs Sh. Harbans Lal on 4 February, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG:
RENT CONTROLLER: DELHI
E-37/1996
Rattan Singh (HUF)
Through Manging Proprietor/Karta
S. Bhupinder Singh, S/o Late S. Rattan Singh
R/o III 5/55, Rattan Singh Building,
Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantt. Delhi
....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Harbans Lal,
S/o Not known
House no.III 5/42, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi Cantt. Delhi
....Respondent
Date of Institution:18.3.96
Date of Decision:04.02.08
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order I will dispose of the petition u/s 14(1)(e) read with section 25(D) of Delhi Rent Control Act (herein after referred to as Act).
2. Brief facts as stated in the petition are; that the petitioner is the owner/Landlord of the premises bearing no. III 5/42, Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi which has been let out to the respondent for residential purpose and the area of the said premises has been described in para 8 of the petition and shown in the site plan filed by the petitioner. The date of letting is not stated. Regarding the family of the petitioner it has been stated that his family consists of self, wife, one married son, his wife and a child, one unmarried son aged about 21 years and one unmarried 1 daughter aged 23 years. It is further stated that the accommodation which is available with the petitioners consists of one bedroom 15 x 15 feet with a toilet attached. One dressing room 7 x 8 feet, one drawing cum dining room 24 x 12 feet one store room 7 x8 feet and one kitchen 8 x 10 feet on one side and it is further stated that there are three other rooms each on the ground floor, first floor and second floor respectively which are on the other side of the building known as Rattan Singh building. It is further stated that out of these three rooms, ground floor room is with the daughter of elder son of the petitioner, the first floor room is with the elder son of the petitioner who is living with his family and the second floor room is stated to be a pooja room. The other portion are stated to be used by the petitioner and his wife and his other son namely Jagjit Singh (who got married during the pendency of this case) and who is stated to be living along with his family. It is further stated that the relations between the wife of the elder son and the wife of the petitioner are not cordial and remains strained and hence they cannot adjust with each other and hence they need to reside with separate kitchen. It is further stated that the petitioner has two domestic servants who are regular employees and are living with the family of petitioner and they also require separate accommodation for their living. It is further stated by the petitioner that he has no other accommodation either vacant or available to him for occupation. Hence it is stated that the accommodation available with the petitioner falls short of requirement of the petitioner and his family and hence the present petition. 2
3. It is relevant here to state that during the course of the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner made a statement in the Court that without prejudice to rights and contentions of the petitioner, leave to defend may granted to the respondent and hence on the basis of same, the Court granted leave to contest to the respondent and the respondent was asked to file his written statement.
4. Thereafter the respondent filed his written statement. The respondent has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and he has also denied the ownership of the petitioner qua the property in question. As per the respondent the property in question was given on rent by Sh. Rattan Singh father of the petitioner and it is stated that the petitioner has got no concern with the property in question. It is further stated that his suit property is on lease granted by the cantonment board which expired in the year 1993 and since then the same has not been renewed by the authorities concerned and hence it is stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit property. Regarding the area available with the petitioner for his residence, the respondent has stated that the alleged paucity of accommodation as shown by the petitioner is artificial and self induced and self created. It is stated that the petitioners and his family members are having sufficient accommodation for them. It is stated that the petitioner owns and possess a palatial house known as "Rattan Singh Building" having more than 35 rooms with all modern facilities and amenities and it is stated that the petitioner along with his 3 family members are comfortably living there. The respondent has also enumerated about certain other properties owned and possessed by the petitioner which are stated to be available with them. Some of such properties in respect of which detail has been given are property bearing no. III 5/42, property bearing no. III 5/55, property bearing no. III 5/5 and 5/6 of suit property in Shastri Bazar, Delhi cantonment, Delhi. It is further stated that the petitioner has not deliberately disclosed about these properties in his eviction petition dishonestly and with malafide intention to get the eviction order from this Court. The respondent has also denied that the family members of the petitioner are having strained relations between them and that they need separate kitchen and it is stated that actually the petitioner has been pressurizing the respondent to vacate then suit premises as the petitioner want to construct a multi storyed in the shape of flats on the suit property and sell the same on a very high premium. Hence it is stated that the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Replication has been filed by the petitioner in which the averments made in the written statement have been vehemently controverted and those made in the petition have been reiterated as correct.
6. The petitioner in support of his case examined only himself as PW1. In rebuttal, LR of deceased respondent namely Smt Champa Sahani examined herself as RW1. No other witnesses have been 4 examined by either parties.
7. I have heard the Ld counsel for the petitioner, Ld Counsel for the respondent.
8. To make out a case u/s 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of DRC Act, the petitioner has to prove the following ingredients:-
(i) That the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises.
(ii) That the tenancy premises were let out for residential purposes:
(iii) That the petitioner/landlord does not own any other reasonably suitable/residential accommodation.
(iv) That the petitioner/landlord requires the tenancy premises for his own residential accommodation or for any other family member dependent upon him for residential need:
9. My ingredient wise findings are as follows:
(i) That the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the suit premises:
Regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it is stated by the respondent that Sh. Ratan Singh father of the petitioner had let out the property in question to the respondent. The respondent has not denied that the petitioner has been receiving the rent of the premises in question since last many years. Under section 2(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, "landlord" means a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of , any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the 5 premises were let to a tenant.
When admittedly the petitioner has been collecting the rent from the respondent, he satisfies the requirement of being a landlord. Further petitioner is the son of Sh. Ratan Singh who admittedly let out the premises in question to the respondent and it is not a case of the respondent that some other person is claiming rent from him. The petitioner has stepped into the shoes of Sh. Ratan Singh i.e. his father after his death and hence it is established that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Regarding the ownership it is stated by the respondent that the premises in question is leasehold property under lease of cantonment board and it is stated that lease expired in the year 1993 and the same has not been renewed by the authorities concerned. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to rebut the same. Further when admittedly petitioner is having leasehold residence in the property granted by the cantonment board even though the same has not been renewed by the authorities concerned, it cannot be said that petitioner is not a owner within the meaning of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act to institute the case for eviction. Moreover, it has been held in number of authorities that a landlord be something more than tenant and absolute ownership is not required to be proved. It has been held in Shanti Sharma Vs Ved Prabha, 1987 AIR CJ 382 that "owner should be something more than tenant". Accordingly in this case, the contention of the respondent is 6 without any substance. Accordingly I hold that petitioner is the owner/landlord of the premises in question.
(ii) That the tenancy premises were let out for residential purposes.
The purpose of letting is not disputed to be residential. Accordingly the purpose of letting is held to be residential.
(iii) That the petitioner/landlord does not own any other reasonably suitable/residential accommodation and
(iv) That the petitioner/landlord requires the tenancy premises for his own residential accommodation or for any other family member dependent upon him for residential need:
The ingredients no. 3 and 4 are taken up together as they involve discussion on common points.
As per the case of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition, he had his wife and one married son and one unmarried son and one unmarried daughter and whereas during the pendency of case the remaining children also got married and they are also dependent with their family upon the petitioner for their residential requirement. The petitioner has deposed on the lines of his pleadings and as stated that he is in possession of one bedroom, one drawing room, one dining cum drawing room, one store and one kitchen on one side and three rooms each on the ground floor, first floor and second floor and on either side of the building known as Rattan Singh Building on which the petitioner is stated to be living. As per the petitioner he has no other suitable residential 7 accommodation for himself or his family members and hence he has filed the present suit for eviction against the respondent. On the other hand as per the testimony of the respondent, the petitioner is in possession of palatial building known as Rattan Singh Building which consists of number of rooms and it is further stated that the petitioner also own and possess certain other properties i.e. property bearing no.III 5/5, 5/6,5/44,5/55 all situated in Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi which are stated to be having sufficient accommodation for the petitioner and his family members.
To appreciate the averments of the respondent it is relevant to refer to the cross examination of the petition who has examined himself as PW1. The petitioner in his cross examination has admitted that property bearing no.3/5/5 and property bearing no.3/5/6 situated at Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi belong to him with total area of the each property around 560 sq.feet and there are three rooms, one shop, varrandah, Latrine and bathroom with some open space each in both the properties. He has further admitted in his cross examination that earlier he had filed a suit for eviction against Sh. Ram Parkash who was the tenant in the portion of property bearing no. 3/5/5 and subsequently compromise took place and hence the portion in possession of tenant was sold to him around 5-6 years back. He has further admitted that half portion of the ground floor of property bearing no.3/5/6 consisting of one room measuring 12 x12 feet on the ground floor was sold by the petitioner to one Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta vide registered sale deed dated 8.12.01. He has further admitted that 8 property bearing no. 3/5/55A belong to him and the total area of the said property was 250-300 sq. feet and that he has also sold the said property to one Sh. Anoop Yadav around 6-7 years back.
The perusal of the file reveals that the petitioner had filed the present petition for eviction on 18.3.96. It means that after filing of the present petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement the petitioner had sold a number of properties which belongs to him. The mention of properties which have been sold by the petitioner has already been made in the previous para. The mere fact that after the filing of the present petition, when the petitioner has sold so many properties, it only shows that the petitioner had sufficient alternate accommodation to this extent that he did not require the said accommodation for his residence or for the residence of any of his other family members. It is relevant here to state that petitioner has not mentioned anything about the properties sold by him in his pleadings and the same has come in his cross examination done by the counsel for the respondent. In the present case, the tenanted premises is admittedly measuring around 60 sq. feet and when the petitioner has sold a number of properties which were measuring much more than the tenanted premises, it only belies the claim of the petitioner that he does not have any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation or that he requires the tenanted premises for his own residential accommodation for for any other family members dependent upon him for residential need.
9
In view of the above the petitioner has not been able to prove his case u/s 14(1) (e) DRC ACT against the respondent and in view of the facts discussed above present petition has got no merit and the same is dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open (Deepak Garg)
Court on 04/02/2008 Rent Controller
Delhi
10