Delhi District Court
Jagdish Taneja vs Mumtaz on 7 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR: ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SE), SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI
EV No. -53/2014
Unique case ID No. 02406C0162282014
Jagdish Taneja
S/o Sh. Nand Lal Taneja
R/o G49, 3rd Floor, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi. ...................Petitioner
Versus
Mumtaz
R/o G49, 3rd Floor, Front Side,
Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi.
Also at:
797, Sunlight Colony, Ashram,
Near Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi. ...............Respondent
ORDER
1. Through this order, I shall decide the application of the respondent for leave to contest, eviction petition under Clause (e) of EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 1/9 provision of section 14 (1) of DRC Act, 1958.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner is owner of premises bearing No. G49, 3rd Floor, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi. Front portion consisting of one room with common latrine and bathroom has been let out to respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/ vide lease agreement dated 11.03.2003. The present petition has been filed to meet bonafide need of petitioner for residence for his married daughter and sonin law dependent upon the plaintiff for purpose of accommodation. The present accommodation available with petitioner consists of two rooms, one kitchen, one common latrine and bathroom. Presently the daughter of petitioner is residing with her husband in rented accommodation and has no means to purchase, build or acquire any accommodation. No accommodation is available with petitioner to meet the said requirement. Plaintiff and his wife are senior citizens and are suffering from various ailments. They require the care of their daughter and soninlaw at the fag end of of their life. Hence, the present petition.
3. The respondent entered the contest by filing leave to contest application. The respondent has raised the following grounds:
(a) There is no bonafide requirement of petitioner and the present petition has been filed to get the premises vacated from EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 2/9 respondent.
(/b) The petition is not maintainable as an earlier petition filed by petitioner has already been dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2013.
(c) The present petition does not fulfil the ingredients required under section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act as the need projected by petitioner is not that of himself but of his married daughter and soninlaw.
(d) The daughter of petitioner is not his real daughter but daughter of sister of petitioner's wife and she has also converted herself and has become Muslim after marrying with a Muslim boy.
(e) A married daughter is not dependent upon her parents for any purpose whatsoever and hence, can not be stated to be dependent upon her parents.
(f) Sufficient accommodation is available with the petitioner. There are two more rooms apart from the tenanted accommodation which are sufficient to meet the requirement of petitioner. One room can be utilized by the petitioner to meet the said requirement.
(g) Medical ground stated by petitioner can not be considered in petition under section 14 (1 ) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
4. Reply to affidavit of respondent is filed by petitioner which is essentially a reiteration of averments in the petition and denial of contentions of respondent in leave to contest application.
5. Arguments advanced by counsels for both the parties have been EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 3/9 heard.
6. In order to obtain an eviction order under clause (e) of section 14 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the following ingredients need to be satisfied:
(a) Relationship of landlord and tenant.
(b) That the premises were let out for residential purpose.
(c) That the premises are required bonafidely by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(d) That the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available.
7. As far as relationship of landlord and tenant is concerned, the same is admitted.
It is also not disputed that the premises have been let out for residential purpose.
Coming to the third and fourth ground, the premises are required for meeting the bonafide requirement of petitioner and that he has no other suitable accommodation to meet the said requirement. Petitioner has averred that he has only one daughter and that he requires her care and assistance in his old age and she is also dependent upon her parents for the purpose of residential accommodation, since his daughter and soninlaw do not own a house and are residing in rented EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 4/9 accommodation. Being dependent upon petitioner, his daughter has right to reside in property owned by him.
The first contention of respondent is that daughter of petitioner is not real daughter but is of his wife's sister is concerned, it is averred by petitioner that the daughter is adopted. Sufficient documents have been annexed which depict the name of petitioner as father of Charu Taneja. The documents filed by petitioner are sufficient to prove that the girl has been adopted.
As far as second contention of respondent is concerned, since the daughter has converted to Islamism, she is not entitled to benefit under Hindu Succession Act, post her conversion.
A reference is being made of judgment titled as Shabana Khan Vs. D.B. Sulochana & Ors, decided on 24.09.2007 in which it has been held that "However, the language of Section 26 of the Act is explicit and clear that the disinheritance due to conversion of a Hindu to another religion is only in respect of the children born to him or her after such conversion, but not in respect of converting herself/himself."
It is a settled proposition of law that a daughter remains the daughter of her parents even if she chooses to convert herself to another religion hence, this ground raised by respondent is not tenable EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 5/9 and more so does not raise any triable issue.
Other contention of respondent is that a married daughter is not dependent upon her parents. It is a settled law that in case parents wish to reside in the company and care of their daughter who is the only child and has no other accommodation of her own is considered to be dependent upon her parents.
In this regard, I would rely upon the judgment titled as K.D. Gupta Vs. H.L. Malhotra, decided on 06.05.1992 wherein it was held that "Both the landlord and his wife are not keeping good health as the landlord is a chronic patient of angina and heart trouble and his wife is suffering from palpitation of heart and arthritis. The landlord has no male issue and has only one married daughter, who wants to reside with her husband and two childrenson aged 7 years and daughter 2 yearswith the landlord as she also has no house of her father, viz, the landlord for residence, as she wants to look after her old ailing parents."
A reference is also being made of judgment titled as Ram Babu Agarwal Vs. Jai Kishan Dass (2010) I SCC 164 and also K. NERNKA & Co. (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Santosh Khurana (1997) VI AD Delhi 821, in which it has been held that "bonafide EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 6/9 requirement continues even after daughter's marriage."
Furthermore, there are numerous decisions to hold that the word 'family' is not to be given a restricted meaning but a wider meaning so as to include near relations of head of family. Reference in this regard is placed on the judgment of G. Subramanya Udapa Vs. D. Rama PPA ILR 1995 KAR 545. Hence, the ground raised by respondent for married daughter is not dependent upon parents for her residential need is neither tenable nor raises any triable issue.
Coming to the ground of bonafide accommodation as stated by respondent that petitioner has two rooms at his disposal to meet the requirement of his daughter is concerned, a landlord is best judge to decide how he utilizes the accommodation available to him. Moreover, a practical approach is to be taken in this regard. The daughter of petitioner who is married will have children few years down the line and would need at least a separate room for herself and her children. Two rooms available with the petitioner are required for himself and his wife. The landlord can not be asked to live uncomfortably at the cost of tenant. The petitioner is not in possession of sufficient accommodation at present to meet requirement of his daughter hence, the need projected by him is genuine. It is not the case of respondent EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 7/9 that there is other suitable accommodation available with petitioner to meet his requirement.
The other ground raised by respondent is that the petitioner has preferred an earlier petition which was dismissed is concerned, there is no bar in filing a second petition on dismissal of his first petition. Hence, the same is not a triable issue.
8. In my considered opinion the respondent has failed to raise any triable issues for which his leave to defend application be allowed. On the contrary, the petitioner has succeeded in projecting his genuine need of the demised premises by fulfilling all the requirements essential to seek an eviction order under section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
Time and again it has been reiterated by the Courts that until and unless triable issue arise leave to defend cannot be granted in a mechanical manner. In (1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel and Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Dev. The Apex Court has held that "prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie i.e such facts as to what disentitle landlord from obtaining an eviction order, the EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 8/9 Court should not mechanically and in routine manner grant to leave to defend."
In this background, the eviction petition is allowed and the application seeking leave to defend stands dismissed. Accordingly, an eviction order is hereby passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent in respect of tenanted premises i.e. one room on front side of third floor of property bearing No. G49, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi as shown in red ink in the site plan. In terms of Section 14 (7) of the Act, the petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain possession of the tenanted premises in question before expiry of a period of six months from the date of the order. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Pooja Talwar) ACJ/CCJ/ARC(SE) Saket Court, New Delhi07.04.2015 EV No. 53/2014 Jagdish Taneja Vs. Mumtaz Page No. 9/9