Delhi District Court
E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(Deceased) vs Ravel Singh(Deceased). 1/10 on 24 November, 2018
In the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa: Additional Rent Controller02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E837/14/06
New No. 78560/16
In the matter of:
Rattan Singh(since deceased)
through LRs
1. Smt. Mahendri Devi
W/o late Sh. Rattan Singh
2. Sh. Satish Kumar
S/o late Sh. Rattan Singh
3. Sh. Naresh Kumar
S/o late Sh. Rattan Singh
4. Sh. Vinesh Kumar(pre-deceased)
S/o late Sh. Rattan Singh
through LRs:
a) Smt. Prem lata
W/o late Sh. Vinesh Kumar
b) Sh. Ankit Chaudhary
S/o late Sh. Vinesh Kumar
c) Ms. Neha @ Dolly Chaudhry
D/o late Sh. Vinesh Kumar
d) Ms. Aditi @ Rinky,
D/o late Sh. Vinesh Kumar
5. Smt. Rajesh Kumari,
D/o late Sh. Rattan Singh
6. Sh. Surender Kumar(pre-deceased)
S/o late Sh. Rattan Singh
through LRs:
a) Smt. Lalita
E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 1/10
W/o late Sh. Surender Kumar
b) Sh. Ishan Chaudhary,
S/o late Sh. Surender Kumar
c) Master Yash Chaudhary,
S/o late Sh. Surender Kumar
(being the minor through his mother
Smt. Lalita)
All R/o 5554, Basti Harphool Singh,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-06. ................... Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ravel Singh(since deceased)
Through LRs:
i. Smt. Surjeet Kaur
W/o late Sh. Ravel Singh
ii Sh. Mahender Singh
S/o late Sh. Ravel Singh
iii Smt. Paramjeet Kaur
D/o late Sh. Ravel Singh
iv Smt. Rita
D/o late Sh. Ravel Singh
v Smt. Happy
D/o late Sh. Ravel Singh
All R/o H. No. 10395,
Bagichi Peerji, Ram Bagh Road,
Subzi Mandi, Near Subzi Mandi Railway Stn.
Delhi-07.
2. Sh. Puran Chand
S/o Sh. Ami Lal,
R/o 11036,
First floor, Gali Peepal Wali,
E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 2/10
Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi-55. ................ Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.02.2006
Date of Arguments: 16.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 24.11.2018
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER
SECTION 14(1)(a) & (b) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL
ACT, 1958.
JUDGMENT:
1. This is an application under clause (a) & (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 59 of 1958') made by petitioner against the respondents for recovery of possession of premises i.e. 11036, Ground floor, Gali Peepal Wali, Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi-55 more specifically shown red in the site plan annexed with the application.
2. As per the contents of the petition, the respondent no. 1 is a statutory tenant and is in arrears of rent since 01.01.2000 @ Rs. 125/- p.m. which the respondent no.1 did not pay inspite of repeated requests, demands and notice dt. 03.09.2001 and thereafter the petitioner filed a petition u/s 19 of the Slum Areas before the Competent Authority(Slum) which was allowed vide judgment dated 10.10.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner served composite notice dated 08.11.2005 for demand, termination of tenancy and enhancement of rent by 10%. The rate of rent became Rs. 137.50 ps. per month from 01.01.2006 but the respondent E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 3/10 no.1 neither tendered nor paid the arrears of rent due from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2005 @ 125/- p.m. and rent from 01.01.2006 @ Rs.137.50 ps.
Moreover, the respondent no.1 sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in dispute to respondent no.2 and the respondent no.2 is doing the business in the premises in dispute. The respondent no.2 sent a false notice dt. 22.08.2001 which is on record.
3. The application of eviction is contested by the respondents by filing of written statement of defence on the grounds that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief. It has been alleged that the respondent no.1 was the tenant in respect of open land under the landlordship of Sh. Umrao Singh vide Agreement dt. 18.12.1980 and the present petitioner was the parokar/Munsi/Karinda of Sh. Umrao Singh and the ground floor was constructed by the respondent no.1 from his hard earnings and the first floor was constructed by the respondent no.2 from his hard earnings after purchasing the structure from respondent no.1 in good faith and at the market rate and open land does not come within the four walls of the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner filed the rent receipts and a rent note dt. 06.07.1983 which are false, forged and fabricated. It has been submitted that the respondents never executed any rent note in favour of any person. Respondent no.1 sold the property to the Respondent no.2 vide sale documents dt. 09.05.2001. Respondent no.2 is carrying on his E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 4/10 business in the suit property. The respondent no.2 is residing in Chandiwali Gali, Paharganj, Delhi.
4. In the replication to the written statement of the respondent, the averments made in the application for eviction has been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondent in his written statement is traversed.
5. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined six witnesses, Sh. Tara Adhikari (PW1), Sh. Moinuddin (PW2), Sh. Pradeep Dabas (PW3), Sh. Gulshan Kumar(PW4), Sh. Rattan Singh(PW5) & Sh. Naresh Kumar(PW6). However, PW5 i.e. the petitioner had expired before his cross-examination could be conducted. During their examination-in-chief, Pws tendered their affidavits Ex.PW5/A & PW6/A and all the PWs also relied upon various documents i.e. Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/11. Ex. PW2/1 to PW2/17, PW3/1, PW4/1 & PW4/2. All the Pws(except PW5) were cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents and thereafter, PE was closed on 15.11.2016.
6. In support of his case, the respondent no.2 got examined himself as RW1. During his examination-in-chief, RW1 tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and the RW1 also relied upon various documents i.e. Ex. RW1/1 to Ex. RW1/6. The RW1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, RE was closed on 18.09.2017.
7. The present application has been made under clause (a) &
(b) of subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 which reads as follows:
E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 5/10
14. Protection of tenant against eviction.--(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
* * *
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882);
* * *
(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9 th day of June, 1952, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;
8. The present petition has been filed for eviction u/s 14 (1)
(a) i.e. non-payment of rent and u/s 14 (1) (b) i.e. parting with the possession of the part of premises without obtaining the consent of the landlord.
9. So far as the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, the respondent has outrightly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Basically, the defence raised by the respondent is that Chaudhary Umrao Singh was the owner of the land beneath the demised premises and the super structure belonged to respondent no.1 who had constructed the same from his own hard earned money. Only the land beneath the super structure was let out to respondent no1 by Chaudhary Umrao Singh and the petitioner has no E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 6/10 concern with the property in question. Subsequently, the ground floor portion was sold by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 vide sale deed dt. 09.05.2001 and thereafter the portion on the first floor was constructed by respondent no.2 from his own money. On the other hand, the petitioner has stated that he is the owner of the property and has also filed various documents to prove his case. The petitioner has relied upon one judgment dt. 23.10.74 passed in the case of Rattan Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner. The judgment is Ex. PW1/16 and the decree is Ex. PW1/17. Vide the said judgment, the petitioner was held to be the owner of the premises in question. The petitioner has also filed certified copy of the order dt. 17.09.1977, vide which the appeal filed against the judgment dt. 23.10.1974 was dismissed. All these documents have been duly proved by the petitioner. The petitioner has also examined one witness namely Moinuddin, Legal Assistant BSES who has deposed as PW2 and filed documents which are Ex. PW2/1 to PW2/17. The witness had very categorically stated that in the records of BSES the name of owner has been mentioned as Umrao Singh and name of the tenant has been mentioned as Ravel Singh i.e. respondent no.1. He had also stated that name of consumer was changed from Sh. Ravel Singh i.e. respondent no.1 to Sh. Puran Chand i.e. respondent no.2. PW4 Sh. Gulshan Kumar, Zonal Inspector, MCD had also deposed and stated that as per their record Sh. Rattan Singh i.e. the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. The record brought by PW4 is Ex. PW4/1. Thus from the record it has been proved, for the purpose of present petition, E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 7/10 that the petitioner is the owner of the demised premises and the respondent is the tenant. On the other hand, respondent has failed to bring any evidence on record in support of his submissions made in the WS. The respondent has also failed to prove the alleged sale deed dated 09.05.2001.
10. So, for the purposes of the present petition it can be said that the petitioner has been able to establish that he is the owner of demised premises and that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
11. Now, coming to the first ground i.e. non-payment of rent. As per the case of the petitioner, rent was Rs. 125/- p.m. which was increased by 10 % to Rs. 137.50 p.m. vide notice dt. 08.11.05 which was duly served upon the respondent no.1. In reply to para 18 B of the petition, the respondent has not denied receiving the said notice dt. 08.11.05. Otherwise also, the petitioner has proved service of notice. The Notice & postal receipts are Ex. PW1/6(colly) and in fact the said notice was duly replied back by the respondent. The reply is Ex. PW1/7.
Therefore, the petitioner has been able to sufficiently prove that the notice was sent at the correct address of the respondent and it was duly served upon the respondent.
12. Now, onus was upon the respondent to show that the notice was duly complied with and he had paid/deposited the rent as demaded under the said notice. The respondent has failed to bring any evidence on record to show that he has paid / tendered the rent as demanded by the E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 8/10 petitioner vide legal notice dt. 08.11.2005. In fact from his own admission in the W/S the respondent has stated that since the petitioner was neither the owner nor the landlord, there was no liability upon him to pay the rent to the petitioner. Hence, admittedly no rent has been paid by the respondent in compliance of the said notice. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has been able to establish that the respondent committed default in making the payment of rent as demanded by the petitioner in the said notice.
In view of above, the petitioner is found entitled for relief u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act.
13. Now, so far as the issue of sub-letting or assigning or otherwise parting with the suit premises is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is contended by the petitioner that the respondent has sub-let or parted with the possession of the tenanted premises to respondent no.2 without his written consent.
14. Bare perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents would show that the respondent have admitted that respondent no.1 is not in possession of the premises in question and it is the respondent no.2 who is running his business from the demised premises and the respondent had ceased to be in possession of the premises. Thus, it is clear that respondent no.1 ceased to be in possession of the demised premises which supports the case of the petitioner. Otherwise also, no contradiction came out from the cross-examination of the petitioner who deposed as PW6 and no evidence in rebuttal was lead E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 9/10 by the respondent so as to disprove the case of the petitioner. The respondent has failed to prove the alleged sale deed dated 09.05.2001 vide which the demised premises were sold by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2.
Therefore, the petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed on the ground mentioned in Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act No. 59 of 1958.
15. In view of above discussion, the petition u/s 14(1) (a) & (b) of Act 59 of 1958 is hereby allowed.
The eviction u/s 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act would be subject to the enquiry u/s 14(2) of the Act, for which separate enquiry would be conducted.
No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date: 2018.11.24
16:59:42 +0530
Announced in the open court (Puneet Pahwa)
on this 24th November, 2018 Additional Rent Controller-02
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E-837/14/06 Rattan Singh(deceased) Vs Ravel Singh(deceased). 10/10