Delhi District Court
Sh. Yash Pal vs Sh. Deepak Verma on 9 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA,
LD. ARC01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI.
Unique Identification No. : 02402C0145972011
E11/2011
Sh. Yash Pal
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal
R/o WZ403A, Gali No.4,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
Delhi110 045 ................ Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Deepak Verma
S/o Late Sh. Anand Kr. Verma
R/o 5/276, J.J. Colony
Trilokpuri, Ground Floor,
Delhi1100 91 ................ Respondent
Eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of DRC Act
Date of institution of petition : 28.09.2011
Date on which Order was reserved : 03.01.2012
Date of Order : 09.01.2012
Final Order : Eviction petition allowed.
E11/2011 Page 1 / 11
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the respondent seeking leave to defend and contest the eviction petition in hand.
Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that respondent is a tenant in respect of a shop in premises bearing no. 5/276, ground floor, J.J. Colony, Trilokpuri, Delhi110091 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/ excluding electricity and water charges. Petitioner has filed this eviction petition u/s. 14(1)(e) of DRC Act on the following grounds:
a). Petitioner is the owner of tenanted premises and he requires the tenanted premises for residential use of himself and his dependent family members i.e., his wife, mother, daughter and one son. Petitioner at the moment is residing at the rented accommodation at Palam Colony on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and wants to shift to the premises in question. He is unable to shift due to paucity of accommodation and due to the reasons that his mother is old and sick lady, who is unable to climb up the stairs. Even wife of the petitioner is unable to climb the stairs. Petitioner's brother Sh. Nirmal Kumar expired on 16.08.2008 leaving behind his wife, two daughters and 2 sons and E11/2011 Page 2 / 11 petitioner is having financial burden to assist that family also.
b). Petitioner has no other alternate accommodation available to him except the premises in question. Petitioner intends to make necessary alterations by removing the walls between two shops situated on the ground floor in order to make it two room accommodation.
In the application for leave to defend, respondent has taken following grounds to defend the present petition:
a). The petitioner is neither owner nor landlord of the tenanted premises as it was owned by Late Sohan Lal, deceased father of the petitioner. Late Sohan Lal expired in the year 2005 leaving behind other legal heirs also, who have not been made party in the present petition.
b). Petitioner is residing at house bearing no. WZ 403A, Gali no. 4, Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi, which is his ancestral property.
c). Petitioner has filed false and bogus rent receipt issued by Navita Devi because she is real Aunt of the petitioner and petitioner is not making payment of any rent to her because he also has his share in the ancestral property.
d). The tenanted premises falls under slum area. Therefore, present petition can not be maintainable without permission given by the competent E11/2011 Page 3 / 11 authority under The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956.
e). Petitioner has several other properties in Palam Vihar and does not require the present property for his bonafide use and after the death of Late Sohan Lal, the tenanted property was not partitioned, nor any "will" has been executed in favour of petitioner.
f). Petitioner has defanded the respondent by getting his signature on a fake rent deed pertaining to a different property.
In reply to the application and affidavit of the respondent, petitioner has taken following pleas: Petitioner is the coowner according to admission of the respondent and hence, by virtue of section 116 Evidence Act, respondent can not challenge the title of petitioner. Petitioner is residing at house bearing no. WZ403A, Palam Colony, New Delhi, however, this property is not the ancestral property of petitioner and in fact, petitioner is a tenant in this property. Petitioner has not filed false rent receipt issued by Navita Devi. The provisions of Slum Act are not applicable because present petition has been filed under the summary procedure for bonafide requirements. Petitioner did not commit any fraud with the respondent and rent agreement does not pertain to premises no. B3/2332, Raghuvir E11/2011 Page 4 / 11 Nagar, Delhi. Petitioner does not have several properties in Palam Vihar and though the name of his mother is not mentioned in his ration card, still his mother is a part of his family.
Findings: For the purpose seeking eviction u/s. 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, the petitioner has to satisfy the Court that he is land lord and owner of the tenanted property and the property is required for his own use or for the use of his family members dependent upon him and that he has no other suitable accommodation for such use. By virtue of judgment passed in "Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, 148(2008) DLT 705(Supreme Court)", this law provision also applies to commercial property. In this case, there is no dispute in respect of description and particulars of tenanted premises and respondent has in fact not filed any different site plan.
In the present case, respondent vehemently argued that the suit property being situated in slum area, present petition is not maintainable without permission from the competent authority u/s. 19 of The Slum areas (Improvement and Clearance)Act, 1956. In support of such plea, respondent relied upon the case law cited as "Vishal Kirti v. Vipin Kr. Jain,2011 IAD(Delhi)374. In response to such plea of the respondent, it was argued on behalf of petitioner that section 19 of The Slum areas E11/2011 Page 5 / 11 (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 does not apply in respect of present eviction petition. Petitioner relied upon the case law cited as "Krishna Devi v. Shyam Babu Gupta,1980. Rajdhani Report 215". In Vishal Kirti's case, single bench of Delhi High Court held in respect of eviction petition u/s. 14 (1)(b) of DRC Act that the petitioner has to obtain permission from the competent authority if the property is situated in slum area. In Krishna Devi's case, DB of Delhi High Court held "the ratio of judgment in Sharvan Singh v. KasturiLal AIR 1997 Supreme Court 265, is applicable not only to application for eviction u/s. 14(A) of the Rent Act but also to those brought u/s. 14(1)(e) of the Act". In view of the judgment passed by Division bench of Delhi High Court, which applies directly to the legal question raised in present proceedings, I have no doubt that section 19 of The Slum areas ( Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 does not come in the way of the petitioner to file this petition without obtaining permission from the competent authority. Therefore, no such ground is made out to contest this petition.
Respondent has taken another plea that petitioner is neither owner nor landlord of the tenanted premises. Respondent has though admitted that petitioner is one of the coowner of the tenanted premises herein being legal heir of original landlord/owner Late Sohan Lal. Ld. E11/2011 Page 6 / 11 counsel for petitioner cited a judgment of Delhi High Court passed in Yashpal v. Chaman Lal 129(2006) DLT 200, wherein it was held that "the coowner can maintain petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the tenanted property and the interse arrangements between owners is not business of the tenant". In view of absence of dispute regarding co ownership right of the petitioner over the tenanted property and the judgment mentioned herein above, once again I do not have any doubt in respect of locus of the petitioner to seek eviction of the respondent in this petition as landlord. Therefore, even such ground raised by the respondent is not sustainable so as to contest this petition.
Respondent has taken another plea that petitioner is residing in his ancestral property situated in Palam Colony, New Delhi. There is no dispute in respect of number and particulars of this property, however, according to petitioner this is not his ancestral property and he is residing here as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/. Petitioner has also placed on the record rent receipts executed by Smt. Navita Devi in his favour in respect of this property. Respondent has taken plea that the rent receipts are manipulated one as Navita Devi is Aunt of the petitioner and in order to support him, false receipts have been issued to him. In my considered opinion, the simplicitor plea that this is an ancestral property of the E11/2011 Page 7 / 11 petitioner, is not sufficient to raise a triable issue. In his application, respondent has not stated or explained that whether the premises being occupied by the petitioner is sufficient as per his need. The petitioner has explained his need to recover possession of the tenanted premises stating that his old mother as well as wife are unable to climb stairs due to their physical compulsion/inability. The physical compulsion of his mother is her old age and bad health, while, the physical compulsion of his wife is a mental shock after death of her young son. The absence of any such plea taken by the respondent about sufficient accommodation available to the petitioner, which should be owned by him, does not inthuse any substance in the ground taken by him. It is settled law that leave to contest can not be granted mearly on the basis of vague denial or vague pleas. In Kawal Kishore Chopra vs. O. P. Diwedi, AIR 1978 Delhi 53, hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that "merely negative or vague pleas to put the landlord on proof are not enough and if they are allowed to merit the grant of leave, the whole object of the summary procedure would be defeated."
Further more, respondent has not explained that how this property is ancestral property of the petitioner though the petitioner has vehemently denied that the property he is residing at the moment, is his E11/2011 Page 8 / 11 ancestral property. Delhi High Court in Rajender Kumar Sharma vs. Leelawati, 155 (2008) DLT 383 observed that "no rent controller is supposed to grant leave to defend to the tenant on the basis of a false affidavit and false averments and assertions. Such affidavit should outrightly be rejected by the Rent Controller. Only those averments in the affidavit are to be considered by the Rent Controller which have some substance in it and are supported by some material. Mere assertion by a tenant in respect of landlord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of alternate accommodation are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend. ...... The Rent Controller is thus, not precluded from considering the material placed before it by the landlord in response to leave to defend to show that the tenant's assertion and averments were totally false." The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing with almost same situation where tenant had made claim about the ownership of landlord over other property and the Court had also dealt with the judgment of Supreme Court in Precision Steel's case. It is worth to see that the Supreme Court has laid down general principles, while Delhi High Court looked into this peculiar situation and made aforesaid observations. It is not difficult for any person in the present era of RTI to file such documents E11/2011 Page 9 / 11 before the Court which could show that such property is owned by the petitioner. However, besides making bald assertion, respondent has not filed any such material on the record. Therefore, it cannot be taken seriously. Therefore, even this ground raised by the respondent is not sufficient and sustainable to contest this eviction petition.
The dispute in respect of sufficient financial condition of widow of Late Nirmal Kumar or the ownership of property being possessed by her, has no relation with the need explained by petitioner in this petition. Petitioner's need is based upon the need of his widow mother and wife to reside at ground floor, for which petitioner has proposed to make structural changes in the tenanted premises at ground floor in order to make it two rooms set. Therefore, contentions made by the respondent in respect of widow of late Nirmal Kumar are also not sufficient to resist this eviction petition.
Respondent has also taken plea that he had been occupying this property since long and he would suffer irrepairable injury, which can not be compensated in terms of money. It has become settled law that while entertaining such eviction petition, the Rent Controller is not supposed to make a comparative study of the need of landlord and tenant. The only criteria is whether petitioner has been able to establish his bonafide need E11/2011 Page 10 / 11 and whether the tenant has been able to raise such grounds, which can dis entitile the petitioner from claiming eviction. In the present case, as observed by me herein above, respondent has failed to raise any such grounds, which require further trial or enquiry and which can disentitle the petitioner from claiming eviction of the respondent.
Therefore, application is dismissed. Eviction petition is hereby allowed. Respondent is hereby directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., 5/276, Ground Floor, J.J. Colony, Trilokpuri, Delhi110 091 as shown in red colour in the site plan, within 6 months as provided u/s. 14(7) of DRC Act.
(Announced in the open (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
Court on 09/01/2012) ARC01, East, KKD, 09/01/2012
E11/2011 Page 11 / 11