Delhi District Court
Sh. Zaid Ahmed vs Mohd. Usman on 26 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E134/17 (Old), 78422/16 (New)
In the matter of :
Sh. Zaid Ahmed,
S/o Late Sh. Abdul Rasheed,
R/o House No. 161, Katra Gokal Shah,
Bazar Matia Mahal, Delhi110006. ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohd. Usman,
S/o Sh. Karam Ilahi,
R/o House No. 1770, Khawas Pura,
Pataudi House, Daryaganj,
New Delhi.
2. Mohd. Subhan,
S/o Sh. Karam Ilahi,
R/o House No. 1871, Hauz Suiwalan,
Delhi.
3. Mohd. Ahsan,
S/o Sh. Karam Ilahi,
R/o House No. D23, DDA Flats,
4th Floor, Mata Sundri Road,
Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi.
4. Mohd. Rehman,
S/o Sh. Karam Ilahi,
R/o House No. 161,
Katra Gokal Shah, Matia Mahal,
Delhi.
5. Mod. Imran,
S/o Sh. Karam Ilahi,
E78422/16 Page 1/21
R/o House No. 2707, Gali Badlyan,
Chooriwalan, Delhi.
7. Smt. Sikander,
W/o Sh. Gudda,
R/o House No. 2524, Baradari,
Ballimaran, Delhi.
8. Mst. Farzana,
W/o Sh. Fida,
R/o House No. 161,
Katra Gokal Shah, Matia Mahal,
Delhi.
9. Mst. Akhtar Begum,
W/o Sh. Yasin (Nikki Rotiwala),
Shop No. 4828, Gali Darzian,
Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi.
10.Mst. Farhana,
W/o Sh. Rais,
R/o House No. 1931,
Gali Chunna Mal, Ganj Meer Khan,
Suiwalan, Delhi.
11.Sh. Noor Ilahi,
S/o Late Mohd. Yamin,
R/o Quarter No. 160/224, DDA Flats,
New Seelampur, Delhi. ....Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.02.2012 Date of order when reserved : 13.04.2018 Date of order when announced : 26.04.2018 J U D G M E N T:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents/ tenants U/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), in respect of E78422/16 Page 2/21 ground floor portion of the property bearing no. 161, situated at Katra Gokal Shah, Bazar Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi110006 comprising of two rooms, verandah, kitchen, W.C., latrine and bath with open courtyard, common entry passage, as shown in red colour in the site plan.
2. During the course of proceedings, it transpired that the respondent no.1 had expired and the legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.1 were brought on record.
3. The averments as mentioned in the petition are reproduced in brief here as under :
(a) That the petitioner is the owner of the property being the legal heir of Late Sh. Abdul Rasheed being one of the coowners of the suit property and the other brothers of the petitioner have relinquished their rights with respect to the suit property in favour of the petitioner.
(b) That the tenanted premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for his occupation and for the residence of his family members who are dependent upon him for residential purposes. The family of the petitioner comprises of the petitioner himself, his wife, one married son alongwith daughterinlaw, granddaughter who are living with the petitioner and two young unmarried sons. It is averred by the petitioner that there are six persons living jointly in the accommodation available to the petitioner in the suit premises, i.e. one room measuring 10'7'' X 6'10'' at the ground floor and one room measuring 11'3'' X 11'3'' on the first floor of the suit property as shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed alongwith petition. The accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient for living E78422/16 Page 3/21 purposes and therefore, the family members of the petitioner have to live in inhabitable condition. The petitioner has two sons of marriageable age who could not get married due to paucity of accommodation for living purpose and therefore, a separate room is required for each unmarried son of the petitioner. Besides this, there are four married daughters having their children who often visit the house of the petitioner.
(c) That the petitioner, or his family members do not have any other alternative suitable residential accommodation for the residential purposes.
4. Summons were served upon the respondents and the applications for leave to defend filed by the legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 5, 8 and 10 were allowed vide order dated 09.12.2015. No application for leave to defend was filed on behalf of the respondents no.7, 9 and 11. In case titled as Inder Pal Khanna (Sh.) Vs. Commander Bhupinder Singh Rekhi (Rtd.), 2008 VIII AD (Delhi) 328 it was held that on death of tenant, tenancy devolves upon legal heirs as a joint tenancy. Thus, LRs are joint tenants and not tenants in common. Once tenancy a joint tenancy, notice to one of joint tenant is sufficient to terminate tenancy and suit cannot be held to be bad for nonjoinder of other joint tenants, or all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. It is further held that service of one of the joint tenant has to be considered service on the other joint tenant because in joint tenancy, tenancy remains one.
5. Written statement was filed on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.1 and respondents no.2 to 5, 8 and 10. The claim of the petitioner has been challenged by the said respondents on the following E78422/16 Page 4/21 grounds :
(a) That the petitioner is neither the owner, nor the landlord of the suit premises. The property falls within the jurisdiction of Delhi Waqf Board which has also staked their claim in the premises in question. The petitioner has failed to file any document to substantiate their right, or title, or interest in the premises in question.
(b) That the premises occupied by the respondents is a very small unit which cannot be expected to meet the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his family members.
(c) That apart from the accommodation claimed to be held by the petitioner in the suit property, the petitioner has also got possession of one basement below the room abutting in the Gali. Besides that there are three other rooms on the first floor of the property and two rooms in the space which is claimed to be the open courtyard which are also lying vacant in possession of the petitioner. There are five other rooms also which are inhabited by different tenants in the suit property. There is mezzanine floor over the front room in the suit property which has been concealed by the petitioner malafidely. The petitioner has also in his possession the second floor of the suit property and thus, is in possession and in control of several rooms in addition to the accommodation claimed to be available to him.
(d) That the petitioner has failed to file the Voter ICards, or any other means of identification to prove that the family members of the petitioner are residing with the petitioner only.
E78422/16 Page 5/21(e) That the petitioner's family owns several properties comprising of residential and commercial properties in Delhi which include property bearing no. 164, Katra Gokal Shah, Bazar Matia Mahal, Delhi comprising of four vacant rooms, property no. 197, Gali Garhaiya, Matia Mahal, Delhi comprising of two rooms, property no. 1880, Mohalla Qabaristan, Turkman Gate, Delhi comprising of four rooms and a flat bearing no. 3771, Gali Magazine wali, Churiwalan, Delhi. Most of these accommodations are either lying vacant, or otherwise inhabited by different tenants and can be used by the petitioner for his bonafide requirement.
(f) That the site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct and not according to the site.
(g) That the alleged family members of petitioner are not dependent upon him for providing residential, or commercial accommodation and they are well settled in their respective lives and occupying independent properties.
6. Replication to the written statement was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has denied the allegations of the respondents and has reiterated the same facts as averred in the petition.
7. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW1. He reiterated the contents of his petition and also exhibited on record a copy of sale deed in favour of his father and grandfather as Ex. PW1/1 alongwith its translation; he filed a copy of death certificate of his father as Ex. PW1/2; site plan of the property as Ex. PW1/3, his Aadhaar Cards as Ex. PW1/4; Aadhaar Cards of his family members as Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PW 1/6, Ex. PW1/7, Ex. PW1/8 and Ex. PW1/9; a copy of his Ration Card as E78422/16 Page 6/21 Ex. PW1/10 (deexhibited and marked as MarkA); a copy of Aadhaar Card of his daughter as Ex. PW1/11, rent receipt as Ex. PW1/12 (deexhibited and marked as MarkB), rent receipts of other tenants as Ex. PW1/13 (collectively) and an electricity bill as Ex. PW1/14 and Ex. PW1/15 (de exhibited and marked as MarkC and MarkD). He also exhibited photographs as Ex. PW1/16 and Ex. PW1/17. In his crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that the copy of title document which was filed on 01.02.2012 and the certified copy of the sale deed obtained from Sub Registrar Office (Ex. PW4/1) are different. It is stated by him that he is having one small room on the ground floor. It is stated that the entire ground floor has total three rooms, out of which two rooms are with the tenant and one is with the petitioner's family. It is stated by him that there is no basement beneath the room and there is no mezzanine floor in the property. It is denied by him that there are four rooms on the ground floor, or six rooms on the first floor, or three rooms on the second floor. It is stated by him that on the first floor the room shown in yellow colour in the site plan, Ex. PW1/3 is with him and his family and back portion is with tenants, Sh. Kayamuddin and Sh. Gayasuddin. It is stated by him that he has placed on the record the counter foils of the rent receipts issued to the respondent, however it is stated that original of the same were misplaced by his previous lawyer.
8. PW2 Sh. Parvesh Kumar, AERO from the office of Election Registration Office is a summoned witness and has proved on record Ex. PW2/1 and Ex. PW2/2 which are electoral roll showing presence of family of Sh. Gayasuddin and Sh. Mirajuddin who are tenants in the property in question.
E78422/16 Page 7/219. PW3 Sh. S.K. Sharma, LDC from the office of SubRegistrarIII is a summoned witness and has proved on record relinquishment deed registered vide registration no. 3852, Book No.1, Volume No. 16450 pages 153 to 157 on 04.05.2016 as Ex. PW3/1.
10. PW4 Sh. Sevajit, Record Attendant from the department of Delhi Archives is a summoned witness and has proved on record the sale deed registered vide registration no. 4909, Additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 3083 on pages 145 to 150 dated 21.11.1957 as Ex. PW4/1.
11. PW5 Sh. Niranjan Singh, LDC from the office of District Election Office is also a summoned witness and has proved on record electoral roll of the property no. 1880, Gali Vazir Beg, Turkman Gate, Delhi, assembly constituency no. 21, Matia Mahal, Delhi as Ex. PW5/1 and Ex. PW5/2 and electoral roll of the property no. 3771, Gali Magazine Wali, Churiwalan, Delhi, assembly constituency no. 21, Matia Mahal, Delhi as Ex. PW5/3 and Ex. PW5/4.
12. No other witness was examined and the petitioner's evidence was closed.
13. In support of their case, the respondents have examined respondent no.4 Mohd. Rehman as RW1. RW1 reiterated the contents stated in written statement and has proved the site plan as Ex. RW1/1 (already marked as MarkX in the crossexamination of PW1). In his cross examination, it is stated by him that he does not have any proof to show that the property belongs to Waqf Board. It is stated by him that though he has written the name of Sh. Syed Mohabbat Ali, but now he is not his landlord, E78422/16 Page 8/21 or owner. It is accepted by him that neither the architect, nor he had visited inside the rooms under the possession of the petitioner. It is stated by him that the architect did not carry out any measurement with the help of measuringtape (while preparing site plan, Ex. RW1/1). The witness has been shown photographs of the property i.e. Ex. PW1/17 wherein he pointed out the portion at PointA as the ground floor and also identified the lady on PointB as tenant at first floor. Thereafter, photograph, Mark RW1/ P1 was shown to him wherein he admitted that he uses the PointX as entry. He was also shown photograph, Mark RW1/P1 and Ex. PW1/18 wherein he admitted that Ex. PW1/18 is photograph of the roof above PointB shown in photograph, Mark RW1/P1. It is stated by him that he is not aware whether Syed Mohabbat Ali had entrusted the suit property to the Waqf Board. It is stated by him that he does not have any documentary proof to show that the petitioner is owner, or in possession of the property mentioned at para no.09 of his affidavit.
14. No other witness was examined and respondent's evidence was closed.
15. The undersigned has heard the arguments and perused the record carefully.
16. The essential ingredients which a landlord/ petitioner is required to prove for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are
(i) the petitioner is the owner/ landlord of the suit premises (ii) the suit premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself or any of his family members dependent upon him (iii) the landlord or such other family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
E78422/16 Page 9/21Ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship :
17. The contention of the respondents is that one Syed Mohabbat Ali entrusted the property in question i.e. 161, Katra Gokal Shah, Matia Mahal to the Waqf and Waqf is the owner of the suit property as on date. It is also contended that Syed Mohabbat Ali never sold the said property. It is stated that neither the petitioner, nor his father, or grandfather have any right in the suit property. It is also contended by the counsel for the respondents that the copy of the sale deed filed by the petitioner, Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) and certified copy, Ex. PW4/1 of the same brought by PW4 from the Office of Department of Delhi Archives are different as the same are bearing different dates. It is also contended that the English translation of that sale deed is also incorrect. However, the contention of the respondents are not reliable/ truthful due to following reasons :
(i) No translation has been filed by the respondents of any of the sale deeds i.e. Ex. PW1/1, or Ex. PW4/1 to raise doubt on the translation filed by the petitioner. As per the translation filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that the property in question was sold by Syed Mohabbat Ali in favour of Hazi Abdul Majid and Abdul Rasheed, S/o Hazi Abdul Majid. Admittedly, Hazi Abdul Rasheed is the father of the petitioner and Hazi Abdul Majid is the grandfather of the petitioner. The sale deed was executed in the year, 1957. The same was exhibited in the Court in the year, 2016, thus the document is more than 30 years old, hence it is presumed that it is containing signatures of the person by whom document purported to be signed and it is also presumed that it was duly executed and attested (as per Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act) as the original document was produced by the E78422/16 Page 10/21 petitioner and it was a proper custody as the petitioner is the legal heir of the vendees. Thus, from the sale deed (Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW4/1) it is apparent that petitioner is the owner/ coowner in respect of property in question.
(ii) A ground raised by respondents that Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW4/1 are different documents and the same are bearing different dates. This contention of the respondents was only a feeble attempt on the part of the respondents to confuse the Court just because the Court is not familiar with the Urdu language. From the analyses of the documents, Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW4/1, one thing is clear that Ex. PW1/1 is the sale deed, while Ex. PW4/1 is the copy of register containing the relevant entry of the sale deed. Apparently in the year, 1957 there were no photocopiers, hence the entire sale deed including the noting made on the back side of the pages of the sale deed were used to be entered verbatim in the register maintained by the Sub Registrar. From analyses of Ex. PW4/1, it appears that its second column is containing the entire sale deed. Other columns are noting of SubRegistrar, infact column no.03 and column no.04 noting is same as contained on the back side of the pages of the sale deed. From comparison of main contents of sale deed and contents of column no.02, it is apparent that they are verbatim same. The date 24.10.1957 shown at the end of the column no.02 can be very well seen on the back side of the last page of the sale deed. Hence, there is no difference in the two sale deeds.
(iii) By proving the sale deed on record, the petitioner has positively proved that the property in question was sold to his father and grandfather by the previous owner. Nonfiling of the site plan attached with the sale deed is not fatal to the case of the petitioner.
(iv) The contention of the respondents that the property was entrusted to the Waqf Board by Syed Mohabbat Ali appears untenable as respondent E78422/16 Page 11/21 no.4 Mohd. Rehman himself in his evidence has stated that he does not have any proof to show that the property belongs to Waqf Board, infact it is stated by him that he is not aware as to whether Syed Mohabbat Ali had entrusted the suit property to the Waqf Board. It is to be noted that the respondents did not call anybody to Waqf Board to prove their contention. It is further to be noted that at one place in his crossexamination he refused that Syed Mohabbat Ali was his landlord, however the respondents nowhere disclosed who was their landlord.
18. In view of the abovestated circumstances, it can be safely held that the petitioner is the owner/ coowner of the property in question as the property was purchased by his father and grandfather. Further, all the other legal heirs of his father and grandfather have executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is positively proved that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property. The discrepancy in the evidence of the petitioner qua the fact who has inducted the respondents as tenants in the property i.e. whether his father, or the previous owner is not material.
19. It is admitted position of law that one cosharer/ coowner can file eviction petition against the tenants, reliance being placed upon the judgment in case titled as M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Ct. & Ors. Vs. Bhagabandel Agarwalla (dead) by LRs & Ors., AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1321 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that one of the coowners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the coowners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One coowner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other coowners. The consent E78422/16 Page 12/21 of other coowners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed inspite of their disagreement.
20. Since no objection has been filed by any of the other legal heirs of father and grandfather of the petitioner, hence it is assumed that they have consented for filing of the present petition. Since respondents have admitted themselves to be tenants in the property, hence there exists a relationship of tenant and landlord between the respondents and the petitioner.
Nonavailability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in Delhi
21. It is to be noted that in the present case leave to defend was granted solely on the ground that a number of properties i.e. property bearing no. 164, Katra Gokal Shah, Bazar Matia Mahal, Delhi comprising of four vacant rooms, property no. 197, Gali Garhaiya, Matia Mahal, Delhi comprising of two rooms, property no. 1880, Mohalla Qabaristan, Turkman Gate, Delhi comprising of four rooms and a flat bearing no. 3771, Gali Magazine wali, Churiwalan, Delhi are owned by the petitioner and his family members and the said properties consist residential as well as commercial premises.
22. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that the suit property also consists basement and mezzanine floor which can also be used by the petitioner and his family members for residence. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the property consists of four rooms on the E78422/16 Page 13/21 ground floor, six rooms on the first floor and three rooms on the second floor. They have also filed a site plan showing all these rooms.
23. All the contentions raised by the respondents have no standing as shown by the following facts :
(i) In his crossexamination, RW1 conveniently said that he has no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner is in possession, or owner of various properties alleged by him in leave to defend application and written statement. On the other hand, the petitioner being in bonafide need of the property himself called the witnesses from various departments to prove the electoral roll of the said properties to show that some other persons are residing there. None of the witnesses who have brought the electoral roll were crossexamined by the respondents. In Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 405, it has been clearly held that "a tenant who alleges that landlord has at his disposal other accommodation has to place before the Ld. ARC some material to show that the landlord has a specific alternative accommodation at his disposal". Mere bald allegation with respect to availability of additional accommodation with the petitioner does not hold any basis and cannot be a basis to deny the petitioner of his right to vacate the tenanted premises for his bonafide requirement".
(ii) In his crossexamination, the respondent no.4 admitted the photographs of the property as shown to him by the counsel for petitioner. From perusal of the photographs, Ex. PW1/17 wherein respondent no.4 admitted his portion as well as the portion above his portion as PointA and PointB, it is apparent that there is no mezzanine floor between the ground floor wherein the respondents are residing and the first floor where the other tenants are residing. Furthermore, this photograph corroborate the site plan E78422/16 Page 14/21 filed on behalf of the petitioner and denies the site plan filed by the respondents as in the site plan filed by the respondents immediately by the side of "open below" two rooms have been shown, however from photographs it is apparent that there are no such rooms, rather the same is open courtyard as shown in the site plan of the petitioner. This fact also shows that the respondents are not presenting the true facts in front of the Court.
(iii) It is alleged by respondents that there is a basement in the property, however they could not explain in his site plan as to where is the entrance for that basement. It is to be noted that a mezzanine floor/ room is/ are not a proper floor/ room as observed in Bulaqi Ram vs Suraj Bhan 1982 RLR 93. Similarly, accommodation available on basement cannot be held as suitable for residence.
(iv) The contention of the respondents that there is a second floor in the property is not true as respondent no.4 himself in his crossexamination admitted that photograph, Ex. PW1/18 is of the roof above PointB shown in photograph, Mark RW1/P1. From these photographs it is quite apparent that the property is not having any such alleged second floor.
(v) Though it was not mentioned in the petition, however petitioner proved in his evidence that there are two tenants namely Sh. Gayasuddin and Sh. Kayamuddin on the first floor of the property in two rooms. This fact also proved by the petitioner by calling the electoral roll of the area which is Ex. PW2/1. It is to be noted that nonmentioning of rooms occupied by these tenants in the petition is inconsequential as there is no need to mention rooms/ property which are not in possession of the petitioner/ landlord. It is a settled law that nondisclosure of properties which were not suitable to meet the petitioner requirement is not fatal to his case. Reliance being E78422/16 Page 15/21 placed upon case titled as Shri Sukhbir Singh Vs. Dr. I.P. Singh, RC Rev. 261/2010. It is settled law that the landlord is the master of his choice and tenant or the Court cannot compel a landlord to choose a particular place against his choice.
24. In view of the abovestated facts, the undersigned is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is only having one room on the ground floor and one room on the first floor of the property, hence he has been able to establish that he does not have any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in Delhi for himself, or his family members, except the tenanted premises.
Bonafide Requirement
25. In Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 167 (2010) DLT 80 = 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, VIII (2005) 12 SCC 778, have been quoted as under : "it was held that the legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if there is any breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong E78422/16 Page 16/21 presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant, unless his need is bonafide no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the Court his requirements shall be presumed to be genuine and bonafide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1 held that the phrase "reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord" is not to be tested on par with "dire need" of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need. Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other E78422/16 Page 17/21 hand.
27. In the present matter, at the time of filing of the petition, the family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, his three sons, one daughterinlaw and one granddaughter. He was also having four married daughters who were regularly visiting him. It has been held above that the petitioner was having only two rooms in that property at his disposal. The said two rooms appears to be grossly inadequate for the family of the petitioner. However, during pendency of the trial wife of the petitioner expired. It is to be noted that after conclusion of the trial and the hearing of final arguments, the petitioner has also expired, nonetheless the two rooms available with the family of the petitioner are grossly inadequate for his three sons, one of whom is married and other two are of marriageable age.
28. In the judgment case titled as "Rishi Kumar Govil Vs. Maqsoodan and Ors." (2007) 4 SCC 465, on the plea and evidence relating to bona fide need of landlord Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"19. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co.
(2000) 1 SCC 679 : AIR 2000 SC 534, it was held that it is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the business which is most suitable for him.
He has complete freedom in the matter. In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604: AIR 2001 SC 803, it was held that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for release. In Prativa Devi vs T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live."
E78422/16 Page 18/2129. Further, if the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself tightly into lesser premises. Reliance being placed upon judgment titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. Smt Prabha Khanna & Anr., 2008 IX AD (Delhi) 657 and Amir Chand Arora Vs. Suraj Parkash Bhasin 1981 (2) RCR 513.
30. Moreover, if the petitioner does not use the property for the purposes claimed in the petition, the respondents have a statutory remedy available U/s 19 of the DRC Act to seek reentry.
31. After conclusion of final arguments, when the matter was fixed for orders on 13.04.2018 Sh. A. Alam, Ld. Counsel for respondents no.3 & 4 appeared in the Court and has apprised that the petitioner has expired on 08.04.2018, hence his legal heirs have to be brought on record. On the other hand, it was pointed out by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that there is no need for impleadment of the legal heirs of deceased petitioner as trial and final arguments have been concluded in the matter. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner cited Order 22 Rule 6 CPC in his support.
Order 22 Rule 6 CPC is read as under: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the forgoing rules, whether the cause of action survives or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of the judgment, but judgment may in such case to pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before the death took place".
E78422/16 Page 19/2132. Rule 6 clearly provides that there shall be no abatement by reason of death of either of the party between the conclusion of the hearing and pronouncement of the judgment. Further, in the judgment of Golla Krishna Murthy Vs. Golla Yellaiah, 2001 (5) ALD 484, 2001 (5) ALT 645 para no.05 is relevant which is as follows : "5. There is another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.P. Thirugnanam Vs. R. Jagan Mohan Rao. In this case, the party had died after the arguments had been heard and the judgment had been reserved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Rule 6 of Order 22 CPC found :
"In the face of the explicit language in Rule 6 of Order 22, there can be no abatement by reason of the death of any party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment. It may be pronounced, notwithstanding the death, and shall have the same force and effect as if judgment had been pronounced before the death took place. Therefore, the contention that the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is a nullity is devoid of substance."
33. Thus, in the present matter there is no need for impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner as the hearing has already been concluded prior to death of petitioner.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has proved all the necessary ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
35. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of E78422/16 Page 20/21 ground floor portion of property bearing no. 161, situated at Katra Gokal Shah, Bazar Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi110006 comprising of two rooms, verandah, kitchen, W.C., latrine and bath with open courtyard, common entry passage, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
on 26.04.2018 Administrative Civil Judge cum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/26.04.2018
(This judgment contains 21 pages in total)
E78422/16 Page 21/21
E78422/16
26.04.2018
Present : None.
Vide separate order, the present eviction petition of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of ground floor portion of property bearing no. 161, situated at Katra Gokal Shah, Bazar Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi110006 comprises of two rooms, verandah, kitchen, W.C., latrine and bath with open courtyard, common entry passage, as shown in red colour in the site plan. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJcumARC (Central) Delhi/26.04.2018 E78422/16 Page 22/21