Delhi District Court
Sh. Usman Ghani vs Sh. Charanjit Singh on 31 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E68/05 (Old), 79273/16 (New)
In the matter of :
Sh. Usman Ghani,
S/o Late Sh. Razaul Haque,
R/o C/o Sh. Kharunnisha,
T510, Chamelian Road,
Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. ......Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Charanjit Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh,
R/o 16/325B, Khajoor Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ......Respondent
Date of Institution : 05.05.2005
Date of order when reserved : 24.01.2019
Date of order when announced : 31.01.2019
J U D G M E N T:
1. Vide this judgment, the undersigned shall dispose of the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent/ tenant U/s 14 (1) (a) & (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), in respect of five rooms (measuring 12' X 6', 17' X 8', 15'.10'' X 11'.7'', 8' X 8'' and 10' X 12', respectively), two latrines, one kitchen, one staircase, one porch, three store rooms and one big courtyard in property bearing no. 16/325/B (Old No. 133), Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as shown in green colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition.
E79273/16 Page 1/252. It is to be noted that earlier the matter was dismissed in default vide order dated 19.11.2007. Thereafter, an application Under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC alongwith an application U/s 5 of Limitation Act filed on behalf of petitioner which was allowed vide order dated 10.01.2012 and the petition was restored.
3. The averments as mentioned in the petition are reproduced in brief here as under :
(a) That the petitioner has got the suit premises by way of registered Will dated 24.08.1994 of previous owner namely Smt. Ashghari Begum, W/o Late Sh. Bisharat Ali.
(b) That the tenanted premises was let out by previous owner to Smt. Indu Ahluwalia @ Indrajit Kaur at the rate of rent of Rs. 60/per month for residential purpose. Smt. Indu Ahluwalia had constructed five shops in the front portion of the house with consent of previous owner, as shown in red colour in the site plan and the rent for the said five shops has been fixed as Rs. 140/ which was paid by Smt. Indu Ahluwalia @ Indrajit Kuar to Smt. Ashghari Begum. From few years, the respondent has sublet all five shops without consent of landlord/ petitioner.
(c) That Smt. Indu Ahluwalia @ Indrajit Kaur was unmarried and issueless. After her death, the respondent was acknowledged as tenant in the whole premises. The respondent was paying rent regularly to previous owner till her death and after her death, tenant was informed that now the present petition is the owner and from 01.09.1994 he is entitled to receive E79273/16 Page 2/25 rent of the suit premises, but the respondent is not paying the rent.
(d) That the petitioner sent a demand legal notice dated 27.01.2005 for payment of outstanding amount of rent (Rs. 25,000/ (rent at the rate of Rs. 200/ per month for 125 months) w.e.f. 01.09.1994 to 27.01.2005), but the respondent has not been complied with the legal notice. The respondent has not tendered the entire rent legally recoverable from him despite service of notice. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for grant of an eviction order under Section 14 (1) (a) of the D.R.C. Act against the respondent.
(e) That the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the petitioner for his own residential purpose. The petitioner is living with his Dharam Maa Smt. Khairunisha in her house at T510, Chamelian Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi110006. The petitioner has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation, except the tenanted premises.
4. The summons of the petition were served upon the respondent who has filed written statement and has challenged the claim of the petitioner on the following grounds :
(a) That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent is sole and exclusive owner of the property by way of registered Will dated 30.04.1984 of his mother and enjoying the same as such since after the death of his mother who was exclusive owner of the said property by allotment from the Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation (Delhi Administration Land and Building Department), Evacuee Property Cell, Jaisalmere House, New Delhi who was in occupation of property since the year, 1947 continuously till her death. The house tax of the said property is E79273/16 Page 3/25 also assessed in the name of the respondent since after the death of his mother and water and electricity connections also stand installed in the name of the respondent. The petitioner has come forward at the instance of some of the unauthorized occupants in the said property against whom the suits for possession and recovery of mesne profits are pending since 1994. The petitioner has nothing to do with the property in question. The alleged Will in question is a forged and fabricated document and the alleged Smt. Ashghari Begum was never owner, nor in occupation of any portion of the suit property. The photo on the alleged Will of Smt. Ashghari Begum is of some other lady and is not that of alleged Smt. Ashghari Begum. No number of the property has been given in the alleged Will dated 24.08.1994, while the number of the property was allotted before 1975.
(b) That in the notice dated 17.07.1995 sent by the petitioner to the respondent, it is mentioned that the petitioner is in occupation of one shop in premises bearing no. 16/325B, Khazoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi under tenancy of Smt. Ashghari Begum and is paying rent to her. It is further mentioned that the respondent filed a false and frivolous petition U/s 27 of DRC Act. The said notice was duly replied by the respondent. In the second notice dated 27.01.2005 the petitioner has mentioned that property no. 133134, BlockAC, out of Khasra No. 447/186187 and Khasra No. 58/88, measuring 194 sq. yds. and 71 sq. yds. was let out to the sister of the respondent namely Smt. K. Indu Ahluwalia/ Inderjit Kaur by Smt. Ashghari Begum at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/. The said notice was also duly replied by the respondent. Both the said notices are false and frivolous.
(c) That the number of property of the respondent is plot no. 134 (New No. 16/325B), BlockAC, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and E79273/16 Page 4/25 not 133.
5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has denied the allegations of the contesting respondents and has reiterated the same facts as averred in the petition.
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW1; Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana, UDC from office of SubRegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as PW2; Sh. Shailendra Kumar Saraswat, Sub Registrar, Birth and Death, City S.P. Zone, Delhi as PW3; Sh. Ramesh Chand, Kanoongo, DDA (Land Section), INA, Delhi as PW4; Sh. Shakti Singh, Patwari from the office of SubDivisional Magistrate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi also as PW4 (the same is now considered as PW4A); Sh. Satish Kumar, Judicial Assistant from Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as PW5 and Sh. Ghanshyam, Junior Judicial Assistant from Record Room (Sessions), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as PW6.
7. In rebuttal, the respondent has examined Ms. Jasvinder Kaur (daughter of respondent) as RW1; Sh. Mahender Kumar Kanojia, Assistant Section Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Karol Bagh, Tibbia College, New Delhi 110005 as RW2; Sh. Mahesh Chand, Section Officer, B.S.E.S. YPL, Shankar Road Division, Delhi as RW3; Sh. Sunil Chauhan, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Ld. ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as RW4 and Sh. Nagendra Sah, UDC, Land & Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi as RW5.
8. PW1/ petitioner Sh. Usman Ghani reiterated the contents of his petition and also exhibited on record site plan which is Ex. PW1/1; copy of E79273/16 Page 5/25 letter dated 28.04.1992 is MarkA; copy of letter dated 20.02.1990 is Mark B; copy of FIR No. 152/08 is MarkC; copy of statement of Sh. M.P. Chauhan recorded in the Court of Sh. Brijesh Sethi is mentioned in the affidavit as MarkD (there is no such document on record); legal notice dated 27.01.2005 is MarkG; postal receipt and UPC receipt are MarkE and MarkF, respectively; certified copy of jamabandi is Ex. PW1/5; certified copy of Will dated 24.08.1994 is Ex. PW1/6; house tax receipt is mentioned in the affidavit as Ex. PW1/7 (there is no such document on record); certified copy of judgment dated 16.12.2005 is Ex. PW1/8; original death certificate of Smt. Ashghari Begum is Ex. PW1/9 and copy of FIR No. 543/1997 is mentioned as Ex. PW1/10, however the same has not been exhibited on record in the examinationinchief of this witness. In his crossexamination, it is stated by him that he is residing at T510, Chamelian Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delih since year, 2003. It is stated that owner of T510, Chamelian Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi had allowed him to deal with the said property and stay therein. It is stated by him that there is no litigation in respect of property no. T510, Chamelian Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. It is stated that he has no other litigation apart from one other case in respect of premises in question. It is stated that he knows the respondent since year, 1994 when his maternal aunt had executed a Will in his favour. It is stated that prior to year, 1994 he had no knowledge about the affairs of property in question. It is stated that the name of his maternal aunt is Smt. Ashghari Begum. It is stated that he has no documentary evidence in his possession to prove that prior to year, 1994 his aunt, Smt. Ashghari Begum was residing in Delhi. It is stated that he has also resided in property bearing no. 8127, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. It is stated that prior to that he was residing in house bearing no. 7958, Bara E79273/16 Page 6/25 Hindu Rao, Delhi. It is stated that he never resided in any other property. It is stated that the witnesses mentioned in the Will, Ex. PW1/6 were known to his maternal aunt, Smt. Ashghari Begum. It is stated that Smt. Ashghari Begum was residing in property bearing no. 8127, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. It is stated that he has purchased the said property bearing no. 8127 from Sh. Raza, however he could not tell the complete name of Sh. Raza. It is stated by him that he has purchased the said property in the year, 199092. It is stated that a sale deed in respect of the said property was executed by the erstwhile owner in his favour. It is stated that he has sold out the said property in the year, 1996 to a lady, however he could not tell the name of that lady. It is stated that he has also handed over original sale deed of that property to that lady. It is stated by him that he is also not having photocopy of the sale deed in respect of property no. 8127 executed in his favour, or the sale deed executed by him in favour of that lady. It is stated that Smt. Ashghari Begum was married, however her husband and two children were killed in the year, 194748. It is stated that from 1948 till 1990 Smt. Ashghari Begum lived in Hasrat Nizamuddin Dargah as she was a religious lady. It is stated that she was not having any permanent address during that period. It is voluntarily stated that Smt. Ashghari Begum used to tell him that she is having Kothi No. 16/325B, Khajur Road. It is stated by him that one Sh. Hazi Abdul Karim was nephew of Smt. Ashghari Begum and one Mohd. Sultan Saluddin was also a relative of Smt. Ashghari Begum. It is stated that Sh. Hazi Abdul Karim was expired and he does not know whereabouts of the family of Sh. Hazi Abdul Karim. It is stated that he does not know whereabouts of the family members of Mohd. Sultan Saluddin. It is stated that his wife Smt. Rashida was murdered. It is stated by him that his children have also expired at the age of 4 and 21/2 years. It is stated that Smt. Rashida was his second wife. It is stated that his first wife namely Smt. E79273/16 Page 7/25 Bushra separated from him without obtaining any divorce. It is stated that his deceased children were born out of the wedlock with Smt. Bushra. It is stated that he know nothing about persons known to Smt. Ashghari Begum. It is stated that he is not having any sibling. It is stated by him that he is not having any connection with his cousins and he know nothing about their whereabouts. It is stated that Smt. Ashghari Begum had never instituted any suit, or proceedings during her lifetime. Though, it is voluntarily stated that she has moved some applications in Government Department, however he does not know in which department those applications were moved. It is stated that as per his knowledge, Smt. Ashghari Begum had never instituted any suit, or proceedings of any type either civil, or criminal. It is stated that he has earlier filed a suit for injunction which was later on withdrawn by him. It is stated that he has also filed a case qua property at Lajpat Nagar which was owned by his mother, however he could not tell the number of the said property, further it is stated that the said case is pending against Mohd. Mirajuddin and some other persons. He could not tell in which Court the said suit is pending. It is stated that there is no other case instituted by him in respect of any other property, except the suit property and property at Lajpat Nagar, however it is again stated that there is a case filed by him pending qua property at Civil Lines which was also owned by his mother. He could not tell the number of that property, or against whom the said case was filed, or in which Court the said suit is pending. It is stated that he has lodged some FIRs against different persons in respect of different properties. It is stated that he has settled the matters against whom he has lodged those FIRs. It is stated by him that he is not having any photograph, or video of Smt. Ashghari Begum, or her family. He could not tell, if Smt. Ashghari Begum was maintaining any bank account, or she deposit house tax in respect of property in question. It is stated by him that Smt. Ashghari E79273/16 Page 8/25 Begum died in property no. 8127, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. It is stated that she was seriously ill at that time. He could not tell who were present when she died. It is stated that Sh. Abdul Aziz, R/o 7960, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi had attended burial of Smt. Ashghari Begum. It is stated that Sh. Abdul Aziz has expired in the year, 200203. It is stated that Smt. Ashghari Begum never treated in any hospital. It is stated by him that he is not having any death certificate, or any other proof in respect of death of husband and children of Smt. Ashghari Begum. He could not tell about brothers and sisters of Smt. Ashghari Begum. It is stated that he was present with Smt. Ashghari Begum at the time of registered of Will, Ex. PW1/6 at the office of SubRegistrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. He could not tell whether Smt. Ashghari Begum, or any member of her family was having Voter ICard, or any other Identity Card, PAN Card, Ration Card, Passport etc. It is stated that original Will, Ex. PW1/6 is in custody of Investigating Officer of FIR No. 152/08, P.S. Dariya Ganj, Delhi. It is stated that he has lodged FIR No. 152/08 against Sh. M.P. Chauhan. It is stated that Sh. M.P. Chauhan has prepared forged and fabricated document in respect of property in question. It is stated that Sh. M.P. Chauhan has shown this witness as vendor/ seller in the said forged deed/ document. It is stated that he has filed a suit for cancellation of the said sale deed which Sh. M.P. Chauhan got prepared. It is stated by him that he could not tell about the outcome of the said suit. It is stated that he never won, nor loose the said case. It is stated that he has settled the dispute with Sh. M.P. Chauhan in FIR No. 152/08 in the Court, but never settled with him in the Civil Suit. He could not tell the reason why he has settled the matter with Sh. M.P. Chauhan in FIR No. 152/08. It is stated that he has not filed any case for cancellation of sale deed against Sh. M.P. Chauhan, however it is voluntarily stated that the case was already pending. It is stated that he has not E79273/16 Page 9/25 purchased any property in Delhi alongwith Sh. M.P. Chauhan. It is stated that he has never taken any money from Sh. M.P. Chauhan by way of cash, or in any other manner. It is stated that the case filed by him against Sh. M.P. Chauhan has been disposed of, however it has not been disposed of by him. It is stated that he went into Mediation in the other suit filed against Sh. M.P. Chauhan wherein that suit was settled, thereafter the suit was disposed of by the concerned Court. However, this witness has filed an application before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to direct Delhi Police to inquire into the matter and FIR was lodged as per directions of Hon'ble High Court. A specific question was put to this witness that the case bearing no. 278/08 titled as Usman Ghani Vs. Mahender Pal Chauhan filed for declaration, or cancellation of sale deed dated 25.01.2007 and for perpetual injunction was disposed of vide order dated 26.03.2013, certified copy of which is Ex. PW1/R1. It is further stated that then another case against the same person titled as Usman Ghani Vs. M.P. Chauhan bearing no. 265/16 (New No. 2496/16) was also disposed of on 18.03.2017, certified copy of which is Ex. PW1/R2 to which this witness replied that these cases have not been disposed of and he reached a settlement with Sh. M.P. Chauhan in FIR No. 152/08, P.S. Daryan Ganj, Delhi. A specific question was put to this witness that property in question bearing no. 16/325B, Khajoor Road/ Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi was allotted to the mother of the respondent namely Smt. Harbans Kaur by the Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi, further she is occupation in that property since 1947 to which this witness replied that he does not know, if this property was allotted to her. It is stated that an another property in Chambor Sahab, District Ropar, Punjab was allotted to the mother of the respondent by Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation. It is further stated that as per E79273/16 Page 10/25 policies of the Government, two properties cannot be allotted to a single person. It is stated by him that he is not aware, if allotment in favour of the mother of the respondent in Delhi has ever been challenged. It is stated that he is not aware about any case filed by Sh. M.P. Chauhan against present respondent. It is stated that he is not aware, if Sh. M.P. Chauhan has instituted two eviction petitions i.e. one U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and another U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act against the respondent qua property in question claiming himself to be the owner by virtue of sale deed dated 25.01.2007. It is accepted by him that FIR No. 402/07, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Delhi was filed against him, Sh. M.P. Chauhan and Others by the respondent. It is stated by him that he has not taken any clarification, or information from the Evacuee Property Cell, Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration qua allotment of suit property in favour of Smt. Harbans Kaur. It is voluntarily stated that he applied for mutation of that property in DDA, Vikas Sadan in the year, 1995. It is stated that on 05.11.2007, the property was mutated in his name by the DDA. Two documents were shown to this witness i.e. MarkA and MarkB to which it is stated by him that he know nothing about document, MarkB and the same might have been filed by his counsel. It is stated that the document, MarkA is a letter issued by Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell and the said document is exhibited as Ex. PW1/R4 being admitted. The document, MarkB which was filed by the petitioner and admitted by the respondent is also exhibited as Ex. PW1/R5. It is stated that he does not know whether he has received reply to notice, Mark G. It is stated that Will of Smt. Ashghari Begum is in respect of two properties i.e. 16/325B and the adjoining property bearing no. 16/325A. It is stated that he has not filed any case against person in occupation of E79273/16 Page 11/25 property no. 16/325A. It is stated that he has not filed such case as that person threatened to abduct me. It is stated that he was abducted in the year, 1997 and that person was involved in that abduction. It is stated that an FIR was registered in that regard and the present respondent was named in the said FIR, however that person was not named in that FIR. It is stated by him that he does not remember the name of the person who had abducted him. It is stated that no one was convicted in the said FIR as the police has closed the same. It is voluntarily stated by him that the case was opened again, however he does not know in which Court the said case is pending. It is denied by him that the property bearing no. 16/325A is also an evacuee property allotted to Sh. Kashi Ram Madan. It is stated by him that he has not filed any suit, or proceedings against Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi, or against Evacuee Property Cell, Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration, New Delhi in respect of properties no. 16/325A and 16/325B, Khajoor Road/ Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is accepted by him that closure report in FIR No. 152/08 lodged by him against Sh. M.P. Chauhan, was filed by the police. It is stated by him that he has no connection with the property bearing no. 8906, Naya Mohalla, Pulbangash, Delhi and there is no case in respect of the said property.
9. PW2 Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana, UDC from office of Sub RegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi has brought the summoned record in respect of Will dated 24.08.1994 executed by Smt. Ashghari Begum, W/o Late Sh. Bisharat Ali in favour of Sh. Usman Ghani which was registered vide registration no. 33198, Addl. Book No. III, Volume 2140, pages no. 75 and 76 registered on 24.08.1994, copy of the same is Ex. PW2/1 (Colly) E79273/16 Page 12/25 (running into two pages).
10. PW3 Sh. Shailendra Kumar Saraswat, SubRegistrar, Birth and Death, City S.P. Zone, Delhi has brought the summoned record in respect of death of Smt. Ashghari Begum, W/o Late Sh. Bisharat Ali. It is stated that as per record, the date of death of Smt. Ashghari Begum is 29.08.1994 and as per registration bearing no. 09, the date of registration is 21.02.1995. It is stated that place of death is 8127, Chinni Mil, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. The extract of copy of the said record is Ex. PW3/1 (Colly) (running into two pages).
11. PW4 Sh. Ramesh Chand, Kanoongo, DDA (Land Section), INA, Delhi has brought the summoned record in respect of mutation register. It is stated that as per record, the mutation in favour of Sh. Usman Ghani, S/o Sh. V.M. Razaullak in respect of property bearing Khasra No. 443/186187, measuring 194 sq. yds., Mauza Karol Bagh, Delhi is dated 05.11.2007, the copy of mutation register is Ex. PW4/1 (Colly) (running into four pages).
12. PW4A Sh. Shakti Singh, Patwari from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (this witness has also mentioned on record as PW4, however now the same has been considered as PW4A) has stated that their office does not maintain any land record/ property being an urbanized area. A letter issued by the SDM in this regard is Ex. PW4/1. At this stage, the document, MarkA has been shown to this witness to which he stated that the said document is the land revenue record (Jama Bandi). It is further stated that this type of record prepared by the office of SDM, however, there is no Jama Bandi/ land record in the Karol E79273/16 Page 13/25 Bagh Zone as the entire area is urbanized.
13. PW5 Sh. Satish Kumar, Judicial Assistant from Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has brought the summoned file bearing no. 357/14 titled as Usman Ghani Vs. Charanjit Singh, decided on 01.06.2015 having Goshwara No. 141/Central District decided by Sh. Jitender Pratap Singh, the then Ld. Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is stated that he has seen the document which was written in Urdu language in the aforementioned file and the same is also photocopy. He has seen the photocopy of the said document which is marked as MarkA (Colly) (running into four pages). On the file, there is certified copy of Jama Bandi, copy of the same is Ex. PW5/1. In his crossexamination, it is stated by him that he does not know Urdu language, therefore he cannot say anything about the document, MarkA. It is stated that as per the record which he has brought, the abovesaid suit was dismissed on 01.06.2015 with cost of Rs. 15,000/.
14. PW6 Sh. Ghanshyam, Junior Judicial Assistant from Record Room (Sessions), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has brought the summoned record in respect of Probate Case bearing no. 01/02 titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. The State bearing Goshwara No. 1372/D decided on 16.12.2005 by the Court of then Ld. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. He has seen the certified copy of the order dated 16.12.2005 from the record of the present case which is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/8.
15. No other witness was examined and the petitioner's evidence was closed.
E79273/16 Page 14/2516. In rebuttal, RW1 Smt. Jasvinder Kaur (daughter of respondent) reiterated the contents stated in written statement. She proved on record Special Power of Attorney executed by the respondent in her favour which is Ex. RW1/A. It is also stated by her that the respondent is owner of the property in question. It is stated that the respondent is residing in the property since year, 1947. It is stated that their possession is uninterrupted since the said property was allotted to mother of the respondent namely Smt. Harbans Kaur by Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation, Delhi Administration, Land and Building Development, Evacuee Property Cell, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi. It is stated that Smt. Harbans Kaur was in possession of property in question since 1947 till her death. It is stated that she had executed certain documents relating to the property which are Ex. RW1/B (Colly). The copy of death certificate of Smt. Harbans Kaur is Ex. RW1/B1. The copies of house tax receipts, electricity bills in the name of the respondent, water bills, telephone bills and Ration Card are Ex. RW 1/C. It is stated that Smt. Harbans Kaur has executed a registered Will dated 30.04.1984 in favour of the respondent. The copy of judgment/ decree dated 02.02.1993 is marked as MarkA. It is stated that in one room situated on the ground floor of the suit property, one Sh. Rajesh, employee of an erstwhile tenant namely Sh. Sunil Kumar Madan, was unauthorizedly residing with his wife from 01.04.2005. It is stated that the respondent has instituted a suit for ejectment and recovery of use and occupation charges against them. It is stated that after filing of that suit, the respondent has obtained possession of the said room. It is stated that one Sh. Sunil Kumar Madan was inducted as tenant in the year, 1983 by the sister of the respondent namely Smt. Indu Ahluwalia in the portion of the suit property E79273/16 Page 15/25 who is using the same as godown. It is stated that one Sh. M.P. Chauhan has also claimed himself to be owner of the property in question by virtue of sale deed dated 25.01.2007 allegedly executed by the petitioner. It is stated that an FIR was also lodged by the respondent against the petitioner, said Sh. Rajesh, Sh. M.P. Chauhan and Sh. Kunj Bihari. It is stated that the alleged Will dated 24.08.1994 of Smt. Ashghari Begum is forged and fabricated. It is stated that prior to execution of sale deed dated 25.01.2007, the petitioner has instituted the present petition against the respondent qua property in question. It is stated that Smt. Ashghari Begum has mentioned two properties in her Will, however the present petitioner has taken action against the present property in question and not against Sh. Tilak Raj who is in possession of other property. It is stated that Sh. M.P. Chauhan had instituted an eviction petition against the respondent which is also pending after succeeded in obtaining an order dated 15.03.2018 in favour of the respondent in Revision Petition filed by the respondent against order of eviction in that petition. The certified copy of order passed in Revision Petition bearing R.C. (Rev.) No. 523/2016 is Ex. RW1/E. It is stated that the petitioner is in habit of instituting false and frivolous cases. This witness has given details of 43 cases including criminal and civil cases, mostly filed by the present petitioner, Sh. Usman Ghani against different persons. All the civil cases as per list, except one are filed by the petitioner against different persons. It is stated that the petitioner has claimed his ownership in one case titled as Usman Ghani Vs. Mohan India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. bearing Suit No. 3051/17, in respect of property bearing no. 7, Court Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, however the said suit has been withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. The certified copies of the plaint/ orders are Ex. RW1/F (Colly). It is stated that in another suit filed by the petitioner against Mohd. Jamil & Anr., E79273/16 Page 16/25 the petitioner has claimed about entering into an agreement with Mohd. Jamil in respect of property no. T510, Gali Qabristan, Chameliyan Road, Delhi110006. It is stated that the said suit has been dismissed by the Court. The computer generated copy of the judgment dated 30.03.2017 is marked as MarkB. The certified coy of record of Transfer Application bearing no. T.P. (C) No. 30284/16 is Ex. RW1/H. In her crossexamination, it is stated by her that her father has moved an application to the department of Evacuee Property Cell, Land and Building, Delhi Government for transfer of the property in his name, after the death of Smt. Harbans Kaur. It is accepted by her that first page of document, Ex. RW1/B is the reply to the application of his father sent by the concerned department. It is stated by her that she is not aware, if case bearing no. 3051/17 titled as Usman Ghani Vs. Mohan India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and another case titled as Usman Ghani Vs. Mohd. Jameel & Anr. have no bearing on the present case. It is accepted by her that the first of such case is qua property no. 7, Court Road, Civil Lines, Delhi and second case is qua property no. T510, Gali Kabristan, Chameliyan Road, Delhi110006. It is accepted by her that the petitioner has sent legal notice dated 17.07.1995 to her father. The notice is Ex. RW1/P1. It is stated by her that her father has filed a petition for probate which was dismissed with cost. This witness exhibited a document as Ex. RW1/BX.
17. RW2 Sh. Mahender Kumar Kanojia, Assistant Section Officer, Delhi Jal Board, Karol Bagh, Tibbia College, New Delhi110005 has brought a letter of Zonal Revenue Officer, CentralII (Water), Karol Bagh, Tibbia College, New Delhi dated 25.09.2018. It is stated that as per the said letter, the old record pertaining to water connection no. 52312 installed in property no. 16/325B, Khajoor Road (Faiz Road), Karol Bagh, New Delhi, E79273/16 Page 17/25 is not available. It is stated that he can identify the signatures of Zonal Revenue Office at Points 'A' & 'B' on the said letter which is exhibited as Ex. RW2/1. He has also brought the computer generated copy of water connection bill installed in property no. 325B, Khajoor Road, Delhi in the name of Sh. Charanjit Singh which is exhibited as Ex. RW2/2.
18. RW3 Sh. Mahesh Chand, Section Officer, B.S.E.S. YPL, Shankar Road Division, Delhi has brought the summoned record i.e. file pertaining to electricity connection bearing K. No. 224254. It is stated that this number is old one and now the number has been changed to CRN No. 1140063841. The copies of the record are exhibited as Ex. RW3/1. It is stated that as per record, the said connection has been installed in the name of Sh. Charanjit Singh.
19. RW4 Sh. Sunil Chauhan, Ahlmad in the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Ld. ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi has brought the summoned record i.e. record of eviction petition bearing E No. 1031/14/08 (New No. 79076/16) titled as M.P. Chauhan Vs. Charanjit Singh. He has seen the certified copies of eviction petition, written statement and the order dated 25.09.2018. It is stated that the same are true resemblance of the record which he has brought. The same are exhibited as Ex. RW4/1 (Colly). He has also brought the record of eviction petition bearing E No. 44/18/14 (New No. 368/18) titled as M.P. Chauhan Vs. Charanjit Singh. He has also seen the certified copies of written statement and the order dated 25.09.2018. It is stated that the same are true resemblance of the record which he has brought. The same are exhibited as Ex. RW4/2 (Colly). Thereafter, on 29.11.2018 this witness has brought the complete record of E79273/16 Page 18/25 eviction petition bearing no. 44/18/14 (New No. 368/18). He has seen the certified copy of eviction petition filed by Sh. M.P. Chauhan and stated that the original eviction petition is the part of the judicial record which he has brought, certified copy of the same is Ex. RW4/3.
20. RW5 Sh. Nagendra Sah, UDC, Land & Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi has brought the summoned record i.e. files pertaining to property no. 16/325B, Khajoor Road (Faiz Road), Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The photocopies of the said files is Ex. RW5/1 (Colly). He has also brought the Evacuee Property Register. The photocopies of page no. 110 of the said register is Ex. RW5/2 (Colly).
21. No other witness was examined and respondent's evidence was closed.
22. The undersigned has heard the arguments and perused the record carefully.
23. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (a) of D.R.C. Act. To succeed on this ground, a petitioner must satisfy the following ingredients :
(i) That there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(ii) That there are arrears of legally recoverable rent;
(iii) That a valid legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent in accordance with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882; and E79273/16 Page 19/25
(iv) That the respondent has neither paid nor tendered the entire arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of date of receipt of legal demand notice.
24. The present petition has also filed U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. The essential ingredients which a landlord/ petitioner is required to prove for the purpose of getting an eviction order U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act for bonafide need 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.
Ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship :
25. The relationship of landlordtenant between the parties is an essential ingredient U/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act as well as U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act further requires that the landlord must be owner qua property in question.
26. In the present matter, the main contentious issue is qua relationship between the parties as well as ownership of the petitioner qua property in question. The petitioner has filed on record a Will executed by Smt. Ashghari Begum on the basis of which property in question was mutated in his name by the DDA. Per contra, the respondent has brought on record certain documents which shows that the property in question was allotted to mother of the respondent, Smt. Harbans Kaur by department of E79273/16 Page 20/25 Evacuee Property Cell, Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration. From perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses examined as well as documents brought before the Court, the undersigned is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to prove his ownership as well as relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties due to the following reasons :
(a) The Will relied up by the petitioner has not been proved as per Section 63 (c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act i.e. none of the attesting witness has been examined in the Court.
(b) Admittedly, the respondent never paid any rent whatsoever to the petitioner. Infact, there is no rent receipt whatsoever issued by Smt. Ashghari Begum qua rent ever received by her from respondent, or his mother.
(c) It is admitted by the respondent that Smt. Ashghari Begum residing at Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah from 1948 till 1990, thus apparently since 1948 Smt. Ashghari Begum was not in possession of the property in question. Per contra, the respondent has filed on record documents/ letters issued by the Evacuee Property Cell, Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration which shows that the property was allotted to Smt. Harbans Kaur, the documents are as follows :
(i) RW1 has exhibited on record documents, Ex. RW1/B (at page no.02) which is a letter dated 03.07.1974 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation, Department of Rehabilitation to Smt. Harbans Kaur qua cost of property in question. The electricity as well as E79273/16 Page 21/25 water connection of that property are in the name of the respondent.
(ii) In documents, Ex. RW5/1 (Colly) brought by Sh. Nagendra Sah, UDC, Land & Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, there is a notification of Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, dated 03.11.1950 whereby the property in question i.e. XVI/325 was declared as an evacuee property. Thus, it is clear that property in question was declared as an evacuee property by the Evacuee Cell. It is admitted position that no case has been filed either by Smt. Ashghari Begum, or by the present petitioner to declare that the property in question is not an evacuee property, or it was wrongly declared an evacuee property. In the same set of documents, Ex. RW5/1 (Colly) there is a letter dated 28.04.1992 sent by Managing Officer from Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell to the respondent wherein it is mentioned that the property in question stands allotted to Smt. Harbans Kaur. This document also contains a letter dated 20.02.1990 sent by the Office of Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell to the respondent seeking payment of balance cost in respect of property in question. This witness also filed on record register of immovable properties maintained by Evacuee Cell wherein it is mentioned that in December, 1947, property no. XVI/325 was transferred to Smt. Harbans Kaur for a sum of Rs. 14,302/.
(d) It is claimed by the respondent that the present petition has sold the property to Sh. M.P. Chauhan on the basis of that alleged Will. Per contra, it is stated by the petitioner that the sale deed was forged and he has filed a criminal case as well as civil case for cancellation of that sale deed. It E79273/16 Page 22/25 is also admitted by the petitioner that he settled both the matters with Sh. M.P. Chauhan without cancelling the said sale deed. This fact is also apparent from the certified copy of order dated 26.03.2013 ( part of Ex. PW 1/R1) passed in case bearing no. 278/08.
(e) Initially, the case of the petitioner was that Smt. Indu Ahluwalia @ Indrajit Kaur was inducted as tenant by Smt. Ashghari Begum, however from the record of Evacuee Cell, it is apparent that the property was allotted to mother of Smt. Indu Ahluwalia @ Indrajit Kaur i.e. Smt. Harbans Kaur. Further, no evidence has been led by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that the property in question was let out by Smt. Ashghari Begum to Smt. Indu Ahluwalia @ Indrajit Kaur. Furthermore, it has not been mentioned when the said property was given on rent. In his crossexamination, the petitioner did not specifically denied allotment of property in question to Smt. Harbans Kaur and her occupation in the property since 1947.
27. In view of abovestated discussions and in presence of above mentioned documents, it can be safely held that the property in question was allotted to Smt. Harbans Kaur in December, 1947. It is also to be noted that the allotment of property in question to Smt. Harbans Kaur in the year, 1947 by Evacuee Property Cell, Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration has not been challenged ever during the lifetime of Smt. Ashghari Begum, even the petitioner has not challenged that allotment. Though, it is claimed by the petitioner that he is nephew/ son of sister of Smt. Ashghari Begum, however this fact could not proved by the petitioner on record, he could not show who were the parents of Smt. Ashghari Begum and his mother.
E79273/16 Page 23/2528. In view of the abovestated discussions, it can be safely held that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove his ownership/ landlordship qua property in question. Per contra, the respondent has been able to prove that the property in question was declared as evacuee property and the property in question was transferred to Smt. Harbans Kaur for a sum of Rs. 14,302/. This fact was again and again admitted by Evacuee Cell by sending letter to Smt. Harbans Kaur, or her legal heirs for depositing the remaining cost of the property. Furthermore, the plaintiff has himself filed two documents on record which are earlier marked as MarkA and MarkB and later on these documents are exhibited as Ex. PW1/R4 and Ex. PW1/R5 sent by Managing Officer from Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department, Evacuee Property Cell clearly suggest that the property in question was allotted to Smt. Harbans Kaur. In these circumstances, the Court holds that the petitioner is not the owner/ landlord qua property in question. Since, the petitioner has not proved his landlordship/ ownership qua property in question, rather the property was allotted to mother of the respondent, hence there is no question arises for payment of any rent by the respondent to the petitioner.
29. It is to be noted that the ownership/ landlordship is also an essential ingredient for proving case U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act which the petitioner has failed to prove. Furthermore, the petitioner has executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sh. M.P. Chauhan on the strength of unprobated Will of Smt. Ashghari Begum which further shows that the petitioner has no bonafide need. Though, the petitioner has filed a case for cancellation of the said sale deed, however he himself settled the said case and did not get the same cancelled, thus the sale deed subsists. Though, it is stated by the petitioner that he is not having any other property, however he E79273/16 Page 24/25 is residing in T510, Chamelian Road, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi110006. He is also dealing with that property, but saying that he has no right over the same. It is also surprising to know that there are 43 cases filed by petitioner against other persons in respect of different properties. It is admitted by the petitioner during his crossexamination that the property no. 8127, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi was in his name. It is stated by him that he has sold the said property to one lady, however he has not filed on record the sale deed executed by him in respect of the said property in favour of that lady. He could not even tell the name of the lady to whom he has sold the said property. Thus, the petitioner has apparently concealing true facts from the Court qua other properties which may be in his ownership, or occupation.
30. In view of the abovestated discussions, the Court holds that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove any ingredient of Section 14 (1) (a) and Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by GAJENDER GAJENDER SINGH
SINGH NAGAR
Date: 2019.02.01 10:13:29
NAGAR +0530
Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
on 31.01.2019 Administrative Civil Judge cum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/31.01.2019
(This judgment contains 25 pages in total)
E79273/16 Page 25/25
E79273/16
31.01.2019
Present : None.
Vide separate judgment, the present eviction petition of the petitioner is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJcumARC (Central) Delhi/31.01.2019 E79273/16 Page 26/25