Delhi District Court
Smt. Joginder Kaur vs (1). Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani on 9 July, 2010
Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN KR. SAHRAWAT,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, DISTRICT NORTH DELHI.
E No. 225/2008
Unique Case ID No: 0241C261092007.
SMT. JOGINDER KAUR
W/o. Sh. Harjinder Singh Bhalla,
R/o. 8749, Rahat Ganj, Roshnara Road
Delhi110007. ...Petitioner.
Versus
(1). SH. GHANSHYAM KODWANI
S/o. Late Gobind Ram
R/o. 8749 Rahat Ganj, Roshnara Road
Delhi110007.
(2). SH. DINA NATH KODWANI
S/o. Late Govind Ram
R/o. C12/101, Second Floor,
SectorV, Rohini, Delhi.
(3). SH. RAJ KUMARI @ RAJU
W/o. Sh. Ram Chander Rohra
R/o. C5/109, First Floor,
Sector V, Rohini, Delhi.
(4). SH. KRISHAN LAL KODWANI
S/o. Late Gobind Ram
R/o. G17A, Lajpat Nagar,
First Floor, Sahibabad, U. P. ...Respondents.
E no. 225/2008 Page 1/14
Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani
Date of institution of the petition : 14/03/2007
Date on which order was reserved : 31/05/2010
Date of Decision : 09/07/2010.
O R D E R
09/07/2010 This is an eviction petition U/Sec. 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as DRC Act).
By this order, I shall dispose of an application made on behalf of respondent U/s 25B of the D.R.C. Act for seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition.
1. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the petition that petitioners is the owner/landlord and respondents are the tenants in respect of one room, one kitchen and common W.C. in the property bearing no. 8749, ground floor, Rahat Ganj, Roshanara Road, Delhi07 more clearly shown in red colour in the annexed Site Plan (in short called "the premises").
2. The premises are let for residential purpose to the respondents @ Rs. 100/ p.m. excluding electricity and other charges. Petitioner has shown her bonafide requirement for the premises in question for use and occupation as residence for E no. 225/2008 Page 2/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani herself and her family members. It is stated that at present accommodation available with the petitioner is four bed rooms, one drawing room, one dinning room, one kitchen, three storeyed bathroom and W.C. in the aforesaid property. That the petitioner/landlady has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available with her. With these submissions, petitioner prayed for grant of an eviction order U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises.
3. In the application for seeking leave to defend, it is stated that there are some triable issues in this case, which , if proved, would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order of eviction in respect of the tenanted premises against the respondents. Thus, the respondents prayed for grant of leave to contest the present eviction petition.
4. I heard the arguments and perused the other material placed on record.
5. Before I advert to the respective contentions of Learned Counsel appearing for either parties, let us discuss the essential ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act on which the petitioner E no. 225/2008 Page 3/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani may be entitled to an order of eviction, as under:
1. That petitioner is the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises,
2. The premises in question were let for residential purposes,
3. The premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for use and occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held; and
4. That the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation;
(1). That petitioner is the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises:
6. It is not disputed that petitioner is the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises.
2. The premises in question were let for residential purposes :
7. It is an admitted fact that the premises were let out for residential purposes to the respondents.
3. The premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for use and occupation for himself or for any member of his family E no. 225/2008 Page 4/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani dependent upon him or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held:
8. In the petition, it is stated that petitioner and her husband are old and senior citizens of 70 years and 74 years respectively and they have been suffering from old age diseases. At present, petitioner is residing on first floor of the property in question alongwith her husband however, they are finding it very difficult to climb on the stairs therefore, they want to shift on the ground floor of the property in question keeping in view their old age and diseases. It is stated that family of the petitioner comprises of her husband, two sons namely Sh. Satender Singh and Sh. Harvinder Singh, two daughtersinlaw named Ms. Ranjeet Kaur and Ms. Kulvinder Kaur and four grand children. Sons of the petitioner and their families are dependent upon the petitioner for the purpose of residence. At present, one son of the petitioner, named Sh. Satender Singh along with his family, is residing with the petitioner. Another son of the petitioner named Sh. Harvinder Singh along with his family has been residing in other tenanted premises in the nd property no. 10/15, 2 floor, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and he wants to live with the petitioner in order to look after the petitioner and her husband.
9. It is further stated that son of the petitioner named Sh. E no. 225/2008 Page 5/14
Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani Harvinder Singh was earlier residing in the property no. 8748, adjoining with the premises in question along with petitioner. However, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation acquired the said property no. 8748 for the construction of the Rail Station and demolished the same. Son of petitioner had no alternative, but to take shelter in the aforesaid rented accommodation as there was no sufficient accommodation in the aforesaid property no. 8749. Besides, petitioner has got number of blood relations and other relatives leaving in and outside Delhi. Married daughter of petitioner lives at Lucknow (U.P) along with her husband and children and as and when she visits Delhi, petitioner finds it difficult to accommodate them in the house. Similarly, the sisterinlaw of petitioner resides outside Delhi and when she visits the petitioner and her husband at Delhi, the petitioner has to face the shortage of accommodation to accommodate them.
10. It is further stated that at present accommodation available with the petitioner is four bed rooms, one drawing room, one dinning room, one kitchen, three stores, bathroom, and W.C. in the said property whereas, the accommodation bonafide required by the petitioner/landlady for herself and her family members and other relatives is as under
- One bed room for petitioner and her husband on the ground floor; E no. 225/2008 Page 6/14
Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani
- One drawing room on the ground floor;
- One dinning room on the ground floor;
- One kitchen on the ground floor;
- One bed room for elder son and her daughter in law on the ground floor;
- One bed room for two children of elder son of the petitioner on the first floor;
- One bed room for younger son and daughter in law on the first floor;
- One bed room for two children of the younger son of the petitioner on the first floor;
- One room for relatives and guests on the first floor;
- One room for performing religious activities and getting Guru Granth Saheb on the ground floor;
- Two stores for keeping the house holds articles on the ground floor and first floor respectively;
11. On the other hand, in the application/affidavit for leave to defend, composition of the family of petitioner has not been disputed by the respondent. However, it is submitted that Site Plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect as one room shown on the ground floor of the Site Plan are infact two separate rooms having different entrances/having partition between them. Likewise, petitioner has E no. 225/2008 Page 7/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani shown room nos. 10 and 11 as drawing room whereas infact room no. 10 as shown in the Site Plan is the drawing room and room nos. 7 & 11 are the vacant rooms. As per the respondents, there are lying as many as four vacant rooms on the ground floor and two vacant rooms on the first floor of the property (as shown in the green colour in the Site Plan filed by the respondent) of which the tenanted premises forms a part for more than 20 years. It is contended that had the requirement as alleged by the petitioner being bonafide and genuine, she could have moved in the said rooms. On the other hand, petitioner denied that four rooms are lying vacant on the ground floor or the two rooms are lying vacant on the first floor of the property. As per the petitioner, accommodation available with her is only of four rooms, one drawing, one dinning room, one kitchen, three stores, bathroom and W.C. in the said property.
12. Having heard the arguments on this point and keeping in mind the large family of the petitioner and their growing needs, I observe that accommodation available with the petitioner is highly insufficient for herself and her aforementioned family members dependent upon her. As per the petitioner, she requires one bed room for herself and her husband, one drawing room, one dinning room and one kitchen on the ground floor, two separate bed rooms E no. 225/2008 Page 8/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani for her sons and their wives, two separate bed rooms for her grand children, one guest room for visiting daughters and other relatives and one pooja room, study rooms and stores etc. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, even if the submission of respondents with regard to accommodation available with the petitioner is assumed as true and correct in that case also, I observe that petitioner has successfully shown her bonafide requirements for the use and occupation of the tenanted premises for herself and for her family members. On this, I am supported by various rulings of the Hon'ble Higher Courts, for example, in the case of Pravin Sarin v. Manbir Singh & Others, 20 (1981) DLT 61, our own Hon'ble High Court was of the view that:
"Minimum requirement Separate bed rooms for self and wife, sons and daughter as also for guests e.g. married daughter Landlord being of status, e.g. Advocate, his need for drawing and dining rooms also valid."
Similarly, in the case of K.C. Chopra v. Satyapal Chadha 1971 RLR (Rent) 578; it was held that: "The landlord wanted separate room for dining and sitting need cannot be termed as whimsical or fanciful."
13. The petitioner has also shown the requirement for a guest room for her married daughter and her family, who frequently visit and stay with the petitioner. I find the need of a guest room as E no. 225/2008 Page 9/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani bonafide requirement as in the case of Tilak Raj Vs. Krishan Lal 1982. RLR (Note) 33; it was held that: "The married daughters keep on visiting their father's home and are entitled to some accommodation (Guest room) and hence landlord was entitled to say that he wanted some accommodation for their use also."
14. Further, I observe that claim of the petitioner for a Pooja Room is also a bonafide requirement. In the case of Mahendra Trivedi v. Jai Prakash Verma 157 (2009) DLT 690; it has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court that: "It is settled law that each member of the family requires atleast a comfortable place where he/she can sleep.. There are around 09 members in the family existing and the landlord has no separate Pooja Ghar with him. It is settled law that neither the Court nor the tenant can dictate to the landlord the mode and manner in which he should live or to prescribe for him the residential standard on their own. The landlord must be left to assess his requirement in the background of his position, circumstances and status in the life and social and other responsibilities and other relevant factors. In judging his special needs and convenience, certainly the landlord would have a choice."
Besides, in the case of Sudesh Kumari Soni & another vs. Prabha Khanna & another 153 (2008) DLT 652; it was observed that: "It is not for tenant to dictate terms to landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premises suitability has to be E no. 225/2008 Page 10/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani seen from convenience of landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habit and background."
15. Keeping in mind the composition of the family of the petitioner and her aforesaid bonafide requirements, I observe that the accommodation available with the petitioner is highly insufficient to meet the growing requirements of her family and thus, she has bonafide need for acquiring the tenanted premises for use and occupation as a residence for herself and for the members of her family dependent upon her.
4. That the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation:
16. In the application for leave to defend, it is alleged that petitioner owns three properties in Delhi, out of which one is situated at 8478, Rehat Ganj, Roshanara Road, Delhi adjacent to the property of tenanted premises. The second property is at E67, Dilshad Garden, Delhi and similarly, third property allegedly is situated at 19/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi110007; admearusing 400 sq. yds. On the other hand, petitioner denied that she is owning any of the aforesaid properties. I find no force in the plea of respondents with regard to E no. 225/2008 Page 11/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani alternative accommodation available with the petitioner on account of the fact that respondents have not placed a single material/document before this Court to substantiate their averments and in the absence of any material/document, bare assertions cannot be taken into serious consideration as per settled law. In the case of Mukesh Kumar v. Rishi Prakash 2009 (2) RCR 485; it was held that "A bald statement without anything more is no ground to grant leave to defend."
Similarly, in the case of Sh. Rajender K. Sharma & Ors. v. Leelawati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383; it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that: "Leave to defend not to be granted to tenant on the basis of false affidavit and false averments and assertions only those averments in affidavit are to be considered by Rent Controller which have some substance in it and are supported by some material."
17. Conversely, in the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner filed a certified copy of the judgment dated 23/03/2009 titled as Sh. Prakash Chand v. Sh. Hanuman Prasad Goel passed by this Court, wherein the eviction order was passed U/Sec. 14(1)(a) and
(h) of the D.R.C. Act in connection with the respective parties in the said petition in respect of the aforesaid property i.e. 19/5, Shakti E no. 225/2008 Page 12/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani Nagar, Delhi. It clearly shows that respondents have made false statement in their affidavits. It is a settled principle of law that a litigant appearing before the court with malafide intention and ulterior motives or his/her false affidavit should not be entertained by the Courts and it must be thrown out at the very initial stage. On this, I am supported by various case law authorities, for example, in the case of Shanker Lal v. Thambu Ram 2000 RLR (Note) 17; in which it was held that " Delhi Rent Control Act, S. 14 (1) (e) r.w. S. 25 B. A tenant who goes to the extent of denying landlord's daughter becoming widow and raises wrong pleas through filing a Site Plan is not entitled to leave to defend. There has to be some limit to ingenuity of tenant's defence."
18. In the wake of above, plea of the respondent with regard to alternative accommodation available with the petitioner is found false and baseless and not tenable in the eyes of law, hence rejected.
19. In the light of above discussion, I hold that the respondents have failed to raise any triable issue in his application for leave to contest the present eviction petition, which would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining the eviction order in her favour. Thus, the present application U/s 25B for seeking leave to defend having E no. 225/2008 Page 13/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani no merits, is dismissed. Hence, an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one room, one kitchen and common W.C. in the property bearing no. 8749, ground floor, Rahat Ganj, Roshanara Road, Delhi07 more clearly shown in red colour in the annexed Site Plan. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 9th July, 2010. Tarun Kr. Sahrawat A.R.C.(North)/Delhi (1+2 separate copies are attached) E no. 225/2008 Page 14/14 Joginder Kaur V. Sh. Ghanshyam Kodwani E No. 225/2008 SH. JOGINDER KODWANI VS. SH. GHANSHYAM KODWANI & ORS. 09/07/2010.
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Vide my separate order of even date, the present application U/s 25B for seeking leave to defend having no merits, is dismissed. Hence, an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one room, one kitchen and common W.C. in the property bearing no. 8749, ground floor, Rahat Ganj, Roshanara Road, Delhi07 more clearly shown in red colour in the annexed Site Plan. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act. File be consigned to Record Room.
Tarun Kr. Sahrawat A.R.C. (N)/ Delhi.
E no. 225/2008 Page 15/14