Delhi District Court
Mst. Gulnar Begum vs Sh. Sohan Pal (Since Deceased) on 12 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH,
SCJCUMRC(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC/ARC NO. 222/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mst. Gulnar Begum
W/o Sh. Sharif Ahmed
R/o 6496, Bara Hindu Rao
Delhi110006.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Sohan Pal (since deceased)
Through his LRs
1. Ms. Rajrani
W/o Late Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o House No.10497,
Hari Chand Chowk, Mankpura,
New Delhi110005
2. Sh. Vikas Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o House No.10497,
Hari Chand Chowk, Mankpura,
New Delhi110005
3. Sh. Naveen Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o House No.10497,
Hari Chand Chowk, Mankpura,
New Delhi110005
4. Ms. Reena,
W/o Sh. Kamal
D/o Late Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o House No.227
Gali No.3, Gali Ravi Das
RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 1 of 30
Shivanpura, Ghaziabad, UP
5. Ms. Anjali
W/o Sh. Arvind
D/o Late Sh. Sohan Pal
R/o House No.2501,
Ghukna Mor, Merath Road,
Ghaziabad, UP
....Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.11.2008
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 09.06.2022
DATE OF DECISION : 12.07.2022
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF THE
TENANT/RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (e)
of DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner Mst. Gulnar Begum under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act against the respondent Sh. Sohal Pal/ LRs seeking their eviction from the premises i.e. property No.10497 forming part of property No.10496 to 10498 (part) Hari Chand Chowk, Manakpura New Delhi110005 as specifically shown in the red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the petition (hereinafter referred to as tenanted property) on the ground of bonafide requirement.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows :
i) The petitioner is the owner of the tenanted property having purchased it from its previous owner vide registered sale RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 2 of 30 deed dated 25.03.1992 which was already let out to the respondent by previous owner at a monthly rent of Rs.10/ excluding other charges for residential purpose and as such respondent became a tenant under the petitioner by operation of law,
ii) The tenanted property comprises of one room, one tin shed and verandah on the ground floor. However, the respondent has unauthorizedly raised construction of one room on the first floor alongwith a staircase without her permission.
iii) The family of the petitioner consists of petitioner, her husband Sh. Sharif Ahmed and three sons namely, Sh. Umar Sharif, aged about 21 years, Sh. Azhar Sharif, aged about 20 years and Sh. Saad Sharif, aged about 17 years. The eldest son of the petitioner is married and the second son is also of marriageable age.
iv) The petitioner and her family members are residing in a tenanted premises comprising of one room, latrine and bathroom in property No.6496, Peer Ji Chowk, Bara Hindu Rao, owned by the legal heirs of the Late Sh. Iqbal Ahmed.
v) The eldest married son of the petitioner is doing business of cardboard and other sons are school/college going and they have no separate rooms for their living and studies.
vi) The petitioner also have no drawing room and dining room in her occupation and legal heirs of Late Sh. Iqbal Ahmed who was also the brother of the husband of petitioner are also pressing hard to get the tenanted property vacated from the RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 3 of 30 petitioner's family which is under the tenancy of her husband.
vii) That three married sisters of the petitioner and two married sisters of her husband and some other near relatives also visit and stay with the petitioner in festival season.
viii) The tenanted property is bonafidely required by the petitioner for her residential needs and she is in the need of at least 10 rooms.
ix) The petitioner has got possession of six small rooms measuring 8 x 10 ft. in property No.1049610498 at different places after eviction orders were obtained against three tenants namely, Smt. Sona Devi, Sh. Gopal and Sh. Tejpal. However, the said rooms are still not sufficient for the petitioner and her family members and the bonafide requirement of the petitioner still subsists.
x) The petitioner and her husband are also the owners of the property bearing No.708187 situated at Beri Wala Bagh, Delhi which is fully occupied by tenants.
xi) That the premises in occupation of the respondent is adjoining to the portion handed over by Sh. Ramesh and is more suitable to the petitioner and her family.
xii) The premises in occupation of the respondent is more suitable to the petitioner for herself and members of her family.
xiii) That apart from the six small rooms, the entire remaining property i.e. property No.1049610498 is occupied by different persons/tenants.
RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 4 of 30xiv) That all the six rooms in possession of the petitioner are very small and less than 100 sq. ft. and are not fit for residence.
xv) The petitioner and her family members are passing very hard days due to paucity of accommodation and neither the petitioner nor any of her family members have any other vacant property in their names. Hence, the present petition.
3. On the receipt of notice of the petition in the form prescribed in the third Schedule of DRC Act, the respondent appeared before the Court and applied for leave to defend. The said application was though dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 01.06.2011, however, the liberty was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 09.04.2015 when the LRs of deceased respondent approached the Hon'ble High Court challenging the said order as in the meantime the respondent had already expired. Accordingly, a WS was filed on behalf of the respondent.
4. In his WS, the respondent has taken the following preliminary objections to the petition of the petitioner:
i) The petition is not maintainable as it does not satisfy the ingredient of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
ii) The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hand and has concealed material facts from the knowledge of the Court.
iii) The petitioner has no cause of action.
iv) The petitioner is not the landlady/owner of the
RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 5 of 30
property in question on account of defective ownership documents as she has alleged to purchase the tenanted property from Sh. Hardeep Kumar Saini who was not the legal attorney of the other legal heirs of the original/erstwhile owner.
v) That originally the respondent's father was a tenant in the aforesaid property consisting of one room and one covered verandah cum kitchen and staircase at ground floor and one room and verandah with kitchen and staircase at the first floor upon area measuring 25 sq. yds. at a monthly rent of Rs.10/ per month in the part portion of property bearing no. 10497 and the respondent is residing in the said property since long time. It is stated that the respondents are residing in the tenanted property under the tenancy of landlord namely Sh. Om Prakash Saini and after his death under his legal heirs. It is further averred that, however, the said legal heirs are also only the landlord of the tenanted property and are not the legal/authorized owner of the same and as such have no right to sell or transfer any portion of the property in question to any third person.
v) The petitioner is the owner and in possession of property bearing No.7848, 8749, 7850, 8751 (old No.708187) in Board No. 13 situated at Beri Wala Bagh, Pulbangash, Delhi06 vide registered sale deed dated 11.04.1994 and she is also having other numerous houses about 10 to 15 in numbers under her ownership in Sadar Bazar, Azad Market, Bara Hindu Rao and Beri Wala Babh, Delh06 and her husband is also a joint owner of RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 6 of 30 property bearing No.6490 and 6496 situated at Bara Hindu Rao Delhi06.
vi) The petitioner is also in possession of seven vacant portions (including rooms, courtyards and bathrooms on the ground floor and first floor) in the property bearing No.10497 which was taken by the petitioner and her associates wrongfully from different persons by use of money, threat, undue pressure and misleading to Court etc.
vii) The petitioner is a housewife and unemployed lady and property purchased in her name are benami properties with defective ownership having no value in the eyes of law.
viii) The husband of the petitioner is a property dealer and alongwith his associates wants to construct a multi storey residentialcumcommercial complex and a mosque upon the tenanted property after demolishing the present structure alongwith an old public temple which exist there which may lead to the situation of communal riots in the area.
ix) The petitioner purchased the property bearing No. 708187 Beri Wala Babh, Delhi06 which is stated to be fully occupied by the tenants and the same fact per se shows that the petitioner has no genuine bonafide requirement else she would not have purchased a property already occupied by the tenants.
x) That as per the information of the respondent, the petitioner, her husband and sons are also having a number of other residential properties at Bara Hindu Rao, Sadar Bazar, Azad RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 7 of 30 Market and other places in Delhi and she and her husband have suppressed and failed to disclose the properties owned and possessed by them.
xi) The present petition is an abuse of the process of the law as there is no relationship of landlordtenant between the parties on account of defective ownership documents of the petitioner. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted property. The tenancy is also stated to be for composite purpose of residentialcumcommercial.
xii) The petitioner has not filed a proper and correct site plan of the tenanted premises in order to mislead the Court. It is averred that property bearing No.10497 is exclusively separated from the other alleged property bearing No.10496 and 10498 and there is a temple and chaupal and store for temple also situated in the property bearing No. 10497 at its entrance which is shown in orange colour in the site plan filed by the respondent, which is under the care and custody of public of area who have been offering their prayers in the temple for long time and as such the question of selling or transferring the said property does not arise at all. It is further averred that the petitioner and her relatives have the intention to destroy/demolish the said temple in order to construct a mosque which may create serious law and order problems like communal riots.
xiii) The entire property including the tenanted premises is a slum area and the permission of the concerned authority of RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 8 of 30 MCD/Slum etc. at the time of alleged sale/purchase was not obtained by the petitioner and as such the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable.
xiv) That about 75% of the space in property no. 10947 where the tenanted premises is also situated, is available with the petitioner and in her possession including its ground, first and second floor since long back apart from the adjoining property bearing No.10496 and 10498 which are also fully vacant property and in her possession, however, the petitioner is not using the said vacant properties since she and her family members are not in need of any vacant space. It is further averred that approximately 250 sq. yds. vacant space is already available with the petitioner in the abovesaid property bearing no. 10496 and 10498, Hari Chand Chowk, Manakpura New Delhi05 apart from other vacant space in other properties situated in Bara Hindurao, Beri Wala Bagh, Azad Market and Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
xv) That one portion of property bearing No.10498 which is alleged to be owned by the petitioner was under the tenancy of Sh. Kundan Lal, which was relet out to Mohd. Naim after the same was vacated by him. However, the said portion has again got vacated from Mohd. Naim and shows that the petitioner and her family members are not in the need of the same as they already have sufficient residential properties in their possession. xvi) That recently the petitioner has given a portion of the temple known as Chaupal on rent to one Sh. Pritam @ Kalu, S/o RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 9 of 30 Late Bal Krishan about one year ago which also shows that the petitioner and her family members are not in need of any residential accommodation.
On merits, the respondent has opposed the petition of the petitioner on the following grounds:
i) It is denied that the premises bearing No.10497 is forming part of property bearing No.1049610498 and averred that they all are different properties. It is also reiterated that there is a temple, chaupal and a store for temple situated in the property No.10497 at its entrance which is under the care and custody of the public of area.
ii) That the ownership of the petitioner is defective as the alleged seller namely, Sh. Hardeep Kumar Saini is not the legal owner and attorney of heir of Late Sh. Om Prakash Saini who was also not the legal heir of Late Sh. Manak Chand Saini and they were also not the actual/legal owners of the tenanted property.
iii) That the respondent was a tenant of Sh. Manak Chand Saini and Sh. Om Prakash Saini, the father of erstwhile owner of the tenanted property and the respondents were not paying any rent to Sh. Hardeep Kumar Saini since more than past 20 years from the date of the filing of the petition and as such the respondent and his family members are in adverse possession of the tenanted property without any kind or hindrance and obstruction from and against the legal heirs of Late Sh. Manak Chand Saini and Sh. Om Prkash Saini. It is further averred that the petitioner has also not given any RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 10 of 30 notice to the respondent about the alleged purchase of the tenanted property from its erstwhile owner.
iv) It is averred that though the erstwhile owner of the tenanted property had given only one room and verandah including bathroom and kitchen alongwith common staircase, but the respondent had constructed the first floor with his own personal funds without any interference and obstruction from the petitioner as he is in adverse possession of the property for past more than 22 years.
v) The petitioner has not given the complete details of the whole property bearing No.10496, 10497 and 10498 and has also not filed the correct site plan and has failed to give the names of other tenants who have been living in the different portions of the property only in order to misled the Court.
vi) It is denied that the petitioner is in need of the tenanted premises for residential accommodation and has no other suitable alternate accommodation to satisfy her need. Other averments of the petition have also been accordingly denied by the respondent.
5. Replication was also filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the averments of the respondent in his WS were denied and averments made in the petition were reiterated.
In his replication while replying to the averments of the respondent, the following submissions were made by the petitioner:
i) It is denied that the ownership of the petitioner over RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 11 of 30 tenanted tenanted property is defective and that there is no relationship of landlordtenant between the parties.
ii) It is denied that the petitioner is the owner of numerous houses about 10/15 in numbers in Sadar Bazar, Azad Market, Bara Hindurao, Beri Wala Bagh etc.
iii) It is also denied that the petitioner is the joint owner of the property bearing No.6490 and 6496 situated at Bara Hindurao. It is averred that the property bearing No.6496 is a tenanted property owned by the legal heir of Late Sh. Iqbal Ahmed and property No.6490 is a shop under the tenancy of the husband of the petitioner.
iv) It is also denied that the petitioner is in possession of the seven vacant portions in property No.10497 or that she intends to construct any multi storey residentialcumcommercial complex or any mosque upon the tenanted premises. The petitioner has also denied the existence of any temple or chaupal at the tenanted property.
v) The petitioner has also denied the averments of the respondent regarding the availability/ownership of the other properties at Bara Hindurao, Sadar Bazar, Azad Market and other places of Delhi.
vi) It is denied that the property No.10496 to 10498 are different premises and is averred that the said properties make a one Katra and property No.10497 is a part of the said Katra.
The other averments of the respondent have also been RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 12 of 30 denied by the petitioner.
6. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that before the petitioner's evidence could be started, the respondent expired. Consequently, on an application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, the LRs of the deceased respondent were substituted in his place and thereafter the petitioner's evidence was recorded.
7. During petitioner evidence, the husband of the petitioner Sh. Sharif Ahmed being attorney holder of the petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW1 and deposed on her behalf. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
8. On the other hand, during respondent evidence, Ms. Raj Rani, the legal heir of deceased respondent deposed in the court as RW1. Further, one official witness namely Sh. Dharender Kumar, Assistant Accountant, PPDL CRD, Bhargarh Store, Delhi was also examined as RW2. Both RW1 and RW2 were also duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
9. I have already heard the final arguments from both the sides and have also gone through the case file very carefully.
10. The present petition is an eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Before proceedings to analyse and discuss the evidence of the parties, it would be apt to go through the bare provision of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. It reads as under; RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 13 of 30 "14. Protection of tenant against eviction, (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: *********************
(e) That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;
Explanation. For the purpose of this clause, "premises let for residential purpose" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;"
11. Thus, in order to succeed in a petition for eviction RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 14 of 30 filed under section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a petitioner must establish that:
i. He is owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him. iii. He has no other reasonable alternate suitable accommodation.
12. Now the Court shall discuss whether on the basis of material available on record, the petitioner has been able to satisfy the abovesaid ingredients or not.
13. Ownership of the petitioner and landlordtenant relationship.
As far as the aspect of ownership of the tenanted property and relationship of landlordtenant between the parties is concerned, though in his WS the respondent has denied the ownership of the petitioner as well as the relationship of landlord, however, since during the crossexamination of RW1, it was admitted that the original respondent i.e. Late Sh. Sohan Pal was a tenant in respect of the suit property and it is the petitioner who is the owner of the tenanted premises, there is no dispute on the said aspect and the relationship of landlordtenant between the parties stands duly established.
RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 15 of 3014. Tenanted premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner and nonavailability of sufficient alternate accommodation.
As already discussed above, the petition of the petitioner is based on the premise that the tenanted property is bonafidely required by the petitioner for the purpose of residential accommodation for herself and her family members who are dependent upon her. The petitioner further states that she is in the need of at least 10 rooms. As per the petitioner, her family comprises of her husband, three sons out of which one is married and two were college/school going (at the time of filing of the petition) who had no separate rooms for their living and studies. It is further her case that her three married sisters and two married sisters of her husband and some other near relatives also visit and stay with them in festival season. The petitioner further submits that currently she and her family is residing in a tenanted property comprising of one room, latrine and bathroom in property No.6496, Peer Ji Chowk, Bara Hindurao and the owners of the said property (though also the legal heirs of late brother of her husband) are also bent upon to remove the petitioner and her family members from the said property. The petitioner further contends that she has no other suitable alternate accommodation to satisfy her needs.
Further, though the petitioner has disclosed that she is in possession of six small rooms measuring 8 x 10 ft. in the same RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 16 of 30 property bearing No.1049610498 (where the tenanted premises is also situated) at different places and is also the joint owner of the property no. 708187, Beri Wala Bagh, Delhi with her husband, however, the said six rooms are stated to be insufficient to satisfy her need on the ground that they are of very small size of 8 x 10 ft. and are situated at different places of the property making them totally unfit for the purpose of residence, and, the property No.708187 is stated to be fully occupied by the tenants.
On the other hand, the respondent has termed the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner as false and baseless on the ground that despite the availability of the alleged six rooms situated at the same premises, the same have not been used by the petitioner till date. Further, it is also contended that the property no. 1049610498 are three different properties and the property No.10496 and 10498 are fully vacant and in possession of the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner is also alleged to be in possession of property bearing no.708187 Beri Wala Bagh, Delhi 110006 apart from other numerous houses about 10 to 15 in numbers under her ownership and situated in Sadar Bazar, Azad Market, Bara Hindurao and Beri Wala Bagh, Delhi06. The petitioner is further stated to be a joint owner of the property bearing No.6490 and 6496 Bara Hindurao, Delhi06 alongwith her husband.
The alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is also disputed on the ground that there exist a temple, chaupal and store RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 17 of 30 for temple at the tenanted premises and the petitioner and her husband who is a property dealer have the intention to construct a multi storey residentialcumcommercial complex at the tenanted premises alongwith a mosque after demolishing the said temple. The respondent has also disputed the site plan of the petitioner stating that the same does not reflect the actual position of the tenanted property. Further, the bonafides in the petition of the petitioner are also questioned on the averment that the one portion of the property bearing no.10498 under the tenancy of one Kundan Lal was relet out to one Mohd. Naim after the same was vacated by Kundan Lal. It is further contended that however, the said portion is now also vacated by the said Mohd. Naim and is available with the petitioner in the form of seventh portion of the tenanted property. Similarly, the bonafides in the alleged need of the petitioner are also questioned on the ground that recently the petitioner has let out a portion of the temple known as chaupal on rent to one Pritam @ Kalu, S/o Late Sh. Bal Krishan about one year ago and which shows that the petitioner and her family member are not in need of any residential accommodation.
15. During arguments, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that since except raising a number of false and frivolous pleas, the respondent has not been able to place on record any supporting materials to substantiate his claim that the bonafide need of the petitioner is not genuine and she is already in possession of the sufficient alternate accommodation, the case of RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 18 of 30 the petitioner stands duly proved and she is entitled to an order of eviction. It is also argued that despite claiming that the petitioner is the owner of numerous houses about 10/15 in numbers in Sadar Bazar, Azad market, Bara Hindurao, Beri Wala Bagh and other places of Delhi, not a single documentary or oral proof to substantiate that claim was placed on record by the respondent. Similarly, the respondent has also failed to prove that the property no.6490 and 6496 are owned by the petitioner or her husband as is claimed. It is further submitted that similarly with respect to property no. 708187, nothing could be proved by the respondent that the said property is lying vacant and available with the petitioner though the ownership of the petitioner and her husband over the same is not disputed. The Ld. Counsel further states that the fact that the property No.6490 and 6496 is tenanted property is also established by way of the rent receipts Ex.PW/R1 and Ex.PW1/R2. Accordingly, it is argued that since except raising bald pleas, the respondent has not been able to show that the bonafide need of the petitioner is not genuine and she is in possession of any alternate suitable accommodation, the case of the petitioner stands proved. Reliance is also placed upon:
i) Smt. Ram Janki and Ors. Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ors., Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 40515 of 2000.
ii) Kashmiri Lal Kataria Vs. Navneet Gupta; 219 (2015) RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 19 of 30 DLT 13A (CN).
iii) Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. Nand Kishore 219 (2015) DLT 9B (CN).
iv) Manju Devi Vs. Pratap Singh 219 (2015) DLT 260.
v) Kailash Chand and Ors. Vs. Chand, 1998 Rajdhani Law Reporter 603.
vi) D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundrarajan, Civil Appeal No.75467547 of 2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
vii) Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Shrivastava (2001) 2 SCC
604.
viii) Chander Mohan Saini and Ors. Vs. Ujjagar Singh and Ors. 2000 (52) DRJ 206.
ix) Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja (2014) SCCR
533.
x) Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh and Anr. Vs. Sudharshan Kumar and Anr., Civil Appeal No.23132 of 2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
xi) Gulshan Rai Monga Vs. Sanjay Malhotra and Anr., 226 (2016) DLT 611.
xii) Anil Kumar Verma Vs. Shiv Rani and Ors., 190 (2012) DLT 130.
RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 20 of 3016. On the other hand, while arguing on behalf of the respondent, his Ld. Counsel has argued that the petition of the petitioner is full of lies and the bare perusal of the site plan per se makes it clear that the description of the tenanted property has not been properly given nor the actual alleged vacant portion available with the petitioner is sufficiently and satisfactorily disclosed by the petitioner. The Ld. Counsel submits that the perusal of the site plan of the petitioner suggests that there are only three portions of the property situated on the ground floor, the extreme upper and lower portion in the site plan are shown to be in the possession of the petitioner and the portion falling in between is shown to be under the possession of the respondent upto its second floor. The ld. Counsel further submits that the site plan of the petitioner does not reflect as to on which side the remaining six vacant portions available with the petitioner are situated. Further, no detail is given as to actually how much number of rooms or portions/spaces actually exist at the property in question. As per the Ld. Counsel, the failure to give such details is a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to misled the Court and to conceal the available accommodation.
The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that as per the copy of sale deed dated 25.03.1992 relied upon by the petitioner Ex.PW1/1 particularly para no.7 thereof shows that at the time of sale there were 15 tenants in the suit property in different rooms and the total size of the property was 345 sq. yds. However, RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 21 of 30 nothing has been disclosed by the petitioner about the abovesaid tenanted rooms except the rooms vacated by tenants namely, Smt. Sona Devi, Sh. Gopal and Sh. Tejpal and the alleged six vacant rooms under her possession. The Ld. Counsel submits that similarly nothing is placed by the petitioner on record to prove that the said rooms are still under the occupancy of any tenants. On the contrary, the absence of their details in the site plan not only makes the identification of the tenanted property difficult but also suggest that the other portion of the property is also lying vacant and available with the petitioner.
The Ld. Counsel further argues that similarly the contradiction in the pleadings of the petitioner where on one hand she claims property No.6490 Bara Hindurao to be a tenanted shop under the tenancy of her husband and on the other hand in the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 the same property has been shown as the residential address of the petitioner clearly suggests that her petition is full of lies. Further, no documentary record is filed by the petitioner to show that who is the actual landlord/owner of the property No.6490 and 6496 which are claimed to be the tenanted properties. It is also argued that as far as the rent receipts relied upon by the petitioner to prove the abovesaid properties as tenanted properties are concerned, since the rent receipts are in Urdu language and no translation thereof was ever filed, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is in possession of the said property as tenant. The ld. Counsel further submits that the malafide in the RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 22 of 30 alleged need of the petitioner is also apparent from the fact that she has claimed to be in need of 10 rooms that too without disclosing as to how and in what manner she will be using the said ten rooms and how her need exceeded to such level as she is allegedly residing/in possession of only one room measuring 15 x 20 sq. ft. alongwith her entire family where they are stated to be residing for past more than 60 years as per the statement of PW1 during his crossexamination. The Ld. Counsel further submits that moreover the claim of the petitioner during the crossexamination of PW1 that she needs at least 10 to 12 rooms that too of an area approximately 3040 sq. yds. would take the need of the petitioner even beyond the available property which is only of 345 sq. yds. Accordingly, it is argued that the petition of the petitioner is false and baseless and she does not require the tenanted property since she is already in possession of residential accommodation. Hence, it is prayed that the petition of the petitioner may be dismissed.
17. Now firstly the Court shall discuss the aspect of the genuineness of the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner. Coming to the first objection of the Ld. counsel for respondent that the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect as the same does not disclose the entire available accommodation with the petitioner as well as the location and measurement of the tenanted premises and other portions not under the possession of the petitioner, admittedly the site plan filed by the petitioner is lacking in providing such details. Further, though the petitioner has objected to the site plan RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 23 of 30 filed by the respondent stating it to be incorrect in her replication, however, no fresh site plan was filed in order to remove the ambiguities with respect to the location and measurement of the tenanted premises as well as the vacant and other portion existing at the subject property and available with the petitioner or occupied by other tenants. Thus, admittedly the site plan filed by the petitioner does not provide a clear picture of the entire subject property consisting of the tenanted premises as well as the other available vacant/occupied portion.
Similarly, the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for respondent that the petition of the petitioner has also failed to provide the details of the vacant and occupied portion of the subject property and the persons/tenants who handed over the same to the petitioner, also has merits as except disclosing about the receiving of possession of three rooms from three tenants namely, Smt. Sona Devi, Sh. Gopal and Sh. Tejpal, the details of other tenants who handed over the possession are also missing in the pleadings as well as evidence of PW1. The petition as well as the evidence of the petitioner is also silent as to how many rooms actually exist at the subject property and how many of them are still occupied and by whom.
It is pertinent to mention here that as per the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner Ex.PW1/1 at the time of the purchase of the property, there were 15 shops situated at the subject property. As such, in the absence of providing clear details of all RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 24 of 30 the rooms existing at the subject property apart from the vacant portions already available with the petitioner, there is a merit in the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has failed to disclose the entire available accommodation at the subject property. It further provides strength to the claim of the respondent that the petitioner is actually in possession of 7 rooms instead of 6 rooms as claimed by the petitioner. In the absence of the details of the entire accommodation available or occupied by the tenants, it is very difficult to believe that the petitioner is only in possession of six rooms admitted by herself in her petition. No detail has been provided by the petitioner with respect to the status of 8 other rooms existing at the suit property as per her own sale deed. Moreover, it is also not pleaded anywhere in the pleadings or during the evidence of PW1 that after the purchase some alterations were done at the suit property so as to render it consisting of less rooms. The site plan, the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the entire testimony of PW1 are totally silent on that aspect.
It is relevant to mention here that the respondent has also taken a plea that the petitioner is in fact possessing 7 rooms at the suit property as one room which was under the tenancy of a tenant Sh. Kundan Lal was relet to Mohd. Naim has been vacated by the said tenant. It is also important to note here that during his crossexamination it was also admitted by PW1 as well that Mohd. Naeem was his tenant though he took a plea that the earlier tenant RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 25 of 30 Sh. Kundan Lal had forcibly given possession of the said room to Mohd. Naeem. However, neither the pleadings of the petitioner nor her evidence or site plan reflects the property which has been vacated by the said tenant Mohd. Naeem. The answer of PW1 during his crossexamination clearly shows that the said tenant is no more a tenant of the petitioner, however, nothing has been specified as to what is the status of the property vacated by the said tenant i.e. whether it is under the possession of the petitioner as claimed by the respondent or was let out to some other tenant after vacation.
Further, even if it is believed that no more rooms than as claimed by the petitioner (6 rooms) or respondent (7 rooms) exists at the subject property and no other vacant portion is available with the petitioner, then also since in her petition the petitioner has claimed to be only in possession of 6 vacant rooms, in view of the nonavailability of the exact details of the subject property i.e. the location and measurement etc. of the vacant and occupied portion of the subject property and details of its occupiers, it is very difficult for the Court to believe and ascertain the actual number of rooms under the possession of the petitioner. Moreover, no detail has been provided w.r.t. the said available rooms i.e. their numbers etc. as well as the other rooms occupied by the other tenants apart from the respondent. Thus, the bonafides of the alleged need of the petitioner can also not be ascertained due to the nonavailability of the abovesaid details. Further, the non RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 26 of 30 explanation as to why the already available vacant rooms have not been utilized by the petitioner till date and how their alleged need expanded to such level (as the petitioner has claimed that she requires 10 to 12 rooms to meet her need), despite the fact that they are residing in the property no. 6496, Bara Hindurao, Delhi comprising of only one room, latrine and bathroom for the past 60 years further creates a serious doubt in the alleged need of the petitioner. Similarly, no explanation as to how the tenanted premises is more suitable when it is approximately of the same size and area as per the own admission of the PW1 during his cross examination and how it is to be used in case the eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner further weakens the case of the petitioner. It is worthwhile to note here that the entire petition of the petitioner is totally silent as to why the already available vacant rooms are not fit for residence and how on the eviction of the tenanted property the same would be made habitable alongwith the already vacant portion. It is only during the crossexamination of PW1 for the first time it was pleaded that after obtaining the possession of the tenanted room, the same alongwith vacant portion under the possession of petitioner would be demolished and new rooms would be constructed. However, due to the lack of details of the construction already existing at the subject property and categorical contention of the petitioner that the available rooms under the possession of petitioner are scattered and existing at different places, the abovesaid contention also fails to convince the RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 27 of 30 Court w.r.t. the bonafides of the alleged need of the petitioner.
18. Now coming to the aspect of available alternate accommodation, the plea of the respondent is that the petitioner is already in possession of property No.708187, Beri Wala Bagh, Delhi110006 as well as other numerous houses about 10 to 15 in numbers under her ownership and situated in Sadar Bazar, Azad Market, Bara Hindurao and Beri Wala Bagh, Delhi110006, and as such she does not require the tenanted property. However, except raising the said plea, nothing has been adduced by the respondent to substantiate such plea as no evidence was placed on record by the respondent to prove that the property no.708187 is actually lying vacant or that the petitioner actually owns the alleged numerous houses about 10 to 15 in numbers in the area of Sadar Bazar, Azad Market, Bara Hindurao and Beri Wala Bagh, Delhi 110006.
Similarly with respect to property no.6496, Bara Hindurao, Delhi110006 which is stated to be the residence of the petitioner, though it was claimed that the said property is in fact owned by the plaintiff, however, no proof, documentary or oral, was placed on record by the respondent to prove that the said property is actually owned by the petitioner. As far as the argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent that since no proof regarding the property being a tenanted premises has been filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the plea raised by the respondent that the said property is owned by the petitioner stands proved, is concerned the RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 28 of 30 same also does not have any merit as the burden to prove and establish the said fact was upon the respondent and not the petitioner. Accordingly, the failure of the petitioner to file on record any proof of tenancy cannot be said to be establishing the fact that the said property is owned by the petitioner. Similarly, the contention of the respondent that in her sale deed Ex.PW1/1, the petitioner has shown property No.6490, Bara Hindurao, Delhi as her residence whereas in the pleadings has claimed the same property to be a tenanted shop under the occupation and possession of her husband and, therefore, the petition of the petitioner is malafide also has no merit as mere mentioning of the abovesaid address of property no.6490 as her residential address in the sale deed does not per se make the petition of the petitioner which is based on the ground of bonafide requirement malafide. Similarly, there is no merit in the other pleas of the respondent that property no. 1049698 are different properties and any temple/chaupal or storeroom exist at the subject property for failure to lead any evidence to establish the said pleas.
19. In view of the abovesaid discussion, the petition of the petitioner stands dismissed. Copy of the judgment be given dasti to both the sides on request.
20. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 29 of 30 Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2022.07.12 on this 12th day of July, 2022 20:54:32 +0530 Sh. Balwinder Singh SCJcumRC: Central District: 12.07.2022 RC/ARC No. 222/2017 Page No. 30 of 30