Delhi District Court
R.C. Nanda vs Karamjit Singh on 18 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM-CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Dev Chaudhary, DJS
RC ARC No. -: E153/2011 & 26209/2016
Unique Case ID -: DLWT030003062010
In the matter of -
R.C. NANDA (since deceased), through LRs-
A. Smt. Neelam Nanda
B. Sh. Rajat Nanda
C. Ms. Nidhi Nanda
All R/o B-70, Oriental Apartments,
Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi- 110085
......... Petitioners
VS
1. SH. KARAMJIT SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Lajpat Singh,
R/o 5-B/11, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
2. SMT. RANJIT KAUR (deceased through Respondent no. 3)
W/o Late Sh. Jagmohan Singh R/o 5-B/11, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
3. SH. TARVINDER PAN SINGH (Ex-parte) S/o Late Sh. Jagmohan Singh R/o 5-B/11, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi
4. SH. SURENDER PAL SINGH (Ex-parte) S/o Late Sh. Lajpat Singh R/o 5-B/11, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi ......... Respondents
1. Date of Institution : 03.06.2010
2. Date of Reserving Order : 28.11.2024
3. Date of Decision : 18.12.2024
4. Decision : Dismissed RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 1 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:26 +0530 Argued by -: Sh. Rohit Kumar Modi, Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. Sanjay Sawhney, Ld. counsel for the respondent no. 1.
Respondent no. 3 and 4 are ex-parte.
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND -
INDEX -
HEADING PARA No.
1. Petition 2-2.2
2. Leave to defend application 3-7
3. Arguments 8-10
4. Analysis 11-36
- Ownership 13-16
- Landlord-Tenant Relationship 17-21
- Bonafide Requirement 22-29
- Other Accommodation 30-31
- Other Issues 32-36
5. Conclusion 37-43
1. This order adjudicates the application for leave to defend filed by the respondent no. 1 Sh. Karamjit Singh (hereinafter, "respondent") under Section 25B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "the Act").
PETITION -
2. Briefly stated, the present eviction petition has been filed by petitioner R.C. Nanda (since deceased, represented by three LRs) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground of bonafide requirement. It is averred in the petition that the premises (as highlighted in red in the site plan) comprised in residential property No. 5-B/11, Tilak Nagar, Delhi having three rooms, one RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 2 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 kitchen, two verandas, latrine, two open court yards, bathroom and passage (hereinafter, "the premises in question") were taken on rent by the father of the respondent.
2.1. It is averred in the petition that the premises in question were let out to the father of the respondent in the year 1978 for a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- (without electricity and water charges). No rent agreement was executed between the parties.
The petitioner has claimed that the premises in question are required by the petitioner as the petitioner does not have sufficient accommodation. It is averred that the family of the petitioner consists of him, his wife, his son and daughter. Both the children are adults, requiring separate rooms. It is mentioned that one bedroom atleast is required for the petitioner and his wife, one room for guests, one room for pooja, apart from kitchen and bathroom. It is averred that the petitioner does not have any residential accommodation and the accommodation of the petitioner at Rohini consists of only two bedrooms. 2.2. It is averred that the respondent is in possession of the entire premises in question and the petitioner is facing great hardship on account of non-availability of accommodation. It is mentioned that the mother of the petitioner was owner of the premises in question and after her death on 29.12.1990, all other legal heirs executed a relinquishment deed dated 13.08.2004 in favour of the petitioner, and he became sole owner of the premises in question. As such, it is prayed that the eviction of the tenant may be ordered.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION -
3. Prior to filing of the present application, vide order RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 3 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:26 +0530 dated 03.06.2010, notice was issued to the respondent as per the form specified in Third Schedule of the Act. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 14.07.2010, it is noted in the ordersheet that the leave to defend application was already filed by the respondent. As per record, the application was filed on 21.06.2010, after the respondent was served on 15.06.2010. There is no dispute at Bar that the leave to defend was filed within the prescribed period.
4. In the affidavit seeking leave to defend, the respondent has claimed that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not filed any document to show the respondent or his father have ever been a tenant of the petitioner. It is averred that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. It is mentioned that three families of the respondent persons are in possession of the premises on rent in separate portions and these persons are necessary parties to this case. It is averred that the respondent is not in possession of the entire premises and the site plan submitted by the petitioner is not correct. 4.1. It is further mentioned in the application that the petitioner is not the lawful owner of the premises in question and contradictory averments have been made in the petition as the petitioner has shown the residence of mother of the petitioner as the premises in question in the relinquishment deed while claiming that the premises have been under occupation of the respondent since long. It is mentioned that the petitioner has never claimed any right to the property since 1975 and the respondent has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession. 4.2. It is averred that the mother of the petitioner had received consideration of the said house from the family of the respondent and no rent or damages were claimed in good faith RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 4 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:26 +0530 from them. It is mentioned that the despite changing structure, no one from the family of the petitioner has objected to the same. It is mentioned that the petitioner has concealed the factum of issuance of notice on 29.03.2010 and the petitioner has more constructed accommodation available with him. As such, it is prayed that leave to defend be granted to the respondent.
5. In reply to the application for leave to defend, the petitioner has averred that notices were issued to the respondent and his two brothers, and the notices issued to the brothers were received back unserved. It is mentioned that the respondent failed to pay the rent despite notice. It is mentioned that on enquiry, it came to fore that only the respondent is residing at the premises with his family, and as such, only the respondent was made a party to this case. It is mentioned that the respondent has changed his defence in the application itself. The averments of the respondent on merits have been denied.
6. At this juncture, it is also apposite to note the subsequent events which have come on record via a separate application under Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent. In the application, the respondent has mentioned that the daughter of the petitioner, namely Nidhi, has married and has acquired other properties. It is mentioned that the flat in which the petitioner has been residing at Rohini has been renovated by way of additional construction and MCD has also surveyed this fact. Further, the claim of the respondent is that the respondent is not in possession of the premises in question and the wife of the petitioner had also filed a civil suit against one Kavita in 2023 qua the premises in question.
7. In reply to this application, the petitioner has pleaded RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 5 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:26 +0530 that the daughter of the petitioner used to stay with her mother, on account of her medical condition, and requires a separate room for herself. It is mentioned that there is no scope of construction in the Rohini flat and the petitioner has claimed that the bonafide requirement is to be seen on the date of petition. It is mentioned that the respondent has prepared forged and fabricated documents qua the property in question and FIR No. 371/2024 PS Tilak Nagar under Section 419/420/467/468/471/120B/34 IPC has been registered against the respondent in this regard.
ARGUMENTS -
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both parties at length and have given my thorough consideration to the material on record. Learned counsel for the parties have argued in line with the written pleadings. Written arguments have also been filed alongwith judgments.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been deprived of the right to enjoy his premises for the last 14 years. It is argued that the respondent himself has taken different versions in the application by claiming himself to be purchaser on one hand and claiming ownership on basis of adverse possession on the other hand. He has argued that the rights of the parties crystallize on the date of the petition and each and every subsequent event cannot be considered to determine the application, which has to be decided on the basis of the petition, affidavit and annexed documents. It is argued that in case the respondents claim that they are not in possession of the premises, they should surrender possession before the Court. Learned counsel has argued that the respondent is dragging the matter on RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 6 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 one pretext or other and he prays that the application be dismissed. He has relied upon Khanna & Annadhanam vs. S.C Kaneja 2024 (1) CLJ 511 (Del), D. Sasi Kumar vs. Soundararajan AIR 2019 SC 4525, Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava AIR 2001 SC 803, Ram Chander vs. Ram Pyari 2004 Rajdhani Law Reporter 188, Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi 157 (2009) DLT 450, Meenakshi vs. Ramesh Khanna 60 (1995) DLT 524, Rajender Kumar Sharma vs. Leelawati 155 (2008) DLT 383, Bhagwati vs. Vijay Rani 169 (2010) DLT 597, Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta VI (1999) SLT 163, K.D. Gupta vs. H.L. Malhotra 1992 Rajdhani Law Reporter 323, Sudarshan Dutta vs. Krishan Narain 1997 Rajdhani Law Reporter 534, Bulaqi Ram vs. Suraj Bhan 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter 93, Maya Devi vs. Amar Singh 1998 Rajdhani Law Reporter 523, Kailash Chand vs. Chand 1998 Rajdhani Law Reporter 603, Avtar Singh vs. Gurbax Singh 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporter 571, Ram Chembeli vs. Surjan Kaur 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporter 501, Smt. Prabhu vs. K. Sharma 1997 Rajdhani Law Reporter 242, Mast Ram vs. Suresh Kumar 1997 Rajdhani Law Reporter 476, Rajinder Kumar vs. Tarun Verma RC Rev. No. 103/2015 (DHC) in support of his contentions.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the application is misuse of process of law. It is argued that the petitioner has claimed that the premises was rented out to the father of the respondent at monthly rent of Rs. 400/- in the year 1978, however, no evidence has been placed on record. It is argued that there is no rent receipt as well to show that any rent was paid by the respondent. It is argued that in fact, the respondent had purchased the premises in question from the mother of the petitioner and Rs. 400/- was towards the consideration amount, RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 7 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:26 +0530 and not rent. It is argued that there is no averment in the petition qua alternative accommodation and the petitioner has suppressed facts in the petition. It is argued that the subsequent facts disentitle the petitioner any relief as the daughter of the petitioner has married and moved out, the petitioner himself has expired, and the petitioner has constructed additional rooms in his property. It is argued that the case of the petitioner is at most of additional requirement and not bonafide requirement. He has relied upon Punjab Stainless Steel House vs. Sangeeta Kedia CM(M) No. 1354/2011 (DHC), Vinod Kumar vs. Vinay Kumar Verma RCT No. 27/17 (District Court, Delhi), G.C. Khann vs. Electric Construction and Equipment 139 (2007) DLT 128, Sri Pal Jain vs. Brij Kishore 22 (1982) DLT 137, Khem Chand vs. Arjun Jain RC Rev. No. 442/2012 (DHC), Beena Devi vs. Jagdamba Prasad Yadav RC ARC No. 90/17 (District Court, Delhi), Hakam Singh vs. Jagat Singh DLT 15 (1979) 117, Kanta vs. Goverdhan Dass Daga CIS No. 908/17 (District Court, Delhi), Santosh Devi Soni vs. Chand Kiran Civil Appeal No. 412/2000 (DHC), Rajbir Pal vs. Kanwar Pratap Singh RC Rev. No. 209/2010 (DHC) in support of his contentions.
ANALYSIS -
11. The provision under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is an exception to the regular mode of eviction as prescribed under the Act and the landlord has to prove the twin conditions of bonafide requirement and unavailability of alternate suitable accommodation in order to succeed in such a petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abuid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua AIR 2022 SC 1778 has observed in this regard, inter-alia, as under-
RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 8 of 21 Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18
12:20:28
+0530
"12. Section 14(1)(e) carves out an exception to the regular mode of eviction. Thus, in a case where a landlord makes an applica- tion seeking possession of the tenanted premises for his bona fide requirement, the learned Rent Controller may dispense with the protection prescribed under the Act and then grant an order of eviction. Requirement is the existence of bona fide need, when there is no other "reasonably suitable accommodation". There- fore, there has to be satisfaction on two grounds, namely, (i) the requirement being bona fide and (ii) the non availability of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Such reason- ableness along with suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant. When the learned Rent Con- troller comes to the conclusion that there exists a bona fide need coupled with the satisfaction that there is no reasonably suitable residential accommodation, the twin conditions mandated Under Section 14(1)(e) stand satisfied."
What is meant by a bonafide need has been elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999 INSC 364 in the following words -
"A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts should place himself .in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself- whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited .for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one. but the other accommodation RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 9 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against"
12. In order to succeed in the present petition, the landlord is mandated to show that he is owner of the property and that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Further, the landlord has to show bonafide need of the premises and the fact that there is no other suitable alternate accommodation available to him. Once these essential ingredients are proved, the petition succeeds. The parties have addressed arguments on these ingredients in detail. The same are discussed in the following paragraphs.
OWNERSHIP -
13. In the petition, the petitioner has mentioned that the mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Shanti Devi was the owner of the premises in question, and after her demise in the year 1990, the petitioner became owner of the property by virtue of a relinquishment deed executed by the other legal heirs of late Smt. Shanti Devi in his favour. A copy of the relinquishment deed has been filed with the record, which conveys the property in favour of the petitioner. This relinquishment deed is a registered document.
14. The respondent, however, has refuted this claim by putting forth two different claims. It is mentioned in the leave to defend application that the respondent has become owner of the property by way of adverse possession as no claim has been made to the premises in question by the family members of the property of the petitioners since 1975. However, this fact is not supported by any material whatsoever. Adverse possession has requirement of RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 10 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 three classical ingredients, nec vi, i.e., adequate in continuity; nec clam, i.e., adequate in publicity; and nec precario, i.e., adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and knowledge. There is nothing to show that the possession of the respondent fulfills these three ingredients co-jointly. Animus to possess is also an essential ingredient of any claim for adverse possession and the original owner should be in knowledge of such claim. However, no such material has been produced on record by the respondent.
15. In fact, the respondent has himself contradicted his stand in the application by stating that the premises in question has been purchased from the mother of the petitioner and she has already received consideration amount qua the premises in question. Thus, on one hand, the respondent has claimed ownership on account of purchase of the property while on the other hand, he also claims ownership on basis of adverse possession. These mutually destructive pleas do not help the case of the respondent in any manner. There is no documentary evidence qua both the claims of the respondent. Further, ownership of immovable property cannot be transferred orally.
16. Impliedly, the respondent has acknowledged that the mother of the petitioner was owner of the premises in question. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is legal heir of the owner of the property and the only objection is that the relinquishment deed does not bear correct address of the mother of the petitioner. Since both the parties trace ownership via mother of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that he is owner of the premises in question and that he has better title to the property than the respondent. Reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 11 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:26 +0530 Delhi in Satpal Sharma vs. Sadhna Arora 2024 DHC 4296, wherein it was held, inter-alia, as under -
"7. It is settled legal position that in the proceedings of the present nature, the eviction petitioner is not required to establish absolute title over the subject premises. What is required to be established by the eviction petitioner is a title better than that of the tenant."
Similar observations have been made in Rajender Kumar Sharma supra. In view of the above, the petitioner has been able to show his ownership of the premises in question in this case and the fact that he has better title than the respondent.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATION -
17. The petitioner has claimed that the father of the respondent was the original tenant, who was rented the premises in question way back in the year 1978 for a monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the tenancy was an oral tenancy.
18. The respondent while denying landlord-tenant relation, has claimed that there was no such relation either in their ancestors or the parties. As already noted above, the respondent has claimed ownership of the property. In this regard, while there is no bar to an oral tenancy, it is settled that immovable property cannot be conveyed orally. Given the fact that the tenancy was initiated long time ago, it is not out of ordinary to say that no written document was executed. Similarly, the whole case of the petitioner cannot be doubted only because no rent receipt was placed on record.
19. In fact, it is the version of the respondent that has done more harm than good to the respondent. In the leave to defend application, the respondent has not made any whisper as to in what capacity his father was inducted in the premises in question. While it is categorically denied that there was any relation of landlord- tenant between the parties, there is no assertion as to under what RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 12 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 circumstances the family of the respondent was inducted in the property. In paragraph no. 9, the respondent has only stated that the mother of the petitioner had received consideration qua the property and no rent was claimed. However, this assertion is evasive. Whether the initial possession was in capacity of a tenant, licensee, purchaser or in any other capacity has not been clarified by the respondent anywhere.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that this Court should take judicial notice of the fact that in the year 1978, the rent of Rs. 400/- per month, as claimed by the petitioner, is unusually high for rent of a flat. He submits that infact, this amount was the consideration amount for the flat in question, which was given to the mother of the petitioner. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that this amount is unreasonably high for monthly rent in the year 1978 and it can be construed as consideration amount for the whole flat.1 Further, there is no specific pleading of the respondent to this effect.
21. Thus, the fact that the respondent was inducted into the premises in question by the ancestor of the petitioner is not denied and since there is no cogent rebuttal to this fact by the respondent, this fact is also established by the petitioner. It can be safely held that the landlord-tenant relationship has been established and no triable issue in this regard is established by the respondent.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT -
22. The petitioner has sought eviction in this case on the ground that the premises in question is required by him for his 1 Still, in order to test this claim, I asked ChatGPT to use official CPI data of inflation to find out equivalent of Rs. 400 in the year 1978 to that in 2024. The answer is around Rs. 5000/-, which can not be an amount for consideration of immovable property.
RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 13 of 21 Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18
12:20:28
+0530
family. It is mentioned in the petition that the petitioner resides in a two-bedroom flat in Rohini and he is in requirement of the premises in question since separate rooms are required for him and his wife, his son, his daughter, guests and a pooja room. In reply, the respondent has only mentioned that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation, and he has "more constructed" accommodation available with him.
23. In my opinion, the petitioner has given sufficient grounds in the petition for his bonafide requirement. He has detailed that his adult children require separate rooms each, and other rooms are required to attend guests and for religious purposes. The reply of the respondent is inadequate on this aspect, and it does not highlight what other alternate accommodation is available with the petitioner. There are no details of the property that the petitioner has available with him. The respondent has baldly asserted that the petitioner has more space with him.
24. It is only by way of the application for placing on record subsequent events that the respondent has, in the year 2024, i.e. after 14 years of filing of the petition, pleaded certain facts in this regard. It is to be considered as to what extent these circumstances can be considered in this case.
25. The law is settled that the Court is required to see the bonafide need existing on the date when the petition is filed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Sasi Kumar vs. Soundararajan 2019 INSC 1071 has observed as under -
"11. Further the High Court has also erroneously arrived at the conclusion that the bonafide occupation as sought should be not only on the date of the petition but it should continue to be there on the date of final adjudication of rights. Firstly, there is no material on record to indicate that the need as pleaded at the time of filing the petition does not subsist at this point. Even otherwise such conclusion cannot be reached, when it cannot be lost sight that the very judicial process consumes a long period and because RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 14 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 of the delay in the process if the benefit is declined it would only encourage the tenants to protract the litigation so as to defeat the right. In the instant case it is noticed that the petition filed by the landlord is of the year 2004 which was disposed of by the Rent Controller only in the year 2011. The appeal was thereafter disposed of by the Appellate Authority in the year 2013. The High Court had itself taken time to dispose of the Revision Petition, only on 06.03.2017. The entire delay cannot be attributed to the landlord and deny the relief. If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time lapse in the judicial process coming to an end. This Court in the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, MANU/SC/0089/2001 : (2001) 2 SCC 604 has held that the landlord should not be penalised for the slowness of the legal system and the crucial date for deciding the bonafide requirement of landlord is the date of application for eviction, which we hereby reiterate" (emphasis supplied by me). It is natural for the position the parties to change with time. Each family and the circumstances of the family change with time. Since this application has taken 14 years to be decided, it is obvious that changes took place in the family of the petitioner and even the petitioner himself expired during the rigmarole of this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that delay in judicial proceedings cannot be a tool for the tenant to escape eviction.
26. In this case, as noted above, from the petition and the leave to defend application, the landlord has been able to demonstrate his bonafide requirement of the premises in question and the respondent has failed to impeach it in any manner.
27. However, given that some subsequent developments are on record, these also have to be considered to ascertain if the tenant is entitled to take benefit of the same. In Nidhi vs. Ram Kripal Sharma AIR 2017 SC 814, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, inter-alia, as under -
"15. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a number of decisions. In Om Prakash Gupta v.
RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 15 of 21 Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18
12:20:27
+0530
Ranbir B. Goyal MANU/SC/0035/2002 : (2002) 2 SCC 256, this Court held as under:
11. The ordinary Rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted;
(ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or changed circum- stances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice be- ing done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the Rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General TradersMANU/SC/0415/1975 : (1975) 1 SCC 770 this Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the court cannot be blinked at. The court may in such cases bend the Rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or Rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circum- stances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned: (i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the decretal remedy, (ii) Rules of procedure may be bent if no specific provision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circumstance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cognizance of subsequent events and develop- ments should be cautious, and (iv) the Rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed. Om Prakash Gupta's case was referred with approval in Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (Dead) MANU/SC/7670/2007 : (2007) 5 SCC 660.
16. Though the court has the power to take note of the subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent develop- ment on the bona fide need of the landlord. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need of the landlord, com- parative hardship to the parties will have to be taken into consid- eration." (emphasis supplied by me) It is in this light the subsequent events pleaded by the respondent are to be considered and this Court can take cautious cognizance of these circumstances.
28. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the daughter of the petitioner has married during the RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 16 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 pendency of this case and has acquired other properties after shifting out of the house of the petitioner. In this regard, even if the daughter of the petitioner got married with time, the tenant cannot pre-suppose that she has no remaining connection with her paternal home. In reply to the application for taking on record subsequent events, the petitioner has claimed that the daughter of the petitioner stays with her mother to take care of her, and requires a separate room. Thus, even if the daughter was married, she may remain dependent on her mother for residential needs, given that she may attend her mother in her old age. This fact in itself cannot non-suit the petitioner.
29. Therefore, the record suggests that even after death of the original petitioner, the wife of the petitioner, her son, her daughter would require separate rooms and given that there is requirement of a guest room and a pooja room, I find that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate bonafide requirement of the premises in question. This requirement cannot be termed as additional requirement, and the tenant cannot dictate in what manner the landlord is to enjoy his property. It cannot be said that the petition is only a pretense to oust the tenant from the property as the family circumstances of the petitioner clearly demonstrate the need for the premises in question. Further, the tenant shall always have the benefit of Section 19 of the Act, in case the landlord fails to occupy the property in question or re-lets the same. The only aspect remaining to be seen is the availability of any reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.
OTHER ACCOMODATION -
30. As a subsequent event, learned counsel for the RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 17 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:27 +0530 respondent has urged that since the petitioner has constructed additional spaces in the flat at Rohini, there is adequate accommodation available to the petitioner in the same premises where they are residing. He has relied upon a document, which is a "standard format for monitoring of complaint under Special Task Force" and some photographs to argue that the petitioner already has ample space.
31. The document relied upon by the respondent apparently gives status of a complaint filed by one Ranjit Kaur in the year 2020, which pertains of the Rohini flat of the petitioner. As per the document, a survey was conducted and unauthorized construction was noticed by way of extension and covering of balcony, shaft and projection of society. Against the column of action taken, it is mentioned that the property has been booked and action will be taken in due course of time. Therefore, the document itself suggests that whatever construction has been done, is unauthorized, and liable for action as per law. The tenant cannot claim any benefit of this fact to say that the landlord should use this unauthorized construction for his requirement and the Court cannot direct the landlord to use portion of unauthorized construction, if any, for his use. As already noted above, the respondent has failed to show that the landlord has other suitable accommodation for his needs. The landlord has highlighted that the accommodation already available with him in insufficient for his needs. There is no triable issue in this case on this aspect, as all the facts are already on record in this regard.
OTHER ISSUES -
32. An objection has been raised in the leave to defend RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 18 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:28 +0530 application that the petitioner has not filed the case against all the persons in possession of the premises in question and it is mentioned that the respondent is not in possession of the whole premises. It is mentioned that the site plan is not correct as per the actual position.
33. However, the respondent has not placed on record any site plan of its own to show the actual position as per him. Apart from a bald assertion, the respondent has not annexed any document to show as to which portion of the premises in question is in his possession and which is under possession of any other person. The other persons have been joined as respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in this case. Respondent no. 2 has expired and the respondent no. 3, who has been representing respondent no. 2 and himself, is ex-parte. Similarly, respondent no. 4 is also ex-parte. All the parties are thus before the Court in this case, even though they were added later on. Further, in reply to leave to defend application, the petitioner has given his reasons for not impleading the other respondents as parties to this case. This ground is thus not available to the respondent.
34. As a subsequent event, the respondent has now claimed that even the respondent is not in possession of the premises in question currently, and even if the petition is allowed, the respondent will not be in a position to hand over possession to the landlord. Further, learned counsel has argued that the petitioner have already filed a case against one Kavita in the year 2023 for recovery of possession.
35. There is no elaboration by the respondent as to under what circumstances he has vacated or has been driven out of possession of the premises in question. Further, in my view, RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 19 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:26 +0530 Section 25 of the Act amply addresses this issue. As per Section 25 of the Act, whenever any order is made by the Controller for recovery of possession, the order shall be binding on all the persons who may be in occupation of the premises and vacant possession of the premises shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons. Even if this subsequent event is considered, there is no bar in exercising jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this contention is of no help to the respondent.
36. Now coming to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. Punjab Stainless Steel and G.C. Khanna supra deal with consideration of subsequent events, which have been already considered in this case. Siri Pal Jain supra involved sub-tenancy, and is no help to the respondent. Similarly, Khem Chand supra and the other cases cited by the learned counsel can be differentiated on the basis of factual matrix of those cases.
CONCLUSION -
37. To recapitulate the above discussion, in the present case, the petitioner has prayed for recovery of the premises in question on the ground of bonafide need. The respondent no. 1 has failed to raise any triable issue, which would requiring leading of evidence and adjudication on merits. The objections raised by the respondent are vague, self-contradictory and without any cogent basis. A tenant cannot be allowed to contest the petition at the drop of a hat, and without demonstrating even on a prima facie standard that the matter requires further examination on merits. In my opinion, as on the date of petition, the petitioner has been able to prove that he had bonafide requirement of the premises in question, and he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation to cater to RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 20 of 21 Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:20:20 +0530 such requirement. Even after consideration of the subsequent events that have transpired during the last 14 years, there are no grounds to allow the respondent to contest the petition any further.
38. Resultantly, the application filed by the respondent no. 1 seeking leave to defend stands dismissed.
39. The other respondents are already ex-parte vide order dated 30.09.2024.
40. Consequently, eviction order in respect of premises (as highlighted in red in the site plan) comprised in residential property No. 5-B/11, Tilak Nagar, Delhi having three rooms, one kitchen, two verandas, latrine, two open court yards, bathroom and passage is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, as per Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
41. However, in terms of Section 14(7) of the aforesaid Act, eviction shall not be executable for a period of six months from the date of this order.
42. Parties to bear own costs.
Digitally
43. Ordered accordingly. signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2024.12.18 12:38:35 +0530 Announced in Open (DEV CHAUDHARY) Court.
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST)
This order contains 21 TIS HAZARI COURTS
signed pages. DELHI/ 18.12.2024
RC ARC No. 26209/2016 R.C. Nanda vs. Karamjit Singh Page No. 21 of 21