Delhi District Court
Sh. Khalid Mohd vs Sh. Khaliq Uz Zaman on 26 September, 2013
Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH YADUVANSHI
SCJCUMRC (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI
E. No. 11/10
UNIQUE CASE ID NO. 02403C0081812010
IN THE MATTER OF:
SH. KHALID MOHD.
S/O SHRI DOST MOHD.
R/O 1801, KATRA SHEIKH CHAND,
LAL KUAN, DELHI110006.
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SH. KHALIQ UZ ZAMAN
S/O LATE NASEERUDDIN
R/O HOUSE NO. G25/01, MURADI ROAD
BATLA HOUSE, GALI NO. 12,
JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA,
NEW DELHI1100025.
2. MOHD. PARVEZ AHMED
S/O SHRI NASIR AHMED
R/O G25/01, MURADI ROAD,
BATLA HOUSE, GALI NO.12,
JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA,
NEW DELHI110025.
....RESPONDENTS
Result: Eviction order passed Page 1 of 22
Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.04.2010
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : Not reserved
DATE OF DECISION : 26.09.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has brought petition under Section 14(1) (a), (b) and (j) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter, called as 'DRC Act') against first respondent/tenant and second respondent who is alleged to be the subtenant.
2. As per the facts, the petitioner is owner/landlord of property bearing No. G25/01, Muradi Road, Batla House, Gali No. 12, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi. The respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant in respect of a portion forming part of the said property which is shown in red colour in the site plan for residential purposes and the rent was increased from time to time after every three years which at the time of filing of the petition was Rs.803/ per month excluding electricity, water and other charges. The portion forming part of property No. G25/01, Muradi Road, Batla House, Gali No. 12, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter, called 'demised premises'). The tenancy started from first Result: Eviction order passed Page 2 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 day of each English calender month and ended on the last day of same month. It is submitted that the first respondent has neither paid nor tendered rent at the rate of Rs.730/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.2008 till 31.12.2008 and subsequently on increased rate of rent of Rs.803/ per month w.e.f 01.01.2009 till filing of the petition and therefore in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2008 along with interest @ 15% per annum. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 has illegally and unauthorizedly encroached upon the open roof of the tenanted premises, which is not a part of the tenanted premises and further constructed an additional room/shed in the said open roof illegally and unlawfully without consent and permission of the petitioner, hence, liable to be evicted under Section 14(1) (j) of the DRC Act. It is further in the petition that the first respondent has acquired alternative accommodation and has shifted after illegally subletting, assigning and parting with the possession of the demised premises to second respondent, who now resides therein with his family members and thus liable to be evicted under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act. A legal notice dated 24.11.2009 was issued to the first respondent by regd. AD/UPC for claiming entire arrears of rent with interest and to vacate the demised premises by midnight of 31.12.2009. It was duly served but respondent has failed to Result: Eviction order passed Page 3 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 comply. He, on the contrary, filed petition under Section 27 of DRC Act but has not deposited entire arrears of rent. An eviction order is therefore prayed.
3. Both the respondents were duly served. The first respondent has failed to file written statement. His defence was struck off on 26.10.2010. Thereafter, he stopped appearing and was proceeded against exparte on 15.07.2011. The second respondent filed written statement under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the DRC Act only. It is in the written statement that first respondent was minor and about 5 to 7 years old at the time of inception of the tenancy and second respondent had kept the first respondent as well as his mother by way of love and affection along with his family as the father of first respondent had deserted the first respondent and his mother. To protect the interest of the minor first respondent, the second respondent had got issued rent receipt in the name of first respondent. It is averred that these facts of common and joint use and occupancy of tenancy by both the respondents along with mother of first respondent as well as family of second respondent were well known to the petitioner but have been concealed. It is also submitted that the statutory notice has not been Result: Eviction order passed Page 4 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 served on the respondents in respect of ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act. It is also submitted that the demised premises is not governed by DRC Act as it is not situated in urbanized area and is part of Okhla, New Delhi.
3.1 On merits, para 1 to 4 of the petition regarding the description of tenanted premises, name and address of landlord, name and address of tenant and the purposes of tenancy have not been denied. In addition to the preliminary objection in regard to common and joint use of the tenancy, it is submitted that fact of payment of the rent to petitioner by respondent No.2 in the name of the respondent No.1 is known to the petitioner and also to his father and can be proved by counterfoils of old rent receipts issued to the respondent No.2 in the name of the respondent No.1. The rate of rent is stated to be Rs.730/ per month instead of Rs.803/ per month. It has been denied that first respondent has sublet the premises to second respondent. The contents of preliminary objection in regard to desertion of first respondent and his mother have been reiterated. It is denied that first respondent has encroached upon the roof of tenanted premises or that any additional room/shed was constructed. It is submitted that the said shed/room on Result: Eviction order passed Page 5 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 the roof was also a part of tenanted premises. It is denied that the petitioner is owner of the demised premises. It is submitted that rent at the rate of Rs.730/ per month has been duly deposited in the Court of Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. ARC on 20.04.2009.
4. In replication, the petitioner has denied all the preliminary objections taken by the second respondent. The contents of petition have been reiterated as correct.
5. In evidence, the petitioner had examined himself as his own witness and filed his affidavit in evidence (Ex.P1). The affidavit has been deposed in accordance with contents of the petition. The site plan is Ex.PW1/1. The legal notice issued to the first respondent is Ex.PW1/2, postal receipt is Ex.PW1/3, UPC is Ex.PW1/4 and the acknowledgment card is Ex.PW1/5. He was duly crossexamined by counsel for the respondent No.2 during which rent receipts (Ex.PW1/D1) were put to him. These rent receipts were admitted in evidence by order of the Court dated 14.03.2013. Proof of signatures upon it was left to be considered on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.
Result: Eviction order passed Page 6 of 22
Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 5.1 During crossexamination of PW1, he was confronted with the
document (Ex.PW1/D2) i.e. record of gas connection in the name of second respondent, about which the witness denied any knowledge. Similarly, copy of passport [Ex.PW1/D3 (OSR)] in the name of second respondent issued on 20.10.1981 was also shown to the witness. The witness had again denied any knowledge. Further, copy of ration card [Ex.PW1/D4 (OSR)] was shown to the witness to the effect that the ration card was issued to second respondent, wherein the date of birth of first respondent is mentioned as 1970. He denied any knowledge regarding it.
5.2 The second respondent had examined himself as his own witness and has filed affidavit in evidence (Ex.RW1/1). The witness has relied on copy of his voter ID card dated 16.02.1995 as Ex.RW1/A. The second para of the affidavit is beyond pleadings as it has been nowhere mentioned in the written statement that the second respondent had entered into any oral agreement with petitioner's father Sh. Dost Mohd. The witness also relied on challan/counterfoil dated 15.04.2009 showing payment of Rs.4,380/ before Court of Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. ARC as Ex.RW1/B. The witness was duly crossexamined. Result: Eviction order passed Page 7 of 22
Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10
6. I have heard Sh. Saifuddin, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. B.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel for the respondent No.2.
FINDINGS In Re: Petition under Section 14(1) (a) of DRC Act
7. The petitioner is required to prove that there is an existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, that the tenant is in arrears of rent which have not been paid despite issuance of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 within two months from date of service.
7.1 In the present case, the first respondent is exparte and the PW1 has stated on oath in his affidavit (Ex.P1) that respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises as shown in Ex.PW1/1. The first respondent has not come before this Court in denial of the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner made on oath. Furthermore, the second respondent has tried to take advantage of this fact and it has been sought to be established that Sh. Dost Mohd., the petitioner's father, had been accepting rent and Sh. Dost Mohd. only had given the premises on rent. It has been sought to be pointed out that at the time of Result: Eviction order passed Page 8 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 creation of the tenancy, the petitioner himself was a minor. In this context, it is in the crossexamination of PW1 that his date of birth is 08.05.1964. The contents of pleadings reveal that none of the parties have given the exact date on which the tenancy was created. However, a positive assertion on this has come in the crossexamination of PW1 on oath. It is to the effect that the tenancy was created in the year 1983. The rent receipts (Ex.PW1/D1) admittedly do not bear signatures of PW1. His father Sh. Dost Mohd. used to collect rent. Some of the rent receipts bear the name of Smt. Khalida Anjuman, daughter of Sh. Dost Mohd. while others of Sh. Khalid Mohd., son of Sh. Dost Mohd. It is further said that the petitioner himself was minor on the date of creation of the tenancy. It has not been taken as a further ground of challenge to his landlordship. It has not been denied in the petition that Sh. Khalid Mohd. is presently the landlord of the premises in dispute as para 3 (a) of the petition has not been replied to and therefore presumed to be admitted. Furthermore, on merits, only the ownership of the present petitioner is denied however the fact that the petitioner is the landlord of the tenanted property has been specifically admitted. Thus, it cannot be said that the relationship of landlord between the petitioner and first respondent is unproved. In the same context, the second Result: Eviction order passed Page 9 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 respondent is claiming to be in joint use, occupation and habitation of the demised premises since the time of inception of the tenancy. It will be therefore to seen by this Court as to whether this stand of the second respondent is proved or not. If it is proved then he shall be considered as a tenant under the petitioner and therefore the petition on the ground of subtenancy shall not sustain.
8. In the written statement, it is submitted that first respondent was minor at the time of creation of tenancy and was 5 to 7 years old only. He and his mother were deserted by his father. Both were kept by second respondent in the tenanted premises at the time of inception of tenancy on account of love and affection. It is further submitted that to protect the interest of the minor, the rent receipts were got issued in the name of first respondent even though the rent was being paid by the second respondent. It has to be specifically observed from the pleadings that the second respondent has not stated anywhere that the tenancy was created between Sh. Dost Mohd., petitioner's father and him. The written statement is further silent on the aspect as to what interest of the first respondent was to be protected for which the second respondent agreed to have rent receipts issued in first respondent's Result: Eviction order passed Page 10 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 name when the rent receipts could have been easily issued in the name of the person who pays the rent. These facts have not been explained in the pleadings and are denied by the petitioner. In his affidavit (Ex.RW1/1), para 2 has been introduced but not pleaded. Even in the said para, it is not stated anywhere that the tenancy was created between Sh. Dost Mohd. and the second respondent. In any case, para 2 is being beyond pleadings and cannot be read in evidence. It is again deposed in the affidavit that first respondent and his mother were kept in tenanted premises out of love and affection. It is not explained as to what interest of the first respondent, allegedly minor at that time, was to be protected. On the contrary, it appears from a bare reading of para 4 and 5 of the affidavit that the tenancy was sought to be created between Sh. Dost Mohd. and the first respondent through the second respondent, the first respondent being a minor. It is for this reason that the rent was being paid by the second respondent but it, by no means imply that the tenancy was created between the petitioner through his father and the second respondent. Even otherwise, by mere payment of rent one does not become tenant. This Court relies upon the judgment in case titled Sh. Om Prakash & Ors. v. Sh. Mahender Kumar Malhotra, 1971 RCR 552 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that as long Result: Eviction order passed Page 11 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 as the landlord has never agreed to accept rent from the joint family, those other members of the joint family cannot be tenants. The Hon'ble Court also noted that the landlord had only agreed to accept rent from the tenant.
8.1 Further, this Court also places reliance on Mohinder Kumar Madan v. Sh. Madan Mohan Lal & Anr., reported in 1972 RCR 112 (SN) wherein rent was being paid by brother of tenant. It was held that brother does not become tenant. It was also held while dealing with Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 that where the tenant took shop on rent but business carried out as on joint Hindu family, said HUF would not become a tenant.
8.2 Further, the Court also relies on case titled Inder Sen Gupta & Anr. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors., 22 (1982) DLT 389 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where a tenancy is created by contract entered into between the parties but rent is paid by third person, it does not necessarily establish relationship of landlord and tenant.
9. In the given circumstances, at best the respondent can only succeed in establishing that he is in possession of the demised premises Result: Eviction order passed Page 12 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 since a particular year but that does not make him a tenant. Thus, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the second respondent and the petitioner. The next aspect is whether the respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent and as to whether the legal notice has been served to him in accordance with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and despite service the arrears have not been paid.
In Re: Existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the date of notice of demand
10. According to PW1, the last rate of rent of the demised premises was Rs.803/ per month excluding other charges which was enhanced from the previous rate of rent i.e. Rs.730/ per month. The petition was filed on 18.03.2010. The first respondent is said to be in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.730/ per month w.e.f. 01.01.2008 till 31.12.2008 and thereafter from 01.01.2009 till the date of petition at the rate of Rs.803/ per month. The first respondent has not come forward in denial of the above avernment which qua him remained unchallenged and un controverted. It is the second respondent's claim that he has deposited the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.730/ per month in the Court of Sh. Kuldeep Narayan, Ld. ARC in regard to which he has filed copy of Result: Eviction order passed Page 13 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 counterfoil (Ex.RW1/B). Perusal of it reveals that the rent has been tendered by the first respondent for the period from July 2008 to December 2008 amounting to Rs.4,380/. The rent was tendered on 15.04.2009. Even if, the said document is taken to be correct on its face value, the petitioner has averred that the rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 803/ has not been tendered w.e.f. 01.01.2009 till filing of the petition. No document has been introduced to the contrary. Mere fact that the second respondent has been depositing the rent in the Court under his name shall not constitute valid tender of rent as it has not been tendered at behest of the first respondent but by the second respondent under the assumed title of tenant under the petitioner, which this Court has already held to have been not proved. Accordingly, the first respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2009 at the rate of Rs.803/ per month. In Re: Service of notice of demand under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act
11. Notice (Ex.PW1/2) is on record. It is dated 24.11.2009 addressed to first respondent wherein he has been called upon to clear the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.730/ w.e.f. 01.01.2008 till 31.12.2008 and increased rate of rent of Rs.803/ w.e.f 01.01.2009 till Result: Eviction order passed Page 14 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 filing of the petition with interest @ 15% per annum. The arrears have been demanded to be cleared within the stipulated period. The notice is also for termination of tenancy. It was dispatched to the respondent and acknowledgment card (Ex.PW1/5) is the proof of its service, according to which it was served on the first respondent on 30.11.2009. It is in the pleadings that tenancy was for month to month basis and therefore terminable by way of 15 days notice. Notice is therefore in accordance with law and the principles of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and proof of service of it is Ex.PW1/5. I have already held that the first respondent has not cleared the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2009 at the rate of Rs.803/ per month and has therefore failed in tendering the whole of arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within two months of date of service of notice i.e. 30.11.2009. Accordingly, the petition under Section 14(1) (a) of DRC Act succeeds. An order was passed under Section 15(1) of DRC Act on 21.10.2011, which as per report of the Naib Nazir has not been complied with. In the given circumstances, the first respondent cannot be provided benefit of Section 14(2) of DRC Act.
In Re: Section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act Result: Eviction order passed Page 15 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10
12. In order to prove subletting, there should be existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as between tenant and his subtenant and all the incidence of letting of tenancy have to be found, namely, the transfer of an interest in the estate, payment of rent and the right to possession against the tenant in respect of the premises sublet. As per law on the subject, in such an assumption, the tenant has to divest himself of all the rights that he has as a tenant. The petitioner does not give the date of creation of the tenancy in the petition but submits in his crossexamination as PW1 that his father told him that the tenancy was an old tenancy and that his father told him about its creation since the year 1983. The collective documents i.e. rent receipts (Ex.PW1/D1) starts from 07.11.1983. The RW1 has relied on passport (Ex.PW1/D3) original of which was seen and returned. It has been issued to him on 20.10.1981. The said passport is issued at an address other than the address of the tenanted premises. Besides it, RW1 had also relied on document (Ex.PW1/D2) i.e. receipt of gas connection issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in his name on 17.12.1985, which again is on an address other then the address provided in the eviction petition qua the demised premises. The RW1 has also relied on copy of voter ID Card Result: Eviction order passed Page 16 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 (Ex.RW1/A) which is in his name issued at the address of the demised premises on 16.02.1995. The RW1 has also relied on copy of ration card (Ex.PW1D4) issued to him at the demised premises address on 19.08.1997.
13. From the above evidence on record, it is apparent that the tenancy existed in the year 1983. It is nobody's case that the address on Ex.PW1/DW2 or for that matter on the passport (Ex.PW1/D3) i.e. 337c/61D, Batla House, Okhla, New Delhi 110025, is the address by which the present municipal number of the demised premises was earlier known. Thus, said two documents do not pertain to demised premises. The only other documents pertaining to the demised premises are copy of the ration card (Ex.PW1/D4) and copy of voter ID card (Ex.RW2/A). The older in both of them is the election ID card issued on 18.02.1995. Thus, this is the first document which establishes the claim of second respondent but then it does not relate to his pleadings and assertion on oath that he is residing in the demised premises since the inception of its tenancy i.e. 1983.
13.1 The assertion that first respondent has subletted the premises to second respondent is in para 6. However, PW1 is not sure as to what Result: Eviction order passed Page 17 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 his case is. He states that first respondent has acquired alternative accommodation and shifted from the tenanted premises and has illegally subletted, assigned and/or otherwise parted with the possession of tenanted premises to the respondent No.2. No date is given. The petitioner himself is not sure whether the demised premises has been subletted or otherwise parted with possession by respondent No.1. However, he says that the same has been done without his consent. The corresponding documents relied upon by the respondent No.2 are of the year 1995. The petition was filed in the year 2010. In the intervening period of 15 years, the petitioner has kept silent. He has failed to give any date, month or year about the knowledge that the respondent has subletted or parted with possession of the demised premises. The second respondent has also been unable to establish that he is in the possession of the demised premises since the time of inception of the tenancy. In the crossexamination of PW1, he has stated that his father had told him about the subletting of tenancy rights by respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2 somewhere in the year 2007. This positive assertion made by the witness has been left as it is in the crossexamination dated 16.05.2013. Defence did not feel it appropriate to even further crossexamine PW1 on his said Result: Eviction order passed Page 18 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 positive assertion much less offering any suggestion to the contrary. The same implies admission of the said positive assertion. It is not the case set up in the crossexamination of PW1 that the respondent No.1 is still residing in the demised premises. The second respondent has failed in proving himself as a tenant or for that matter joint tenant with first respondent under the landlordship of petitioner. There is nothing in the testimony of the PW1 in regard to presence of the elements of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant as between the tenant and his subtenant. Further, none of the incidence of letting or tenancy namely transfer of interest in the estate, payment of rent and the right to possession against tenant in respect of premises sublet is to be found in the testimony of PW1. Thus, for want of essential requisites, it cannot be said that the petitioner proves that first respondent had subletted the demised premises to second respondent.
13.2 So far as the question of assignment and parting with possession is concerned, the said two alternate pleas have been taken as per the avernments made in clause 5 of the eviction petition wherein the petitioner has categorically stated in unequivocal and unambiguous words that the respondent No.1 has Sublet the tenanted premises to the Result: Eviction order passed Page 19 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 respondent No.2 and presently the respondent No.2 is residing therein with his family members. It is only in para 16 of the petition followed by para 18 (a) (6) that the petitioner submits that first respondent has sublet, assigned and/or otherwise parted with possession. This has been repeated in para 6 of affidavit (Ex.P1). In para 6 of the affidavit there is an avernment in regard to assignment. For purposes of assignment, the tenant has to divest himself of all the rights that he has as a tenant. This fact has to be categorically proved but the petitioner remains silent in regard to the mode and manner of assignment. As regards to the expression "otherwise parting with possession" is concerned, it postulates giving possession to persons other then those to whom possession has been given by the lease and parting with possession must have been by the tenant. It is petitioner's claim that first respondent is no more residing in demised premises. There is no crossexamination on it by first respondent. The second respondent does not state that the first respondent still resides in the premises in question. It is second respondent's case that he resides in demised premises with his family. Thus, all the elements of parting with possession are to be found in the evidence on record. This is not a case where any notice of subtenancy has to be given under Section 17 of Result: Eviction order passed Page 20 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 DRC Act and even otherwise no element of subtenancy or assignment has been found. The petition has to succeed on the ground that the first respondent has otherwise parted with possession of the demised premises without the consent in writing of the landlord. The fact that the second respondent has been unable to show any documents existing in his name in regard to his occupation in demised premises w.e.f. creation of tenancy or for that matter the year 1983 is also against the second respondent. In result, the petition under Section 14(1) (b) deserves to be allowed.
In Re: Petition under Section 14(1)(j) of DRC Act
14. The written statement has not been filed by the second respondent to the petition under Section 14(1)(j) of the DRC Act however the second respondent's counsel has sought to crossexamine PW1 on the aspect of Section 14(1)(j) which cannot be read in evidence for want of any defence in that regard. Even otherwise, the petitioner's avernment is that the first respondent had encroached on open roof of tenanted premises and constructed an additional room without his consent. The said portion has not been shown in the site plan (Ex.PW1/1) separately. Furthermore, it is not the case of the Result: Eviction order passed Page 21 of 22 Khalid Mohd. v. Khaliq Uz Zaman & Anr. E-11/10 petitioner that by way of such act, the first respondent caused substantial damage to the demised premises. The petition on this count therefore fails.
Result
15. In the result, an eviction order is hereby passed under Section 14(1) (a) as well as 14(1) (b) of the DRC Act in respect of premises bearing No. G25/01, Muradi Road, Batla House, Gali No. 12, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan. The first respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act as held earlier.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (MANISH YADUVANSHI)
on 26.09.2013. SCJCUMRC (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
Result: Eviction order passed Page 22 of 22