Delhi District Court
Meenu Gupta vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani on 7 July, 2018
In the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa: Additional Rent Controller02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E102/14/08
New No. 79231/16
In the matter of:
Meenu Gupta
W/o Sh. Manish Gupta
R/o B-7/119, Extension,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-29 ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani
S/o Sh. Ganga Ram T. Mirchandani
C/o M/s. Mir Sons 2000
11/3 CP Chawl, Sham Sethi Street
Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-2.
Suit Premises:
Shop No. 2793 Kinari Bazar,
Delhi-06. ................ Respondent
Date of Institution : 13.11.2007
Date of Arguments: 20.02.2018
Date of Judgment : 07.07.2018
E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 1/9
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER
SECTION 14(1)(a) & (b) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL
ACT, 1958.
JUDGMENT:
1. This is an application under clause (a) & (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 59 of 1958') made by petitioner against the respondents for recovery of possession of premises i.e. Shop No. 2793, Kinari Bazar, Delhi-06 more specifically shown red in the site plan annexed with the application.
2. As per the contents of the petition, the respondent is a habitual defaulter in the payment of rent and had/has not been paying the rent month by month when became due inspite of repeated demands and requests made by the petitioner. The respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f October, 2003 i.e. the date of purchase of the suit property by the petitioner, which the respondent failed to pay despite repeated demands and requests made by the petitioner and having no other remedy, the petitioner served a legal notice dt. 20.09.06 upon the respondent calling upon the respondent to pay the entire arrears of rent w.e.f October 2003 @ Rs. 200/- alongwith interest 15 % besides house tax and also called upon the respondent to increase the rent as permissible under law and as such the rent stood revised to Rs. 220/- p.m after the elapse of one month as provided under DRC Act.
However, the respondent did not comply with the said notice and neither tendered nor paid the entire arrears of rent with E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 2/9 interest within the stipulated period prescribed under the law. It has further been alleged that the respondent after 09.06.52 as stipulated under DRC Act and much after the creation of the tenancy has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the tenanted premises to Sanjay Kapoor, Anu and two other unidentified persons without the written consent of the owner/landlord and they are carrying on their business in the suit premises and the respondent has no control over the suit premises and has no concern or control over the business being run in the suit premises by the said unlawful sublettees.
3. The application of eviction is contested by the respondent by filing of written statement of defence on the grounds that the same is without cause of action. It is the case of the respondent that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the premises were let out to M/s Iris Impex, a partnership firm of which the respondent was one of the partners. The shop in question was let out to the partnership firm and not to the respondent alone, at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The rent was always paid on behalf of the partnership firm. However, the said firm was got dissolved w.e.f 31.12.02 and the respondent seized to be a partner of the said firm. The business of the said firm was taken over by Sh. Sanjay Kapoor and thereafter he became a tenant in lawful possession of the shop in question. The respondent has very categorically stated that he has not been in possession of the shop in question since 31.12.02. Therefore, there was no question of paying rent by the respondent to the petitioner after 31.12.02. The rent was E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 3/9 tendered by M/s Iris Impex but the same was refused by the petitioner and hence it was deposited in the court.
4. In the replication to the written statement of the respondent, the averments made in the application for eviction has been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondent in his written statement is traversed.
5. In support of her case, the petitioner got examined three witness, the petitioner herself as AW1, Sh. Balbir Singh (AW2) and Sh. Ram Harakh (AW3). During her examination-in-chief, AW1 tendered her affidavit Ex.A-1 and the PW1 also relied upon various documents i.e. Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/17. The PW1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent and thereafter, PE was closed on 18.12.2014.
6. In support of his case, the respondent got examined himself as RW1 and Sh. Navin Saini, JJA, THC, Delhi as RW2. During his examination-in-chief, RW1 tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and the RW1 also relied upon various documents i.e. Ex. RW1/1 to Ex. RW1/12. The RW1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, RE was closed on 31.01.2018.
7. The present application has been made under clause (a) &
(b) of subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 which reads as follows:
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 any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 4/9 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:-
* * *
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882);
* * *
(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9 th day of June, 1952, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;
8. The present petition has been filed for eviction u/s 14 (1)
(a) i.e. non-payment of rent and u/s 14 (1) (b) i.e. parting with the possession of the part of premises without obtaining the consent of the landlord.
9. So far as the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, the respondent has outrightly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent has alleged that it was the partnership firm M/s Iris Impex which was the tenant and rent was always paid/tendered on behalf of the partnership firm. However, no evidence has been brought on record by the respondent to prove that M/s Iris Impex was the tenant in the demised premises. The documentary evidence furnished by the respondent only shows that there was one partnership firm namely M/s Iris Impex which was in possession of the demised premises. However, none of the documents produced by the respondent shows that partnership firm was E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 5/9 occupying the premises as a tenant or that the premises were let out to the partnership firm. On the other hand, petitioner has filed photocopies of rent receipts which Ex. PW1/2 and PW1/3 which shows that rent was received from Sh. Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani i.e. respondent. These receipts nowhere shows that rent was paid by the respondent as a partner on behalf of partnership firm.
10. So far as ownership of the petitioner qua the demised premises is concerned, the same has not been disputed by the respondent otherwise also, the petitioner has been able to bring sufficient evidence on record to show that he is the owner of the property vide Ex. PW1/2.
So, for the purposes of the present petition it can be said that the petitioner has been able to establish that he is the owner of demised premises and that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
11. Now, coming to the first ground i.e. non-payment of rent. As per the case of the petitioner, rent was Rs. 200 which was increased by 10 % to Rs. 220/- vide notice dt. 20.09.06 which was duly served upon the respondent. In reply to para 18 B of the petition, the respondent has not denied receiving the said notice dt. 20.09.06. Otherwise also, the petitioner has proved service of notice. The Notice is Ex. PW1/4 and documents with respect to prove of service of notice are Ex PW1/5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Moreover, bare perusal of the record shows that the notice was issued to the respondent at the same address mentioned in the E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 6/9 petition which is also the address of the demised premises.
Therefore, the petitioner has been able to sufficiently prove that the notice was sent at the correct address of the respondent and it shall be presumed that the notice was duly served upon the respondent in due course.
12. Now, onus was upon the respondent to show that no such notice was served upon the respondent and as such the respondent has failed to disprove the service of notice upon him. The respondent has failed to bring any evidence on record to show that he has paid / tendered the rent as demanded by the petitioner vide legal notice dt. 20.09.2006. In fact from his own admission in the W/S the respondent has stated that since he ceased to be partner of the firm w.e.f 01.01.03 there was no liability upon him to pay the rent w.e.f 01.01.03. Hence, admittedly no rent has been paid by the respondent w.e.f 01.01.03. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has been able to establish that the respondent committed default in making the payment of rent as demanded by the petitioner in the said notice.
In view of above, the petitioner is found entitled for relief u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act.
13. Now, so far as the issue of sub-letting or assigning or otherwise parting with the suit premises is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is contended by the petitioner that the respondent has sub-let or parted with the possession of the tenanted premises to Sanjay Kapoor, Annu and two other unidentified persons without his written E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 7/9 consent.
14. Bare perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent would show that the respondent has admitted that he is not in possession of the shop in question since 31.12.02 thus, the partnership business was being run by the partnership firm from the demised premises and the respondent had ceased to be a partner and also ceased to be in possession of the premises w.e.f 01.01.03. Thus, w.e.f 01.01.03 respondent ceased to be in possession of the demised premises which supports the case of the petitioner. Otherwise also, no contradiction came out from the cross-examination of the petitioner who deposed as PW1 and no evidence in rebuttal was lead by the respondent so as to disprove the case of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed on the ground mentioned in Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act No. 59 of 1958.
15. In view of above discussion, the petition u/s 14(1) (a) & (b) of Act 59 of 1958 is hereby allowed.
It is pertinent to mention here that as the respondent had disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties no order 15 (1) of DRC Act was passed.
16. As per the case of the petitioner, the respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f 01.11.2014 to 31.10.2006 @ Rs. 200/- pm and w.e.f 01.11.2006 to till date @ Rs.220/- per month.
E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 8/9
17. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent is hereby directed to pay the rent @ Rs. 200/- pm for the period w.e.f 01.11.2004 to 31.10.2006 and @ Rs. 220/- pm for the period w.e.f 01.11.2006 to till date, with interest @ 15 % per annum within one month from the date of this order.
The eviction u/s 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act would be subject to the enquiry u/s 14(2) of the Act, for which separate enquiry would be conducted.
No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
PUNEET
PAHWA
Digitally signed
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PAHWA
Date: 2018.07.07
15:55:32 +0530
by PUNEET
PAHWA
PUNEET Date:
PAHWA 2018.07.07
15:55:49
+0530
Announced in the open court (Puneet Pahwa)
on this 07th July, 2018 Additional Rent Controller-02
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E-102/14/08 Meenu Gupta Vs Harish Ganga Ram Mirchandani 9/9