Delhi District Court
(Shri ) S. Kulwant Singh (75) vs Rajni Sangwan(75) (To) on 9 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No. 31/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-003442-2019
S. Kulwant Singh
S/o. Sh. Manohar Singh
R/o. 5-A, Ashoka Park Extension
Village Basai Dara Pur
New Delhi - 110026. . . . Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rajni Sangwan
W/o. Sh. Sanjay Sangwan
R/o. H. No. 7, Gali No.10
Madan Park, East Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi. . . . Respondent
Date of institution : 02.05.2019
Date of conclusion of
final arguments : 21.09.2024
Date of order : 09.10.2024
ORDER
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of an appeal filed under Section 38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, 'DRC Act') praying for setting aside a judgment dated 05.04.2019 passed in Eviction Petition No. 26094/2016 titled 'Rajni Sangwan vs. Kulwant Singh' vide which the eviction petition was allowed by Ld. Addl. Rent Controller (West), Delhi.
RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 1 of 182. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent-landlady, who appeared and contested the appeal.
3. Trial Court Record was summoned and arguments were heard.
Eviction Petition No. 26094/2016
4. The respondent-landlady filed eviction petition No. 26094/2016 titled as 'Rajni Sangwan vs. S. Kulwant Singh' under Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act seeking eviction of the tenant-appellant herein from demised premises bearing No. 5-A, Ashoka Park Extension, Basai Darapur, New Delhi - 110026 (in short, 'tenanted premises'). In the petition, it is alleged that the appellant is a tenant in respect of the said premises @ Rs. 340/- per month but now he was not residing in the premises. Instead, a few relatives of appellant are living there and appellant himself is residing at premises bearing No. 6/2-A, Gali No.8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (in short, Krishna Park address) alongwith his wife and children. Thus, the eviction of the appellant was sought on the ground that he had acquired another accommodation.
5. The tenant filed written statement to the aforesaid eviction petition admitting the landlord tenant relationship in respect of tenanted premises. However, he denied that he was not residing at the said premises. He further denied that he had shifted to Krishan Park address.
RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 2 of 186. Replication was filed by the landlady reiterating that respondent alongwith his family was residing at Krishna Park address, which is evident from the Voters list, Ration Card and electricity bills, etc.
7. The landlady (respondent herein) examined four witnesses as under :
1. PW-1 Smt. Rajni Sangwan, landlady-respondent herein.
2. PW-2 Sh, Madhusudan, the Assistant Registration Officer, who produced certified copies of Electoral Rolls of the Tilak Nagar Assembly constituency from the years 2007-2010, which shows that appellant and his family members are the voters of the said constituency and the Krishna Park address has been mentioned against their names in the Electoral Rolls.
3. PW-3 Sh. Mahabir Prasad, Record Keeper, Transport Department, Burari, who produced certified copy of Registration Certificate (RC) of vehicle No. DL-1lJ-8093, which is in the name of the wife of appellant-tenant.
4. PW-4 Sh. Praveen Kumar Sachdeva, Inspector, Food and Supply Department, Tilak Nagar, who produced Ration Card No. APL14200535, which mentions the name of appellant and his family members with Krishna Park address.RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 3 of 18
8. The tenant (appellant) examined six witnesses in their favour. Same are as under :
1. RW-1 S. Kulwant Singh, the tenant (appellant herein) proved the following documents :
(i) RW-1/1, certified copy of rent agreement of the tenanted premises executed in May, 1976 with the erstwhile landlady.
(ii) RW-1/2, rent receipts of May, 1976.
(iii) RW-1/2G, rent receipts of different other months spanning from 1976 to 1982.
(iv) RW-1/5, Ration Card issued in the name of the mother of the tenant Smt. Kartar Kaur showing the names of tenant, his two brothers and his two sisters at tenanted premises.
(v) RW-1/6, Election ID Card (EPIC) of tenant Kulwant Singh issued showing the address of tenanted premises.
(vi) RW-1/7 (colly), Electoral Rolls of Assembly Constituency No.25, East Punjabi Bagh showing the tenant as a voter having address of the tenanted premises.
(vii) RW-1/8 Aadhar Card of tenant showing his address of the tenanted premises.
2. RW-2 Smt. Ravinder Kaur, wife of tenant, who proved the following documents :
(i) RW-2/1, title documents in her name pertaining to Krishna Park address being registered General Power of RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 4 of 18 Attorney from the seller. These documents show that RW-2 had purchased the Krishna Park property in the year 2001.
She further deposed that she is living separately from her husband Kulwant Singh since long on account of serious matrimonial discord and as such she purchased the Krishna Park property to live separately from Kulwant Singh.
3. RW-3 Sh. Kanwar Singh, LDC from Assembly Constituency No.25, Moti Nagar, New Delhi who brought the following records :
(i) RW-3/1 to RW-3/6, Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) showing the tenant and his family members as voters in Ashoka Park address where the tenanted premises is situated.
(ii) RW-3/2 to RW-3/7 (Colly), Electoral Rolls / Voter list showing the tenant and his family members as voters in Ashoka Park address where the tenanted premises is situated.
4. RW-4 Head Constable Gajraj Singh from PS Tilak Nagar appeared and proved entry No. 998 in the relevant register, which is proved as Ex. RW-4/1. This entry shows that Smt.Ravinder Kaur, wife of Sardar Kulwant Singh had filed a complaint regarding a property dispute on 27.04.2015.
RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 5 of 185. RW-5 Swaroop Chand Rana, Section Officer, Office of UIDAI to prove RW-1/8 (Aadhar Card of the tenant) showing his address of tenanted premises.
6. RW-6 Parvinder Kumar, the Civil Nazir proved the summoned record of Civil Suit No. 155/14/06 and also proved the Kirayanama (Rent Deed) Ex. RW-6/1 and rent receipts Ex. RW-6/2 (colly).
9. After hearing arguments, Ld. Addl. Rent Controller held that there is landlord and tenant relationship between the parties and concluded that the respondent has left the tenanted premises and has acquired alternative accommodation at the Krishna Park address. Accordingly, an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act vide impugned judgment dated 05.04.2019.
10. Trial Court Record was summoned and notice was issued to the respondent and arguments were heard.
11. In the appeal, impugned judgment has been assailed on various questions of law. It is necessary to mention here that there is no dispute of landlord and tenant relationship between the respondent and the appellant in respect of tenanted premises No. 5A, Ashoka Nagar Extension, Basai Darapur, New Delhi - 110026. It is also not in dispute that Smt. Ravinder Kaur, who is the wife of appellant, had purchased an accommodation bearing No. WZ-6/2A, Gali No.8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 6 of 1812. It is necessary to mention here that an appeal under Section 38 of DRC Act would lie only on questions of law. In back drop of aforesaid admitted facts, the questions of law which arise in the present appeal are being decided point-wise.
Effect of rejection of documents for want of certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
13. Ld. counsel for appellant has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW-2 Madhusudan, UDC from the Office of the Assistant Election Registration Officer, who proved the computer generated documents Ex. PW-2/1 to PW-2/6 to prove that name of appellant - Kulwant Singh and his family members is shown as the voters in electoral roll for the years 2007- 08, 2009 and 2010. PW-2 testified that as per Electoral Rolls, the residence of tenant (appellant herein) is shown to be at Krishna Park address. It is submitted that PW-2 Madhusudan has not supported the aforesaid computer generated documents with a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and therefore, his evidence should be rejected. Same is his arguments in respect of evidence of RW-3 who proved the registration certificate of vehicle No. DL-1LJ-8093 in the name of Smt. Ravinder Kaur (RW-2), the wife of tenant (appellant) and the evidence of PW-4 proving Ration Card in the name of tenant and his family members at the Krishna Park address.
14. I have considered the submissions of ld. Counsel for appellant. The landlord (respondent herein) had examined PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 with a RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 7 of 18 view to prove that tenant alongwith his family members are residing at Krishna Park address. Even if the aforesaid computer generated documents produced by these official witnesses are rejected for want of a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, the fact remains that Smt. Ravinder Kaur (RW-2), who is the wife of tenant-appellant, has herself testified on her evidence affidavit that Ration Card was issued in the name of tenant and on the basis of said Ration Card, the tenant was got recorded in Electoral Roll at Krishna Park address in Tilak Nagar Assembly Constituency. Thus, it is the tenant-appellant who has proved by examining his wife as RW-2 that tenant is registered in Electoral Rolls as well as in Ration Card as a resident of Krishna Park address. Consequently, issue of absence of certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has lost its relevance in the present case.
Whether the evidence of tenant still residing at the tenanted premises would dis-entitle the landlord from seeking eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act
15. The tenant has examined himself as RW-1 and as per his evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A (paras 15 to 18), he is very much residing at the tenanted premises and that due to strained matrimonial relations, his wife had purchased Krishna Park accommodation and she alongwith their children are residing at that address separately.
16. Smt. Ravinder Kaur (RW-2) is the wife of appellant-tenant. She has testified in her evidence affidavit that she had purchased Krishna Park Extension property on 21.11.2021 vide various documents which are RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 8 of 18 collectively exhibited as Ex. RW-2/1. She tested that her husband is residing at the tenanted premises but she alongwith her children started living at Krishna Park address due to temperamental differences and non- adjustable nature of her in-laws (para 5 and 6).
17. Case of the appellant-tenant is that he never left the tenanted premises and in support of this submission, he has proved the Voter Identity Card Ex. RW-1/6, which shows his address as that of the tenanted premises. I would like to mention here that Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act does not require that in order to attract this provision, the tenant must leave the tenanted premises. The spirit of this provision is that if a tenant, even though still occupying the tenanted premises, has acquired alternate accommodation, landlord can seek for his eviction from the tenanted premises. Therefore, the Election Card and other evidence showing him as a resident of tenanted premises would not come to his rescue.
18. Through aforesaid documents, the tenant proposes to prove that he was very much residing at the tenanted address and had not shifted to Krishna Park address. I am of the opinion that these facts are not relevant in any manner for deciding the ground mentioned in proviso (h) to Section 14(1) of DRC Act, 1958. I would like to reproduce it as under :
"Section 14(1) in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - 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:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 9 of 18 possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: -
..........
(h) that the tenant has ------------------ acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence."
19. Perusal of proviso (h) makes it clear that the tenant can be evicted, if he has acquired another accommodation.
20. This proviso should be distinguished from proviso (d) of Section 14(1) of DRC Act, which is reproduced as :
"(d) that the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof."
21. Comparison of both the provisions would show that proviso (d) becomes applicable when the tenant has left the tenanted premises. On the other hand, proviso (h) would be applicable when tenant has acquired another accommodation. It would not matter whether or not such tenant is still residing in the tenanted premises. The present petition is filed under proviso (h) and not under proviso (d) to Section 14(1) of DRC Act. Thus, the evidence of tenant still residing in the tenanted premises would not dis- entitle the landlord for claiming tenant's eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act.
Whether the appellant was prejudiced by not being allowed to confront PW-2 with appellant's Voter I-Card?
22. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for appellant that in cross-examination RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 10 of 18 of PW-2 dated 30.09.2015, the counsel for the tenant sought to confront the witness with Voter ID-Card of the tenant and Electoral Rolls of Moti Nagar constituency (in which the tenanted premises falls). However, PW-2 was not allowed to be so confronted with the said documents and was not allowed to be cross-examined on the said ID-Card and Electoral Rolls. It is submitted that law permits that in cross-examination, a witness can be confronted with a document even "pulled out from the pocket" as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Niranjan Kumar vs. Poonam Chawla, 135 (2006) DLT 39 (para 7).
23. I have considered the submissions of ld. Counsel for appellant. It is necessary to mention here that the respondent has examined RW-3, an official witness to prove the said Voter Identity Card as Ex. RW-3/1 and Electoral Rolls Ex. RW-3/2. Therefore, I hold that rejection of the cross- examination by confronting PW-2 (an official from Election Office) with the aforesaid documents does not in any manner prejudice the case of the appellant.
Whether the tenant can be held to have acquired vacant possession of accommodation, which is owned by his spouse?
24. Ld. counsel for appellant argued that Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has referred to B. R. Mehta vs. Atma Bedi, AIR 1987 SC 2220 but has misapplied it to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, it was held that acquisition of flat by wife would not amount to acquiring possession of accommodation by the husband. I have RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 11 of 18 carefully perused this judgment. Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has also quoted relevant portion of this judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that the correct position of law is that if a wife acquires a property and the husband has a legal right to stay there, only then provisions under Section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act would be attracted. Acquisition of a residence by a tenant in the name of his wife is normally not known to the landlord. Therefore, onus is upon the tenant to show that he had no right to stay in the property acquired by wife. Now, it is to be seen as to whether Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has analysed the evidence in light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in aforesaid judgment.
25. Admittedly, the property at Krishna Park address was purchased by Smt. Ravinder Kaur (RW-2), the wife of the tenant-appellant in the year 2001. She was examined in his support by the tenant-appellant himself. RW-2 has testified that the Ration Card was issued in the name of tenant at Krishna Park residence and the name of tenant was recorded on Electoral Rolls showing his address at Krishna Park. She testified that she did so because of the reason that despite marital discord, the tenant was still the head of the family. RW-1 (the tenant) in his evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A also testified that for the purpose of enabling his estranged wife to get her Ration Card and other Identity Cards prepared for the purpose of admitting his children at school, he got the Ration Card and enrollment in Voter's list at Krishna Park address. RW-1 and RW-2 testified that the tenant i.e. RW- 1 (appellant) never resided at Krishna Park address.
RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 12 of 1826. The tenant has relied upon a complaint Ex. RW-2/2 made by his wife Smt.Ravinder Kaur (RW-2), which is dated 26.04.2015. Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has rejected this complaint for want of corroboration and in view of profuse evidence available on record proving the stay of tenant at his wife's residence. I have also perused the said complaint. In the said complaint, it is alleged by RW-2 that her property documents were stolen by brother of her husband, who was living separately from her since many years. It is necessary to mention that petitioner's (landlord's) examination- in-chief was recorded on 05.04.2015. It appears that the said complaint dated 26.04.2015 has been lodged on 27.04.2015 to create a defence because cross-examination of landlord (PW-1) was to start. In para 21 of the impugned judgment, Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has rejected this piece of evidence and did not agree with the marital discord theory and held in para 21 of the impugned judgment as under :
"21. The respondent had claimed strained relationship with his wife since 1990 and therefore, he has no right to reside at 6/2A, Gali No. 8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. The onus to prove the same was upon the respondent as it is with his special knowledge. Material contradictions have arisen in the testimony of the respondent and his wife as to when, how and for what purpose the identity cards of the respondent had been prepared at the 6/2A, Gali No.8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, Delhi much prior to filing of the execution petition. The petitioner has by way of preponderance of probabilities shown that the respondent has been residing with his family at the 6/2A, Gali No.8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, Delhi which is further bolstered by the responses elicited from RW-1 and RW-2 during cross-examination. During cross-examination, the year of birth of the three children is admitted as 1981, 1983 and 1985 respectively by RW-2. The ration card Mark A bears the date of issuance of 30.11.2005. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that the identity documents had been issued for getting the children admitted in school is belied as on 30.11.2005, even the youngest child would be around 20 years old. RW-1 had admitted that he has a residence at 6/2A, Gali No.8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, Delhi RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 13 of 18 and the same finds mention in the medical record of DDU Hospital mark RW1/P2 which was given by family members who either came from the tenanted premises or from the Tilak Nagar address showing that he may not be having strained relationship with his wife who has also denied having instituted legal proceedings against the respondent and also deposed in his favour. The respondent has failed to corroborate his claim that his wife had filed a police complaint in PS Rani Bagh against him. This Court is conscious that not preferring legal proceedings may not be conclusive of the relationship between the parties, however, in the facts and circumstance of this case, it becomes material as the cross- examination has substantially shown that the veracity of RW-1 and RW-2 is doubtful. Therefore, the respondent has failed to discharge the onus that rested upon him. He has not been able to lead any credible evidence to show that he continued to reside in the tenanted premises as in view of the petitioner's evidence, the onus had shifted upon him."
27. In the aforesaid portion of impugned judgment, Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has minutely analysed and appreciated evidence on record and there is no reason why this Court should take a different view especially when the aforesaid findings are on facts. Sufficient it to say that Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has not misapplied the B. R. Mehta (supra). Ld. Addl. Rent Controller also noted that when appellant-tenant was admitted in DDU Hospital, he gave his address as that of Krishna Park and not that of tenanted premises. I have perused the prescription of Emergency Department of DDU Hospital, which is dated 25.08.2012 Ex. RW-1/P-2. In this prescription, the address of the tenant was written as WZ-6/2A, G. No.8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar. Obviously, this address was given by the tenant himself. This proves that the tenant-appellant has acquired the said accommodation over which he has right to stay. Consequently, I find no substance in the argument of ld. Counsel for appellant and hold that in the present case, the acquisition of Krishna Park accommodation by wife of RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 14 of 18 tenant amounts to acquiring vacant possession of another accommodation by the appellant himself.
Whether the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-discussion of the documents proved by the tenant (appellant)
28. Ld. counsel for appellant-tenant argued that the Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has based her reasoning and findings while passing the impugned eviction order solely on the documents of the respondent- landlord. However, in the process, the Ld. Addl Rent Controller has completely overlooked and ignored the same set of documents (produced through government records by official witnesses) proved by the appellant- tenant in support of his contention that he is residing at the tenanted premises. Ld. Counsel for appellant has drawn my attention to Ration Card (Ex. RW-1/5), Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) (Ex. RW-1/6), Electoral Rolls (Ex. RW-1/7) and the Aadhar Card (Ex. RW-1/8), which show that the appellant-tenant is residing at the tenanted premises and has not left the same to reside at his wife's residence i.e. Krishna Park address. Ld. Counsel for appellant further argued that the entire impugned order dated 05.04.2019 deals with and discusses only the documents and exhibits pertaining to the respondent-landlady and has absolutely no whisper, lest any discussion, qua the same set of documents and exhibits proved by the tenant. In this regard, it is submitted that "non-consideration" of relevant and material evidence of a party by the court vitiates its judgment and reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal, 2000(1) SCC 434 para 11).
RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 15 of 1829. I have considered the aforesaid submission of ld. Counsel for appellant. Although, in the impugned judgment, Ld. Addl. Rent Controller has referred to the aforesaid documents, he did not discuss as to what these documents proved. It appears that he did not deem it necessary to render any finding on the said documents, which would, at the most, prove that the tenant was residing at the tenanted premises. As already stated, this is not a necessary ingredient to the ground under proviso (h). Consequently, non-discussion of the aforesaid documents by Ld. Addl. Rent Controller does not have the effect of unsettling the impugned judgment.
Whether any amendment in the eviction petition was mandatorily required
30. It is argued by ld. Counsel for appellant that when the wife of the tenant RW-2 Smt. Ravinder Kaur appeared as witness and informed the Court that she is the recorded owner of the property No. 6/2A, Gali No.8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, the respondent-landlady could not have changed her stance, without seeking amendment to the petition, to the effect that the acquisition by wife of tenant should be treated as acquisition by tenant himself. In this regard, reliance by the respondent is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in J. J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. vs. M. R. Murali (2002 (3) SCC 98 paras 13, 16 & 21); and Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao (2024 (3) SCR 46 para 15), in which, it is held that without seeking amendment to the pleadings, no evidence would be pleaded or led.
RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 16 of 1831. I have considered the judgments cited by ld. Counsel for appellant. These judgments are required to be seen in light of the fact that in eviction petition, the landlord pleaded that the tenant has acquired residential premises i.e. 6/2A, Gali No.8, Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (i.e. Krishna Park address). In written statement, the tenant stated that he was not residing at Krishna Park address. Plea of the appellant-tenant is that fact of tenant's wife having acquired the said Krishna Park accommodation was brought on record through evidence of RW-2 Smt. Ravinder Kaur, the wife of appellant-tenant and that on having noticed this fact, the landlord should have amended his eviction petition. Now, the question is as to whether there was any need for amending the petition. In J. J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that a subsequent event during trial may also result in grant or denial of a relief but in such case, a party must resolve to amendment of pleadings under Order XI Rule 17 CPC. However, in the present case, no event subsequent to filing of petition happened. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the present case.
32. In Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where amendment application was dismissed and had attained finality. Therefore, it was held that no evidence can be allowed to be led on the point regarding which amendment application was dismissed. The aforesaid judgment obviously has no relevance to the facts of the present case.
RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 17 of 1833. Perusal of the petition would show that the landlord has given the address of Krishna Park accommodation having been acquired by the appellant. The tenant simply denied this fact without disclosing that his wife had acquired this accommodation. RW-2 (the wife of tenant) however testified that she had acquired this accommodation. By this testimony, the stand of landlord as taken in his eviction petition does not change. Therefore, there was no requirement for amending the eviction petition.
Conclusion
34. In view of above discussion, I find no substance in the appeal. Impugned judgment is accordingly upheld and appeal is accordingly dismissed.
35. Copy of judgment alongwith Trial Court Record be returned to Trial Court.
36. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 9th October, 2024 VINOD Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2024.10.09 17:53:25 +0530 (Vinod Kumar) Rent Control Tribunal (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi RCT No.31/2019 S. Kulwant Singh vs. Rajni Sangwan Page 18 of 18