Delhi District Court
555 vs Smt. Bimla Devi on 3 July, 2014
1
In the Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
CCJ cum Additional Rent Controller1(Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. E108/13/09
Unique ID No. 02401C0086782009
In the matter of :
Smt. Aarti Bahri
W/o Late Sh. Pankaj Bahri
R/o 71246/2/B/22, Renuka Nagar, Balkampet,
Hyderabad500016
Andra Pradesh
Also at:
1555, Near James Church,
Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. ............Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Bimla Devi
At shop no. 1099/25,
Shiv Motor Market, Kashmiri Gate,
Delhi110006. ........Respondent
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14 (1) (a) & (j) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
Page 1 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09
2
Date of Institution: 02.03.2009
Final arguments heard/case reserved for Judgment: 12.03.2014
Date of Judgment: 03.07.2014
Decision: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT:
1. This is an eviction petition filed by the petitioners u/s 14 (1) (a) &
(j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [in short "the Act"]. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner is the wife of late Sh. Pankaj Bahri, who expired on 17.07.2008 leaving behind his wife and a minor daughter. That the respondent is a tenant with respect to shop bearing no. 1099/25, Shiv Motor Market, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. It is averred by the petitioner that the respondent is a regular defaulter in making payment of rent and has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. January, 2007 till date @ Rs. 200/ per month. It is submitted that a legal notice Ex. PW1/2 dated 28.07.2008 was served upon the respondent for demand of arrears of rent and again a legal notice dated 20.11.2008 was served upon the respondent but despite service of both the legal notices, the respondent neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent. It is also averred by the petitioner that respondent has done structural changes in the tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord, which is objectionable to the landlord as well as concerned Page 2 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09 3 authorities.
2. Summons was served upon the respondent, who appeared and filed his written statement wherein he disputed the ownership of the petitioner with regard to tenanted premises as well as landlordtenanted relationship. It is averred by the respondent that initially Sh. V. R. Bahri was owner of the property who received rent till January, 1995 (copy of rent receipts issued by Sh. V. R. Bahri are Ex. RW1/6 to Ex. RW1/16). After his expiry, Smt. Satvati Bahri (his wife) received rent till April, 1997 (copy of rent receipts issued by Smt. Satvati Bahri are Ex. RW1/17 to Ex. RW1/35 and after her death, her sons Sh. S. K. Bahri and Sh. D. K. Bahri become owner of the property and received rent of the tenanted premises w.e.f. May, 1997 to March, 2003 (copy of rent receipts issued by Sh. S.K. Bahri and Sh. D.K. Bahri are Ex. RW1/36 to Ex. RW1/65). Thereafter, family settlement was entered into by which Sh. S.K. Bahri become sole owner of the property in question and received the rent till December, 2006 by way of rent receipt, counter foils of which are Ex. RW1/66 to Ex. RW1/81. After his death, his wife Smt. Dalbir Kaur Bahri started receiving the rent and received the rent upto September, 2009 against rent receipts Ex. RW1/82 to Ex. RW1/87. It is the case of the respondent that Pankaj Bahri, being son of Sh. S.K. Bahri used to collect rent on behalf of Sh. S.K. Bahri and therefore, counterfoils of Page 3 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09 4 some rent receipts bears signatures of Sh. Pankaj Bahri wherein name of the owner in those rent receipts is shown to be of Sh. S.K. Bahri only. It is also averred by the respondent that initially the rate of rent was Rs. 200/ per month but w.e.f. January, 2007, the said rent was enhanced to Rs. 220/ per month. Further, respondent has denied to have made any structural changes in the demised premises. Further, it is stated that reply to legal notice dated 28.07.2008 (Ex. RW1/2) was sent to counsel for the petitioner wherein it is submitted by the respondent that Sh. Pankaj Bahri was never the owner/landlord of the respondent and that previously rent was paid to Sh. S.K. Bahri and after his death, the same was paid to his wife Smt. Dalbir Kaur Bahri.
3. Petitioner filed replication to the written statement filed by the respondent wherein she denied all the contentions raised by the respondent in her written statement and further, reiterated the facts mentioned in the petition.
4. Petitioner herself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of petition. Further, he relied upon following documents:
a) Site plan : Ex. PW1/1 b) Legal notice : Ex. PW1/2 Page 4 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09 5 c) Postal receipt : Ex. PW1/3 d) AD Card : Ex. PW1/4
5. During crossexamination, petitioner stated that the site plan of the tenanted premises was prepared at the time when the tenanted premises, i.e., the shop was closed. Petitioner also denied that the rent for the period of April, 2003 to December, 2006 was received by Sh. S.K. Bahri and that after his death, the said rent was collected by Smt. Dalbir Kaur Bahri, i.e., wife of late Sh. S.K. Bahri. Further, the petitioner admitted that she is not the owner of the suit premises and that she has not inherited the tenanted premises. The petitioner also denied to have received any reply dated 26.08.2008 to the legal notice sent by her, though, she admitted that the address mentioned on legal notice, the reply dated 26.08.2008 and the postal receipts including UPC of the reply is the same.
6. PW2, Sh. Sanjeev Bajaj, previous counsel of the petitioner identified legal notice dated 20.11.2008 Mark 'X'.
7. Respondent appointed Sh. R. K. Kaushik, i.e., her son as her Special Power of Attorney Holder to depose on behalf of the respondent due to her old age. He stepped into the witness box as RW1 and further, reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement. He was also Page 5 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09 6 crossexamined at length by the petitioner.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and have also gone through the judicial file carefully. GROUNDS OF EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(a) OF THE ACT:
9. The cause of action for eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent u/s 14(1)(a) of the Act consists of the following facts:
(a) relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(b) existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the date of notice of demand;
(c) Service of notice of demand in the manner provided u/s 106 of TP Act; and
(d) failure of tenant to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within 2 months of the date of service of notice u/s106 of TP Act.
10. In the present case, landlordtenant relationship is denied by the respondent. Case of the respondent is that during the lifetime of Sh. S. K. Bahri, the rent was being collected by him only by way of rent receipts Ex. RW1/66 to RW1/81. It is submitted that after 01.03.2006, the rent was tendered to Smt. Dalbir Kaur Bahri only and the reason why the rent receipts Ex. RW1/82 to Ex. RW1/87 bears the signatures of Pankaj Bahri is that Pankaj Bahri, being son of Smt. Dalbir Kaur Bahri used to collect Page 6 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09 7 the rent on her behalf but the name of the owner in these rent receipts are Smt. Dalbir Kaur only.
11. Per contra, the petitioner has failed to place any evidence on record to prove that Sh. Pankaj Bahri has become landlord of the tenanted premises after or during lifetime of his father Sh. S.K. Bahri. The petitioner has only placed three rent receipts Ex. PW1/X1 to Ex. PW1/X3 in support of his contention that Sh. Pankaj Bahri has become landlord of the premises. In all the three rent receipts, the name of the owner of the property is shown as Sh. S.K. Bahri and Sh. Pankaj Bahri had only collected rent on behalf of Sh. S.K. Bahri. The respondent has also filed rent receipts issued to him after January, 2007 wherein she has paid rent to wife of deceased Sh. S.K. Bahri, i.e., Smt. Dalbir Kaur Bahri. The allegation of the petitioner that no rent has been tendered by the respondent from January, 2007 seems to be a bald plea as earlier as well, it has been discussed above that no rent was tendered by the respondent to the petitioner or her husband.
12. Further, the petitioner has stated that she had served legal notice to the respondent calling upon to pay arrears or deposit th rent but the respondent never paid nor deposited any rent to the petitioner. Per contra, it is the case of the respondent that respondent had sent reply to Page 7 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09 8 the legal notice sent by the petitioner Ex. PW1/2 wherein it is clearly mentioned that petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted premises. No other evidence has been filed by the petitioner to prove the landlordship or ownership of her husband over the tenanted premises. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act and hence, petition is dismissed u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act.
GROUNDS OF EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(j) OF THE ACT:
13. For succeeding in a petition for eviction filed under Section 14 (1)
(j) of the Act, the petitioner is required to prove:
(a) that the tenants have, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises.
14. In the present case, the petitioner has made a bald allegation that the respondent has made structural changes in the tenanted premises without describing nature and kind of the structural changes made or whether these changes are of permanent or temporary nature. Further, it is admitted by the petitioner that the site plan of the tenanted premises was prepared at the time when the tenanted premises was closed. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to place on record any document to Page 8 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09 9 prove that any structural changes were made by the respondent in the tenanted premises. In these circumstances, petition u/s 14 (1) (j) of the DRC Act is also dismissed as rejected.
15. In the light of findings given above, it has been held that petitioner has failed to fulfill the requirements of provisions of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act. Hence, petition is dismissed u/s 14 (1) (a) of the Act. Further, in absence of any cogent evidence by the petitioner to prove that any structural changes has been made by the respondent without the consent or the permission of the landlord after the premises was let out to her, the petition also stands dismissed u/s 14 (1) (j) of the Act. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
on 03 Day of July, 2014.
rd
CCJ cum ARC1 (Central)
[This judgment contains 09 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 9 of 9 Smt. Aarti Bahri Vs. Smt. Bimla Devi E-108/13/09