Delhi District Court
Moti Lal Jain vs Vijay Kumar Goel on 30 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA MALHOTRA: ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE/ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
E. Petition No. 5620/2016
CNR No. DLNW030017052016
Moti Lal Jain S/o Ram Sarup Jain (Deceased through LRs)
1. Anita Jain (Wife)
2. Neeraj Jain (Son).
3. Deepak Jain (Son)
All R/o 9/16, South Patel Nagar,
New Delhi. ................Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Kumar Goel
C/o Property No. G-I/2, First Floor,
Lawrence Road Industrial Area,
Opposite Hanuman Dharamkanta,
Delhi-110035. .................Respondent
Date of Institution of the case 26.08.2016
Under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B, Delhi
Rent Control Act.
Date of Order 30.11.2023
Decision Leave to defend application is
dismissed. Eviction order passed.
RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 1 /12
ORDER
By way of this order, the application for leave to defend filed by the respondent/tenant in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter the "Act" or "DRCA") is decided.
PETITION
1. Petitioner is the owner of the property bearing no. G-I/2, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Opp. Hanuman Dharamkanta, Delhi-110035, measuring about 432 sq. yards (hereinafter the "suit property") having purchased it from its erstwhile owner Om Prakash Sachdeva vide GPA, Agreement to Sell and Will dated 28.08.1991. Om Prakash Sachdeva s/o Dewan Chand Sachdeva and proprietor of M/s Madan Industries was allotted perpetual lease of the suit property by the DDA on 28.10.1975. The property, which is mainly occupied by tenants, is built upto second floor and is situated in a commercial area. Respondent is one of such tenants in a shop at first floor of the suit property , as shown in red colour and described as Room no.11 in the site plan ( hereinafter the "tenanted premises"), inducted by the previous owner at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-, exclusive of other charges. He is using it for running his business of food grains. After the transfer of title, he attorned petitioner as his landlord and started paying rent to him. However, he is a defaulter in payment of rent since long.
2. Petitioner has three businesses:-
(i) M/s Moti Lal & Sons- A food- grains business run in partnership with his sons Neeraj Jain and Deepak Jain from premises no. 2900A, Rui Mandi, Delhi (30 sq. yards);
(ii) Abhinandan Nath Trading Company- A business of sale and purchase of food grains run in partnership with his son Neeraj Jain and brother- in - law of Neeraj Jain from premises no. 2910, Rui Mandi, Bahadurgarh Road, New Delhi (30 sq. yards) and
(iii) Anant Nath Builder Pvt. Ltd- Contractor and Builders business, RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 2 /12 a company run with his sons Neeraj Jain and Deepak Jain at Lawrence Road.
3. Petitioner is facing paucity of accommodation in all the above-stated three businesses. Larger space is required for storage of grains; for storage of cement, raw material etc; for loading and unloading of material and for accommodating labor as well. Due to shortage of space, oft times petitioner has to dispose off the grains at the spot itself. He is also unable to expand his business because of the same. Requirement of atleast 7-8 rooms for each of the food grain business and 10-12 rooms for contractor business is alleged. No other accommodation except the suit property, which is also in close proximity of his existing business and thus would fulfill his and his sons' commercial requirements, is available with him. Hence, the present eviction petition. Petitioner has filed separate eviction petitions against other tenants as well.
3.1 In support, petitioner has relied upon copy of the perpetual lease dated 28.10.1975 (supra); GPA Sales documents dated 28.08.1991 executed by Om Prakash Sachdeva in his name; some bank letters; income tax returns of his three companies ( supra) and site plan.
3.2 During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner unfortunately expired whereby his LRs, including his sons for whose bonafide requirements the petition was filed, stepped into his shoes vide order dated 22.08.2022.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
4. Respondent has denied petitioner's title as well as any landlord-tenant relationship with him. He claims that O.P. Sachdeva continues to be the owner as well as landlord of the suit property while petitioner has only been authorised to collect rent on his behalf since 1992; that the documents such as GPA and Agreement to sell etc., relied upon by the petitioner do not confer title; that as per the aforestated documents, suit property is a RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 3 /12 mortgaged property which is under litigation and cannot be sold without permission of the Court or the creditor; that in a letter dated 28.03.2007 addressed to Canara Bank, Lawrence Road, petitioner's wife claimed herself to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of a GPA and Will executed by O.P. Sachdeva in her favor which is contradictory to petitioner's claim; that petitioner had filed a civil suit titled "Moti Lal Jain v Pawan Kumar Sharma" CS no. 672/2000 on the basis of similar documents which was dismissed on 02.07.2003 by the then Ld. Civil Judge; that the suit property could not have been sold without the permission of DDA; that he has never attorned petitioner as his landlord; that the purported need is self created; that petitioner has filed another petition against tenant of shop no. 1 of suit property namely Vipan Kumar Jain, proprietor of Vardhman Trading Company who is occupying 60% of the suit property and that it is a collusive petition as Vardhman Trading Co. is the sister concern of petitioner which shows that petitioner is already in occupation of more than 60% of the suit property; that Vardhman Trading and Anantnath Builders are operating from the same premises; that the petitioner has concealed these facts from the Court and that on the basis of these grounds, trial is warranted.
In support, he has relied upon copies of some advertisements wherein Vardhaman Trading company, Abhinandan Traders and Moti Lal & Sons are shown to be associated firms; copies of rent receipts; some photographs; copy of judgment of C.S. No. 672/2000; Master Data of Anantnath Builder; site plan etc. REPLY TO LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
5. In his reply, petitioner has denied the contents of leave to defend application while reiterating the contents of his petition. He has reiterated his ownership on the basis of GPA sales documents relied upon by him.
REJOINDER
6. In his rejoinder, respondent has re-affirmed the contents of his leave to defend application while denying the case of the petitioner.
Heard and Perused.
RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 4 /12 FINDINGS
7. It is trite that in an eviction petition for bonafide requirement, leave to defend is to be granted only when the tenant is able to raise triable issue(s) which can be adjudicated only upon the consideration of additional evidence. The tenant must disclose such a prima facie case as would dis-entitle the landlord from obtaining an eviction order, lest an eviction order has to be passed. Keeping these principles in mind, let us examine if the grounds taken by the respondent in his leave to defend application, are worthy of trial.
A. Title of Petitioner and Landlord - Tenant Relationship
8. Petitioner has filed the present eviction petition in the capacity of an owner- cum-landlord of the entire suit property. The original owner / allottee of the property Om Prakash Sachdeva executed GPA Sales documents dated 28.08.1991 in petitioner's favor. Some documents such as receipts and an affidavit acknowledging receipt of money executed on subsequent dates between them, have also been relied upon. Challenge is posed to these documents by the respondent by stating that petitioner was only authorised to collect rent on behalf of O.P. Sachdeva in 1992 on the basis of the same and that no title has passed in the property nor same could have been passed, property being under mortgage with a bank and also under litigation.
8.1. In a litigation between landlord and tenant, it is trite that a landlord is not required to prove his ownership in absolute terms. He is only required to prove that he is more than a tenant. In " Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2028", the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in rent proceedings, the term owner has to be understood in the context of background of the law. Rent law is meant not only for the protection of the tenants but also provides the circumstances under which a landlord is entitled to eviction, bonafide requirement being one of such grounds. The meaning of the term "owner" in this context is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant.
RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 5 /12 8.2 On the basis of GPA etc., executed by the admitted erstwhile owner-cum- landlord in his favor, petitioner has been able to prove his better title and that he is more than a tenant. He was not supposed to prove his ownership in absolute terms as is required in a suit based on title under Transfer of Property Act. It is not the case of respondent that some dispute is existing between the executant of GPA and the petitioner or that such GPA already stands revoked. A GPA coupled with interest is otherwise also irrevocable. At the same time, respondent has also not produced any documents in respect of the assertions made by him. He has only relied upon copies of some rent receipts. In particular, he has drawn attention to a receipts dated 25.01.1992 and 28.05.1992 wherein the signatures of "O.P. Sachdeva" also seem to appear alongwith that of the petitioner who has signed as "Moti Lal Jain GPA", to harp on the fact that petitioner is only the rent collector while O.P. Sachdeva continues to remain the owner.
8.3 It has always been petitioner's case that he has acquired rights in the suit property on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell etc. The reliance on the receipts dated 25.01.1992 and 28.05.1992 by the respondent to stake ownership of erstwhile owner is misleading and misplaced as on this very receipt petitioner has signed at the place of and in the capacity of "Property Owner". Had O.P. Sachdeva retained ownership with him even after the execution of GPA etc., and had he only authorised the petitioner to collect rent on his behalf, there was no requirement for having two signatures on the same receipt - one of the owner and the other of the purported rent collector. Signatures of only one of them would have sufficed. Further, the actual owner would also not have allowed the attorney holder to sign in place earmarked for the owner in the rent receipt. He would have been made to sign only as a rent collector then. The signatures therefore appearing on the said receipt rather seem to be an attornment by the ertswhile owner in favor of the new owner. Later receipts have not been filed by the respondent for obvious reasons. The remaining receipts relied upon by him are of no consequence as they are executed prior to the execution of the GPA sales documents.
RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 6 /12 8.4 The basic dictum of law is that one who asserts must prove. Where a tenant asserts someone else to be the owner/ landlord of the tenanted premises but fails to substantiate the same by any cogent material, he cannot be said to have raised a triable issue requiring adjudication. The petitioner has been able to prove his better title. Infact, the rent receipt filed by the respondent also show that respondent had paid rent to the petitioner thereby acknowledging him as his landlord. Besides, even otherwise law does not require attornment. Once property has been transferred by the earlier owner in favor of petitioner, no attornment by the tenant to the petitioner is required.
8.5 Once the landlord-tenant relationship stands established, the principle of estoppel under Section 116 Indian Evidence Act would come to fore. Reliance in this regard can be placed on case titled "Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd.", 2014 (206) DLT 63, wherein it was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant being clearly established, the defendant is estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff to the said immovable property in view of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. To counter this, respondent has relied upon case titled "Bismillah Be (Dead ) by Legal Representatives v Majeed Shah" , (2017) 2 SCC 274 to bring home his point that even a tenant is entitled to challenge the derivative title of the assignee/vendee of the original landlord despite the bar of Section 116, Evidence Act. There is no denying the legal principle laid down in the said judgment. However, there should be some basis to the challenge. Only vague allegations would not suffice. Infact, it has been held in the same judgment that once the vendee has proved his title to the demised premises, the original tenancy devolves upon him and tenant on the same terms and conditions on which it was entered into with the original landlord. It further states that this right of tenant to challenge ownership is subject to the caveat that he has not paid rent to the vendee/assignee of the tenanted premises which results in creation of attornment. As already discussed before, the rent receipt of the year 1992 relied upon by the respondent, shows that he had been paying rent to the petitioner and therefore, his case is covered by the caveat/exception hereinabove.
RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 7 /12 8.6 Some other arguments have also been raised by the respondent to oppose ownership such as existence of some GPA existing in the name of petitioner's wife and her claim of being the owner of the suit property to Canara Bank vide letter dated 28.03.2007. No interse dispute between the husband and wife has come on record nor the wife has come forward to stake her own title to the property. The internal arrangement between them is of no concern of the respondent. It is not respondent's case that it is not the petitioner but his wife who is the actual owner / landlord. His other argument that the perpetual lease deed granted by the DDA did not allow transfer or that the GPA was contingent on discharge of loan by the petitioner which loan has remained undischarged whereby the GPA stands automatically cancelled, is also of no help to his case. Whether there has been any violation of the terms of allotment by the original allottee and the consequence of such breach has no concern with the respondent or his defence nor would it affect the merits of the case. Similarly, if according to the respondent the GPA stands cancelled, then it was for him to show as to whom he had been paying rent if not the petitioner. Same has not been done. The objections have been taken only for the sake of disputing petitioner's ownership. The reliance on another case filed by the petitioner against some third party (bearing CS no. 672/2000), is also inconsequential as the issue involved therein was different being a suit for permanent injunction and same was dismissed as no evidence was led by the plaintiff/petitioner and not on merits. Same has no bearing on the present petition.
8.7 Thus, in the ultimate analysis of the case and in the face of the GPA, Will and Agreement to sell dated 28.08.1991 executed by the admitted owner of the suit property in favor of the petitioner, there is no escaping the conclusion that atleast for the purpose of Section 14 (1) (e) DRCA, petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises and therefore, also its landlord. The objection to the contrary accordingly stands dismissed.
B. Alternative Suitable Accommodation
9. Respondent has alleged that petitioner has sufficient accommodation available RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 8 /12 to him in the suit property itself and that he is enjoying more than 60% portion of the suit premises through his sister concern Vardhman Trading Co., run by his relative Vipan Kumar Jain and therefore same can be used by him for the purported needs. It is also stated that the other business of petitioner, Ananthnath Builders is already operating from the same premises as apparent from the Master Data of the company, which fact has been concealed by him. Petitioner on the other hand has responded that all these are separate businesses and separate entities having their own individual needs. He has already disclosed his requirements - atleast 7-8 rooms each are required for storage of grains in his business M/s Moti Lal & Sons and Abhinandan Nath Trading Company and at least 10-12 number of rooms are required in the building business at Anant Nath Builder Pvt. Ltd. He has also already disclosed the manner in which most of the suit property is already being occupied by different tenants against whom he has filed separate eviction petitions.
9.1 Landlord being the best judge of his requirement is already a settled principle of law and he has got complete freedom in the matter. It is not for the respondent to dictate in what manner should the landlord utilize his own property. The petitioner wants to expand his business to progress further in life and he has every right to do so. The accommodation already available with him has fallen short. Tenant while enjoying landlord's property cannot ask him to not use his own property and to adjust in property already under his occupation without seeking his eviction from the tenanted premises. As regards the allegations of collusion with Vipan Kumar Jain, same make no sense. If the petitioner wanted to create a paucity of accommodation, he could have let Vipan Kumar Jain continue to occupy the premises, as it is landlord's prerogative as to which tenant he wants to evict, and thereby shown a dearth of space in the remaining 40%. On the other hand, he admittedly filed an eviction petition against him to obtain possession of the property from him. If the petitioner wants to have the entire suit property for his and his sons' business, tenant cannot say that he should instead accommodate in the already available portion. The reliance on the advertisements showing Vardhaman Trading Company, Abhinandan Traders and Moti Lal & Sons as associated firms, is therefore of no consequence as all these three RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 9 /12 businesses, even though run in the same family, are still separate businesses and separate entities and only to suit the respondent, petitioner is not required to run all the businesses from the same portion of the property.
9.2 Apart from the suit property, respondent has not disclosed details of any other property available with the petitioner. Merely alleging that the landlord has vacant space or properties in the absence of any proof cannot be made basis of granting leave to defend the case. No material has been placed on record to substantiate his plea that petitioner has such number of vacant portions as would satisfy his need. In a petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRCA, the tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself. Only some vague photographs have been filed which are of no help. Even if some portions in the suit property are available with the petitioner, it is already disclosed that they are not sufficient to fulfill his needs for which reason he has filed separate eviction petitions against different tenants.
Accordingly, the objection regarding availability of alternative suitable premises with the petitioner is unfounded and stands overruled.
C. Bonafide Requirement
10. Petitioner has categorically disclosed that he requires the tenanted premises for storage of material and to accommodate labor so that he can expand his already existing businesses alongwith his sons. After his death, the sons have stepped into his shoes. The suit property is in the close proximity of the businesses and hence, most suitable. Respondent has only vaguely denied such need by stating that petitioner and his sons are well settled in life. The affluence or vagrancy of the landlord or his family members has no bearing in a petition based on bonafide requirement. A strong presumption exists in favor of the landlord and a heavy burden lies on the tenant to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself to be able to gain a favorable order. Mere assertions do not raise any triable issue nor sufficient to rebut the strong presumption. The requirement shown by the petitioner seems to be RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 10 /12 genuine and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.
11. In "Tarsem Singh vs. Gurvinder Singh" , MANU/DE/2640/2010: 173 (2010) DLT 379, it was observed that "if the landlord wants to start his own business in the premises owned by him then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the requirement of the landlord for premises is neither bonafide nor genuine". The requirement shown by the petitioner is large for which he has filed separate eviction petitions against different tenants. In "Surjit Singh Kalra V/s Union of India & Anr." , in SLP (C) Nos. 7146 and 11425 of 1990 (date of decision 13.02.199), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that a landlord is not precluded from seeking eviction of tenants from multiple properties if he establishes his need. Petitioner and his sons have every right to progress in life by expanding their business and the need to have their own and larger property to carry on and enlarge such business seems justified.
Thus, petitioner has been able to establish his bonafide requirement and nothing has been brought on record to rebut the same.
11.1. Before parting, it is imperative to state that respondent has also relied upon a citation titled "Khem Chand & Ors. Vs Arjun Jain & Ors. , (2013 (138) DRJ 154)" in support of his case. The case is peculiar to its own facts as in that case the land-lord had admitted availability of another portion in the same property but had termed it to be not suitable whereby the leave to defend was granted to the tenant. Same is not the case here.
12. In an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRCA, the petitioner/ landlord is required to show that :-
(i) He is the owner cum landlord of the tenanted premises;
(ii) He requires the premises for his bonafide
requirement &
(iii) He has no other suitable alternative
accommodation for this purpose.
RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 11 /12
While the petitioner has been able to establish his case, the respondent has failed to raise any plea requiring the matter to be taken to trial. The pleas raised by him are moonshine and illusory not worthy of adjudication through evidence. Consequently, the leave to defend application has to be dismissed.
RELIEF
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the leave to defend application stands dismissed and an eviction order u/s 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B, DRCA is passed in favor of the petitioner with respect to the tenanted premises i. e. one shop at the first floor of the suit property bearing No. G-I/2, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Opp. Hanuman Dharamkanta, Delhi-110035, more specifically shown in red color and described as room No. 11 in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, in light of Section 14(7) DRCA, eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance .
Announced in an Open Court.
(Divya Malhotra) ACJ/ARC/North-West Rohini District Courts/ Delhi 30.11.2023.
RC ARC No. 5620/2016 Moti Lal Jain V/s Vijay Kumar Goel Page no. 12 /12