Delhi District Court
Naresh Sharma vs Mrs. Dukni Devi on 18 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN: ACJ/CCJ/ARC (SOUTH):
DISTRICT COURT SAKET: NEW DELHI.
In re,
RC ARC No.96/17
Naresh Sharma
s/o Late Mr. Sant Ram Sharma
R/o: H. No. 125A, Ground Floor,
DDA Flats, Near Aggarwal Sweets,
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi ....... Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Dukni Devi
w/o Mr. Chandu Mandal,
R/o: R-9, Khirki Extension,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. .....Respondent
Date of Institution : 17.07.2017
Date of judgment reserved for orders : 10.09.2018
Date of Decision : 18.09.2018
JUDGMENT
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT U/S 14(1)(a) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL, 1958 CASE OF PETITIONER
1. As per petitioner, house no. R-9, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi was let out to the respondent in June 2013 on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- per month without written agreement and excluding the electricity and water charges. Petitioner claims that respondent failed to pay the rent @ Rs. 2500/- per month since February, 2015 despite his repeated requests and demands and hence a legal notice dated 08.09.2016 RC ARC No. 96/17 Naresh Sharma v. Dukni Devi Pages 1/5 demanding arrears of rent was served upon the respondent. However, despite service of legal notice the respondent failed to pay the arrears of rent since February, 2015.
Hence, the present petition is filed seeking eviction of defendant from the demised premises u/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act.
CASE OF RESPONDENT
2. Respondent has filed the leave to defend application. However, at the request of Counsel for respondent, same was considered as written statement on behalf of respondent. As per said affidavit/application, respondent claimed that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and in fact she was inducted as tenant by the father of the petitioner in the tenanted premises on a monthly rent of Rs.180/- per month which was increased from time to time and last paid rent is Rs.1,500/- pm. As per respondent, she had been regularly paying the monthly rent to the father of petitioner without any default. However, after the death of father of petitioner, she started making payment of rent to the petitioner and she had paid the monthly rent upto March, 2016. Respondent further stated that petitioner due to his dishonest intention started threatening her to dispossess her from the tenanted premises and due to forceful dispossession, she filed a civil suit titled as Dukni Devi v. Manoj Sharma & Ors. However, during the pendency of said suit both parties arrived at an amicable settlement and in terms of the said settlement, the petitioner and his brother had agreed and undertaken not to dispossess the respondent without following the due process of law and she agreed to pay arrears of rent w.e.f. April, 2016 and to continue to pay regular rent in future. As per respondent, she paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards part payment of arrears of rent and had approached the petitioner to receive the balance arrears of RC ARC No. 96/17 Naresh Sharma v. Dukni Devi Pages 2/5 rent. However, petitioner refused to receive the monthly rent and in fact pressurized her to pay excessive amount of rent and has filed the present petition for evicting her under false and flimsy ground of non payment of rent. Respondent claimed that in the said suit the petitioner admitted the rent of the tenanted premises as Rs.1500/-, however, in the present petition the petitioner has claimed monthly rent as Rs.2500/- p.m. As per respondent, she sent a reply dated 26.10.2016 to the legal notice denying all the allegations made therein. As per respondent, no electricity and water connection has been provided in the tenanted premises and petitioner is neither the owner nor has any right over the tenanted premises as he has not placed on record any document to prove his ownership over the tenanted premises. All other allegations have been denied by the respondent and a prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.
REPLICATION
3. In the replication, petitioner has denied the contents of the written statement and has re-affirmed the averments made in the petition.
STRIKING OFF DEFENCE OF RESPONDENT
4. Thereafter, on 01.12.2017 Ld. Predecessor passed order u/s 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act directing the respondents to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of admitted rent w.e.f. April, 2016 till November, 2017 within one month from the date of order and after deducting the amount which the respondent has allegedly paid to the petitioner. However, the respondent failed to comply the said order. Thereafter, an application was moved u/s 15(7) of DRC and on 23.04.2018 Ld. Predecessor after hearing both parties allowed said application and struck off the defence of respondent.
RC ARC No. 96/17 Naresh Sharma v. Dukni Devi Pages 3/5 Matter was proceeded further and was listed for petitioner's evidence.
PETITIONER's EVIDENCE
5. Petitioner Naresh Kumar Sharma examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents as under:-
Ex.PW1/1 is the site plan Ex.PW1/2 is the legal notice dated 08.09.2016 Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 are the postal receipt dated 08.09.2016 and AD card Even though the defence of respondent had been struck off but opportunity was provided to the respondent to cross examined PW1 so as to check the veracity of the facts deposed by the plaintiff.
RESPONDENT's EVIDENCE
6. As the defence of defendant was struck off no opportunity was granted to respondent to lead evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINDINGS
7. I have heard the arguments of counsels for both the parties and have carefully perused the file.
As per section 14 (1)(a) of DRC Act, 1958, a landlord can seek recovery of possession of a premises if the tenant has neither paid nor RC ARC No. 96/17 Naresh Sharma v. Dukni Devi Pages 4/5 tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him, within two months of a statutory notice. In the present case, the defence of defendant has been struck off. Even otherwise the relationship of landlord- tenant with the father of petitioner has been admitted by the respondents. It is also admitted that after death of father of petitioner the respondent has been making payment of rent to the petitioner. Thus, there is relationship of landlord tenant between the parties even from admitted facts. The petitioner has deposed about the rate of rent as well as arrears as per his pleadings but none of the said aspects have been touched upon in his cross examination. Admittedly the legal demand notice has been received by the respondents. However, it is nowhere agitated in the cross examination of PW1 that arrears of rent were paid after receiving of the notice within the prescribed period. In these circumstances, all the requirements of section 14(1)(a) of DRC have been proved by the petitioner.
As far as the benefit u/s 14(2) DRC Act is concerned, the respondent has failed to comply with court order passed u/s 15(1) DRC Act, therefore, no such benefit can be given to the respondent. Hence, the petition is allowed and respondent is directed to vacate the premises i.e. R-9, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as per the site plan Ex.PW1/1.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN SANGWAN
SANGWAN Date: 2018.09.18
16:15:44 +0530
(ANNOUNCED IN THE (SACHIN SANGWAN)
OPEN COURT ON ACJ/CCJ/ARC (SOUTH):
18th SEPTEMBER, 2018) DISTRICT COURT SAKET:
NEW DELHI.
RC ARC No. 96/17 Naresh Sharma v. Dukni Devi Pages 5/5