Delhi District Court
M/S Gurind Sales vs Sh. Kedar Nath (Now Deceased) on 23 November, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DINESH KUMAR SHARMA :
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
RCT No. 15/2017
M/s Gurind Sales
(through its Authorised Representative)
60, Janpath, New Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Kedar Nath (now deceased)
2. Sh. Surinder Nath
S/o Sh. Dina Nath
R/o Ellerslie Cottage, Shimla4
Also at : 60, Janpath, New Delhi.
......Respondents
AND
RCT No. 15/2018
M/s Gurind Sales
(through its Authorised Representative)
60, Janpath, New Delhi. .....Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Surinder Nath
S/o Sh. Dina Nath
R/o Ellerslie Cottage, Shimla4
Also at : 60, Janpath, New Delhi.
2. Land & Development Office
(Through Land & Development Office)
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
......Respondents
RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18
M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 1 of 24
Date of filing of appeal (RCT No. 15/17) : 01.07.2017
Date of filing of appeal (RCT No. 15/18) : 24.04.2018
Date of judgment : 23.11.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I shall dispose of the aforesaid appeals bearing RCT No. 15/2017 & 15/2018 filed under Section 38 of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act" in short) whereby the impugned orders dated 15.05.2017 and 27.02.2018 have been challenged. The Ld. Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 15.05.2017 allowed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act and vide order dated 27.02.2018 inter alia ordered that respondent is not liable to get the benefit under Section 14(11) of DRC Act and passed an eviction order under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act.
2. The facts in brief are that eviction petition bearing No. 72/2009 under Section 14(1)(j) and (k) of the DRC Act was filed by the petitioner against the respondent alleging therein that during the month of April/May, 1997, the respondent/tenant has caused and/or permitted to be caused 'substantial damage' to the tenanted premises viz. Two rooms and half verandah in front portion on the second floor of the premises bearing Municipal No. RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 2 of 24 60, Janpath, New Delhi110 001. It was further alleged that respondent carried out extensive structural changes, additions and alterations [including the unauthorized construction of a pucca Mezzanine floor (over and above the demised premises) inside the tenanted premises]. The said additions, alterations, as also the unauthorized construction of mezzanine floor over and above the demised premises, has caused acute substantial damage to the demised premises. The eviction was sought under section 14(1)
(j) of DRC Act. It was further alleged that the respondent/tenant has used the demised premises as an office i.e. for a purpose other than the prescribed residential purpose. It was further stated that use of the premises on the second floor is contrary to the conditions imposed by the Government and the tenant has not stopped the misuse despite the notice being served and therefore, the eviction was also sought under section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act.
3. Initially, the Written Statement was filed on 14.10.2003, however, later on, respondent filed the amended written statement on 04.01.2011. It was stated that no notice has been served before filing the petition under section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act. It was further stated that the notice dated 12.03.1982, alleged to have been served over 21 years back, has already stood waived.
RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 3 of 24
4. The tenant/respondent submitted that the premises in dispute was let out for office purpose and is being used for the office purpose along with residence. No manufacturing activities are being done nor any sales and purchases are being made from the premises in dispute and that there is no contravention of the terms of the alleged lease of the Land and Development Authority.
5. In respect of the structural changes, additions and alteration, it was stated that no mezzanine floor, over and above the demised premises, has been raised and that the premises in dispute is in the same condition as it was let out originally. The said mezzanine had been constructed prior to letting of the premises to the respondent and is not unauthorized and is made of wood and is in fact, a false ceiling and as such, the allegation of causing substantial damage to the tenanted premises, was vehemently denied. The respondent denied to have carried out any unauthorized construction.
6. In the replication filed by the petitioner, averments made in the petition were reaffirmed and contentions made in the written statement have been denied.
7. The petitioners/landlords examined three witnesses in RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 4 of 24 order to prove his case. On behalf of the respondents also, the evidence was led.
8. The Ld. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, vide order dated 15.05.2017 allowed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act.
9. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the Ld. ARC also inter alia held in Para No. 19 that though, the petition has been filed by petitioner under Section 14(1)(j)&(k) of DRC Act, however, even unauthorized construction (if proved) in violation of the lease is actionable under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act and, therefore, there is no need to give a supporting finding on 14(1)(j) of DRC Act. The Ld. Trial Court after allowing the petition under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act, conducted the proceedings under Section 14(11) of DRC Act and inter alia held vide order dated 27.02.2018 that the appellant never approached the landlord or the L&DO for the temporarily regularization of the breaches nor any steps were taken by the respondent to remove the unauthorised construction/misuse in the suit property despite an eviction order passed against it.
10. The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 5 of 24 15.05.2017 on the ground that Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that false ceiling/mezzanine floor is in existence and not taking into account the plea of the appellant that the alleged mezzanine is a false ceiling, which has been constructed prior to letting of the premises in dispute to the appellant and is not unauthorized and is made of wood. It has further been submitted that though, respondent/petitioner mentioned the details of additions and alterations in para no. 18(a)(i) of the petition, but has not filed any such list of additions and alteration till date. It has further been submitted that even PW3 during his crossexamination has admitted that he has not filed any document or photograph to show that the respondent has constructed mezzanine floor in the tenanted premises. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that there is no evidence on the record that any damage has taken place in the property which substantially affects it. The Ld. Trial Court has stated to have been fallen into a grave error by not relying upon the testimony of RW3 who stated that the tenanted premises is stable, erect and in excellent condition and there has been no misuse of the said property by the respondent. The appellant stated that the Ld. Trial Court also erred in holding that no evidence has been led by the appellant to the effect that no damage has taken place in the property which substantially affects RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 6 of 24 it. It has also been stated that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly shifted the burden of prove upon respondent that no substantial damage has been caused to the premises by such construction and not observing that the law of land as settled in the cases of AIR 1988 SC 293, 1984(2) RCR (Rent) 572, (2003) 3 AD 705 and CM (M) No. 201/2012 (Delhi High Court), is that the provision of Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act applies only in cases of substantial damage and not in the case of a wooden structure and that landlord has to prove in what manner the addition and alteration impaired the value and utility of the building. The appellant raised the following question of law in the appeal :
"i) Whether the learned lower Court was justified in allowing the petition under S.14(1)(K) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 even when no evidence was led by the landlord to prove the existence of a pucca mezzanine floor?
ii) Whether the learned lower Court was justified in allowing the petition under S.14(1)(K) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 even when no evidence was led by the landlord to prove substantial damage being caused by the appellant to the tenanted premises?
iii) Whether the learned lower Court was justified in allowing the petition under S.14(1)(K) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 even when no evidence was led by the RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 7 of 24 landlord to prove that the tenanted premises were used by the appellant for commercial purposes?
iv) Whether the learned Rent Controller was justified in holding that the burden of prove that no substantial damage has been caused to the premises by such construction has shifted upon respondent; and not observing that the law of the land as settled in the cases of AIR 1988 SC 293, 1984(2) RCR (Rent) 572, (2003) 3 AD 705 and CM (M) No. 201/2012 (Delhi High Court) is that the provision of S.14(1)(K) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applies only in cases of substantial damage and not in the case of a wooden structure and that landlord has to prove in what manner the addition and alteration impaired value and utility of the building?
v) Whether the learned Rent Controller was justified in holding that no evidence has been led by the appellant to the effect that no damage has taken place in the property which substantially affects it; and not observing that the appellant had got the suit property inspected through an Architect Mr. Naresh Kumar Saini, who appeared in the Court as RW3 and clearly stated in his crossexamination that "I did not see any damage caused to the premises. It is incorrect to suggest that the suit premises have been damaged due to the construction of mezzanine floor?
vi) Whether the learned Rent Controller was justified in holding that no evidence has been led by the appellant to the RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 8 of 24 effect that no damage has taken place in the property which substantially affects it; and not observing that the respondent himself during his crossexamination has admitted that no damage has been caused to the tenanted premises?"
11. In RCT appeal bearing No. 15/2018, the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that L&DO submitted its report on 05.09.2017, which was incomplete and as per the said report, no latest inspection was conducted in the suit property and therefore, L&DO was directed to conduct fresh inspection. The fresh inspection report was filed on 11.12.2017, which was full of ambiguities and errors. The appellant stated that these contradictions were pointed out to the Ld. Trial Court, however, the same were not taken into consideration. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that proceedings under Section 14(11) of DRC Act has not been conducted in accordance with law. It was stated that Ld. Trial Court ought to have directed the appellant to comply with the conditions as imposed upon the respondent herein by the L&DO. It was further stated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to pass any direction to the appellant to approach the L&DO to pay the uptodate charges for the alleged breaches despite having observed that L&DO temporarily RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 9 of 24 regularizes unauthorized constructions and misuse temporarily. The appellant stated that he is ready and willing to pay and suffer the misuse charges and penalty, as levied by the L&DO to regularise the alleged misuse and breaches with respect to the portion occupied by the appellant.
12. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents and Trial Court Record was called.
13. The respondents have not filed their reply, however, they have opposed the appeal.
14. Both the Ld. Counsel for the parties did not appear despite several opportunities and filed the written submissions.
15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant in RCT No. 15/2017 submitted that neither any manufacturing activities are being done nor any sales and purchases are made from the premises in dispute and therefore, there is no contravention of the terms of the alleged lease of the land and Development Authority. It has further been submitted that Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that no evidence has been led by the appellant to the effect that no damage has taken place in the property which substantially affects it and not observing that the appellant had got the suit property inspected through an Architect Mr. Naresh Kumar Saini, who RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 10 of 24 appeared in the court as RW3 and clearly stated in his evidence that the tenanted premises is stable, erect and in excellent condition and there has been no misuse of the premises in dispute. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has wrongly shifted the burden of prove upon the respondent that no substantial damage has been caused to the premises by such construction and not observing that the law of land as settled in the cases of AIR 1988 SC 293, 1984(2) RCR (Rent) 572, (2003) 3 AD 705 and CM (M) No. 201/2012 (Delhi High Court), is that the provision of Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act applies only in cases of substantial damage and not in the case of a wooden structure and that landlord has to prove in what manner the addition and alteration impaired the value and utility of the building. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has not carried out any structural changes, additions and alteration nor made any mezzanine floor over and above the demised premises and that the demised premises is in the same condition as it was let out. The alleged mezzanine is a false ceiling, which had been constructed prior to the letting of the premises in dispute to the respondent and is not unauthorized. The alleged structure is made of wood and as such, the alleged plea of causing substantial damage to the tenanted premises is wrong and incorrect.
RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 11 of 24
16. Ld. Counsel for the appellant in RCT No. 15/2018 submitted that Ld. Trial Court erred in holding that respondent/tenant never approached the landlord or the L&DO for the temporarily regularization of the breaches nor any steps were taken by the respondent/tenant to remove the unauthorised construction/misuse in the suit property. The Ld. Trial Court ought to have specified time and should have directed the appellant to comply with the conditions as imposed upon the respondent by the L&DO. It was further stated that the Ld. Trial Court failed to pass any direction to the appellant to approach the L&DO to pay the upto date charges for the alleged breaches despite having observed that L&DO temporarily regularizes unauthorized constructions and misuse temporarily. In support of his case, Ld. Counsel has relied upon Munshi Ram and Anr. vs. UOI Ors AIR (SC) 2623 and Dr. K. Madan vs. Krishnawati 1996 6 SCC 707.
17. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that respondent/tenant in his written statement did not plead that he was a partner in the appellant firm or even that the tenant was a partnership firm M/s Gurind Sales. It has been admitted in the written statement by the respondent/tenant that there existed a mezzanine within the demised premises, however, during the RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 12 of 24 course of evidence RW3 Sh. Naresh Kumar stated that there is no mezzanine in the demised premises. Ld. Counsel further submitted that DW1 Sh. V.K. Sharma had no personal knowledge of the facts stated by him in his affidavit and therefore, he ought not to have deposed on behalf of the respondent/tenant. Ld. Counsel further submitted that appeal is bereft of any substantial questions of law and is only filed to delay the proceeding of the case. In support of his case, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judgments :
1. Curewell (India) Ltd. vs. Sahib Singh (dead) by LRs. & Ors.
1993 Supp (1) SCC 507;
2. M/s Roneo Vickers India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.
85(2000) DLT 337;
3. Madan Lal Radhu & Anr. vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.
215 (2014) DLT 159;
4. Faqir Chand vs. Ram Rattan Bhanot (1973) 1 SCC 572;
5. Shankuntala Devi vs. Avtar Singh 113 (2004) DLT 454;
6. Kewal Kishan Ahuja vs. Jagdeep Singh & Anr.
214 (2014) DLT 716;
RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 13 of 24
7. Paman Lal Thakur vs. Bhawan Singh 1996 III AD (Delhi) 541 &
8. Bhim Sain Gupta & Ors vs. S.P. Rao Ors 85 (2000) DLT 148.
18. I have gone through the record and perused the written submissions of both the parties.
19. The Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order has given a categorical finding as to the relationship of landlordtenant between the parties. In the appeals filed before this court, this point has not been agitated by the appellant. Hence, I consider that in view of the categorical finding, there is no reason for this court to interfere in the same and therefore, it is established that there is relationship of landlordtenant between the parties.
20. The appellant has also not challenged the finding of the Ld. ARC that the petition should be dealt with under Section 14(1)(k) of the DRC Act. Hence, the finding of the Ld. Trial Court in this regard is also not under challenge. The Ld. Trial Court inter alia held as under :
"............. In the cross examination of PW1, Ld counsel for respondent has put a suggestion that mezzanine floor is a false RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 14 of 24 ceiling constructed with the help of wood and it has not caused any substantial damage to the premises in suit. Whereas on the other hand, there is a suggestion with respect to nonexistence of mezzanine floor to PW1 and the testimony of RW3 wherein he states that there is no mezzanine floor. The respondent while setting up their defence cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The existence of mezzanine floor in the property is proved by questions put in the cross examination by counsel for respondent himself. In view of the fact that there is mezzanine floor in existence in property, it is clear that respondent no. 3 has given a false statement in his deposition and, therefore, his entire testimony is liable to be discarded."
21. The Ld. Trial Court has also taken into account the fact that respondent had not come in person and legal heirs of the respondent had authorised Sh. V.K. Sharma to depose in the court. After appreciating the evidence of DW1 Sh. V.K. Sharma, the Ld. Trial Court inter alia held that DW1 Sh. V.K. Sharma had no personal knowledge of the facts stated by him in his affidavit, therefore, he ought not to have deposed on behalf of the respondent. It was further inter alia held that averments which were taken by respondent in written statement has not been RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 15 of 24 proved. The Ld. Trial Court relied upon Man Kaur (dead) by LR vs. Hartar Singh Sangh 2010 AIR SCW 6198 and inter alia held that a power of attorney who has no personal knowledge cannot be examined in place of main party. The Ld. Trial Court concluded that from the crossexamination of DW1, it has been proved that false ceiling/mezzanine floor is in existence and the same was raised by respondent after the premises in dispute was let out to them. It was further held that this fact was verified by letter dated 20.07.1993 by L.D. Gantora, Engineer Officer, wherein they had specified about the existence of misuse and unauthorized construction. The Ld. Trial Court held that petitioners have proved that an unauthorized construction in the form of mezzanine has been carried out by respondent and the burden to prove that no substantial damages has been caused to the premises by such construction has shifted upon respondent and they have failed to discharge the same.
22. In regard to the misuse, the Ld. Trial Court inter alia held that reply to the notice Ex.PW1/15 clearly finds mention of running of an office. The Ld. Trial Court held that appellant/ tenant did not produce any evidence/document to show that the premises in dispute is being used for residential purpose. It was further inter alia held that in regard to this contention, cross RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 16 of 24 examination of RW1 V.K. Sharma is very important, who has stated that Karan Singh is grandson of Satwant Singh who is living in suit property at present. He could not produce any election card, and other identity proof to show that Karan Singh is living in the suit property. He admitted that Karan Singh is living in RZ14, Nehru Enclave, near Kalkaji. He has further stated that he do not know whether all the identity of that address or of suit premises. He admitted that there is no kitchen in the premises in question. It is obvious that a residential premises cannot be said to be in existence without having a kitchen at all. This statement of RW1 clearly goes to infer that premises is not being used for residential purpose.
23. It was held that letting out of property by petitioners against the terms and conditions of perpetual lease deed would not, in any manner, give any immunity to the respondent.
24. Now, coming to the testimony of PW1.
25. PW1 in his affidavit has stated as under :
"during the last couple of months (April/May 1997 or thereabout) the respondent/tenant herein has caused and/ or permitted to be caused 'substantial damage' to the tenanted premises.
RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 17 of 24 The respondent/tenant herein without the knowledge and consent of the deponent and/or his brother, [unauthorisedly] constructed a mezzanine inside (over and above) the demised premises. It goes without saying that the said mezzanine has been [unauthorisedly] constructed by the respondent/tenant not only without the knowledge and consent of the deponent, but also without the requisite Municipal sanctions (which the respondent/tenant could never have obtained being merely a 'tenant' in the demised premises).
The said additions, alterations as also the unauthorized construction of mezzanine floor over and above the demised premises are more fully shown bounded by green color in the site plan attached hereto as Annexure"A" and the same is already exhibited as Exhibit PW1/1.
As such, the respondent/tenant is liable to eviction from the tenanted premises in terms of clause (j) of the proviso to subSection (1) of Section 14 of the Act."
26. It has further been stated in the affidavit of PW1 that perpetual lease deed under Clause 2(6) provides that property cannot be used for any other purpose but for the residential purposes. It was stated that the demised premises has been used for running office i.e. for a purpose other than the prescribed residential purpose.
RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 18 of 24
27. It is necessary to refer to the Clauses 2,5&6 of the perpetual lease deed, which are reproduced as under :
"(2) The Lessee will from time to time and at all times pay and discharge all rates, taxes charges and assessments of every description which are now or may at any time hereafter during the continuance of this lease be assessed, charged or imposed upon the premises hereby demised or on any buildings to be erected thereupon or on the Landlord or Tenant in respect thereof.
(5) The Lessee will not without the previous consent in writing of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi or of such officer or body as the Lessor or the Chief Commissioner of Delhi may authorise in this behalf, erect or suffer to be erected on any part of the said demised premises any buildings other than and except the buildings erected thereon at the date of these presents.
(6) The Lessee will not carry on or permit to be carried on, on the said premises any business, trade or manufacture which in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, is noisy, noxious or offensive, or permit the said premises to be used for any purpose otherwise than as
(a) Offices and/or show rooms on the ground floor,
(b) Offices and/or residential flats on the 1st floor, RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 19 of 24
(c) residential flats only on the 2nd floor, or do or suffer to be done thereon any act or thing whatsoever which is in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi may be an annoyance or disturbance to the Governor General in Council or his tenants in the New Capital of Delhi."
28. It is pertinent to mention herein that petitioner/respondent in his testimony has stated that clause 5 of the perpetual lease deed has been violated by erecting the mezzanine floor. Thus, it was for the petitioner/landlord to prove that "building" has been constructed in violation of Clause 2(5) of the Perpetual Lease Deed. It was also for the respondent/landlord to prove that the premises is being used for non residential/commercial purpose.
29. It is necessary to refer to the definition of 'building' as given in Section 2(4) of the NDMC Act, which reads as under :
"building" means a house, outhouse, stable, latrine, urinal, shed, hut, wall (other than a boundary wall) or any other structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, metal or other material but does not include any portable shelter."
RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 20 of 24
30. The petitioner has sought eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises on two grounds. Firstly, that the appellant/tenant has carried out unauthorized construction in the tenanted premises without his permission and in violation of the perpetual lease deed. It was alleged that the appellant/tenant without the knowledge and consent of the landlord constructed a mezzanine floor. The second ground of eviction is that the demised premises is being used as an office i.e. for a purpose other than the prescribed residential purpose, which is again in violation of clause 2(6) of the perpetual lease deed. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that he has not filed on record any document or the photocopy to show that respondent has constructed mezzanine floor in the tenanted premises. PW1 also stated that he has not filed any document to show that respondent is using the premises for nonresidential purpose. The respondent in his affidavit has stated that in the demised premises neither any manufacturing activities are being done nor any sales and purchases are made from the premises in the suit and there is no contravention of the terms of the perpetual lease deed. The respondent has also stated that they have not carried out any structural changes, additions and alteration nor made any mezzanine floor, over and above the demised premises and the RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 21 of 24 demised premises is in the same condition as it was let out. It was further stated that mezzanine floor had been constructed prior to the letting of the premises in dispute to the respondent and is not unauthorized. It was further stated that the said structure is made of wood and is in fact, a false ceiling and as such, the alleged plea of causing substantial damage to the tenanted premises is wrong and incorrect. The respondent in the crossexamination denied the suggestion that for constructing the wooden mezzanine in premises, iron gurders have been laid by the partners of the respondent firm.
31. In the appeal filed against the impugned order, the findings of the Ld. Trial Court have been challenged.
32. It is pertinent to mention herein that the appeal is filed on the grounds of unauthorized construction and the misuse of the premises. However, the findings of the Ld. Trial Court on the relationship of landlordtenant or any other ground has not been challenged. I consider that Ld. Trial Court has fallen into a grave error in allowing the petition under Section 14(1)(k) of DRC Act. It is a settled proposition that the onus is always on the person who approaches the court. The DRC Act is a piece of beneficial legislation. The eviction order can be passed only if there are grounds as enumerated in Section 14 of the DRC Act. The RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 22 of 24 landlord/respondent has sought eviction for the violation of the Clauses 5&6 of the perpetual lease deed.
33. Thus, it was for the petitioner/landlord to prove that appellant/tenant has carried unauthorized construction and the premises is being used in violation of the perpetual lease deed. The Ld. Trial Court while appreciating the evidence of PW1 though, noted the contradictory question put by the respondent but did not notice that the petitioner in his evidence has failed to prove that appellant/tenant has carried out unauthorized construction or made additions, alterations or has misused the property. It was first for the landlord/respondent to prove the grounds of eviction and thereafter, the defence/case of the appellant/tenant could have been seen. The case of the respondent/landlord could not have been allowed merely because the appellant/tenant had taken a contradictory plea. Suppose in a hypothetical situation if the respondent had been exparte, then whether on the basis of material available on record the eviction petition could have been allowed? I consider that on the basis of the material on record, the landlord/respondent has failed to bring cogent/creditworthy evidence which could entitled them for the eviction order. I consider that in view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order(s) cannot be sustained in the RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18 M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 23 of 24 eyes of the law. Both the appeals are allowed.
34. TCR be sent back along with copy of the judgment.
35. Appeal files be consigned to Record Room.
DINESH Digitally signed by DINESH
KUMAR SHARMA
KUMAR Date: 2021.11.23 17:00:18
SHARMA +0530
Announced in the (DINESH KUMAR SHARMA)
open court on Principal District & Sessions Judge/RCT
23.11.2021 Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
RCT No. 15/17 & 15/18
M/s Gurind Sales vs. Surender Nath Anr. Page No. 24 of 24