Delhi District Court
Harisimran Singh vs M/S Sondhi Brothers on 24 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE /
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
RCT No. 14/2018
1. Harisimran Singh
S/o Late Sh. Daya Singh
2. Mrs. Amarjit Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Daya Singh
Both R/o 5, Jantar Mantar Road
New Delhi ...Appellants
Versus
1. M/s Sondhi Brothers
Shop No. C21
Block C, Prem House
Opposite Odeon Cinema
Connaught Place, New Delhi
2. M/s Swatch Group India Pvt. Ltd.
(Longiness)
5th Floor, DLF Centre
Sansad Marg, New Delhi
(Through Managing Director) ...Respondents
Date of filing : 19.04.2018
Date of arguments : 14.09.2021
Date of judgment : 24.09.2021
RCT No. 14/18
Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 1 of 16
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall dispose of an appeal filed u/s 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "the DRC Act"), challenging the impugned order dated 12.03.2018, whereby the Ld. ARC, New Delhi dismissed the eviction petition filed u/s 14(1) (b) (c) (j) and (k) of the DRC Act on the ground that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
2. In backdrop, a petition u/s 14(1) (b) (c) (j) and (k) of the DRC Act was filed by Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Sh. Harisimran Singh against respondents M/s Sondhi Brothers and M/s Swatch Group India Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. ARC after recording the evidence of the parties, inter alia held that the petition did not bear any signature or thumb impression of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Amarjit Kaur. It was also noted that Smt. Amarjit Kaur had not verified the petition. The Ld. ARC concluded that the petition had been filed only by petitioner No. 2 Sh. Harisimran Singh. It was further inter alia held that petitioner No. 2 had no right, title or interest in the suit premises nor there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Ld. ARC inter alia held that as there was no relationship of landlord and tenant RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 2 of 16 between petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 1, the petition was liable to be dismissed.
3. The landlords/petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the tenanted premises was jointly owned by both the petitioners. It has further been stated that during the pendency of eviction petition, appellant No. 2 Smt. Amarjit Kaur relinquished her share in favour of appellant No. 1 Sh. Harisimran Singh. The application being moved by the petitioners before the Ld. Trial Court for bringing this fact on record was disallowed. The fact of relinquishment deed was informed to the respondents/tenants by appellant No. 1 vide communication dated 30.08.2016, which was duly responded by the respondents/tenants vide communication dated 06.09.2016.
4. The appellants in the appeal have also made extensive submission about the unauthorized constructions in the premises. However, the same is not being discussed herein, as the point for consideration is that whether there exists any relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties.
5. The appellants have assailed the impugned order on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court has passed erroneous judgment RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 3 of 16 without appreciating the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain, (2006) SCC 724, Kanta Udharam Vs. C.K.S. Rao, (1981) 1 SCC 403 and FGP Ltd. Vs. Saleh Hooseini Doctor, (2009) 10 SCC 223. It has been stated that the Ld. Trial Court ignored the mutation letter dated 21.12.2014 and the Power of Attorney executed by appellant No. 2 in favour of appellant No. 1. It has further been stated that the Ld. Trial Court rejected the petition merely on the ground that appellant No. 2 had been collecting the rent. It has further been stated that the arrangement of collection of rent was as per the settlement between the joint owners. It has further been stated that the Ld. Trial Court fell into wrong assumption that the partition existed between the parties, whereas no such document was produced by the appellants or respondents. It has further been stated that even otherwise, this was a family arrangement between the joint owners of the property, however, each of the joint owner had every right to protect the property, if it had not been objected to by the coowner. It has further been stated that appellant No. 1 has always been coowner. It has further been stated that the relinquishment deed dated 05.04.2016 has also not been appreciated in a proper perspective, which was RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 4 of 16 brought for proper adjudication of the matter. It has further been stated that earlier, appellant No. 1 was coowner and subsequent to the relinquishment deed, he became the complete owner of the tenanted premises. It has further been stated that by virtue of relinquishment deed, appellant No. 1 should have been deemed to have been the owner of the premises from the date of filing of the petition. It has further been stated that the Ld. Trial Court has taken a hyper technical view, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
6. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents and TCR was called.
7. Perusal of the TCR indicates that purportedly an eviction petition u/s 14(1) (b) (c) (j) and (k) of the DRC Act was filed on 14.07.2011 by Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Sh. Harisimran Singh as petitioner No. 1 and 2 against respondents i.e. M/s Sondhi Brothers and M/s Swatch Group India Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises to respondent No. 2 without permission of the landlord. However, respondent No. 2 did not appear and remained exparte. The petition was signed and verified only by petitioner No. 2.
RCT No. 14/18Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 5 of 16
8. In the written submission, respondent No. 1 took a preliminary objection that there was no relation of landlord and tenant with petitioner No. 2, as the rent was being paid to petitioner No. 1. It was also objected that petitioner No. 2 had not disclosed as to how he was competent to file the Affidavit and, therefore, the petition on behalf of petitioner No. 2 was not maintainable. It was also stated that earlier also, an eviction petition No. E155/1992 was filed by petitioner No. 1 through her husband Late Sh. Sardar Daya Singh, which was later on withdrawn. It is pertinent to mention here that in the eviction petition, there was no mention that petitioner No. 1 had executed any Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No. 2.
9. It is also pertinent to mention here that before the Ld. Trial Court, an application u/O 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC was moved by the petitioner for deletion of Smt. Amarjit Kaur from the array of parties. The Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 16.01.2018 inter alia observed that the plaint had neither been signed nor verified by petitioner No. 1 and only her name finds mention in the memo of the parties and, therefore, petitioner No. 1 cannot be termed as petitioner in the suit and, therefore, her name was struck off from the array of the parties.
RCT No. 14/18Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 6 of 16
10. Sh. Harisimran Singh appeared as PW1 and filed his Affidavit as Ex PW1/1. It is pertinent to mention here that in the Affidavit, it was stated by the deponent that he was the co petitioner and Power of Attorney holder for petitioner No. 1 in the eviction petition. A copy of the General Power of Attorney was filed as Ex PW1/A. However, this was not tendered when the examinationinchief was recorded on 05.11.2014. Similarly, the deponent stated in para 2 of the Affidavit that Shop No. C21, Prem House, BlockB, Opposite Odeon Cinema, Connaught Place, New Delhi was inherited by the petitioners and stated that copy of the ownership document issued by L&DO was filed as Ex PW1/B. This document was also not tendered in the examination inchief recorded on 05.11.2014. Thus, by merely mentioning in the Affidavit and not tendering in evidence, it became irrelevant. It is pertinent to mention here that in examinationinchief recorded on 05.11.2014, the petitioner is stated to have relied upon certain documents from Mark A to K.
11. The examinationinchief was deferred for bringing certain photographs, but the same were not produced in the further examinationinchief recorded on 20.02.2015. After 20.02.2015, the crossexamination of the petitioner was RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 7 of 16 conducted on 21.02.2015. In the crossexamination, PW1 admitted that there was partition between him and Smt. Amarjit Kaur. PW1 also admitted that after the said partition, the shop in question had fallen in the share of Smt. Amarjit Kaur. PW1 further admitted that Smt. Amarjit Kaur had not filed the petition. In the further crossexamination recorded on 18.12.2015, PW1 admitted that the rent was paid in the name of Smt. Amarjit Kaur by cheque. PW1 further admitted that the rent had never been paid in his name. PW1 also admitted that the communication dated 02.04.1992, Ex PW1/R2, was sent on behalf of his mother. In the said communication, Smt. Amarjit Kaur had been ascertained to be the landlord for the premises in dispute. Similarly, in communication dated 09.08.1989, Ex PW1/R3, admittedly sent by mother of PW1, she had been ascertained to be the landlord of the premises in dispute. PW1 also admitted that the rent bills, Ex PW1/R4 and PW1/R5, regarding the premises in dispute were raised by Sardarni Amarjit Kaur. In regard to communication dated 01.08.1972, Ex PW1/R6, PW1 stated that he could not say, if the said communication had been signed by his father Sh. Daya Singh.
12. The petitioner had also examined PW2 Sh. Mukesh RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 8 of 16 Tinna, UDC from the office of L&DO. However, the same is not relevant for determining the relationship of landlord and tenant. Thereafter, the petitioner's evidence was closed on 31.05.2016. The question as to the maintainability of the petition was raised and the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 12.03.2018 dismissed the petition.
13. Sh. Riju Raj S. Jamwal, Ld. Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Ld. ARC has wrongly dismissed the petition on the sole ground that appellant No. 1 is neither the landlord nor the coowner of the premises in dispute. It has further been submitted that the Ld. ARC has ignored the mutation letter dated 21.12.2014 issued by the Government of India, L&DO Office, New Delhi that the appellant No. 1 had been substituted as colessee for the suit premises and subdivision of the property would not be allowed. It has further been submitted that it was merely an arrangement between the coowners that Mrs. Amarjit Kaur was collecting the rent. It has further been submitted that in any case, after the relinquishment deed, appellant No. 1 had become owner of the tenanted premises and the Ld. Trial Court should not have dismissed the eviction petition, particularly when it was established that the RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 9 of 16 respondents/tenants had caused substantial damage to the property. It has further been submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the settled proposition of law that a coowner is competent to file the eviction petition. It has further been submitted that the Ld. Trial court has also wrongly relied upon the partition between the parties, whereas it was not proved on record and it was merely a family arrangement. It has further been submitted that appellant No. 1 falls within the definition of landlord as defined u/s 2(e) of the DRC Act. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following judgments:
i. Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2335; ii. M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors., (1981) 3 SCC 36;
iii. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2028;
iv. Krishan Lal Vs. Rajan Chand Khanna, AIR 1993 Delhi 1; v. Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2572; vi. Joginder Pal Vs. Riaval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397; vii. M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwala, AIR 2004 SC 1321;
viii. Kesharlal H. Pardeshi Vs. Vithal S. Paole, (2005) 10 SCC 249;
ix. Yashpal Vs. Chamanlal Sachdeva, 129 (2006) DLT 200; x. Col. Inderjeet Singh Vs. Vikaram Singh & Anr., 194 (2012) DLT 209;
xi. Purand Chand Aggarwal Vs. Lekh Raj, 2014 VI AD (Delhi) RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 10 of 16 449;
xii. Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & Ors., 1977 1 SCR; xiii. Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain, (2006) 2 SCC 724;
xiv. Kanta Udharam Vs. C.K.S. Rao, (1988) 1 SCC 403, and xv. FGP Ltd. Vs. Saleh Hooseini Doctor, (2009) 10 SCC 223.
14. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order predominantly on the ground that appellant No. 1 is coowner of the premises and a coowner is entitled to institute the eviction petition. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgments mentioned above to buttress his point that particularly after the relinquishment deed, the Ld. Trial Court should have taken this into account and should not have dismissed the eviction petition.
15. Per contra, Sh. Sanjay Goswami, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the eviction petition and there is no ground to interfere in the same. It has further been submitted that it is necessary for the Rent Control Tribunal to assume the jurisdiction that there is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Ld. Counsel has relied upon Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Dr. Rattan Singh & Anr., (1964) 1 SCR 259.
RCT No. 14/18Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 11 of 16
16. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully. I have gone through the judgments cited by Ld. Counsel for the appellants. Respectfully, I do not find the same relevant to decide the present appeal.
17. In Om Prakash Gupta (Supra), an eviction petition was instituted on the ground of nonpayment of the rent and bonafide requirement. The tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties besides putting other defences. The order u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act was passed by the Ld. ARC. The Ld. ARC on an application being moved by the landlord, ordered the defence of the tenant to be struck out. The Ld. Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time barred. Subsequently, the Ld. ARC passed an exparte order of ejectment against the appellant holding that prima facie the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established. The appeal against it was dismissed by the Ld. Rent Control Tribunal. Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court also dismissed the appeal. The appellant in the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a plea that the authorities under the Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings, inasmuch as it was denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is pertinent to mention here that the RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 12 of 16 landlord had contended that the order u/s 15(7) of the DRC Act had become final and, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. The plea of the appellant/tenant was that since the Ld. Rent Control Tribunal had not any jurisdiction, therefore, the provision of Section 15(7) did not matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia observed that the most important question that arose for determination in the case was whether or not the Rent Control authorities had jurisdiction in the matter. It was inter alia held as under:
"Ordinarily it is for the civil courts to determine whether and, if so, what jural relationship exists between the litigating parties. But the Act has been enacted to provide for the control of rents and evictions of tenants, avowedly for their benefit and protection. The Act postulates the relationship of landlord and tenant, which must be a preexisting relationship. The Act is directed to control some of the terms and incidents of that relationship. Hence, there is no express provision in the Act empowering the Controller, or the Tribunal, to determine whether or not there is a relationship of landlord and tenant. In most cases such a question would not arise for determination by the authorities under the Act. A landlord must be very illadvised to start proceedings under the Act, if there is no such relationship of landlord and tenant. If a person in possession of the premises is not a tenant, the owner of the premises would be titled to institute a suit for ejectment in the RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 13 of 16 civil courts, untrammelled by provisions of the Act. It is only when he happens to be the tenant of premises in an urban area that the provisions of the Act, are attracted. If a person moves a Controller for eviction of a person on the ground that he is a tenant who had, by his acts or omissions, made himself liable to be evicted on any one of the grounds for eviction, and if the tenant denies that the plaintiff is the landlord, the Controller has to decide the question whether there was a relationship of landlord and tenant. If the Controller decides that there is no such relationship the proceeding has to be terminated, without deciding the main question in controversy, namely, the question of eviction. If on the other hand, the Controller comes to the opposite conclusion and holds that the person seeking eviction was the landlord and the person in possession was the tenant the proceedings have to go on."
18. I consider that in Om Prakash Gupta (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the Rent Controller would assume the jurisdiction only if there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the present case, PW1 has specifically admitted in his cross examination that the premises in dispute fell into the share of Amarjeet Kaur. The rent was admittedly paid to Amarjeet Kaur. The petitioner in his evidence before the Ld. Trial Court has not produced any document to prove that he was the coowner of the RCT No. 14/18 Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 14 of 16 premises in dispute. Appellant No. 1 has only been making bald plea regarding this without having proved the same on the record by way of legally admissible evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that appellant No. 1 himself vide communication dated 30.08.2016 informed respondent No. 1 that the tenanted premises was mutated in the name of his mother Amarjeet Kaur and was receiving the rent for the same. Appellant No. 1 claimed the rent only subsequent to the Relinquishment Deed dated 05.04.2016. The Ld. Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and correctly held that there did not exist any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It has also rightly been held by the Ld. Trial Court that Amarjeet Kaur had neither signed the petition nor had verified the same. Thus, only appellant No. 1 was deemed to have filed the eviction petition. In the eviction petition, there is no averment as to the fact that the eviction petition was filed on the basis of Power of Attorney. It is relevant to note that though in the Affidavit it was stated that appellant No. 1 is the Power of Attorney of appellant No. 2, but the same was never tendered by appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 in his testimony did not tender any document showing that he was co owner of the premises.
RCT No. 14/18Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 15 of 16
19. In view of the above discussion, there is no ground to interfere in the order of the Ld. Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
20. TCR along with copy of the judgment be sent back and thereafter, appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DINESH DINESH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2021.09.24
SHARMA 16:51:35 +0530
Announced in the open (DINESH KUMAR SHARMA)
Court on 24.09.2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge/
Rent Control Tribunal, New Delhi
RCT No. 14/18
Harisimran Singh & Anr. Vs. M/s Sondhi Brothers & Anr. Page No. 16 of 16