Delhi District Court
Savitri Devi vs . Naresh Chand on 23 March, 2011
Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KR. SHARMA,
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER, DISTRICT: NORTH. DELHI.
E No. 125/2009
Unique Case ID No: 02401C0839452008
SMT. SAVITRI DEVI
(Through her Legal Heirs)
1. SH. KRISHAN KR. GOEL
S/o. Late Sh. R. D. Goel,
R/o. Block No. 25, H. No. 1/8
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007.
2. SH. VIJAY KUMAR GOEL
S/o. Late Sh. R. D. Goel,
R/o. Block no. 25, H. No. 1/8,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007.
3. SMT. AARTI GOEL
W/o. Late Sh. Ajay Kumar Goel,
R/o. Block no. 25, H. No. 1/8,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007.
4. SH. ABHINAV GOEL,
S/o. Late Sh. Ajay Kumar Goel,
R/o. Block no. 25, H. No. 1/8,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007.
5. DR. RAJ KUMAR GOEL,
S/o. Late Sh. R. D. Goel,
R/o. 3, Peaks Hill,
PURELY SURREY
CR8 3JG, U. K. ...Petitioners.
Versus
SH. NARESH CHAND
S/o. Late Sh. Laxman Dass,
R/o. B-945, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052. ...Respondent.
E no. 125/2009 Page 1/ 10
Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand
Date of institution of the petition : 02/06/2008
Date on which order was reserved : 26/02/2011
Date of Decision : 23/03/2011
ORDER
23/03/2011 Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application filed on behalf of respondents U/s 25-B (4) & (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as D.R.C. Act, 1958) seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition on merits.
Relevant facts for disposal of the present application are as follows:-
1. That the petitioners are the landlords/owner and respondent is the tenant being son of the original tenant in respect of one room/shop on the ground floor in property bearing no. 1/8, Block-25, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 as shown in red colour in site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') and the suit property is required bonafidely by the petitioner (since deceased during the pendency of the present proceedings) and her family members dependent upon her for the purposes of accommodation.
2. It is further alleged that Sh. K.K. Goel, Sh. V.K. Goel and Smt. Arti widow of Sh. A.K. Goel and their family members are dependent upon the petitioner for doing any work or carrying on E no. 125/2009 Page 2/ 10 Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand any commercial activities for the purpose of living and survival and family of Sh. K.K. Goel consists of himself, his wife and two daughters namely Mrs. Manisha Aggarwal and Mrs. Minakshi Jain and one married son namely Mr. Sameer Goel and his wife Mrs. Sonia Goel and their two children namely Samridhi Goel aged 05 years and Master Bhavya Goel aged about 02 years.
3. The family of Mr. V.K. Goel consists of himself, his wife and two children, one unmarried son aged about 27 years and one unmarried daughter aged about 22 years and the family of Mrs. Arti Goel consists of herself, her two married daughters namely Mrs. Neha Goel and Ms. Anchal Pal and unmarried son namely Abhinav Goel. The sons of the petitioners namely Sh. K.K. Goel, Sh. V.K. Goel have no source of income at present except the pension being received by Mr. K.K. Goel from the Bank which is less than Rs.10,000/- and the son namely Vikas Goel i.e. son of Mr. V.K. Goel doing nothing due to paucity of commercial space and that is why he has not been married yet and, therefore, Mr. V.K. Goel is hand to mouth person as there is only income of salary of his wife to meet day to day expenses and to prove education to the daughter.
4. Smt. Aarti Goel's son is working at Gurgaon, but she is unable to give any gift to her married daughters and whenever she takes money for herself and her married daughters for giving them gifts on festivals etc., she feels humiliation in taking money from her son.E no. 125/2009 Page 3/ 10
5. On the ground floor one room/shop is occupied by the respondent and another room is occupied by Mr. Ravi Dutta being legal heir of one tenant namely late Sh. Kundan Lal, another room/office is occupied by Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta as a tenant which was earlier partner of late Ajay Goel, son of the petitioner in Chartered Accountancy Firm and after his death Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta was admitted as tenant because he was running the said office.
6. The petitioner is in possession of two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom on the ground floor, one miani on the mezzanine floor and the height of which is upto 5.6 ft. and can be used only for storing purposes and three rooms, one room which is less than 100 sq. ft. in all, two kitchens, two bathrooms, two latrine and one store at first floor and one Barsati Room with attached toilet and bath on the second floor and the family being large, the petitioners are living in the scarcity of accommodation and petitioners being of old age and huge amount is spent for her medical expenses and since there is no suitable alternative arrangement for Sh. K.K. Goel, Sh. V.K. Goel and son Sh. Vikas and Smt. Arti Goel, hence the present petition was filed.
7. During the pending proceeding, petitioner expired and her legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 27/03/2010.
8. Upon service of summons, respondent filed his leave to E no. 125/2009 Page 4/ 10 Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand defend application along with counter affidavit alleging and deposing that the present petition is not maintainable U/s 14 (1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act as the suit property is let out for commercial purpose. The petitioner is in habit of filing false and frivolous petition and earlier the eviction petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 27/04/1974 and there is no disclosure of any qualification, skill or special training by the alleged dependent or disclosure of nature of the business or trade which is proposed to be set up.
9. It is further deposed that petitioner has sufficient accommodation and has recently rented out a huge space for hefty amount of rent to Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta just before filing of the present eviction petition and judgment in Satyawati's case has no application to the facts of the present case and petitioner is not the owner/landlady of the suit property and has not approached with clean hands and there being number of triable issue, leave to defend application may kindly be allowed.
10. Reply to the leave to defend application along with counter affidavit was filed wherein petitioner denied all the material allegations on merits and has further deposed that there is no need to have any special skill to run the business and Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta was the tenant/partner with the son of the petitioner Mr. Ajay Goel who died on 19/03/1993 and after his death Mr. K.C. Gupta was admitted as a tenant for last about 15 years and he is in exclusive use and occupation of the portion under his possession and there is no new tenancy in his favour and E no. 125/2009 Page 5/ 10 Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand respondent has taken contrary plea regarding ownership as on one hand, he has deposed that petitioner has refused to accept the rent and on the other hand, he is denying the title which he can not do and since no triable issue has been raised, hence, leave to defend application may kindly be dismissed and an eviction order may kindly be passed.
11. Rejoinder to the reply to leave to defend application along with counter affidavit was filed wherein respondent denied all the material allegations in reply to leave to defend application as well as counter affidavit further deposing that none of the family members are dependent upon the petitioner who is aged about 90 years and there is no disclosure of the job of one of the grandson at Gurgaon.
12. Respondent has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in AIR 1994 SC 853, (2007) 4 SCC 221 and the order passed in W.P. (C) 3326 of 2006 titled as East End Department Co-operating Group Housing Society Vs. DDA dated 27/11/2008 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and (1994) 1 SCC 1.
13. In the Written Submission, respondent has mentioned that a property no. A-1/34, Prashant Vihar, Delhi is in the name of Smt. Arti Goel and it has been mentioned in the written arguments on behalf of petitioner that said property is not of commercial nature and is far away from the suit property.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions E no. 125/2009 Page 6/ 10 Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record carefully.
A. The first ground taken is that the present petition is not maintainable as the suit property was let out for commercial purpose. However, now it is settled law after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati's case that the petition U/s 14 (1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act can be maintained in respect of the commercial premises as well and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
B. The next ground taken is that earlier petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 27/04/1974 and, therefore, present petition is not maintainable. I have perused the said order wherein the petition for bonafide requirement was dismissed holding that suit premises was let out for commercial purposes and, therefore, petition for bonafide need is not maintainable but after Satyawati case there is no such bar and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
C. The next ground taken is that there is no disclosure of any qualification, skill or special training of the dependent of petitioner nor there is any disclosure of the business proposed to be started and, therefore, petition is not maintainable. Now it is well settled law that to start a business there is no need to have prior experience and even a person having no experience of the E no. 125/2009 Page 7/ 10 Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand business can start the business and there is no bar that a person who wants to start the business must have some special qualification or skill or special training and when it is alleged that no commercial space is available with the petitioner, therefore, in anticipation they can not be suppose to disclose the nature of the business or trade and they may start any business of their choice and, therefore, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
D. The next ground taken is that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation and has recently rented out a huge space for hefty amount of rent to one Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta. In reply, it is deposed on oath that Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta was the associate with the deceased son of the deceased petitioner who expired on 19/03/1993 and Mr. Kailash Chand Gupta was admitted as tenant about 15 years back and, thus, it is clear that induction of Mr. K.C. Gupta as tenant can not be said to be a tenant with a view to create artificial paucity of accommodation as he was inducted as tenant about 15 years back that too because of the reason of being partner of the deceased son in his business and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
E. The next ground taken is that the petitioner is not the owner but respondent has not disclosed who else is the owner of the suit property and have though denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in the leave to defend application but himself has alleged that petitioner is not receiving rent intentionally and, thus, it E no. 125/2009 Page 8/ 10 Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
F. The next ground taken is that one of the petitioner Ms. Arti Goel is having alternative accommodation at Prashant Vihar though no such ground was taken in the leave to defend application. However, in the written submissions, petitioner has denied that said property is commercial in nature and even there is no allegation in the written submission on behalf of the respondent that the said property is commercial in nature and in the absence of any specific allegation/pleadings, it can not be said that the said property is suitable alternative accommodation available with the petitioner and otherwise also, it is well settled law that neither the Court nor the tenant can dictate its own terms upon the landlord and the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and it is well settled law that the landlord is not required to disclose the premises which is not in his occupation or which has no relation with the requirement as in the present case as the present petition has been filed mainly for the bonafide requirement of the dependents of the petitioner and that too specifically of Mr. V.K. Goel and Vikas Goel who is stated to be unemployed due to paucity of accommodation and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
15. In the light of above discussion, this court is of the opinion that respondent has failed to raise any triable issue and his defence appears to be moonshine. On the other hand, petitioners E no. 125/2009 Page 9/ 10 Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand have shown their bonafide requirement of the suit premises and, therefore, leave to defend application being without any merits is hereby dismissed.
16. In consequence thereof an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1)
(e) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one room/shop on the ground floor in property bearing no. 1/8, Block-25, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 as shown in red colour in the Site Plan Ex. P-1 (as put by the court itself today) attached with the petition. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 23rd March 2011. Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
(1+2 separate copies are attached).
E no. 125/2009 Page 10/ 10Savitri Devi Vs. Naresh Chand E no. 125/2009 SAVITRI DEVI VS. NARESH CHAND 23/03/2011 Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, leave to defend application filed on behalf of respondent is dismissed.
In consequence thereof an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one room/shop on the ground floor in property bearing no. 1/8, Block-25, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 as shown in red colour in the Site Plan Ex. P-1 (as put by the court itself today) attached with the petition. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
E no. 125/2009 Page 11/ 10