Delhi District Court
In Re vs Mrs. Chander Prabha on 6 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCT No. 93/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-009021-2019
In re:
Dr. H.R. Singh
S/o Sh. C.L. Singh
Addresses:
i) R/o GH-8/593,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
ii) 15-B, Type-5A,
Telegraph Lane,
New Delhi-110001 . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
1. Mrs. Chander Prabha
W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Anand
R/o 10/16, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
2. Mrs. Usha Anand
W/o Shri Vinay Anand,
R/o 10/16, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi-110008 ..... Respondents
Date of institution of Eviction Petition: 20.01.2014
Date of impugned Judgment : 11.10.2019
Date of filing of appeal : 07.11.2019
Date of hearing arguments : 28.10.2020
Date of Judgment : 06.11.2020
Appearances:
Mr. M.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant/tenant.
Mr. Mahesh K. Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondents/landladies.
RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 1 of 14
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide an appeal preferred by the appellant/tenant under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act'), assailing a Judgment dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Court of Sh. Vishal Pahuja, the then Ld. ACJ- CCJ-cum-ARC, (West), THC, Delhi(hereinafter referred as the Trial Court), whereby the eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (h) of the DRC Act bearing RC/ARC No. 25665/16 titled as 'Chander Prabha v. Dr. H.R. Singh' was allowed and an eviction order was passed in respect of tenancy premises in favour of the petitioners/landladies, who are respondents in the present appeal.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Briefly stated, the petitioners i.e. Smt. Chander Prabha W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Anand and and Smt. Usha Anand W/o Sh. Vinay Anand claimed themselves to be the co-owners and landladies of the the premises bearing LIG Flat No. GH-8/593, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, purchased by them in the year 1989; and filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (h) of the DRC Act claiming that the said premises was let out to the appellant/tenant vide Rent Agreement dated 04.05.1989 for a period of 11 months @ Rs. 1500/- per month. It was stated that the tenancy premises was comprised of one bed room, one living room, one kitchen, one bathroom and one lavatory situated on the ground floor. It was the case of the respondents/landladies that appellant/tenant was working on the post of Chief Medical Officer and has been allotted government accommodation bearing Quarter No.15- RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 2 of 14 B, Type 5A, Telegraph Lane, New Delhi, and despite service of legal notices dated 16.02.2008 and 28.03.2008, the appellant/tenant had not vacated the premises. Hence, eviction of the appellant/tenant was sought.
3. The appellant/tenant contested the eviction proceedings and in his written statement inter alia took preliminary objections that there was no relationship of landlord and tenants between the parties as he had taken the premises on rent from Vinod Anand, husband of the petitioner No.1 and had all along been paying rent to him through cheques; and further denying that the petitioners were the co-owners or landladies of the premises in question, it was claimed that Sh. Vinod Anand had agreed to sell the property to him for a consideration of Rs. 4,25,000/-, out of which Rs. 48,000/- were given to him in cash for making payment to DDA in respect of notice dated 08.02.2007 and same was considered to be as earnest money. The appellant/tenant stated that he has always been ready and willing to pay the balance amount left out of the sale consideration and denied execution of any rent deed in favour of the petitioners.
4. During trial, the petitioner No.1 Smt. Chander Prabha examined herself as PW-1 and she filed her detailed affidavit in evidence dated 01.07.2014 Ex.PW-1/A, in which she relied upon various documents, upon which I shall delve into later on in this Judgment. The petitioners further examined three official witnesses viz. PW-2 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, JJA from Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, who produced the original file in Civil Suit No. 289/2008 RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 3 of 14 titled as 'Dr. H.R. Singh v. Vinod Anand & Ors.' and the certified copy of the plaint was proved as Ex.PW-2/1. Further, the original file in DR petition No. 73/2009 titled as 'Dr. H.R. Singh v. Vinod Anand & Ors.' was also produced and the CC of the petition besides order dated 21.10.2011 were proved as Ex.PW-2/2 and Ex.PW-2/3 respectively; PW-3 Sh. Manmohan Bhardwaj, UDC from Lady Hardinge Medical College, who produced the summoned record with regard to letter dated 29.03.2012, 10.04.2012 and 13.04.2012 besides record of the RTI application dated 12.03.2012. Said documents were proved as Ex.PW-3/1 to Ex.PW-3/4, upon which I shall delve into later on in this judgment; and PW-4 Sh. Stanislas Lakra, Accountant from Lady Hardinge Medical College, who produced the summoned record i.e. Pay Bill Register for the year 2012-2013 for an amount of Rs. 30,877/- towards deduction of House Rent for the period 13.02.2012 to 31.03.2012 from Dr. H.R. Singh, Senior Medical Officer on account of rent in respect of residential Quarter No. 15-B, Type 5A, Telegraph Lane, New Delhi and same has been proved as EX.PW-4/1.
5. On the other hand, the appellant/tenant Dr. H.R. Singh was the sole witness for his cause and filed his affidavit in evidence dated 17.12.2018 Ex.RW-1/A and did not lead any further evidence. All the witnesses were subjected to cross-examination by the respective counsel for the parties.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
6. Suffice to state that the ld. Trial Court repelled the plea of the appellant/tenant that there was no relationship of landlord and RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 4 of 14 tenant between the parties finding that he had admitted that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 viz. the petitioners in the eviction petition as co-owners of the property in a civil suit filed by him, certified copy of which was Ex.PW-2/1 and also finding admission on the part of the appellant/tenant in DR petition Ex.RW-1/B and Ex.RW-1/C with regard to receiving legal notice dated 16.02.2008 Ex.PW-1/7 whereby the petitioners were admitted to be owners of the property. The ld. Trial Court further found that the order Ex.PW-2/3 by the Ld. Rent Controller, whereby the DR petition was dismissed by the Ld. Rent Controller has not been challenged by the tenant wherein the petitioners were held to be owners/landladies of the premises in question. The Ld. Trial Court further found that allotment of residential accommodation had not been denied by the tenant and found that ingredients of Section 14 (1) (h) of the DRC Act had been clearly made out and accordingly an eviction order was passed vide impugned judgment dated 11.10.2019.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
7. The impugned judgment is assailed by the appellant/tenant in the present appeal firstly casting aspersion on the Ld Trial Court alleging that it was in a hurry to pronounce the Judgment as although the case was listed for final arguments on 11.10.2019, an application for early hearing moved by the petitioners/landladies was allowed and the matter was fixed for 30.09.2019 without notice to the appellant/tenant and the ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant was reluctantly given adjournment on 30.09.2019 although he had pleaded that he was busy in other Courts; and that the arguments were heard in RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 5 of 14 a hurried manner on 11.10.2019 and on the same day the impugned Judgment came to be pronounced. Be that as it may, the impugned judgment is assailed primarily on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; and that no notice dated 16.02.2008 was received by him vide which the authority of the Sh. Vinod Anand had been terminated and, therefore, the ld. Trial Court fell in error in holding that there was an admission on his part with regard to relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties; and that the ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no documents with regard to the title of the property in question were placed or proved by the petitioners/landladies and it was Sh. Vinod Anand, who had inducted him as tenant and had been collecting rent throughout the relevant time.
8. Respondents/landladies have filed a reply to the appeal and it is but obvious that they have supported the findings recorded by the Ld. Judge in the impugned Judgment.
DECISION
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the parties at Bar. I have also perused the trial Court record and the record of the present appeal.
10. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant provisions of Section 14 (1) (h) of the DRC Act for our better understanding, which goes as under:
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction. -RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 6 of 14
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant :
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
(h) That the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, (Note: The word "built" omitted by Act 57 of 1988, sec.8 ( w.e.f . 1-12-1988)) acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence;"
11. At the outset, the petitioners/landladies succeed in so far as establishing the ingredients of the ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(h) of the DRC Act. Mr. M.L. Bajaj, the ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant has narrowed down the scope of this appeal as he fairly conceded that the appellant/tenant has nowhere denied that a government accommodation had not been allotted to him. The appellant/tenant in his written statement vide paragraph 18 (iv) made a specific admission of acquiring a government accommodation viz., Bungalow No.15-B, Type-V-A, Telegraph Lane, New Delhi and the said aspect is substantiated by the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 from the department of the appellant/tenant i.e. Lady Harding Medical College and & Smt. S.K. Hospital, New Delhi Ex. PW 3/2 that the said Government accommodation had allotted and occupied by Dr. H. R. Singh on 13.02.2012.
12. However, Mr. M.L.Bajaj ld counsel for the appellant-tenant vociferously urged while taking this Court through the evidence and RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 7 of 14 documents brought on the judicial record by the parties that there was no relationship of the landlord and tenant between them and he challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to institute the eviction petition and seek any relief. It was further urged that the petitioners did not prove their title to the premises in question and the filing of documents with regard to their title at the stage of appeal cannot be allowed. Without further ado, such contention is frivolous, dishonest and manifestly appears to be ill-motive just to prolong the misery of the petitioners / landladies.
REASONS
13. First thing first, there is no specific denial in the written statement to the clear averments that the premises was let out vide rent agreement dated 04.05.1995 for 11 months w.e.f. 01.05.1995 by the petitioner / landlady and the husband of the petitioner no. 1 Vinod Anand was only authorized to demand and collect rent. RW-1 appellant- tenant admitted in his cross-examination that he had taken the premises on rent in May 1995 but deceptively omitting to mention by whom he was let out. The testimony of PW-1 was categorical that her husband had been collecting rent from the appellant-tenant on her behalf, which cannot be brushed aside. This is not unusual in the Indian Context where the ladies of the house own immovable properties and the men deal with outsiders with regard to such properties to reap the benefits in the nature of rental income or other earnings of whatever nature.
RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 8 of 1414. Secondly, Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that the appellant / petitioner filed a suit seeking mandatory and permanent injunction bearing no. 289/08 on 02.05.2008, the certified copy of the plaint is Ex. PW 2/1, wherein Vinod Anand was arrayed as defendant No. 1 and Chandra Prabha and Usha Anand were arrayed as defendants no. 2 & 3 respectively. Bare perusal of the paragraph(2) of the plaint would show that the plaintiff i.e. appellant-tenant claimed that defendant no. 1 was his landlord and admitted that the defendant nos. 2 & 3 were co-owners of the tenanted premises. Confronted with such document, RW-1 in his cross-examination dishonestly tried to wriggle out of such admission by insisting for the original of the plaint so as to identify his signatures at point "X".
15. The plea by Mr. M.L.Bajaj, Ld. Counsel for appellant- tenant that no notice dated 16.02.2008 Ex. PW 1/7 was served upon him is clearly wrong and false as the said notice was replied by the appellant / tenant through his counsel Ms. Sonal Jain, Advocate dated 12.03.2008 marked 'G' and it was succeeded by another notice by the petitioners / landlady dated 28.03.2008 Ex. PW 1/10 wherein it was reiterated that the authority of Mr. Vinod Anand to demand and collect rent from him had been withdrawn. A bare perusal of the notice dated 16.02.2008 Ex. PW1/7 would show that the petitioners/ landladies reiterated that they were co-owners of tenancy premises in question in equal shares and called upon him to pay or share the rent to them. There is no way that appellant / tenant can be allowed to deny title of the petitioners/landladies to the premises in question. It is not for the RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 9 of 14 appellant-tenant to choose or elect his landlord unmindful of the law on the subject.
16. There is more to the story to demolish the defence put forth by the appellant-tenant. Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that despite service of such notice, the appellant / tenant committed mischief and abused the process of law by filing an application u/s 26 of the DRC Act bearing no. 147/08, copy of which is Ex. RW1/B and proved on the record, in which he pleaded that he had tendered the rent @ Rs.1500/- per month for the period October, 2007 to December 2007 by cheque to his landlord Vinod Anand by cheque but it was not encashed and instead he has been served with a notice dated 16.02.2008 whereby he has been called upon to pay the rent to the co-owners in equal shares.
17. The appellant-tenant probably under misguided legal advice further committed mischief and committed gross abuse of the process of law by filing another application u/s 26 of the DRC Act Ex. Bearing no. 271/2008, copy of which is Ex. RW 1/C on 01.05.2008, whereby reiterating his pleadings that only Vinod Anand was his landlord and the co-owners had no right to demand or collect rent from him, sought to deposit rent w.e.f. January 2008 to June 2008 @1500/- per month. He then again filed an application for deposit of rent u/s 26 of the DRC Act on 01.04.2009 seeking to deposit rent for the period 01.07.2008 to 31.03.2009, application bearing no. S-73/2009, copy of which is Ex. PW2/2, came to be dismissed by Sh. Amit Kumar, the then Ld. SCJ/RC, West, THC, Delhi vide order dated 21.10.2011 which is RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 10 of 14 reproduced in toto as under:
"S-73/09 21.10.11 Present : Shri M. L. Bajaj, Adv. Counsel for the petitioner.
Ms Kusum Chaudhary, Adv. Counsel for the respondent Arguments heard on the objections filed by respondent. Petitioner has deposited the rent against one Vinod Anand stating that he is his landlord/AR of the owners authorized to collect the rent. It is stated in the objections that the authority of the respondent to collect the rent was withdrawn w.e.f. October, 2007 and the petitioner was duly informed vide legal notice dated 16.02.2008 and he was asked vide this notice to pay the rent directly to owners and not the respondent before me. The respondent has also filed the certified copy of the earlier DR petition. A perusal of DE no. 147/08 filed on 03.07.2008 shows that the petitioner has admitted in para 10 that he received notice dated 16.02.2008 vide which he was asked to pay the rent to two-co-owners namely Usha Anand and Chander Prabha. The postal receipt of the money order annexed with the present DR petition shows that the rent was sent on 04.09.2008. When petitioner himself admits in other DR petition dated 03.07.2008 that he already received notice dated 16.02.2008. There was no reason with the petitioner to send rent to the respondent herein on 04.09.2008. He has deliberately done it despite knowledge that the respondent is no longer authorized to collect the rent of the premises. It is important to note that the petitioner in his own Suit no. 289/08 has admitted Usha Anand and Chander Prabha are the two co- owners of the property. In facts, the present DR petition is dismissed with the observation that the rent has not been tendered to correct person File be consigned to Record Room.
(Amit Kumar) SCJ/RC (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 21.10.2011"
18. Thus, the appellant-tenant for some whimsical notions was adamant in deny the title of the petitioners/landladies. Much mileage is sought to be drawn by Ld.Counsel for appellant-tenant from the fact that the RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 11 of 14 documents pertaining the title to the premises were not proved on record and such document can not be appreciated at this stage. As per section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, "an admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggest any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by the parties concerned. It is settled proposition of law that an admission is the best evidence against the maker and it can be inferred from the conduct of the party. An admission made by a party against his own interest is also strong evidence against the maker. There is nothing in the testimony of the appellant-tenant that he made such admissions under some mistaken notions except that in his testimony he made a brazen and distasteful attempt to deny that he ever received the notice dated 16.02.2008, contrary to his own case.
19. Thus, merely because the petitioners/landladies chose not to place on the record documents concerning their title to the premises, is hardly of any adverse legal consequences to them, particularly when it was the own case of the appellant-tenant in the legal proceedings referred hereinabove that they were the owner of the premises. RW-1 his testimony conceded the fact that one Mr. Gobind Singh was the original allottee of the flat, from whom the petitioners had purchased the same. The concept of "ownership" is well known in common law and it connotes a bundle of rights, which inter alia include deriving or reaping benefits out of property owned in the nature of rental income, profits, or some or the other tangible or intangible pleasure. The petitioners without any iota of doubt were claiming to be owners of the RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 12 of 14 premises in question and they had every right to withdraw the authority of the collector of rent and demand rental of the premises in their own rights, which exactly they did.
FINAL ORDER
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in my mind that the appellant / tenant has been taking the Court for a ride thereby abusing and misusing the process of law, adopting all sorts of unsavory tactics and thereby prolonging the miseries of the petitioners / landladies. It is in the cross examination of RW-1 appellant / tenant that he had been allotted the government accommodation on 30.11.2011 and possession was given to him in the year 2012 and for the last eight years he has deprived of the owners of the premises the fruits of their own wealth. It is really unfortunate that educated person like the appellant-tenant stoop so low as to scuttle the truth and derail the justice delivery system at enormous costs to the people and the nation. It is high time that such unscrupulous tendencies be dealt with in a befitting manner. In the case of M/S. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd vs M/S. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd, Civil Appeal no. 7988/2004 decided on 10th December 2010, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
(1) while passing an order of stay under Rule 5 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Court does have jurisdiction to put the applicant on such reasonable terms as would in its opinion reasonably compensate the decree-
holder for loss occasioned by delay in execution of decree by the grant of stay order, in the event of the appeal being dismissed and in so far as those proceedings are concerned. Such terms, needless to say, shall be reasonable;
RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 13 of 14(2) in case of premises governed by the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in view of the definition of tenant contained in clause (l) of Section 2 of the Act, the tenancy does not stand terminated merely by its termination under the general law; it terminates with the passing of the decree for eviction. With effect from that date, the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree;
21. Accordingly, the sum result of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeal is hereby dismissed for being bereft of any merit whatsoever. In view of the aforesaid discussion with regard to conduct of the appellant/tenant, it is a fit case that he must not only be imposed with exemplary costs of Rs. 22,000/- but must also pay market rent, which is notionally fixed @ Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of filing of petition till the vacation of the premises in question in favour of the respondents. This amount be paid within forty-five days from today, failing which it shall be recoverable by the respondents/landladies with interest @ 18 per annum from the date of this judgment till recovery.
22. The Trial Court record along-with a copy of this Judgment be sent back to the Court of Ld. ARC. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room. DHARMESH Digitally signed by DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.11.07 18:29:09 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) on 6th November, 2020 Principal District & Sessions Judge Rent Controller Tribunal (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RCT-93/2019 Dr. H.R. Singh v. Chander Prabha & Anr. Page 14 of 14