Delhi District Court
Smt. Rekha Satija vs Sh. Virender Gaur on 7 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.S. JAYACHANDRA, DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE/RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
RCA No. 19,20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 40 and 44 of 2017
Smt. Rekha Satija
W/o Sh. Sachin Satija
R/o F-2, Radheypuri,
School Lane, Delhi-110051.
....Appellant in all the above appeals
Versus
1. Sh. Virender Gaur
Proprietor M/s Classic Cable Network
through attorney Shri Krishna Chandra Singh
C-1/9, Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
2. Smt. Amrita Tandon
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chand Tandon
R/o F-4/35, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi- 110051. ......... common respondents in
RCA Nos. : 27 & 30 of 2017
1. (a) Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal Gupta
(b) Smt. Madhu Aggarwal
W/o Late Sh. Satya Narain Aggarwal
(c) Sh. Nitansh Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Satya Narain Aggarwal
(d) Sh. Shivam Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Satya Narain Aggarwal
All C/o Shop No. 2, C-1/9
Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Common respondents in
RCA Nos. : 22, 31, 35 & 40 of 2017
2. Smt. Amrita Tandon
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chand Tandon
RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 1/11
R/o F-4/35, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi- 110051.
1. (a) Sh. Ashwani Kumar
S/o Shri Mahendra Pal
(b) Sh. Parvesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahdendra Pal
Shop no. 4, 5 Ground Floor
Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
2. Smt. Amrita Tandon
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chand Tandon
R/o F-4/35, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi- 110051. Common respondents in
RCA Nos. : 19, 33 & 44 of 2017
1. Sh. Ashok Mehta
Shop no. 8, C-1/9, Ground Floor
Krishna Nagar, Delhi
2. Smt. Amrita Tandon
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chand Tandon
R/o F-4/35, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi- 110051. Common respondents in
RCA Nos. : 20 & 23 of 2017
1. (a) Sh. Vinod Kapoor
(b) Aditya Kapoor
Both S/o Sh. Amar Nath
Shop No. 9, C-1/9 2nd Floor
Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
2. Smt. Amrita Tandon
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chand Tandon
R/o F-4/35, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi- 110051. Common respondents in
RCA No. : 28 of 2017
RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 2/11
....Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.01.2017
Date of arguments : 07.07.2018
Date of Order : 07.07.2018
By a common order all the above appeals are being disposed of
since the impugned order being the same between the same parties on the
same point of law involved in the appeals.
Common Order
1. The appellant herein challenges the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 on the files of Ld. ARC (East), Delhi. By the impugned order, the Ld. ARC had passed an order u/s 27 (4) of the Delhi Rent Control adjudicating the rival claims in withdrawing the rents deposited by the tenant.
2. The tenant (R-1 herein) had filed an application u/s 27 of the Rent Control Act pleading that one Amrita Tandon claiming to be the attorney of S.C. Tandon and one Rekha Satija (Appellant herein) who claims to be the daughter of Late S.C. Tandon had made claims for deposited of rent. Since there are rival claims the tenant had become clueless as to who is entitled to receive the rent. Thus the tenant had filed the application.
3. After appearance of the rival claimants in the court below, the Ld. ARC had passed a common order in 38 cases as mentioned in para 1 of the impugned order, considering the facts and law being common to all the cases. The impugned order had allocated 50% of the rents to be shared by the PA holder and the daughter. The said order is being challenged on the grounds that the same is opposed to the facts and law and further contrary RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 3/11 to the directions given earlier by the Ld. Sr. Civil Judge by an order dated 10.09.2015 which case number not furnished and mentioned, and that the impugned order is a non speaking order, opposed to the rulings and further opposed to the claim of the PA holder who had sought only one-third but the impugned order granted 50%.
4. The other grounds urged are that the impugned order is quite contradictory to its own findings regarding the Rent Controller having no authority to decide the title or apportionment of share as mentioned in para 5.1 & 6 of the impugned order with that of the directions for apportioning. The appellant seeks setting aside of the order.
5. When the matter came up for hearing on territorial jurisdiction, the Ld. Counsel appearing from all the sides submit that they have no objection for entertaining this appeal by this court. However, the position of law is also perused. In the ruling of Suresh Kirar vs. Prem Sagar and Anr. which was rendered by our Hon'ble High Court consequent to the bifurcation of districts. The appellant can file an appeal in the district having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter (CM (M) 512/17 DD 12.05.2017). In view of the above, this court is competent and has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
6. The respondents appeared through their counsel upon notice. The Ld. Counsel for the tenant (R-1) submits that the tenant has no role but only to invoke Section 27 in case of doubt arising with regard to the ownership of the property and the cloud over the entitlement of which landlord to collect the rent.
7. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the PA holder of Late S.C. Tandon contends that she is the second wife and is equally entitled to claim the rents. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant forcefully contends that since RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 4/11 there is already an order passed in some other case apportioning 83.66% in favour of his client to claim the rent, she is entitled to receive such rent and her application u/s 27 (4) ought to have been decided in her favour.
8. The appeal is also resisted by the tenant who submits through the Ld. Counsel that there is no question of law involved as required u/s 38 of the DRC Act. He submits that appeal be dismissed. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for appellant submits that the appeal is maintainable in view of the question of law arising with regard to the interpretation of Section 27 (4) of the DRC Act and Section 50 (4) of the same Act.
9. The trial court records are summoned. Perused the same. In the context of the submissions made by the Ld. counsel, the following point of law arise for determination in this appeal.
"Whether the Ld. ARC was justified in handing out an apportionment order of rents between the rival claimants in view of the bar under Section 50 of DRC Act and whether the impugned order suffers from perversity, illegality, thus liable to be set aside?"
10. Section 27 of the DRC Act provides :
27. Deposit of rent by the tenant. -
(1) Where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in section 26 of refuses or neglects to deliver a receipt referred to therein or where there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller in the prescribed manner:
[Provided that in case where there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom the rent is payable, the tenant may remit such rent to the Controller by postal money order.] (2) The deposit shall be accompanied by an application by the tenant containing the following particulars, namely:-
(a) the premises for which the rent is deposited with a description sufficient for identifying the premises;RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 5/11
(b) the period for which the rent is deposited;
(c) the name and address of the landlord or the person or persons claiming to be entitled to such rent;
(d) the reasons and circumstances for which the application for depositing the rent is made;
(e) such other particulars as may be prescribed.
(3) On such deposit of the rent being made, the Controller shall send in the prescribed manner a copy or copies of the application to the landlord or persons claiming to be entitled to the rent with an endorsement of the date of the deposit.
(4) If an application is made for the withdrawal of any deposit of rent, the Controller shall, if satisfied that the applicant is the person entitled to receive the rent deposited, order the amount of the rent to be paid to him in the manner prescribed:
Provided that no order for payment of any deposit of rent shall be made by the Controller under this sub-section without giving all persons named by he tenant in his application under sub-section (2) as claiming to be entitled to payment of such rent being decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(5) If at the time of filing the application under sub-section (4), but not after the expiry of thirty days from receiving the notice of deposit, the landlord or the person or persons claiming to be entitled to the rent complains or complain to the Controller that the statements in the tenant's application of the reasons and circumstances which led him to deposit the rent are untrue, the Controller, after giving the tenant an opportunity of being heard, may levy on the tenant a fine which may extend to an amount equal to two months' rent, if the Controller is satisfied that the said statements were materially untrue and may order that a sum out of the fine realized be paid to the landlord as compensation.
(6) The Controller may, on the complaint of the tenant and after giving an opportunity to the landlord of being heard, levy on the landlord a fine which may extend to an amount equal to two months' rent, if the Controller is satisfied that the landlord, without any reasonable cause, refused to accept rent though tendered to him within the time referred to in section 26 and may further order that a sum out of the fine realized be paid to the tenant as compensation.
11. In the case of rival claimants, the tenant is obligated to deposit the rents whenever a bona fide doubt arising in the circumstances as to RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 6/11 whom the rent is to be paid. Therefore the tenant is justified in depositing the rent by intimating the court of the rival claimants. Though Section 24 provides for withdrawal of the rents so deposited, the law fastens a duty on the Rent Controller to get satisfied as to the person entitled to receive the rents.
12. In the instant case the daughter of S.C. Tandon claims that she has succeeded to the estate of her parents especially her late father having executed a registered relinquishment deed in her favour. It is also vehemently denied that there was no legal marriage or any marital status as regards another rival claimant Amrita Tandon.
13. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that she is claiming as the power of attorney holder of Late S.C. Tandon and also as a widow under second marriage. The Ld. Counsel also submits that there has been no adjudication by a competent court regarding the marital status of his client with late S.C. Tandon nor his client had obtained any decree from the competent court as to the legal status nor any succession/letters of administration. His client is the power of attorney holder, which had become irrevocable.
14. It is clear from the arguments that there has been a rival claim to entitlement of the rents between appellant and Amrita Tandon which led to this dispute.
15. In case of any dispute arising regarding the entitlement, title or otherwise, the Act itself deals with such a situation. Section 50 (4) of the Act is very clear. In all such cases it is the proper civil court which has to decide the question of title/any question pertaining to the entitlement of rents.
Section 50 reads as under:
RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 7/1150. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters
-
(1) Save a otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit or proceeding in so far as it relates to the fixation of standard rent in relation to any premises to which this Act applies or to eviction of any tenant there from or to any other matter which the Controller is empowered by or under this Act to decide, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Controller under this Act shall be granted by any civil court or other authority. (2) If, immediately before the commencement of this Act, there is any suit or proceeding pending in any civil court for the eviction of any tenant from any premises to which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 19951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, such suit or proceeding shall, on such commencement , abate.
(3) If, in pursuance of any decree or order made by a court, any tenant has been evicted after the 16th day of August, 1958, from any premises to which this Act applies and the construction of which has been completed after the 1st day of June, 1951, but before the 9th day of June, 1955, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within six months from the date of eviction, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit.
(4) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as prevailing a civil court from entertaining any suit or proceeding for the decision of any question of title to any premises to which this Act applies or any question as to the person or persons who are entitled to receive the rent of such premises.
16. The Ld. ARC in the impugned order has noted the following :
"5.1 The respondent Amrita Tandon avers that she is the owner of the property as it had been transferred to her by a GPA and Will, both dated 28/09/2007, production of said documents was must but she did not produce the said documents in original. So far as GPA is concerned, the said document does not operate to convey immovable property by sale or gift. Since the Will is not produced, the Court does RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 8/11 not have any evidence in respect of existence of such Will. Thus, the absolute ownership of the property in Amrita Tandon stands 'not-proved' in the present proceedings.
6. Respondent Rekha Satija failed to produce the sale deed whereby she avers that Subhash Chander Tandon and Darshana Rani purchased the property in question in 1988. Thus, the interest of Darshana Rani in the property remains 'not-proved' in the present proceedings. So far as the relinquishment deed is concerned, the original of the same is not produced. The said deed remains 'not-proved'. Despite non production of the said relinquishment deed, it is noteworthy to comment on the operation of said deed. Upon perusal of copy of the said relinquishment deed, it is discovered that it was made on 20/04/2009 whereby Subhash Chander Tandon apparently relinquishes his share in the property in question, which he inherited from Darshana Rani and also relinquishes his separate share in this property in favour of Rekha Satija. So far as relinquishment by a successor of his share is concerned, such relinquishment must be open ended i.e. a person relinquishing must not be concerned as to whom the share he relinquishes would devolve and the moment, he relinquishes his share in favour of the another living person, it is not relinquishment but transfer and the rules governing transfer of immovable property applies to such transaction i.e. the mandates of Transfer of Property Act 1882, the Registration Act, the Stamps Act, and any other relevant law. Thus, the operation RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 9/11 of this Relinquishment deed requires due appreciation before determination of title based on it. It is also noteworthy that it is golden rule of Law of Succession that succession never remains in abeyance. Given this rule, the fact that purported relinquishment is made nearly seven years after the succession has crystallized, operates to nullify such relinquishment. Once a person becomes holder of a vested interest in immovable property and he intends to convey such interest to another, he must obey the Laws of Transfer of Property and none other; thus if Subhash Chander Tandon intented to transfer his share in the property, the 'relinquishment - deed' is/was not the mode recognized by law to that end. Given this, the absolute ownership over the property in question, in Rekha Satija is 'not-proved' in the present proceedings."
17. The above observation holding that the absolute ownership of the property having not been proved is opposed to the spirit of Section 50 (4) of the Act, as rightly submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Having held that the title is not proved, the rendering of the verdict as regards "Rekha Satija and respondent Amrita Tandon may withdraw the rent deposited in 50% each" at para 8 of the impugned order goes against the very spirit of the Act since all such questions as to the entitlement of the rival claimants to the rent squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the competence of civil court.
18. Therefore, the question of law framed in the above appeal is answered accordingly holding that the dispute with regard to the maintainability of the applications for withdrawal of rents u/s 27 (4) of the Act RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 10/11 is misconstrued by the Ld. Court below and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following :
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.12.2016 is hereby set aside. Both the rival claimants are directed to obtain a proper order from the competent civil court as to their entitlement to receive the rents u/s 27 (4) of the Act. Only upon such order the parties may file their claims before the Rent Controller. The tenant shall continue to deposit the rents in the court below and the same be not allowed to be withdrawn without the proper orders from the civil court. Let the copy of this order along with trial court records be sent back. Original copy of this order be kept in RCA No. 19/2017 and copies be kept in other files.Digitally signed
File be consigned to record room. A.S. by A.S. JAYACHANDRA JAYACHANDRA Date: 2018.07.07 15:30:30 -0400 Typed to the dictation directly, (A.S. Jayachandra) corrected on the system District & Sessions Judge/RCT and pronounced in the open court Shahdara District,Delhi on 07.07.2018 RCA No. 27, 30, 22, 31, 35, 40, 19, 33, 44, 20, 23 & 28 of 2017 Page No. 11/11