Delhi District Court
Sh. Balram Chopra (Since Deceased) vs Sh. Suresh Chand on 20 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLCT03-000307/2010
ARC No: 79899/16
E.No-690/14/10
1. Sh. Balram Chopra (since deceased)
Through LRs
(a) Smt. Prem Lata Chopra
(b) Sh. Vikas Chopra
(c) Ms. Preeti Chopra
All R/o H.No. 239,
Kucha Sanjogi Ram, \
Naya Bans, New Delhi.
(d) Ms. Barkha Kumari
R/o C 2/103, C Block
Kingsburry Apartments
TDI City, Kundli,
Sonepat, Haryana-131023.
2. Sh. Manmohan Chopra
S/o Sh. Dev Prashad Chopra
R/o H.No. KA73, Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad, U.P. .....Petitioners
VERSUS
Sh. Suresh Chand
S/o Sh. Jagan Nath
Shop No.243, in Property No. 239,
Kucha Sanjogi Ram, Naya Bans,
New Delhi. ......Respondent
ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13
Date of filing : 06.09.2010
Date of Judgment : 20.12.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case is that on 06.09.2010, petitioner filed present petition Under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of Shop as shown in Red colour in the attached site plan. (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioners that the petitioners are the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises by virtue of inheritence as the tenanted premises and the other portion of the suit property came to the share of petitioners; repondent paid Rs.1200/- as rent from 01.01.1998 to 31.12.1998 @ Rs. 100/- p.m. exclusive of electricity and other charges; the petitioner no. 1 is to be engaged in the business of sale and purchase of soap etc. in which his son Sh. Vikas Chopra is running the said business and is helping him; they have no regular place of business; petitioner no.2 also does not have any place of business; the petitioner no.1 has no other property except the tenanted premises; petitioner no.2 is living in Ghaziabad. Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioners that eviction order may be ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 passed.
3. Written Statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by the petitioners U/S 14 (1) (e) of D.R.C Act, praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs.
4. In the written statement, the respondent has inter- alia submitted that the petitioners alone are not the landlord qua the respondent; the petitioners are not owners of the tenanted premises; the title of the petitioners in respect of tenanted premises has not been accepted even by the petitioners as the appeal has been filed; without joining the other co-owners petitioners can not file the present petition; respondent was never inducted in the tenanted premises by the petitioners and the respondent is not the tenant of the petitioners; the alleged rent receipt is forged and fabricated documents; petitioner no.1 was doing the business from the premises which came to the share of petitioners including the godown, shop and passage; petitioner no.2 has got no business and is in service; family of the petitioner no.2 is living at Ghaziabad and not with the petitioner no.1. Lastly, it is prayed by the respondent to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioners with exemplary cost.
5. Thereafter, the petitioners examined Smt. Prem Lata ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 Chopra Wife of Late Sh. Balram Chopra as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon several documents and was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent at length. PW2 Sh. Vikas Chopra S/o Late Sh. Balram Chopra was also examined and cross examined. PW3 produced the summoned record from Record Room (Civil). PW4 official from Record Room (Civil) also produced the summoned record, i.e. judicial file titled as Chand Narain Chopra Vs Devi Prasad Chopra decided by the then Ld. A.D.J, Tis Hazri Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, petitioners evidence was closed.
6. Thereafter, respondent evidence was led in the present case. The respondent examined himself as RW1 who was also cross examined at length and thereafter, respondent evidence was closed.
7. I have heard the final arguments at length advanced by both the Ld. Counsels.
8. I have carefully gone through the pleadings, documents, testimonies, case law relied upon and material on record.
(i) Landlordship (ii) Ownership
9. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have claimed ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 to be landlord and owner of the tenanted premises on the basis of inheritance and decree of partition passed by civil court. On the other hand, the respondent has claimed in paragraph no. 3(a) and
(b) of written statement as under:-
" Para 3(a) and (b) of the petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioners alone are not the landlord qua the respondent. The real fact is that the petitioners are not owners of the premises in dispute......"
10. As such, the contents of paragraph no. 3(a) and (b) manifestly shows that the respondent has impliedly admitted the landlordship of the petitioners as he has stated that "Petitioners alone are not the landlord qua the respondent."
11. As far as ownership is concerned, the respondent has disputed the ownership of the petitioners on the ground that decree of petition passed by the civil court has been challenged before the Ld. ADJ and is still Sub-Judice. In the considered view of this court, the tenant has no concern with the decree passed by the civil court and appeal before the Ld. A.D.J as he is a tenant in the tenanted premises. It is prerogative of the legal heirs of landlord and owners. A tenant remains tenant even when such sort of litigations are pending between co-owners.
12. It is pertinent to mention that rent receipt Ex.PW1/1 has ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 been filed on record by the petitioners to prove that respondent is tenant in the tenanted premises. On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that it is a forged rent receipt.
13. I have carefully and minutely gone through the testimony of all the witnesses. It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of testimony of RW1 which is as under:-
" I do not have any registered lease agreement in respect of the suit shop. Vol. The suit shop on pagri. I do not have any cash receipt in respect of the money that I have paid allegedly for pagri as it is not the practice of giving pagri receipt."
14. As such, this plea of the respondent taken during cross- examination in respect 'Pagri' also shows that there exists the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Moreover, bare perusal of Affidavit RW1/A shows that he has deposed as under:-
" I state that the depondent is the lawful tenant is respect of the tenanted shop since long back. However, there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the deponent and the original petitioners in present case. The deponent never paid any rent to none of the petitioners. Moreover, the alleged rent receipt showing payment of rent w.e.f. 01.01.1998 to 31.12.1998 @ Rs.100/-per month is a forged and fabricated document to form the basis of the present false and baseless petition."
15. As such, in the affidavit itself, it is deposed that he is ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 lawful tenant in the tenanted premises. However, he has not admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant between parties. Persual of affidavit itself shows that although he has disputed the relationship of landlord-tenant between petitioners and himself yet he has not disclosed who is the landlord and owner if not the petitioners. Mere non-payment of rent to any of the petitioners by the respondent does not prove that there exist no relationship of landlord-tenant between parties. Otherwise, every tenant will never pay any rent to the landlord and later on, will claim the non-payment of rent to the landlord. Moreover, contents of affidavit itself shows that he has not specified how this rent receipt is a forged and fabricated document. Bare allegation is not sufficient to prove the fact.
16. Perusal of contents of written statement and material on record manifestly shows that there exists the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Moreover, the petitioners have been able to prove that they are something more than the tenant/respondent. Moreover, in view of section-116 of Indian Evidence Act, tenant can not challenge the title of landlord. Moreover, Electricity bills RW1/1 (colly) filed by respondent merely prove the possession in tenanted premises. Moreover, these bills are of the period after filing of present petition.
In view of reasons as above and material on record, ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 ingredients qua landlordship and ownership are satisfied.
(iii) Bonafide requirement (iv) Alternative accommodation
17. Perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have claimed the tenanted premises for the commercial bonafide requirement of himself, his son and petitioner no.2 in the following words:-
"That the petitioner no.1 is to be engaged in the business of sale and purchase of soap etc. in which his son Sh. Vikas Chopra is running the said business and is helping him. As they have no regular place of business, therefore they can hardly earn their livelihood to make both ends meet. The petitioner no.2 also does not have any place of business. The petitioner no.1 has no other property except the property as detailed above. The petitioner no.2 is living in Ghaziabad."
18. As such, the present petition has been filed for the commercial bonafide requirement of petitioner no.1, his son and petitioner no.2. Perusal of petition and record clearly shows that the petition has to be continued even after the death of petitioner no.1 Sh. Bal Ram chopra. Now, the issue before the court is whether there exists the bonafide requirement of son of the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 and whether they are having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with them to satisfy the requirement as raised in the present ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 petition.
19, Perusal of written statement shows that the respondent has claimed that petitioners have not disclosed one kitchen and one room portion measuring 4x4 feet on the ground floor in the suit property itself and it is being used by petitioner no.1 for carrying on his business and it is sufficient for them. Further plea of the respondent is that the petitioner no.2 has no business and he is residing at Ghaziabad and petitioner no.1 is already doing the business from godown, shop and passage.
20. I have minutely gone through the testimony of PW2 to evaluate the bonafide requirement. The relevant portion of testimony of PW2 is as under:-
" Petitioner no.2 is my uncle. As per my knowledge his age above 80 yrs. Earlier my uncle was residing at Ghaziabad and now as per my knowledge he is residing in Agra as he is not keeping well and now he has gone to live with his son. Vol. But I am not sure."
21. As such, PW2 himself has admitted that the petitioner no.2 is not residing in Ghaziabad and living in Agra and aged above 80 years and having not good health.
22. In the considered view of the court, the age is no bar to ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 start the business or to continue with the business and it may be started at any age. But keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and deposition by PW2, it can be held that there exists no bonafide commercial requirement of petitioner No. 2 as it is not the case of petitioners that petitioner no.2 has left for Agra only to meet his son. There is clear deposition that he is living with his son. In the considered view of this court, there will be very bleak chances of starting or continuing with the business by the petitioner no.2 keeping in view of his age, health and present residence at Agra.
23. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence of PW2 which is as under:-
"At this stage, the witness has been shown the site plan which is black and white to which the witness has stated that he is not in possession of any portion at ground floor. There is no kitchen at ground floor, however, there is a portion measuring 4ft x 4ft, however, the same is not out possession. It is correct that since birth I am residing in the same premises. I do not know whether the said portion falls in our share or not."
24. As such, persual of testimony of PW2 clearly shows that he has concealed the name of person who is in possession of such space i.e 4x4 despite residing in the suit property since birth. Moreover, he has not denied that such portion does not fall in the ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 share of the petitioners. This shows that the petitioners have concealed the material facts from the court.
25. Even perusal of petition shows that the petitioners have stated in the petition that the said shop/tenanted premises and other portion of property came to the share of petitioners by virtue of suit for partition.
26. Bare perusal of site plan filed by the petitioners Ex. PW1/F and petition shows that the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. Perusal of petition shows that they have tried to conceal the commercial accommodation at the ground floor. They mentioned the store in stairs having area 5x4 and room upon two kitchens having area 15.07x5.4 but bare perusal of such contents shows that 'ground floor" has been avoided by the petitioners. Moreover, even in the site plan, these portions have been depicted but the petitioners have no where disclosed who is in the possession of these portions such as "store in stairs" and "Room upon two kitchens".
27. Moreover, perusal of petition i.e. paragraph no.18(a)4 shows that the petitioners have claimed that they have no regular place of business. As such, they have concealed the space from which they are running the business.
ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13
28. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of testimony of PW1 which is as under:-
" It is correct that in the partition one godown and one shop alongwith a store measuring about 5ft x 4ft. in stairs at ground floor had been given to father in law Sh. Devi Prashad Chopra. It is correct that the godown as well as the store as on date is in my possession. Vol. I am receiving rent of the aforesaid godown as well as store. I have not filed any case of eviction on my tenants of godown as well as of store. I have only a son Vikas Chopra. It is wrong to suggest that the godown as well as store is not in occupation of any tenant but the same is in our possession."
29. As such, perusal of testimony of PW1 shows that the PW1 has admitted that she is in the possession of godown and store on the ground floor but she has claimed that she is receiving the rent in respect of such godown and store.
30. Perusal of petition shows that no such plea was taken by the petitioners that these portions are in the possessions of tenants. Perusal of petition also shows that it is not the case of the petitioners that godown and store are although available to them but they are not sufficient for them or they are not alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation to satisfy the requirement as raised in present petition.
ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13 Conclusion:-
31. Perusal of record and the discussion manifestly shows that the petitioners have failed to prove their bonafide requirement and the lack of alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation. In the other words, the respondent has succeeded to prove that petitioners are having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation on the ground floor in the suit property itself.
32. As such, petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC act is dismissed.
33. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
Announced in open court on signed by
20th December, 2021.
AJAY AJAY NAGAR
Date:
NAGAR 2021.12.20
(This judgment contains 13 pages) 17:16:56
+0530
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller-2,
Central District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 79899/16 Sh. Balram Chopra through LRs Vs Sh. Suresh Chand 13