Delhi District Court
Sneh Mehta vs . Sanmati Paul on 2 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK VATS
ACJCUMCCJCUMARC
DISTRICT: SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
RC ARC 62/2019
SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL
Smt. Sneh Mehta
W/o Col V.S. Mehta (Retd.)
R/o 38B Ring Road
Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi24
............Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Sanmati Paul
W/o Late Paul Ben Chaff @ Satpal,
R/o 319A, Ground Floor, Hari Nagar,
Ashram, New Delhi110014
...........Respondent
APPLICATION FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF
TENANTED PREMISES UNDER SECTION 14(1) (e) READ
WITH SECTION 25B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
Date of Institution : 16.09.2019
Arguments heard on : 07.01.2023
Date of pronouncement : 02.06.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) wherein the petitioner seeks eviction of the respondent from One room on ground floor and varanda in H.No 319A in Khasra No.13, Khatuni No.148, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi110014 as per Digitally signed site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises"). DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS Date:
VATS 2023.06.02
17:18:53
_____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 1 of 22
2. The facts of the present petition in a nutshell are that the petitioner is the owner of House No.319A, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi11001(which comprises the tenented premises). It is averred that the petitioner's previous landlord (Sh. Padam Singh) let out the tenanted premises to one Mr. Paul Ben Chaff @ Satpal, the husband of respondent at Rs.17/ per month. Mr. Paul Ben Chaff @ Satpal died in the year 19921993 and thereafter his wife i.e. the respondent inherited tenancy rights in the tenanted premises.
3. The original owner of tenanted premises was one Mr. Nanwa Ram, father of Sh. Padam Singh, who died on 21.01.1973. Mr. Nanwa Ram executed his last Will in favour of his only son Sh. Padam Singh on 28.12.1972. Sh. Padam Singh sold the property bearing No. 319A, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi110014 (comprising tenanted premises) to the petitioner vide agreement to sell, registered Will, affidavit all dated 30.04.1993. The petitioner applied for mutation and transfer of property in her name and the same was mutated vide letter dated 17.04.1997 issued by MCD. Thereafter sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 24.12.2003.
4. It is averred that the petitioner has two sons namely Major Atul Mehta and Sh. Anuj Mehta. The younger son of the petitioner namely Sh. Anuj Mehta is physically challenged and had lost his hearing in the year 1998, who is currently working as a Senior Auditor with Director General Accounts (Central Expenditure), ITO Delhi. The petitioner is joint owner with her elder son of property bearing no. 1491, Duplex Housing Board, Sector31, Gurgaon and the said premises was occupied by her elder son and his family. It is averred Digitally that the petitioner needs a separate accommodation for herself and her signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.06.02 younger son for which the tenanted premises is required. Further that, 17:19:01 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 2 of 22 the tenanted premises alongwith premises let out by the petitioner in property bearing No. 319A, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi110014 are in dilapidated condition as the same is very old and it requires reconstruction. Hence, the tenanted premises is required for the accommodation of petitioner and her younger son.
5. It is further stated that the petitioner does not have any other suitable accommodation. Further that, the husband of petitioner is co owner of property bearing no. BP 38B Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi110024 with his brothers which is a commercial property and the same is under litigation wherein a partition suit has been filed and thus, the same is not useful for the stated purpose. It is averred that a notice was issued to the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises, however, the respondent failed to vacate the same. Hence, the present petition u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act.
Leave To Defend Application
6. Summons were sent upon the respondent after which she filed an application seeking leave to defend. In the application, it is stated that the present petition is barred under Section 11 and Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC as the petitioner has waived/relinquished the right of seeking bonafide requirement in the previous petition under Section 14(1)(a) DRC Act, titled as "Sneh Mehta Vs. Sanmati Paul" bearing no. RC ARC 6026/16. It is alleged that the bonafide need of the petitioner is a sham, coined and selfinduced/created and the present petition has been filed with malafide intention to oust the respondent from the tenanted premises.
Digitally
7. It is further alleged that the petitioner has no locus standi to signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
file the present petition as she has no right title or interest whatsoever 2023.06.02 17:19:08 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 3 of 22 in the tenanted premises. The sale deed filed by the petitioner is false, baseless, bogus, invalid and illegal. The tenanted premises was earlier owned by one Sh. Nanwa Ram. Sh. Nanwa Ram during his life time executed a Will dated 17/18 Aprile, 1972 and bequeathed the entire property bearing No. 319A, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi110014 in favour of his grandsons namely Murari Lal and Mukesh who were minor at that time. Sh. Padam Singh (son of Sh. Nanwa) was appointed as an Executor under the said Will and was only authorised to collect and realize all outstanding amount regarding tenanted premises and future rent. Further, it was stated in the Will that after attaining the age of majority Sh. Padam Singh would handover the estate to the legatees. It is alleged that the grand sons of Nanwa Ram have not been impleaded as party, though, they are necessary party to the present petition. It is admitted that Mr. Padam Singh used to collect rent on behalf of minor legatees, however, he was neither the owner nor had the right to transfer the tenanted premises to the petitioner.
8. It is further averred that the tenanted premises is old and in dilapidated condition, further that the same is very small and consists of a small room, verandah, toilet and bathroom which cannot cater the requirements of the petitioner.
9. It is further stated that the petitioner is in occupation and possession of sufficient accommodation which are available to her for herself and her family members residence. The property bearing No.B 38, Ring Road, Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi consists of 36 rooms constructed on ground floor, first floor and second floor on the land measuring 1000 square yards. Most of the rooms in the said building are lying vacant and under the disposal of the petitioner and her Digitally signed husband. DEEPAK VATS by DEEPAK VATS Date:
2023.06.02 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 17:19:24 +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 4 of 22
10. It is further contended that the elder son of petitioner namely Sh. Atul Mehta is owner of property bearing no. 1491, Duplex Housing Board, Sector31, Gurgaon which is a palatial house/big house and he is residing there and has no intention to shift to the tenanted premises. It is further alleged that the petitioner has a big house in Delhi Cantt.
11. It is further contended that the younger son of the petitioner namely Sh. Anuj Mehta is selfdependent and is working independently and is not dependent on petitioner for his residence. Further that he has got allotted the Governmentaccommodation from his department and is living separately from the petitioner. It is further claimed that the petitioner is also joint owner of property at Noida (NCR).
12. It is stated that the respondent has raised various triable issues and leave to defend petition has been sought.
Reply To Leave To Defend Application
13. Reply to the application was filed wherein the assertions made in the application were denied and those made in the petition were reaffirmed. In reply it is further stated that the petitioner does not own any property other than the one which comprises the tenanted premises. It is prayed that the application be dismissed and the petition be allowed.
14. I have heard the arguments by Ld. counsels for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the record.
Discussion and Decision
15. Before proceeding to decide the application, I deem it Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK appropriate to discuss the provisions of law which provide for eviction VATS VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:19:37 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 5 of 22 of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement. The legal provision which provides for eviction of a tenant for bonafide requirement is Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
As per section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act, the landlord needs to prove that :
1. He/She is the owner of the tenanted premises.
2. The premises are required bonafide by the landlord.
3. That there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
16. The procedure for filing and defending a petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement is provided in chapter III A of the DRC Act. Section 25B (4) provides that the tenant has to file an affidavit stating the grounds on which he/she seeks to contest the eviction petition and has to obtain the leave to defend from the Controller. Section 25B (4) provides as follows: "The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid."
17. Section 25B (5) DRC Act further provides that the tenant can be granted leave to defend only when he/she discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining the eviction order. The law DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.06.02 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 17:19:54 +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 6 of 22 regarding leave to defend is no more resintegra and has been settled by a catena of judgments. In the case of Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh, (2001) 15 CC 706, Honble Supreme Court observed as follows: "13.......In short and substance, a wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend, but when a triable issue is raised a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by the statue itself to grant leave. At the stage of granting leave the real test should be whether facts disclosed in the affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima facie show that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an order of eviction and not whether at the end defence may fail."
Further, in recent case of "AbidUlIslam Vs. Inder Sain Dua (AIR 2022 SC 1778)" Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "15. For availing the leave to defend as envisaged Under Section 25B(5), a mere assertion per se would not suffice as Section 14(1)(e) creates a presumption subject to the satisfaction of the learned Rent Controller qua bona fide need in favour of the landlord which is obviously rebuttable with some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue. The satisfaction of the Rent Controller in deciding on an application seeking leave to defend is obviously subjective. The degree of probability is one of preponderance forming the subjective satisfaction of the Rent Controller. Thus, the quality of adjudication is between a mere moonshine and adequate material and evidence meant for the rejection of a normal application for eviction.
16. Before a presumption is drawn, the landlord is duty bound to place prima facie material supported by the adequate averments. It is only thereafter, the presumption gets attracted and the onus shifts on the tenant. The object of Section 14 (1) (e) visavis Section Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS 25B has to be seen in the light of yet another provision VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:20:10 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 7 of 22 contained Under Section 19. Section 19 gives a right to the dispossessed tenant for repossession if there is a noncompliance on the part of the landlord albeit after eviction, to put the premises to use for intended purpose. Such a right is available only to a tenant who stood dispossessed, on the application filed by the landlord invoking Section 14(1) (e) being allowed. Thus, Section 19 inter alia throws more light on the legislative objective facilitating a speedy possession. The object is also reflected in the proviso to Section 25B(8), denying a right of appeal.
17. Dealing with a pari materia provision, this Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, was pleased to clarify the aforesaid position holding the procedure as summary. In such a case, the tenant is expected to put in adequate and reasonable materials in support of the facts pleaded in the form of a declaration sufficient to raise a triable issue. One cannot lose sight of the object behind Section 25B in facilitating not only the expeditious but effective remedy for a class of landlords, sans the normal procedural route. In this regard, we wish to quote the decision of this court in Baldev Singh (supra):
19.....In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would approach when his need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of course, subject to the tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, in the proceeding taken up under Section 13B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of the tenant, the court shall presume that the landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. But this would not disentitle the tenant from proving that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove Digitally this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the DEEPAK signed by DEEPAK VATS Date:
necessary facts and particulars supported by VATS 2023.06.02 17:20:33 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 8 of 22 documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine." (Emphasis supplied).
18. From the above cited precedents it emerges that the tenant has to raise triable issues to be entitled to defend the petition. If the issues raised by the tenant are not substantial or material and are only bald averments without being supported by any material/documents, leave to defend the petition cannot be granted. On the touchstone of above legal position let us now see whether the respondent has raised any material ground which entitles him to defend the present petition.
19. The petitioner has placed on record the registered agreement to sell, Will, affidavit and GPA all dated 30.04.1993, Mutation letter dated 17.04.1997 and registered sale deed dated 24.12.2003 in her favour regarding the property which comprises the tenanted premises. As per the said documents, the property comprising the tenanted premises was sold by Sh. Padam Singh to the petitioner. Sh. Padam Singh is admittedly the son of original landlord Sh. Nanwa and admittedly the rent was paid to him by the respondent. Thus, prima facie, the petitioner is the owner/landlord of tenanted premises. The petitioner has further stated that the tenanted premises is required for her residence and her younger son's accommodation. It is further clearly stated that the petitioner has no other suitable property for the stated purpose. Thus, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS DRC Act have been fulfilled by the petitioner. Let us now consider theVATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:20:50 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 9 of 22 objections/defences taken by the respondent while seeking leave to defend. The grounds are discussed one by one herein below.
(I) Petition Barred Under Section 11 CPC and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC
20. It is averred by the respondent that the petitioner filed another petition u/s 14(1)(a) DRC Act bearing No. RC ARC 6026/16 before Ld. ARC, South against the respondent and did not plead the bonafide requirement in the said petition and thus, it is stated that the petitioner has relinquished/waived her right u/s 14(1)(e)DRC Act and the present petition is barred u/s 11 CPC and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
21. There is absolutely no merit in this contention of the respondent. Section 11 CPC is clearly not applicable as the previous petition was filed u/s 14(1))(a) for nonpayment of rent. The bonafide requirement of the petitioner was neither in question and nor heard and finally decided by Ld. ARC, South in the said petition. Thus, Section 11 CPC is not applicable to the present petition u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act.
22. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is also not applicable in the present case because bonafide requirement is a continuous cause of action and the bonafide need is seen on the date of filing of petition, which is clearly averred by the petitioner in the present petition. Secondly, the procedure for filing eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act is separate from the one u/s 14 (1)(a) DRC Act. There is a special procedure for filing and hearing a petition u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act which is governed by Chapter III(A) of the DRC Act. Since the procedure for filing and hearing a petition u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act is separate, the petitioner cannot be faulted for not pleading bona fide requirement in petition u/s 14(1)(a) DRC Act. Digitally signed by DEEPAK
23. In the case of M/s Moti Mahal Delux II Vs. Kiran Dutta DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.06.02 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 17:21:01 +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 10 of 22 (CM(M) No.2/2015 decided on 02.01.2015) Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as follows:
11. "Be that as it may it is not necessary for this Court to go further into this issue for the reason in the present case though a composite application under the DRC Act on more than one grounds was filed however, the procedure for an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (e) DRC Act being different and technical, to avoid the said complexity in case the Petitioner wants to withdraw the claim on one ground the same would be in the nature of a defect which would be technical in nature and a sufficient ground analogous to formal defect. Further the cause of action for eviction on the bona fide ground, that is, under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act is a recurring cause of action and even without seeking the liberty the Petitioner is at liberty to refile the petition on bona fide requirement again. Hon'ble Supreme Court N.R. Narayan Swamy vs. B. Francis Jagan, 2001 (6) SCC 473 held: 6. In our view, the High Court ought to have considered the fact that in eviction proceedings under the Rent Act the ground of bona fide requirement or nonpayment of rent is a recurring cause and, therefore, landlord is not precluded from instituting fresh proceeding. In an eviction suit on the ground of bona fide requirement the genuineness of the said ground is to be decided on the basis of requirement on the date of the suit. Further, even if a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is filed and is dismissed it cannot be held that once a question of necessity is decided against the landlord he will not have bona fide and genuine necessity ever in future. In the subsequent proceedings, if such claim is established by cogent evidence adduced by the landlord, decree for possession could be passed. [K.S.Sunderraju Chettair vs. M.R.Ramachandra Naidu (SCC para 10) and Surajnul vs. Radhe Shyam]".Emphasis Supplied.
The above makes it clear that bonafide need is a recurring Digitally signed by cause of action and not pleading bonafide requirement in a previous DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:21:14 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 11 of 22 petition u/s 14(1)(a) DRC Act does not create any bar u/s 11 CPC or Order 2 Rule 2 CPC to file a fresh petition u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act. Thus, this defence of the respondent is liable to be rejected and leave cannot be granted on this count.
(II) Petitioner Not Having Right, Title And Interest In Tenanted Premises
24. It is argued on behalf of respondent that the petitioner has no right, title and interest in the tenanted premises. The saledeed and other documents filed by the petitioner are baseless, bogus, invalid and illegal. As per the Will of Sh. Nanwa, Sh. Padam Singh was only appointed as Executor and the tenanted premises was bequeathed in favour of Morari Lal and Mukesh i.e. grandsons of Sh. Nanwa.
25. This defence of the respondent has already been heard and finally decided by Ld. ARC, South vide his Judgment/Order dated 24.01.2019 in petition u/s 14(1)(a) DRC Act No. RC ARC 6026/16 filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The relevant findings of the Ld. ARC are reproduced herein below: "Most importantly, the petitioner has filed the certified copy of the previous suit no.808/1993 Ex.PX1 filed on 25.07.1993 by the respondent and her son against Padam Singh at Tis Hazari Courts. In the same the petitioner has pleaded that she and her son are the lawful tenants in the suit premises and that Padam Chand s/o Nanwa Ram is the landlord/owner of the said property. Accordingly, there is categorical admission on behalf of the respondent qua the land lordship as well as ownership of Padam Chand even in the year 1993 and, therefore, she cannot plead otherwise and is estopped by her admission. Moreover, it also shows that no pleading whatsoever was made in the said plaint that rent is being paid to grandsons of Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.06.02 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 17:21:24 +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 12 of 22 Nanwa Ram or that Padam Singh is merely a Collecting agent for them. Interestingly, said minors of whatever age in 1972 would have been majors in 1993 and would have been landlords in their own right by virtue of alleged Will and such plea must have been taken by respondent therein, as even rent collecting authority of Padam Singh would have ended on the majority of said minor grandsons. This shows that all the pleadings of respondent regarding the ownership/landlordship of grandsons of Nanwa Ram is an afterthought. Accordingly, the respondent has failed to prove that Padam Singh was accepting the rent only in the capacity of guardian of his sons. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved the sale transaction between Padam Singh and herself. She has proved the sale deed Ex.PW1/5 in her favour executed by Padam Singh through his GPA Col. V. S. Mehta (husband of petitioner). The Counsel for respondent has submitted that the said sale deed is not sufficient proof of the ownership of the petitioner as the alleged owner Padam Singh has not executed the same. I have considered the said argument. There is no plea in WS of respondent that said sale deed was not executed by Padam Singh/his GPA but ground of defence is that Padam Singh was not the owner and hence not competent to sell property. Moreover, the petitioner has proved the registered GPA Ex.PW5/1 executed by Padam Singh in favour of husband of petitioner. It is to be noted that a sale deed can be executed even by a GPA of a person and the fact that Padam Singh is himself a witness in the sale deed further confirms his consent to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. By virtue of section 8 of Transfer of Property Act, once the property rights are transferred by way of sale to the petitioner all the incidental rights including the lease rights of Padam Singh stood transferred in favour of petitioner. There is no legal requirement of any attornment by the lessee in favour of the new purchaser and same happens automatically the moment ownership rights are transferred. Moreover in the absence of any Will alleged by Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS DEEPAK respondent said Padam Singh was at least a coowner, VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:21:32 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 13 of 22 admittedly being one of the legal heir of Nanwa Ram and thus was competent to sell at least his share. Resultantly, petitioner has stepped into the shoes of Padam Singh at least as a co owner of the property. Consequently, it stands established that petitioner became the landlord of the respondent qua the suit premises."
26. Though the present petition is not barred under Section 11 CPC, the above finding of the fact (that the petitioner herein is the landlord/owner of the tenanted premises) would apply as resjudicata upon the respondent as the said contention of the respondent was in issue in the said petition and the same was heard and finally decided by Ld. ARC, South as admittedly, the said Order, though, challenged, has not yet been set aside.
27. I am supported in my aforesaid view (that the finding of landlordtenant relationship between the parties arrived at by Ld. ARC, South shall operate as resjudicata) by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the matter of "Vogender Pal Vs. Competent Authority and ETC" ILR 1970 Delhi 892", the relevant extract of which is as follows:
(13) "The principle of res judicata is not restricted to section 11 of the Civil procedure Code but is applicable to proceedings which may not be strictly suits in a Civil court on the ground of public policy (Daryao and others v. State of U.P. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal under the Act of 1958 are the successors of the civil Courts acting under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.
Their decisions have the effect of res judicata. (Bal Kishan Bansi Ram v. Gopi Chand. Under section 19(3) of the Act of 1956, the competent authority has to make such summary enquiry as it thinks fit before granting or Digitally signed by DEEPAK refusing to grant the permission to the landlord to DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:21:43 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 14 of 22 execute the order of eviction against the tenant. The discretion of the competent authority was soundly exercised when it decided in both these cases to accept these findings as sufficient to show that the eviction of the tenant was in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas. I would go further and hold that these findings act as res judicata and, therefore, they preclude the competent authority from again enquiring into the same question whether the premises were unfit for human habitation and had to be demolished in the interest of improvement and clearance of the slum areas. If the competent authority were to hold such enquiry, it could be resisted by the landlord on the ground that the previous findings between the parties fact as res judicata and preclude the enquiry". Emphasis Supplied.
28. In view of the above observation of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it can be safely said that the finding that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises is binding on the respondent and she cannot reagitate the same in the present petition.
29. Moreover, in my opinion, once the respondent has admitted that Sh. Padam Singh used to collect rent from her or her husband and has not denied the execution of sale deed, GPA, etc. by Sh. Padam Singh in favour of the petitioner, the respondent being only a tenant cannot say that as per Will of Sh. Nanwa (predecessor in interest of Sh.
Padam Singh), Sh. Padam Singh was not empowered to execute the sale deed because, first of all, this ground to challenge the ownership of the petitioner, if at all, is available to Sh. Murari Lal and Sh Mukesh (grandsons of Sh. Nanwa Ram) and not to the respondent and secondly the respondent admittedly has not challenged the sale deed, GPA, etc. in favour of petitioner before any Civil Court. In the case of "Plastichemcials Company Vs. Ashit Chadha & Anr. (114 (2004) Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.06.02 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 17:21:54 +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 15 of 22 DLT 408) in a similar case Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as follows:
4. "I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully examined the judgment under challenge as also the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner challenging the Will, the law has since been crystalised by the Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma vs. Smt. Ved Prabha, as also in Sheela and others vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash,.. Once the landlord has been able to show that there is a testament in his favor, the landlord is deemed to have discharged his burden of ownership, visavis, the Rent Control Act. In the present case, the landlord has been able to prove that a testament has been made in his favor by the previous owner which, at best, could be challenged by the heirs of Smt. Saroj Mohan and certainly not by the tenant. In this view of the matter I hold that the objection of the petitioner herein to the maintainability of the eviction petition by the landlord is frivolous." Emphasis Supplied.
Further in the case of "Ramesh Chand Vs. Yuganti Devi 157 (2009) DLT 450 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as follows:
........The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way an eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent acts dishonestly........." Emphasis Supplied.
30. The above two judgments make it clear that the right to challenge the ownership documents of the petitioner are not with the respondent in the present petition. In view of the finding of Ld. ARC, Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS South as recorded above and the fact that the respondent does not have VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:22:07 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 16 of 22 the right to challenge the title documents of the petitioner, the defence of the respondent in this regard is without any substance and is not worthy of grant of leave.
(III) NonSuitability Of Tenanted Premises
31. The respondent has further stated that the tenanted premises is old and in dilapidated condition as is admitted by the petitioner, further that, the same cannot cater to the requirement of the petitioner being small in area.
32. The petitioner has clearly stated that the tenanted premises is required to be reconstructed/renovated. Further, it is settled law that the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord and cannot say that the tenanted premises is not suitable for use of the landlord. In the case of Bishamber Dayal Gupta Vs. Naresh Kumar Sharma (2014 SCC online Del 3693), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held : "15. It would be rather unjust to expect the landlord were to accommodate himself as per the wishes of his tenant especially when her bonafidely requires the tenanted premises. The accommodation on the first and the second floor is unsuitable as it would be inconvenient for the age mother of the landlord................
17. The tenant cannot dictate how the property belonging to the landlord should be put to use. Once the landlord shows that there is bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises, the Court is bound to allow the eviction petition. The Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 held:
"14. the crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of the Digitally signed by landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires 2023.06.02 17:22:16 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 17 of 22 his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
33. This defence taken by the respondent appears to be a bald and baseless one and accordingly, leave cannot be granted on this ground either.
(IV) Availability of Alternate Accommodation
34. The respondent has stated that the petitioner is in occupation of property bearing No. B38, Ring Road, Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi which is consisting of 36 rooms on ground floor, first floor and second floor. The respondent has further alleged that the petitioner has one house at Delhi Cantt. and another at Noida. It is further claimed that the younger son of the petitioner is not dependent on her for his residence and has Government allotted accommodation and thus, it is contended that the petitioner has availability of sufficient accommodation.
35. So far as the property at Lajpat Nagar is concerned, it has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the same is a joint property of brothers of husband of petitioner, is commercial in nature and is under litigation as a partition suit has been filed regarding the same. It DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.06.02 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 17:22:25 +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 18 of 22 is denied by the petitioner that she occupies sufficient space at the said property. It is denied that the said property has 36 rooms. It is denied that the said rooms are at the disposal of husband of petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner has any property at Delhi Cantt or at Nodia. It is further denied that the son of petitioner has been allotted Government accommodation.
36. The property at Lajpat Nagar is, as stated by the petitioner, commercial and is under litigation. It must not be forgotten that there is a presumption in favour of the petitioner which the respondent has to rebut. The respondent has not placed on record anything to show that the said property at Lajpat Nagar has 36 rooms or that the said property is at disposal of husband of petitioner or that the said property is not jointly owned by all the brothers of the husband of the petitioner or that there is a litigation going on regarding the same. Thus, the averment of the petitioner in this regard has to be accepted that there is a litigation going on regarding the same. The petitioner cannot be expected to wait till the outcome of the litigation for her and her son's accommodation. A mere bald averment in this regard by the respondent is not enough for granting leave to defend.
37. Similarly, mere empty averments that petitioner has property at Noida or Delhi Cantt or that her son has Government accommodation (though denied by the petitioner) are not enough to be accepted without any material in support of the same. The petitioner cannot be deprived the strong presumption in her favour on bare pleading of the respondent that the petitioner has alternate accommodation. Accordingly, leave cannot be granted on this ground either.
Digitally signed by
38. In the case of "Ram Saroop and Ors. Vs. Viney Kumar DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:22:35 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 19 of 22 Mahajan", Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as follows:
19."Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini MANU/SC/1239/2005: (2005) 12 SCC 778, in the context of summary procedure under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant and the tenant is called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant was held to be not sufficient.
Similarly, in Rajender Kumar Sharma v. Leela Wati MANU/DE/1386/2008 :(2008) 155 DLT 383 it was held that Section 25B was inserted as a special provision for eviction of the tenants in respect of specified category of cases as provided therein; where a landlord seeks eviction on the basis of bona fide necessity, a summary procedure is provided and the tenant has to seek leave to defend disclosing such facts which disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction; where a tenant, in leave to defend, pleads preposterous propositions and makes such averments which are palpably false and the landlord in his reply to leave to defend is able to show the said falsity, the Controller is not precluded from considering the falsity of such facts on the basis of material placed by the landlord before it. Again, in Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi MANU/DE/1566/2008: (2009) 157 DLT 450, it was held that mere assertions do not raise any triable issue and if these bald assertions were entertained, then every tenant would get away with leave to defend, defeating the intent of legislature. It was further held that only in those cases leave to defend can be granted where Controller finds some substance in the issues raised by the tenant. I have also taken the same view in Sarwan Das Bange v. Ram Prakash MANU/DE/0204/2010: (2010) 167 DLT 80".
21. "I am afraid making of vague pleas in the Digitally signed by DEEPAK application for leave to defend and affidavit DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:22:44 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 20 of 22 accompanying the same, without giving any particulars, cannot be said to be disclosing facts which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act"... Emphasis Supplied.
39. The above observations of Hon'ble High Court make it clear that mere bald averments without any material in support of them are not enough to grant leave to defend. The respondent is required to support the averments that the petitioner has sufficient alternate accommodation. No material has been placed on record by the respondent in this regard and accordingly leave cannot be granted on this ground.
(V)No Bonafide Requirement
40. Lastly, the respondent has claimed that the bonafide need of the petitioner is sham, coined and selfinduced. It was incumbent upon the respondent to file material to show that the need is sham, coined and selfinduced, however, no such material/document has been produced or filed by the respondent. On the face of it, the need pleaded by the petitioner is bonafide. As stated earlier, mere bald averments do not give right to the respondent for leave to contest and accordingly, leave cannot be granted on this ground either.
Conclusion
41. The petitioner has clearly stated in the petition about her ownership, bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises and the absence of any alternate accommodation/space. Thus, all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act have been pleaded and shown by the petitioner. Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK
42. Further, finding has already been given that the grounds of VATS VATS Date:
2023.06.02 17:23:01 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 21 of 22 availability of alternate accommodation/space, no bonafide requirement, petition barred u/s 11 CPC and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, petitioner not having right, title and interest in tenanted premises and nonsuitability of tenanted premises are without any substance and not worthy of granting leave to defend to the respondent. Apart from the aforesaid grounds no other substantial ground has been shown by the respondent. Thus, I am of the opinion that the application is sans any merits and same is liable to be dismissed.
43. Accordingly, application seeking leave to defend of the respondent is dismissed and the petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B on behalf of petitioner is allowed. The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. One room on ground floor and varanda in H.No 319A in Khasra No.13, Khatuni No.148, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi110014 as per site plan. The petitioner shall not file execution petition for eviction of the tenanted premises before the expiry of period of six months from today.
44. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
DEEPAK Digitally signed
by DEEPAK VATS
VATS Date: 2023.06.02
17:23:18 +0530
(DEEPAK VATS)
ACJcumCCJcumARC (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
Announced in the open Court
On 2nd June, 2023
_____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 62/2019 SNEH MEHTA Vs. SANMATI PAUL Page no. 22 of 22