Delhi District Court
Sh.Udai Singh Tanwar vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia on 21 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SWATI GUPTA ACJ-CUM-ARC-CUM-CCJ,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
RC ARC 9/2021
In the matter of:
Sh.Udai Singh Tanwar
S/o Late Sh. Baljeet Singh
R/o WZ-349, Naraina Village
New Delhi-110028. .....Petitioner
Versus
Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia
S/o Sh. Devidin Chaurasia
R/o WZ-349, Naraina Village
New Delhi-110028. ...Respondent
Date of institution : 06.02.2021
Date of reserving order : 26.07.2022
Date of decision : 21.11.2022
Decision : Leave to defend dismissed
Petition allowed.
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
1. The present eviction petition is filed by the petitioner for eviction of respondent u/S 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 ( herein after referred to as the " DRC Act").
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking eviction of respondent from one room measuring 11'.4" x 12'.3", situated on the first floor in property bearing no.WZ-349, Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028 (herein after referred to as the "tenanted premises"), as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition. The respondent is stated to be residing RC ARC 9/2021 Page 1 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia in the said room with his wife, two sons and two daughters. As per the petitioner, he is the landlord and respondent is the tenant; the respondent was inducted as tenant in February, 2009 but no rent agreement was executed and the rent of the said property is Rs.3,200/-per month.
3. As regards the ground for eviction u/S 14(1) (e) DRC Act, it is the case of the petitioner that the tenanted premises is required by the petitioner for his occupation/ residence and that he has not got any other reasonably suitable accommodation. In this regard, it is pleaded as follows:
(i) Family of petitioner consists of his mother, wife and two married sons.
(ii) One of his son namely Mr. Arun Tanwar is residing on the third floor of the property bearing no. WZ-349, Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028 alongwith his wife and two minor sons. His son Mr. Arun Tanwar and his wife are stated to be working.
(iii) Other son Mr. Varun Tanwar is residing on the second floor of the said property alongwith his wife and minor daughter. His son Mr. Varun Tanwar and his wife are stated to be working.
(iv) Petitioner, his wife and mother are residing on the second floor of the property in question and they want to shift to the first floor of property. Wife of the petitioner is stated to be 61 years old and his mother is stated to be 86 years old. The mother of petitioner is suffering from old age ailments and is totally dependent upon the petitioner. Petitioner is stated to be a heart RC ARC 9/2021 Page 2 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia patient and his mother is also taking medicines regularly under the supervision of her doctor due to old age.
(v) As per the petitioner, he wants to shift to first floor from the second floor in order to keep harmony in the family and to maintain good relations in the family as his presence on the second floor is hampering the privacy of his son Mr. Varun Tanwar and his family.
(vi) In order to shift his residence from second floor to first floor, it is required that the respondent/ tenant be evicted from the room which is in his occupation on the first floor of the suit premises.
(vii) Petitioner will require one bedroom for himself, one puja room, one kitchen, one bedroom with attached toilet/WC for his ailing mother, one drawing room for visiting guests & relatives and one WC/ bath for himself.
4. It is the case of petitioner that all the other tenants have evicted the first floor of the property knowing the bonafide requirement of the petitioner except the respondent. It is also averred in the petition that the petitioner or his family members do not have any other place either in the said building or anywhere else except the premises in question and other adjoining rooms on the said floor. The petitioner has also averred that the Ground Floor of the property in question has 4 rooms which are under the tenancy of different tenants and remaining portion of the ground floor is being used for parking the two wheelers by the tenants and petitioner's family. The fourth floor RC ARC 9/2021 Page 3 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia of the property in question is also stated to be under the tenancy of different tenants but it is stated to be not suitable for petitioner, his wife or mother. It is also the case of the petitioner that despite being explained by the petitioner regarding his bonafide requirement, the respondent has not vacated the tenanted premises, rather he has filed false and frivolous complaints against the petitioner and his family. A notice dated 2.12.2020 was also sent to respondent by the petitioner. The same was replied to by the respondent vide Reply dated 19.12.2020. Thus, the petitioner has prayed that an eviction order may be passed in respect of tenanted premises u/S 14 (1) (e) DRC Act.
5. Summons in the prescribed proforma were issued to the respondent. Respondent filed an application for leave to defend within the statutory time. The main grounds on which the respondent has sought leave to defend are as follows:-
(i) Present eviction petition filed by the petitioner is a counter blast to the relief granted to the respondent in Ex.64/21 u/S 45 DRC Act titled as "Ram Girish Chaurasia Vs Udai Singh Tanwar". It is stated that the petitioner has filed the present petition to take revenge from the respondent as the latter has successfully obtained order dated 16.2.2021 for restoration of essential amenities from the Court.
(ii) Petitioner has conspired with one Smt. Maya Devi to lodge a false criminal complaint viz. FIR No.612/2020 against the respondent herein and his family members.
(iii) It is the case of the respondent that petitioner inducted RC ARC 9/2021 Page 4 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia Smt. Maya Devi as tenant in respect of adjoining room of the respondent and the said Smt. Maya Devi filed a false case against the respondent at the behest of petitioner in order to pressurize the respondent to vacate the rented premises. Consequently, the respondent and his two sons were arrested and were sent to J/C for 10 days. As per the respondent, if the petitioner had any bonafide requirement to use the first floor of the said property, the said room would not have been let out to Smt. Maya Devi.
The respondent has averred that the petitioner has malafide intention in filing the present petition and he does not require the accommodation/tenanted premises at first floor at all.
(iv) The petitioner has got four vacant rooms available with him on the first floor of the said property, apart from the room in the occupation of the respondent. The said rooms are equally good and can be suitably used by him for the residential purpose of himself and his family. Said four rooms are on the first floor and are lying vacant for last about 1 years and 8 months. Thus, the petitioner has no intention or need to use the tenanted premises.
(v) Petitioner has been using unfair means against the respondent and his family to illegally evict him and his family. The petitioner has also forcibly evicted other tenants from the said property, including a pregnant lady. Need of the petitioner is artificial and malafide.
(vi) Petitioner has not disclosed the number of rooms available with him at present. Further, it would have been more RC ARC 9/2021 Page 5 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia appropriate for the petitioner to evict the tenant from the ground floor so that his elderly mother would not have to climb the stairs.
(vii) Petitioner, in collusion with his sons, has forcibly assaulted the respondent and his family members, in respect of which a complaint has also been filed in the court of Ld. ACMM, PHC and the same is pending.
6. Reply to the application for leave to defend was filed by the petitioner stating that no triable issue is raised by the respondent. It is his case that present petition was filed by him prior to order dated 16.02.2021 passed in Ex.64/21 titled as "Ram Girish Chaurasia Vs Udai Singh Tanwar". Thus, present petition cannot be a counter blast to the order dated 16.02.2021. All the allegations made in the leave to defend are also denied by the petitioner in his reply. As regards the availability of other rooms on the same floor, it is stated that petitioner/landlord is not supposed to live on the same floor with a tenant like respondent who is trying to implicate the petitioner in a false case.
7. It may be noted at this stage itself that during the course of the proceedings, the respondent also filed an application to bring on record the factum of death of the mother of the petitioner on 12.5.2021, which fact was not disputed and the application was allowed.
8. Rejoinder was filed by the respondent denying the averments of petitioner in reply and reiterating the contents of his RC ARC 9/2021 Page 6 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia application. It is also claimed in the rejoinder that the requirement of petitioner has diminished to a great extent after the death of his mother and further that the petitioner did not even disclose the factum of death of his mother in his reply.
9. In support of his application, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that the present proceedings are vexatious proceedings initiated after the filing of S. 45 petition by the respondent; the rent of the present premises is more than Rs. 3,500/- per month as per the legal notice of the petitioner; the petitioner does not have any bonafide requirement for the tenanted premises; and the petitioner has sufficient and equally suitable alternate accommodation in the same building. It is also specifically argued that neither the intent nor the requirement of the petitioner is bonafide, more so after the death of the mother of the petitioner. It is prayed by him that leave to defend may be granted and the present case be decided only on merits after subjecting both the sides to examine and cross examine the witnesses. Respondent has relied upon the following judgments:-
i. Mohd. Jafar & Ors. Vs Nasra Begum, 191(2012) DLT 401 ii. Sanjay Chug Vs Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr, 207(2014) DLT 271 iii. Khem Chand & Ors. Vs Arjun Jain & Ors., 202 (2013) DLT 613 iv. Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia & Ors. Vs Bishan Chand Maheshwari & Anr., 237(2017) DLT 538 (SC) v. Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Another Vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518 vi. S. K. Verma Vs Smt. Kamla Kapur, AIR 1981 SC 1630 RC ARC 9/2021 Page 7 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia
10. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that no triable issue whatsoever has been raised by the respondent; no ground can be argued by the respondent which is beyond the application for leave to defend; the respondent cannot challenge the applicability of DRC Act; the bonafide requirement of petitioner has been sufficiently established; and it is not for the tenant to question as to which of the tenant ought to be evicted by the petitioner to meet his bonafide requirement. Petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
i. Tilakraj Taneja Vs Navin Soni & Anr.,RC Rev. No.262/2013, decided by the Hon'ble DHC on 14.10.2014 ii. Prabha Goel Vs Nirmal Kumari Jain, Manu/DE/3024/2014 iii. Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs Leela Wati, 155(2008) DLT 383 iv. Mohd. Usman Vs Siraj Ahmed, 154(2008) DLT 342 v. Khem Chand Ramesh Kumar Radhey Shyam Goel Pradeep Transport Company Vs Vijay Mehra & Ors., 216 (2015) DLT 544 vi. Choti Devi Vs Anar Devi, 2009 (107) DRJ 431 vii. Anil Kumar Vs Sardari Lal, Manu/DE/2182/2013 viii. Prithipal Singh Vs Satpal Singh (Dead) through its LRs, (2010) 2 SCC 15 ix. Jai Dev Agarwal vs Vijay Kumar Angrish, MANU/DE/3405/2013 x. Savitri Seth & Ors. Vs Pashottam Dass, 215(2014) DLT 429 xi. Mukund Krishna Barman vs Surender Kumar Malhotra (Deceased) through his LRs 216 (2015) DLT 314.
11. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered.
12. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed u/S 14(1)
(e) DRC Act, the petitioner must establish that :-
RC ARC 9/2021 Page 8 of 15Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia
(a) He is the owner/ landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
(b) The premises are required bonafide by him for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him and
(c) He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
13. The said three requirements are dealt with as hereunder.
(a) He is the owner/ landlord in respect of the tenanted premises 13.1 In the entire application for leave to defend which is filed by the respondent herein, he has not disputed either the ownership of the premises by the petitioner or that he is the tenant of the petitioner. Infact, it is his own case that he has filed a petition u/S 45 DRC Act titled as "Ram Girish Chaurasia Vs Udai Singh Tanwar" against the petitioner herein. Thus, it is undisputed that the petitioner is owner as well as the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises viz. one room on the first floor in property bearing no. WZ-349, Naraina Village, New Delhi- 110028, as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition, and the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner.
13.2. The respondent has, during the course of arguments and in his written submissions tried to argue that the present petition is not maintainable under the DRC Act as the petitioner had served upon him a legal notice demanding arrears of rent @ Rs.6,200/- per month. As per the respondent, petitioner cannot take recourse RC ARC 9/2021 Page 9 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia to DRC Act as the rent demanded is more than Rs.3,500/-per month. In this regard, it must first be noted that no such argument is raised by the respondent in his application for leave to defend and the same was raised for the first time during the course of arguments only. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (supra) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Tilakraj Taneja Vs. Naveen Soni & Anr. (supra) that only the grounds urged in the leave to defend application filed within statutory period of 15 days, can be considered by the court while deciding the leave to defend application. For this reason only, the said contention is liable to be rejected. Further, even assuming that the respondent can take the said argument for the first time during the course of arguments, there is no merit in it. It is so because the respondent himself has taken the benefit of DRC Act by filing petition u/S 45 DRC Act. Further, it is also his own case that in the civil suit bearing CS No. 553/20 filed by him against the petitioner for permanent prohibitory injunction regarding serving essential water supply and disrupting usage of toilet/bathroom, an application was filed by the petitioner u/Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit was barred u/S 50 DRC Act as the monthly rent of the tenanted property was Rs.3,200/- only. The said suit was dismissed/rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. The said order was not appealed against by the respondent. Rather, the respondent himself chose to file a petition u/S 45 DRC Act. Thus, he cannot now choose to say that RC ARC 9/2021 Page 10 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia the petitioner cannot take recourse to DRC Act as he himself has taken recourse to the DRC Act. It is also not the case of the respondent that he has ever paid the rent of more than Rs.3,500/- per month to the petitioner.
13.3 Thus, in my considered opinion, there is no doubt as to the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and the applicability of the DRC Act.
(b) The premises are required bonafide by him for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him ; and
(c) He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation 13.4 As regards the requirement of petitioner being bonafide and non-availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation to the petitioner, both the requirements are discussed simultaneously. Firstly, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner, in conspiracy with one Smt. Maya Devi, got lodged a false complaint against the respondent and if the petitioner had any bonafide need to use the first floor of the property for his family's residential use, he would not have let out the said room to said Smt. Maya Devi. In this regard, it may be noted that as per the FIR placed on record by respondent, the incident is of 05.09.2020 and the present petition has been filed in February, 2021. Merely because the room was given on rent to some person prior to filing of the present petition, it cannot be said that the petitioner does not need the said room for his own or his family's use as on the date of filing of the petition. In my RC ARC 9/2021 Page 11 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia opinion, the respondent can not taken the benefit of dispute between him and the aforesaid Smt. Maya Devi to deny the bona fide requirement to the petitioner herein.
13.5 Further, as per the respondent, the petitioner has got four vacant rooms available with him on the first floor of the property in question in addition to the room occupied by the respondent and his family. As per the respondent, the said rooms are good and equally available to the petitioner and can be suitably used by him and his family. In this regard, it is the case of the Counsel for petitioner that petitioner and his wife cannot be expected to reside on the same floor where the respondent is residing alongwith his family, more so because there is only one toilet on the said floor. As per the petitioner, the respondent is also trying to implicate the petitioner and his family members in a false case of molestation which is also the reason as to why the petitioner and his wife cannot reside on the same floor alongwith the respondent. Filing of a criminal complaint case by the respondent against the petitioner is not disputed. From the site map of the property, which has not been disputed by the respondent in his reply, it is clear that there is only one toilet on the first floor of the property in question. I am totally in agreement with counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, being the owner of the property and especially his wife cannot be expected to share the toilet or even the same floor with the respondent and his family. It can not be ignored that the relationship between the petitioner and the RC ARC 9/2021 Page 12 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia respondent is hostile and the petitioner being the landlord can not be compelled to live on the same floor as the respondent/tenant. It may also be noted that as per the case of the respondent himself, the four rooms on the first floor are lying vacant for last about 1 year and 8 months, implying that the petitioner has no intention to give the said floor on rent and needs the same for his own residence and that is why he has been waiting for the respondent to evict the room on the said floor which is in his occupation as a tenant. In this regard, it may also be noted that as per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. Sardari Lal (supra) and in Mohd. Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed (supra), landlord is the master of his own choice and the court cannot dictate the manner in which he should live or where he should live and it is not for the court to impose its own standard on the tenant.
13.6 As regards the contention of availability of the rooms on the ground floor of the property in question, it may be noted that as per the petitioner, all the tenants on the first floor of the property have been evicted except the respondent. In fact it is not even disputed by the respondent that at present he is the only tenant on the first floor and rest of the rooms on the first floor are lying vacant. On the other hand, ground floor of the property is stated to be having 4 rooms under the tenancy of different tenants. Now, when the landlord has already got vacated the first floor from most of the tenants except respondent, while ground RC ARC 9/2021 Page 13 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia floor is still in occupation of different tenants, the landlord/petitioner cannot be expected to start the exercise of eviction of tenants afresh from the ground floor, merely because the respondent/tenant does not wish to vacate the tenanted premises. Reference may also be made to the judgement of Anil Kumar Vs. Sardari Lal (supra) wherein it is held that it is for the landlord to decide as to which tenants he wants to evict and he cannot compelled to vacate any particular tenants who are in occupation of any other part of the premises.
13.7. It is also the case of the petitioner that the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner as a counter blast to the relief granted to the respondent in his petition u/s 45 DRC Act. In this regard, it may be noted that admittedly, the present petition was filed on 06.02.2021 which is prior to the order dated 16.02.2021 passed in execution 64/21 and thus, the present petition cannot simply be said to be a counter blast of the petition u/S 45 DRC Act filed by the respondent.
14. Apart from the above, it may also be noted that death of the mother of the petitioner during the course of trial, in my opinion, does not make any difference to the bonafide need of the petitioner for two reasons. Firstly, the bonafide need has to be assessed as on the date of filing of the petition. Secondly, the bonafide need of the petitioner and his wife to shift on the first floor instead of residing with his son and his family on second RC ARC 9/2021 Page 14 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia floor, will still survive.
15. In view of aforesaid discussion and opinion of this Court, none of the grounds raised by the respondent are such as to raise any triable issue or to dis-entitle the petitioner from the relief claimed u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act. Accordingly, application for leave to defend filed by respondent is liable to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed.
16. Consequently, present eviction petition stands allowed. Respondent is given six months time from today i.e. on or before 21.05.2023 to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. one room measuring 11'.4" x 12'.3", situated on the first floor in property bearing no.WZ-349, Naraina Village, New Delhi-110028, as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
17. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Ms. SWATI GUPTA ACJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, PHC NEW DELHI : 21.11.2022 RC ARC 9/2021 Page 15 of 15 Sh. Udai Singh Tanwar Vs Shri Ram Girish Chaurasia