Delhi District Court
Courts vs Ravinder Kumar Page 1 Of 9 on 8 November, 2012
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
E-219/10
08.11.2012
S.Kuldip Singh
Vs
Ravinder Kumar
ORDER
By this order I shall dispose of the applications under section 25-B (4) of DRC Act filed on behalf of the respondent. The present petition was filed by the petitioner u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25-B of the DRC Act on the ground of bonafide requirements. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner is the owner/landlord in respect of property bearing no. XV/2233, Rajguru Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi and respondent is tenant in respect of one room in the above said property @ Rs. 55 per month exclusive of water and electricity charges, more specifically shown in red color in the site plan, hereinafter called the suit premises. It is further stated that the suit premises was let out to the respondent for residential purposes only but the respondent has changed the user to commercial one without consent in writing of the petitioner and the respondent is misusing the tenanted portion for running a commercial shop in the name and style of 'R.K.Enterprises'. The suit premises is required bona fidely by the petitioner for setting up the advocate's office for his son, namely Inderdeep Singh, who is an advocate by profession and is practicing in Delhi. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner is living with the petitioner and is dependent upon the petitioner for accommodation but the petitioner is having acute shortage of accommodation E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 1 of 9 //2// and there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation available with the petitioner for setting up the advocate's office for his son Inderdeep Singh as well as his residence. Family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, one unmarried son and one married daughter who blessed with a son. It is further stated that petitioner is presently residing on first floor of A-271, Derawal Nagar, Delhi-110033 and is in possession of two rooms with attached bathroom, one lounge, one drawing and dining room, three store rooms. The second floor of this property is also owned by the petitioner and is comprised one barsati and one covered latrine bath in the open courtyard overlooking the barsati. The ground floor of the above mentioned property is owned by the brother of the petitioner namely Sh. Tejinder Singh. It is further stated that the married daughter frequently used to visit the petitioner alongwith her husband and her infant son and whenever the married daughter alongwith her husband and infant son visit the petitioner, the son of the petitioner is forced to sleep in the lounge area. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner is of marriageable age but due to shortage of accommodation the petitioner is not able to solemnize the marriage of his son. It is further stated that out of the three store rooms as per the site plan, one room is being used as pooja room by the petitioner, while other two rooms are being used as servant quarter as well as store rooms and the same are very small. The barsati is located on the second floor and has an open courtyard overlooking and it is not suitable for residence and is being used as a store for storage of household articles. It is further stated that the covered latrine bath is located in the open courtyard overlooking the barsati at some distance and is being used by the servants of the petitioner for their daily needs. It is further stated that apart from the above mentioned residential property, petitioner is also the owner of a commercial E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 2 of 9 //3// property bearing no. A-18, Panchvati Azadpur, Delhi which is being used by the petitioner for running a guest house in the name and style of Shalimar Guest House and is the main source of livelihood of the petitioner.
2. It is further stated that the room adjoining the tenanted premises is although is in the possession of the petitioner but the same is measuring 7'6"
in the front portion and 7'7 ½" in the rear and as such is a very small room and the same is inhabitable as the floor of the room completely broken. The petitioner needs to convert the rooms alongwith the suite premises in occupation of the respondent into office of his son as well as library and sitting area for clerk, typist and visiting clients by installing doors in the partitioning walls. Out of the other two rooms in the front one is under the possession of tenant Veena Rani Gupta, while the other room is in possession of the petitioner. These three rooms are required for setting up the residence of the son of the petitioner comprising of one bed room, kitchen and toilet. The petitioner is initiating proceedings against the tenant Veena Rani Gupta u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act for recovering possession of the tenanted premises. It is prayed that an eviction order in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent may kindly be passed.
3. Leave to defend application alongwith affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is stated that petitioner is not the owner of the property bearing no. 2232-2237, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi of which the tenanted shop of the respondent bearing no. 2233, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi forms a part. Infact, Sh. Tejinder Singh is claiming his individual absolute ownership right qua the said property including the suit premises. It is further stated that the respondent was inducted as tenant in the suit premises decades back for commercial purposes only and the respondent E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 3 of 9 //4// was paying rent of the said premises from time to time but no rent receipts were issued. The property bearing municipal no. 2232-2237, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi including the suit premises has always been a subject matter of dispute/litigation between the petitioner and his brother Tejinder Singh, who had always been disputing the alleged claim of the petitioner. Sh. Tejinder Singh is claiming that he is the sole and absolute owner of the said property bearing no. 2232-2237 including the suit premises and he is demanding rent from the respondent and disputing the alleged claim of ownership of the said property of the petitioner. The present petition is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties as Sh. Tejinder Singh, who is claiming his exclusive title/ownership over the suit property is not impleaded party. It is further stated that the present petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has deliberately filed wrong site plan of the suit premises and property as a whole i.e properties bearing no. 2232-2237 of which the suit premises forms a part. The petitioner has deliberately not shown the entire commercial and non commercial accommodation available to the petitioner in the property bearing no. 2232-2237 and the respondent has filed the correct site plan of the entire property bearing no. 2232-2237. It is further stated that the petitioner is also in possession of three vacant shops on the front side of property bearing no. 2232-2237, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi marked A, B and C in the site plan, while the other two shops are in tenancy of the respondent herein and other tenant Veena Rani Gupta each. In the rear portion of the suit premises there are five rooms besides four rooms in the extreme rear of the suit property, apart from W.C and bathroom. All said rooms including bath and toilets are in physical possession of the petitioner. It is further stated that in the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner, twelve tenants had been shown, E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 4 of 9 //5// out of which petitioner got vacated ten tenants and only two tenants including the respondent are in occupation of their respective portion. All the accommodation vacated by other tenants are with the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is in possession of a spacious house in a posh locality in Derawal Nagar i.e Kothi No. A-271, Derawal Nagar, Delhi constructed on a plot of about 250 sq. yards. The said kothi consists of 3 floors and the petitioner is in possession of 1st and 2nd floor of the property consisting of 4 rooms alongwith drawing room, dining room and 2 kitchens and three bathrooms. It is further stated that the petitioner is also owner of the three storey residential property constructed over a plot of about 400 sq. yards at Azadpur bearing property no. A-18, Panchvati Azadpur which consists of about 25 rooms alongwith toilet, bathrooms and kitchen. The petitioner is misusing the said property for commercial purposes and is running a hotel in the name and style of hotel Shalimar. The said property at Azadpur also consists of four shops in the front portion of the property.
4. Reply to the leave to defend application alongwith counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent wherein it is stated that the property in question was purchased by the petitioner alongwith his brother Sh. Tejinder Singh vide registered sale deeds in the year 1992, but the suit premises has fallen to the share of the petitioner by mutually partitioned between him and his brother by way of arbitration award. It is further stated that the front portion of the building/suit property consists of five rooms, out of which the room adjacent to the tenanted premises was under the tenancy of Vidya Wati but the same was being occupied by sub tenant, Sh. Gyan Prakash Sharma and the said room was got vacated by the execution of a decree of the court of Additional Rent Controller in the year 2004, but the said accommodation is E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 5 of 9 //6// very small in size measuring 7'6" to 7'7". It is further stated that the petitioner has already stated about the property no. A-271, Derawala Nagar, Delhi and other property bearing no. A-18, Panchvati Azadpur, Delhi, but the petitioner has no accommodation in said property. All other averments made in the leave to defend application were denied.
5. Rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondent wherein the averments made in the leave to defend application were reiterated and reaffirmed and those made in the reply were controverted.
6. It is important to mention here that the petitioner has filed an application u/s 151 CPC to bring on record the subsequent event stating that other tenant namely Smt. Veena Rani Gupta has vacated and handed over the possession of her tenanted accommodation to the petitioner on 01.06.2012 in eviction petition no. 7/2010 titled 'Kuldeep Singh Vs. Veena Rani Gupta'.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered.
8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following rulings :-
(i) Yashpal Vs. Chamanlal Sachdeva, 129 (2006) DLT 200
(ii) Rajender Kr. Sharma & Ors. Vs Leela Wati & Ors.,155(2008)DLT 383
(iii) Bhagwati Vs. Vijay Rani, 169 (2010) DLT 597
(iv) Anand Prasad Sharma Vs. Ram Singh & Ors., 2006 (91) DRJ 558
(v) R.K.Bhatnagar Vs Sushila Bhargava and another, AIR 1987 Delhi 363
(vi) S.K.Gupta and another Vs. R.C.Jain, AIR 1984 Delhi 187
(vii) Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash, 174 (2010) DLT 64
(viii) Adarsh Electricals & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Dayal, 173 (2010) DLT 518
(ix) Krishan Kr. Gupta Vs Swadesh Bhushan Gupta,152(2008)DLT 556
(x) Mahabir Parshad & Anr. Vs. Ved Wati & Ors.,135 (2006) DLT 453 E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 6 of 9 //7//
(xi) Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252
(xii) Navneet Lal Vs. Deepak Sawhney, 173 (2010) DLT 189
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the following rulings :-
(i) Nitin Garg Vs. Naresh Kumar Arora and another, High Court of Delhi CM (M) No. 1164 of 2009
(ii) Accebeen Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jai Shree Khanna, RC Rev. 290/2012 DOD 23.07.2012
(iii) Surender Garg Vs. Mohit Jindal and Anr., RC Rev. 360/2012 DOD 04.09.2012
10. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25-B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove (i) Ownership of the suit premises; (ii) Purpose of letting; (iii) Alternative accommodation; and (iv) bonafide requirement;. Let the same be discussed in detail.
11. Ownership & Purpose of letting The respondent contended that petitioner is not the owner of the suit premises and one Sh. Tejinder Singh is claiming his ownership qua the suit premises. The respondent further contended that he has been paying rent of the suit premises from time to time but no rent receipt ever issued. On the other hand the petitioner has stated that he is owner/landlord of the suit premises. The petitioner further stated that the property in question was purchased by him alongwith his brother Sh. Tejinder Singh vide a registered sale deed but later on the suit premises came to the share of the petitioner in a settlement before the Arbitrator. The petitioner has also filed the copy of sale deed. The respondent has merely disputed the ownership of the petitioner, but not stated to whom the respondent is making the payment of rent. The copy of E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 7 of 9 //8// sale deed filed on behalf of the petitioner, clearly shows that he is co-owner of the suit property including the suit premises. The petitioner has also filed the copy of Arbitration award under which the suit property came to the share of the petitioner. From all these facts and documents, it is established that petitioner is owner/landlord of the suit premises. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. It was held in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 that "A landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. He is required that he is more than a tenant".
12. So far the purpose of letting is concerned, after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union Of India III (2008) SLT 553, an eviction petition is maintainable on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of the property which were let out for commercial purposes. Hence both the ingredients are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
13. Alternative accommodation and Bonafide requirement The respondent contended that the petitioner is in possession of three vacant shops/rooms in front side of the property bearing no. 2232-2237, Rajguru Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi. The respondent further contended that there are five rooms besides four rooms in the extreme rear of the suit property, apart from W.C and bathroom in occupation and possession of the petitioner. On the other hand the petitioner stated that the room adjoining the tenanted portion in question is in possession of the petitioner but the same is 7'6" in the front portion and 7'7" in the rear and the same is E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 8 of 9 //9// inhabitable. The site plan filed by the petitioner shows that there are four rooms in the front portion of the suit premises excluding the tenanted shop in question. There are five rooms on the back side portion. There are four rooms on the extreme back side. Site plan filed by the respondent is also showing similar number of rooms/shop/accommodation on the ground floor of the suit property baring no. 2232-2237, Rajguru Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj. Thus, the petitioner has shown thirteen rooms on the ground floor in the property in question. It has also brought on record by the petitioner that he got vacated one room/shop from other tenant Veena Rani Gupta, which is also on the front side portion of the suit property. Hence, the petitioner is in possession of four rooms in the front side portion of the suit property and nine rooms on back side portion. Petitioner needs accommodation for his son to open a office cum library. I am of the considered view that it is a triable issue, whether the rooms shown by the petitioner in his site plan in the property no. 2232-2237, Rajguru Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj are not sufficient for the petitioner to provide to his son for starting an office cum library. Hence, the respondent has succeeded to raise triable issue regarding the alternative accommodation available with the petitioner. The ground of bona fide need is interlinked with the availability of alternative accommodation with the landlord. The rulings relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable at this stage as the respondent has succeeded in raising triable issue. Accordingly, the leave to defend application filed on behalf of the respondent is allowed.
(Announced in the open court
on 08.11.2012) (Pritam Singh)
ARC/Central/Delhi
E-219/10 S.Kuldeep Singh Vs. Ravinder Kumar Page 9 of 9