Delhi District Court
Sh. Manjit Singh Sahni vs ) Smt. Laxmi Arya on 20 December, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAGANDEEP SINGH,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGECUMARC (NORTH WEST),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
E.No. : 30/12
Sh. Manjit Singh Sahni
S/o. Sh. Makhan Singh,
R/o. J6/68, 2nd Floor,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
...Petitioner
Versus
1) Smt. Laxmi Arya
W/o. Late Sh. Dharam Pal
2) Sh. Arun Khatana
3) Sh. Sanjay Khatana
4) Sh. Ajay Khatana
All sons of Late Sh. Dharam Pal &
R/o. C3/111C, 3rd Floor,
Lawrence Road, Delhi.
(Sh. Ajay Khatana also at Chamber NO. 58, Western Wing,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi)
...Respondents
Date of Institution : 26.04.2012
Date of Arguments : 20.11.2014
Date of order : 20.12.2014
E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 1
2
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1) (e) r/w/s 25B OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT 59 OF
1958 AS AMENDED
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application for grant of leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondents.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises i.e. Flat No. C3/111C, 3rd Floor, Lawrence Road, Delhi and is residing with his family consisting of his wife Kanwarjit Kaur Sahni, married son Kanwar Pal Singh, daughterinlaw Rubina and two grand children at J6/68, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
The suit premises was let out to Late Sh. Dharam Pal/husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents no. 2 to 4 for residential purposes. After his death the respondents are taken to be the tenants.
3. Now due to difference in the mental attitudes, the relations of E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 2 3 the wife of the petitioner and wife of their son have got soured. Thus the atmosphere of the house is not healthy. Their fights have gone to such an extent that they cannot live under single roof. Thus he has decided to get separate his son. Now the son of the petitioner is residing separately at A1/61, Janak Puri, Delhi58 at rent of Rs. 12,000/ per month. That since the business of son of the petitioner is not flourishing the said rent is being paid by the petitioner himself. As such he now wants the suit property for his son's residence as the petitioner has no other residential place in Delhi except the suit property. Further that he requires it for his bonafide need to enable his son to reside there with his family in order to maintain peace and harmony in his house. Thus prayed that eviction order be passed against the respondents from the tenanted premises.
4. After service of the summons of the eviction petition, the leave to defend/contest was filed by the respondents submitting therein that the petitioner as well as his son are doing the business together. Further that there is no dispute between the family of petitioner and his son's family.
That the petitioner has not filed the site plan either of the E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 3 4 tenanted premises or the premises available with them for residence. Further that petitioner has already filed another eviction petition from address C64, Sitapuri, PartI, New Delhi pending in the court of Ms. Sugandha Aggarwal, ARC, Rohini under Section 14 (1) (a) ARC Delhi which he has not disclosed in present petition.
Further the son of the petitioner is not residing at A1/61. Janakpuri, Delhi110 058 and residing with the petitioner a J6/68, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and the rent receipts brought on record are procured and manufactured in collusion with the owner of the said house. It was thus prayed that leave to contest be granted to the respondents.
5. The reply to the leave to defend of the respondents has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the facts alleged in the application and denying the contents of leave to defend filed by the respondent. Further it is stated that property bearing no. C64, Sitapuri, Part I, Delhi is a commercial property where he is running a factory under the name and style of Preeti Exports since 2005 and it belongs to his wife. That registration certificate of Apparel Export Promotion Council with E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 4 5 registration no. 10965 issued on 23.02.1985 has also been issued in the name of their factory showing the address of property bearing no. C64, Sitapuri, PartI, Delhi. Further at the time of filing the petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act the petitioner in process of disposing of property bearing no. W22, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden. Thereafter, they purchased the property J6/68, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi on 19.05.2010. However, it was not disputed that son of the petitioner is doing the business along with the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sh. R.S. Sahni, adv. and Sh. Rajeev Duggal, adv. for the respondents & perused the record carefully.
7. The leave to defend filed under Section 25 (B) of DRC Act has to be decided on the following parameters :
i) The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the landlord being the owner of the premises
ii) Bonafide requirement of the landlord of the tenanted premises E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 5 6
iii) No other alternative accommodation being available with the landlord so as to satisfy his/her requirement RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT
8. The relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted by both the parties. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is the landlord of the tenanted premises. The rate of rent of Rs. 3,300/ p.m. is also not disputed in the entire leave to defend. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of his title documents in the form of allotment letter issued by DDA in his name which shows the petitioner to be the absolute owner of the tenanted premises. Thus, on the first aspect the petitioner has been able to show the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT OF THE LANDLORD
9. That, regarding the bonafide requirement of the landlord and grounds of leave to defend has to be judged on the basis of principles as pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Charan E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 6 7 Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand 1983 1 SCC 301. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced herein :
"The genesis of our procedural laws is to be traced to principles of natural justice, the principal amongst them being that no one shall suffer civil or evil or pecuniary consequence at his back without giving him an adequate and effective opportunity to participate to disprove the case against him and provide his own case. Summary procedure does not clothe an authority with power to enjoy summary dismissal. Undoubtedly wholly frivolous defence may not entitle a person leave to defend. But equally a triable issue raised, enjoins a duty to grant leave. May be in the end the defence may fail. It is necessary to bear in mind that when leave to defend is refused the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments of the opposite party by crossexamination and rival affidavits may not furnish reliable evidence for concluding the point one way or the other. It is not for a moment suggested that leave to defend must be granted on mere asking but it is equally improper to refused to grant leave though triable issues are raised and the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through cross examination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits. We are, therefore, satisfied that this is a case in which triable issues were raised and both the learned Rent Controller and the High Court were in error in refusing to E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 7 8 grant the leave.
10. The respondents have challenged the bonafide requirement of the petitioner by arguing that a false and fabricated ground has been created by him. The alleged ground of requirement that the son of the petitioner and his wife are staying in rented accommodation at Janakpuri is false. The alleged rent receipts are manufactured one. The voter list of the area of Rajouri Garden where the petitioner is residing still shows the names of his son and daughterinlaw as voters.
11. On the contrary, the petitioner has claimed that his family consists of his wife, one married daughter and one married son. The married son has his wife and two children. The relations between the wife of the petitioner and the daughterinlaw have got soured. Further in order to maintain peace and harmony in the house the petitioner has decided to separate his son in a rented accommodation.
12. The petitioner in order to corroborate his plea has placed on E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 8 9 record the rent receipts in the name of his son wherein the address of the rented premises has been mentioned along with the monthly rent. The rent has been deposited in favour of landlord Tejinder Pal Singh through cheques. The petitioner has also filed the copy of his bank statement showing the encashment of cheques in favour of Tejinder Pal Singh of Rs. 12,000/ in the month of June, July, August, September, October and December 2012. Further from January 2013 to July 2014 which is the end of the statement of account of the petitioner On the contrary, the respondent has not been able to show any document on record to rebut or create any doubt with respect to said assertion. Nor the respondent has been able to produce any document on his own to show that the said tenancy in favour of the son is sham.
13. It is also well known fact in present days' society that the concept of joint families is giving a way to the concept of nuclear families. In the said backdrop the assertions of the petitioner has to considered which seems to be believable. Further it cannot be expected from a voter (petitioner's son) in present case to get his name transferred to area where he E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 9 10 knows he is residing on temporary basis. Thus on the first ground no triable issue is made in favour of the respondent.
14. It was also argued on behalf of the respondent that the son of the petitioner is working along with his father in his own business. Therefore, the ground which has been pleaded is frivolous one. In the reply to the said ground the petitioner admitted that his son is doing business with him but the relationship are sour due to the nonadjustment of the daughter inlaw with his wife.
Merely because the son of the petitioner is doing business along with his father does not throw any doubt on his case. It has never been pleaded by the petitioner in his petition that he has separated his son for all intents and purposes. The plea of the petitioner is only that due to difference between the mental attitude of his wife and daughterinlaw he wishes to separate the residence of his son. The intent behind the same is to maintain peace and harmony in the house. The said act of the petitioner in seeking separate residence for his son can be termed as mere wish or desire.
E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 10 11
15. The next ground on which the bonafide requirement of the petitioner is challenged is the availability of sufficient space with the petitioner in his residential accommodation i.e. J6/68B, Second Floor Rajouri Garden. The said contention of the respondent was termed as incorrect by the petitioner by arguing that in the present accommodation his son and his family cannot be accommodated separately.
16. The petitioner has filed on record the site plan of the property bearing no. J6/68, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. He is having the second floor of the said property only. As per the site plan there are only two bed rooms with one common kitchen only. The landlord cannot be asked to divide the second floor of property by having separate living space for himself and his son's family. The argument of the respondent if accepted would amount to dictating the landlord as to the manner and in which he should accommodate himself in the premises owned by him. The said argument is against the well settled principles on the issue of bonafide requirement as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors. cited as 2005 8 SCC 252 wherein E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 11 12 the rights of the landlord has been discussed as under :
"It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business."
17. Further the other grounds which have been raised by the respondent in his leave to defend are not supported by any material on record but are bald assertions only. In this regard the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Krishan Kumar Gupta vs. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta 2008 152 DLT 556 is relevant. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein under for the sake of convenience :
"All sorts of objections are generally raised whenever an eviction petition is filed by the landlord. Even the ownership of the landlord, the relationship of the landlordtenant, the purpose of letting and bonafide E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 12 13 requirement are denied by the tenant and fake allegations are made that the landlord has other properties. Many allegations are raised only for the sake of raising. Unless, the learned ARC scrutinizes each of the objections raised by the tenant with the help of documents and the material placed on record, the entire purpose of providing summary proceedings in respect of the eviction proceedings fails. Thus, it is incumbent upon the ARC to scrutinize all objections carefully in the light of law laid down and in the light of the material placed on record. It cannot be argued that the learned ARC was not required to go into the details of the objections and come to a conclusion on the basis of affidavits and once objections are raised leave to defend must be granted. Leave to defend can be granted only in those cases where the tenant is able to show by material on record that the petition was filed by the landlord malafidely. The facts stated by him about his age, family accommodation were false.
18. Thus the petitioner has been able to show the bonafide requirement of the residential premises for satisfying the requirement of his son. The son being dependent upon the petitioner is not disputed as the dependency has to been seen for the purposes of residential accommodation E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 13 14 not financially. The requirement of the petitioner cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as mere wish or desire. Thus, on the aspect of bonafide requirement no triable issue is raised in favour of the respondent. ALTERNATIVE ACCOMODATION
19. The last factor which has to be considered is that no other reasonable alternative accommodation being available with the petitioner for satisfying his requirement. The petitioner has categorically stated that apart from the tenanted premises and the premises where he is presently residing he or his son do not have any other residential space in Delhi.
20. The respondents on the other hand contended in their application for leave to defend that the petitioner is having 1 more residential house i.e. C64, Sitapuri, PartI,, Delhi. The same is having two and a half storey building constructed over a 100 sq. yards of land. The non disclosure of the residential accommodation shows the malafide on the part of the petitioner and the same can easily be used for satisfying the requirement of the petitioner. The respondent also relied upon the various E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 14 15 documents in order to support the said assertion i.e. is copy of petition no. E111/2010, copy of affidavit of petitioner in the said petition, copy of application under Section 15 (7) of the Act, copy of legal notice dt. 19.07.2010 and the copy of address form in the said petition filed by petitioner herein.
21. The petitioner in reply to the said averment stated that the said premises i.e. C64, Sitapuri, PartI, Delhi is being used by him for running the business of his wife in the name and style of M/s. Preeti Exports since 2005. He also relied upon various documents to support his argument.
22. The respondent has been able to prima facie show the existence of alternative accommodation being available with the petitioner. Thereafter, the burden shifted upon the petitioner to show that it is not residential property or not suitable for satisfying his bonafide requirement. The certificate of Importer Exporter Code issued by Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India dt. 06.05.2011 is perused. The same has been issued in the name of M/s. Preeti Exports. The column no. 4 denotes the E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 15 16 address of branch/division/unit, where the address of alternative accommodation has been shown as the work place. Similarly, the registrationcummembership certificate issued by Apparel Export Promotion Council in the name of M/s. Preeti Exports also records the factory address as that of C64, Sitapuri, Delhi.
23. The petitioner in order to support his argument regarding non availability of alternative accommodation also relied upon the electricity bill issued by BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and Telephone Bills issued by MTNL. The electricity bill shows that the energization date is 04.12.2003 and the tariff category has been recorded as nondomestic. The bill of MTNL also shows that the telephonic connection has been installed in the name of M/s. Preeti Exports at the above said address. All the said documents are issued by the public agencies and are undisputed one. Thus, all the said documents corroborate the argument of the petitioner that the said alternative accommodation is being used for running the factory of M/s. Preeti Exports of the wife of the petitioner.
E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 16 17
24. The petitioner has also been able to show through documents on record as to the reason for giving his address in petition no. E111/2010 filed by him as that of C64, Sitapuri, PartI, Delhi. The petitioner at the time of filing of said petition was in the process of selling his earlier residential accommodation situated as W22, II Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. Hence, as he was not having any permanent residential accommodation, he gave the address of his factory in that petition.
25. The petitioner has filed on record the copy of the sale deed with respect to property bearing no. W22, II Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi. The same has been sold by the petitioner and his wife on 18.05.2010. The connected petition filed by the petitioner herein bearing no. E111/2010 was also filed in the month of September 2010 i.e. during the same period. He had disposed of his earlier accommodation and was in the process of shifting to his new residential address i.e. J6/68, II Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi during the said period in the year 2010. Therefore, it was natural conduct on the part of the petitioner to have given his address as that of C64, Sitapuri, PartI, Delhi which was the only permanent address available E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 17 18 with him at that point of time. Thus, on the aspect of alternative accommodation also, no triable issue is raised in favour of the respondent which requires evidence to be led by the parties.
26. In view of the same abovesaid reasons, I am of considered opinion that in the leave to defend of respondents no triable issues have been raised by them which requires trial and evidence to be led by the parties. Accordingly, the leave to defend is dismissed and the petition of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is allowed.
Announced in the open court (GAGANDEEP SINGH)
on 20.12.2014 ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST
ROHINI COURTS/ DELHI.
(This judgment contains eighteen pages and each page bears my signature.) E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 18 19 E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya & Ors.
20.12.2014 Present: None Vide separate order of even date, the leave to defend is dismissed and the petition of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is allowed. The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Flat No. C3/111C, 3rd Floor, Lawrence Road, Delhi as shown in site plan in red colour.
The order of eviction shall not be executable for the period of six months from today in terms of Section 14 (7) DRC Act.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(GAGANDEEP SINGH)
ACJcumARC (North West)
Rohini Courts, Delhi/20.12.2014
E. No. 30/12 Manjit Singh Sahni vs. Laxmi Arya 19