Delhi District Court
Sh. Qayumuddin vs Maha Singh Yadav (Now Deceased) Through ... on 13 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
RCT No. 32/2016
CNR No. DLWT01-001750-2015
Sh. Qayumuddin
S/o Late Sh. Imam,
R/o WZ-176, Ground Floor,
Village Madipur, New Delhi . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
Maha Singh Yadav (now deceased) Through LRs
A. Smt. Premwati
Widow of Late Sh. Maha Singh Yadav
B. Sh. Mahesh Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Maha Singh Yadav
C. Sh. Rajesh Yadav
S/o Late Sh. Maha Singh Yadav
All R/o 251A, Village Madipur,
New Delhi-110063
D. Smt. Rekha Yadav
D/o Late Sh. Maha Singh Yadav
W/o Sh. Jitender Singh Bachhwal,
R/o SCF-94, Sector 17, Huda Market,
Faridabad, Haryana . . . . . . Respondents
Date of Institution : 29.07.2015
Date of hearing arguments : 20.12.2019
Date of judgment : 13.01.2020
RCT-32/2016 Qayumuddin v. Maha Singh Yadav Page 1 of 8
Appearances:
Sh. Neeraj Kumar Shah, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. O.P. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/tenant has preferred the present appeal under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') against the Judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed by Sh. Sumedh Kumar Sethi, the then Ld. ACJ/CCJ/ARC (West), THC, Delhi, whereby he has been pleased to hold that the respondent/ landlord succeeded in establishing and proving the ingredients of Section 14(1) (a) of the DRC Act.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. Briefly stated, a petition was filed by the respondent/ landlord seeking eviction of the appellant/tenant from tenancy premises comprising of one room measuring 10' x 10' along-with open courtyard on the ground floor of property bearing No. WZ-188, Village Madipur, Delhi -110063, as shown in the site plan Ex.PW-1/A. It was the case of the respondent/landlord that tenancy premises was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- and the appellant/tenant failed to pay and/or tender the rent w.e.f. 01.01.2010, despite repeated verbal requests and finally despite serving of legal notice dated 09.01.2012 Ex.PW-1/2.
3. The appellant/tenant contested the eviction petition and in his written statement stated that eviction petition was in respect of property bearing No. WZ-188, Ground Floor, Village Madipur, Delhi, RCT-32/2016 Qayumuddin v. Maha Singh Yadav Page 2 of 8 with which he had no concern and infact he claimed that he was residing and in possession of one room in the property bearing No. WZ- 176, Village Madipur, Delhi since 1966. The appellant/tenant denied that he was tenant under the respondent/landlord in respect of premises bearing No. WZ-188 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- and denied that any legal notice dated 09.01.2012 was served upon him.
4. During the trial, the respondent/landlord examined himself as PW-1 and a witness from MCD, namely PW-2 Dalip Kumar, who interalia produced the Survey Report in respect of property No. WZ- 176, which is Ex.PW-1/7. On the other hand, the appellant/tenant came in the witness box and examined himself as RW-1 and another witness, namely RW-2 Ms. Shahida D/o Mohd. Mateen, who corroborated his version that appellant/tenant was a tenant in respect of one room in the premises No. WZ-176, Village Madipur, Delhi. Needless to state, the witnesses were subjected to grueling cross- examination by the ld. Counsel for the parties and I shall reflect upon their evidence later on in the present judgment.
5. In a nutshell, on appreciation of evidence led on record, the ld. ARC, vide judgment dated 30.06.2015 found that respondent/ landlord has been able to prove that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the appellant/tenant, based on admission by RW-1 appellant/tenant in his cross-examination and also admission on the part of RW-2 Ms. Shahida. As regards identity of the tenanted premises, it was held that in view of Survey Report Ex.PW-1/7 RCT-32/2016 Qayumuddin v. Maha Singh Yadav Page 3 of 8 by the MCD besides report Ex.PW-2/1 qua property No. WZ-188, it was established that the appellant/tenant was tenant under the respondent/landlord in respect of a part of property No. WZ-188. Further, finding that there has been no dispute that rate of rent was Rs. 2500/- per month, the ld. ARC rendered a finding that notice of demand had been duly served upon the appellant/tenant dated 09.01.2012 Ex.PW-1/2 and the contention of the appellant/tenant that he had been paying rent @ Rs.100/- per month till 31.12.2012 and tendered rent till 31.12.2013 but not collected by the landlord, was repelled and accordingly, it was concluded that he was in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.10.2010 @ Rs.2500/- per month. It is pertinent to mention here that since the appellant/tenant failed to comply with the directions to pay arrears of rent @ Rs.2500/- per month in terms of order dated 21.09.2015 passed under Section 15(1) of DRC Act, eviction petition was allowed, declining the benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act to the appellant/tenant. It is also admitted that appellant/tenant has since been evicted from the premises on execution of decree of eviction.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
6. The appellant/tenant has assailed the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2015 interalia on the grounds that no demand notice dated 09.01.2012 Ex.PW-1/2 was served upon him and postal receipts and delivery certificate Ex.PW-1/3 and Ex.PW-1/4 were forged and fabricated; and that the ld. ARC erred in holding that premises was let out at monthly rent of Rs.2500/-; and that he has been wrongly evicted RCT-32/2016 Qayumuddin v. Maha Singh Yadav Page 4 of 8 from the premises bearing No. WZ-176 in wrongful execution of eviction decree passed in respect of another property bearing No. WZ-
188. ARGUMENTS / CASE LAW CITED AT THE BAR
7. Sh. Neeraj Kumar Shah, the ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant has vehemently urged that appellant/tenant has been wrongly evicted or dispossessed from the wrong place, which was not the mandate of decree and it has been vehemently urged that the finding recorded by the ld. ARC that the rate of rent was Rs. 2500/- can be in view of rent of the adjoining premises if fallacious as said determination cannot be made by the ld. ARC. In his submissions, he has relied upon decision in case Surjeet Kaur Tuli v. Union of India, (2002) 95 DLT 322 and Uttam Chand v. Darshan Singh, (2012) 188 DLT 293.
DECISION
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at Bar by the ld. Counsel for the parties. I have also meticulously perused the relevant record of the appeal as also the trial Court record.
9. At the outset, I do not find any merit in the appeal. In so far as issue of identity of the premises is concerned, perusal of the evidence of PW-1 would would go to suggest that he had not filed proper site plan, which is Ex.PW-1/1, which was merely a photocopy RCT-32/2016 Qayumuddin v. Maha Singh Yadav Page 5 of 8 and on being grilled in the cross-examination, he was able to give vivid description of the premises in question testifying that distance between property No. WZ-176 and WZ-188 was about 350 feet from outside and whereas WZ-176 was located on the road, premises No. WZ-188 was located in the gali. He further testified that premises No. WZ-188 was about 72-73 Sq. Yards whereas property No. WZ-176 was about 200 Sq. Yards and/or that while there were six rooms with bathrooms in WZ-188, there were four shops on the ground floor and two room on first floor in the property No. WZ-176. The testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by Survey Report Ex.PW-1/7 by the MCD dated 23.11.1983, which does not show the appellant/tenant as tenant in premises bearing No. WZ-176 but in the other Survey Report Ex.PW- 2/1 dated 01.04.1983 the appellant/tenant is tenant in respect of one room in premises bearing No. WZ-188.
10. On the other hand, the main plank of the defence of appellant/tenant has been that he had nothing to do with premises No. WZ-188 and in order to substantiate that he was a tenant under the landlord in respect of one room in premises No. WZ-176, he has merely placed heavy reliance on the Electoral Roll Ex.DW-1/11 and DW-1/12 for the year 2008 and 2013 respectively of the assembly constituency Madipur, along-with Election Card dated 17.06.1995 Ex.PW-1/7 to indicate that his place of residence was recorded as WZ-176. However, RW-1 i.e. the appellant/tenant in his examination-in-chief as well as in cross-examination failed to render any description of the premises / accommodation available in WZ-176 and for that matter RCT-32/2016 Qayumuddin v. Maha Singh Yadav Page 6 of 8 WZ-188. The defence of the appellant/tenant has been that of denial of each and every aspect of the case of the respondent/landlord without bringing on record any cogent evidence. It would be bare repetition that the respondent/ landlord, who was examined as PW-1, was not given any suggestion with regard to accommodation available in WZ- 176 and for that matter WZ-188, and therefore, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity n the opinion rendered by the ld. ARC that identity of the property had been established by the petitioner/landlord as WZ-
188.
11. Once the said finding is reached, there is no escape from the conclusion that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Admittedly, no rent receipt had ever been issued in favour of the appellant/tenant. No evidence is led by the appellant/tenant to suggest that rate of rent was Rs.100/- and the same was paid to the respondent/landlord for a long period of time. The demand notice Ex.PW-1/2 was duly served upon the appellant/tenant. No evidence has been led by the appellant/tenant to suggest that the adjoining premises were not fetching any such rent and/or claim of the respondent/landlord was maliciously exaggerated. I do not see as to how the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant/tenant have any bearings on the matters in issue since it is no where the finding of the ld. ARC that rate of rent was Rs. 2500/- per month based on market condition in the relevant area.
RCT-32/2016 Qayumuddin v. Maha Singh Yadav Page 7 of 812. Lastly, it is the born out from the record that the appellant/tenant has failed to comply with the directions for payment of rent in terms of orders passed under Section 15(1) DRC Act on 30.06.2015 and the arrears rent have neither been paid nor tendered w.e.f. 01.01.2010. Even during the proceedings, no rent has been paid, deposited or tendered to the respondent/landlord.
RELIEF
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is without any merit and same is accordingly dismissed. Trial Court record along-with copy of this Judgment be sent back. File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA)
on 13th January, 2020 District & Sessions Judge/RCT (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
RCT-32/2016 Qayumuddin v. Maha Singh Yadav Page 8 of 8