Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Verma vs John Joseph on 8 March, 2013
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SH. S.K. SARVARIA : DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH WEST) / ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER TRIBUNAL(NW) : ROHINI
COURTS : DELHI
ARCT No. 100/11
Anil Kumar Verma
S/o Sh. Radhey Lal Verma
R/o MU-Block, 56 D, Near Double
Water Tank, LIG, DDA Flats,
Pitampura, Delhi - 88. ..... Appellant
VERSUS
John Joseph
S/o Sh. Joseph
R/o Flat No. 730, Janta Flats, Pocket VI,
Sector-2, Avantika, Rohini,
Delhi. ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 20.09.2011
Date of reserve for judgment : 15.02.2013
Date of Decision : 08.03.2013
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2011 passed by Ld. Addl. Rent Controller (North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi, (in short ARC) by which the application under Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act filed by the respondent was allowed and the eviction petition filed by the appellant against the respondent seeking eviction of the respondent/tenant from premises no. Flat No.730 Pocket 6, Sec-2, Type C, Ground Floor, Janta Flats, Rohini, Delhi-110083 (in short tenancy premises).
2. The contention on behalf of appellant is that Ld. ARC ignored the legal position. It is argued that the judgment convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 IPC etc. is challenged by the appellant in appeal before Hon'ble High Court Anil Kumar Verma Vs. John Joseph -: 2 :- and appellant was granted bail by Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, conviction of the appellant by the Sessions court is not final and is subject to setting aside by the appellate court, hence, eviction petition cannot be dismissed on the ground indicated under Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act. Ld. counsel for the appellant has argued that since the appeal is pending before Hon'ble High Court and the appellant is granted bail by suspending the sentence the provisions of Section 393 Cr.P.C. would apply and it is judgment in appeal which can be treated as final judgment and not that of the Sessions Court. Therefore, impugned order should be set aside.
3. The written submissions are filed on behalf of respondent. The argument is that the judgment of sessions court convicting the appellant is final and binding on the appellant. This judgment disqualifies the appellant under Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act to succeed the right of the ownership of the tenancy premises. It is argued that the appellant and his brother having been convicted of murder of both his parents by judgment dated 27.03.2003 of Sessions Court, he is not qualified to succeed his parents and eviction proceedings cannot be proceeded with appellant as petitioner. The trial ARC rightly dismissed eviction proceedings, so appeal should be dismissed as appellant has not approached the court with clean hands and is misusing the judicial process. Reliance is placed upon V. Chandrasekaran & anr. Vs The Administrative Officer & Ors. 2013 (1) CLJ 111 SC.
4. I have heard ld. counsel for parties and have gone through the trial ARC's record, the appeal file and relevant provisions of law, the authority relied upon by respondent.
5. The undisputed fact is that the appellant and his brother are convicted under Section 302/34 in case FIR No. 782/99, PS Shalimar Bagh and were found to Anil Kumar Verma Vs. John Joseph -: 3 :- be guilty of murdering their parents.
6. In the eviction petition before Ld. ARC, the appellant has alleged that the tenancy was created by way of rent agreement between father of appellant and the respondent/tenant. Therefore, deceased father of the appellant Sh.Radhy Lal Verma was the landlord/owner of the tenancy premises, according to the appellant, and respondent was tenant under him. The eviction petition can be filed by a landlord as defined in Section 2 (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (in short Act), the eviction petition was filed by the appellant on the grounds envisaged in Section 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (c) of the Act. The definition of the landlord in Section 2(e) of the Act indicates that a landlord need not be owner of the tenancy premises and he may be authorized by the owner of the tenancy premises to receive rent to become landlord. This definition also indicates that the owner of the tenancy premises is always its landlord as he is entitled to receive rent from the tenant.
7. When father of the appellant was owner/landlord, appellant and his brother were found guilty of his murder by the Sessions Court, which is an admitted fact, by virtue of Section 25 of Hindu Succession Act 1956, the appellant shall be deemed to be disqualified from inheriting the tenancy premises from his father. Section 27 of the same Act makes the relation of the appellant and his brother with regard to tenancy premises as if they have died prior to murder of their parents, therefore, they cannot inherit any right, title and interest in the properties of their parents due to bar of Section 25 & 27 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
8. It is true that judgment of conviction of Sessions Court would ultimately merge in the judgment in appeal which is to be passed by Hon'ble High Court but the Section 25 & 27 of Hindu Succession Act cannot be said to not apply till the decision of the appeal by Hon'ble High Court in this case, The reason is simple, appellant has not alleged that operation of judgment of conviction is stayed by Anil Kumar Verma Vs. John Joseph -: 4 :- Hon'ble High Court and instead the argument raised is that sentence passed by Sessions Court is suspended and the bail is granted to the appellant. Therefore, the judgment of conviction under Section 302/34 IPC passed by Ld. Sessions Court is operative and its operation has to be taken into account to give effect to Section 25 & 27 of Hindu Succession Act.
9. The appellant in the eviction petition has pleaded that after the death of his father late Sh.Radhey Lal Verma, it was mutually settled between the family members that premise in question would come to the share to the appellant and accordingly steeped into the shoe of his father by becoming landlord of the premises in question and also obtained water and electricity connection mutated in his name. The above plea of the appellant taken in the eviction petition does not disclose all material facts as to family settlement. The appellant and his brother were convicted of murdering both parents, so the mother of the appellant having also been murdered cannot succeed the father of the appellant as his LRs. Since brother of the appellant is also convicted for murdering his parents, the brother of the appellant also cannot succeeded any right of his father or mother as he is also sailing in the same boat due to the restriction in inheritance contained in Section 25 & 27 of Hindu Succession Act. It is not clear from the pleadings who are other family members who mutually settled with the appellant and consented for inheritance right of the tenancy premises belonging to his father. Therefore, due to lack of material facts on this count and the fact that appellant, his brother both were convicted of murdering their parents cannot inheritance in the tenancy preemies and their mother also having been murdered, the appellant's case suffers from lack of material facts/from lack of particulars of family members who mutably consented for succeeding appellant in the tenancy premises. Appellant himself is unable to succeed his right due to operation of judgment of conviction passed by Sessions Court for murdering their parents on account of Section 25 & 27 of Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to continue the eviction proceedings against the respondent Anil Kumar Verma Vs. John Joseph -: 5 :- until the judgment of conviction passed by Sessions Court is set aside by Hon'ble High Court in the appeal.
10. In view of above, there is no merit in the present appeal. However, I would like to clarify in case appeal filed before Hon'ble Higth Court is allowed and the judgment of conviction passed by Sessions Court is set aside against appellant and he is acquitted of charge of murdering his parents then appellant shall be entitled to the revival of the eviction petition. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed. The record of Ld. Trial ARC court be sent back along with copy of judgment in appeal. The Judgment be sent to the server (www delhidistrictcourts.nic.in). The appeal file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated and Announced (S.K. SARVARIA)
on 08th March, 2013 District & Sessions Judge(NW)
ARCT, Rohini Courts/Delhi
Anil Kumar Verma Vs. John Joseph
-: 6 :-
ARCT No. 100/11
Anil Kumar Verma Vs. John Joseph
08.03.2013
Present: Appellant in person.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the appeal is dismissed. The record of Ld. Trial ARC court be sent back along with copy of judgment in appeal. The file of appeal be consigned to the record room.
(S.K. SARVARIA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NW) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI. 08.03.2013 Anil Kumar Verma Vs. John Joseph