Delhi District Court
Sh. S. K. Gupta vs Smt Reminder Kaur on 22 November, 2013
In the Court of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey
Senior Civil JudgecumRent Controller, New Delhi District
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
E. No. 11/2011
Unique I. D. No. 02403C0079122011
In the matter of:
Sh. S. K. Gupta
s/o late Devi Charan Gupta
r/o 6, Under Hill Road
Civil Lines, Delhi110054
....................Petitioner
VERSUS
1 Smt Reminder Kaur
w/o late Sh Manmohan Singh
r/o H25, Lajpat NagarII
New Delhi110024
2 Sh Parminder Singh
s/o Late Manmohan Singh
r/o H25, Lajpat NagarII
New Delhi110024
3 Ms Harinder Kaur
d/o Late Manmohan Singh
E. No. 11/12 Page no.1 of 12
Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr
r/o H25, Lajpat NagarII
New Delhi110024
4 Ms. Tejinder Kaurd
d/o Late Manmohan Singh
r/o H25, Lajpat NagarII
New Delhi110024
5 Mrs Guneet Kaur
w/o late Varinder Singh
r/o E3, Ashok Vihar PhaseI
Delhi110052
6 Sh Karandeep Singh
s/o late Varinder Singh
r/o E3, Ashok Vihar PhaseI
Delhi110052
7 Sh Gagandeep Singh
s/o late Varinder Singh
r/o E3, Ashok Vihar PhaseI
Delhi110052 ....................Respondents
Date of Institution : 09.06.2011
Date of Arguments: 22.11.2013
Date of Judgment : 22.11.2013
E. No. 11/12 Page no.2 of 12
Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER
SECTION 14(1)(a) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
JUDGMENT
This is an application under clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 59 of 1958') made by applicant Mr. S.K. Gupta against respondents Smt. Reminder Kaurand others for the recovery of possession of premises bearing no. 84A, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath, New Delhi110001, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'the premises').
2 It is stated in the application that the premises was let out to S. Manmohan Singh and S. Daman Singh, the predecessors in title and interest of the respondents herein, as cotenants for jointly carrying out their business, at monthly rent of Rs.125/ besides other charges vide agreement dated 11.6.1975; that both S. Manmohan Singh and S. Daman Singh have expired and after their death the tenancy premises had devolved on all the respondents. It is further stated that the rent of Rs.290.40P per month was increased to Rs.
E. No. 11/12 Page no.3 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr 320/ per month vide virtue of notice dated 25.3.2011 and the electricity and water charges are paid by the respondents. It is averred that the respondents have defaulted in payment of rent and are in arrears of rent @ 290.40P per month w.e.f. 1.7.2009 and the respondent have neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent despite receipt of demand notice dated 25.3.2011; that the petitioner has also demanded the increase in rent @ 10% per annum as per provisions of law and hence the rate of rent became Rs.320/ per month w.e.f. 28.4.2011 onwards which has also not been paid or tendered by the respondents and as such interest @ 15% per annum has also become payable as per law. It is further stated that the premises in question was jointly owned by Sh Devi Charan Gupta (since deceased), the father of the petitioner and Smt. Kailash Gupta ( since deceased), the mother of the petitioner. Sh Devi Charan Gupta expired on 7.11.2002 and during his life time he executed a WILL dated 19.6.2000 duly registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi on 19.8.2000 bequeathing his share in the above said property in favour of the petitioner. Likewise Smt. Kailash Gupta relinquished her share in the said property in favour of the petitioner vide relinquishment deed dated 13.3.2003 which was also registered in the office of Sub E. No. 11/12 Page no.4 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr Registrar, Distt. VII, INA Market, New Delhi on 12.3.2003 and thus the petitioner has become the absolute owner and landlord of the respondents qua the premises in question. Since the respondents have failed to pay the rent despite service of the demand notice, due against the applicant, eviction order be passed against the respondents in respect of the premises.
3 The respondent no. 1 to 4 are exparte.
4 The application is contested by the respondents no. 5 to 7 by way of a written statement of defence, admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent and purpose of letting qua the premises in question. It is also admitted that at present the rate of rent is Rs.320/ per month excluding electricity and water charges. However, it is denied that the respondents have defaulted in making the rent to the petitioner as alleged. It is stated that the answering respondents continuously and regularly tendering the rent to the petitioner but it was the petitioner who deliberately and intentionally refused to take the rent and returned to the respondents on various occasions and the present application has been filed to harass the respondent and to get the tenanted premises vacated. The petitioner has already taken three years advance rent (i.e. Rs.4500/ ) form the E. No. 11/12 Page no.5 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr predecessor of the respondents. Service of demand notice is denied by the respondents. It is further stated that the site plan filed by the petitioner is false and incorrect. It is denied that the respondents have defaulted in payment of rent and are in arrears, as alleged. After filing the present application, the petitioner did not receive the rent from the respondent and as such the rent was deposited in the court under section 27 of the DRC Act. It is further stated that later on the petitioner started receiving the rent sent through money order but again the rent sent through money order was refused by the petitioner on false and frivolous grounds just to harass the respondent and prayed that the application filed by the petitioner be dismissed with costs.
5 A replication to the written statement of respondents no. 5 to 7 was filed on behalf of the applicant wherein the defence taken by the respondents are traversed and the averments made in support of the application for eviction are reiterated. 6 On 21.11.2011 the matter was taken up for consideration under section 15 (1) of the Act 59 of 1958. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties against each other, the respondents were directed to pay to the petitioner to deposit in the E. No. 11/12 Page no.6 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr court within thirty days of the order , the arrears of rent @290.40P per month w.e.f. 1.7.2009 to 27.4.2011 alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. The respondents were further directed to rent @ Rs.320/ per month w.e.f. 28.4.2011 till 21.11.2011 with further direction to continue to pay to petitioner or deposit in the court, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month, the rent at the rate of Rs.320/ per month. The amount paid by the respondents to the petitioner or deposited by them in court on account of rent in respect of the premises for the period 1.7.2009 onwards was ordered to be adjusted and the case was listed for PE on 4.1.2012.
7 In support of his case the applicant examined PW1 Sh Rajive Gupta, attorney of the petitioner, who during his examination in chief tendered his affidavit Ex. P1 alongwith documents, i.e. power of attorney Ex. PW1/1, rent deed alongwith site plan Ex. PW1/2, site plan of the property in question Ex. PW1/3, copy of notice dated 25.3.2011 Ex. PW1/4, postal receipts Ex. PW1/5 to Ex. PW1/11 and the delivery receipts Ex. PW1/12 to 18, certified copy of the written statement dated 10.7.2010 by respondent no. 1 Ex. PW1/19, certified copy of notice dated 9.3.1998 given by Sh K S Katari, Advocate Ex. PW1/20, envelope containing the notice Ex. PW1/21. PW1 deposed E. No. 11/12 Page no.7 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr that petition is true and correct. As no other witness remained to be examined, the PE was closed.
8 The respondent Karandeep Singh filed his affidavit by way of evidence and examined himself as DW1. The DE was thereafter closed.
9 I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record carefully.
10 Having drawn my attention on the testimony of PW1 Mr. Rajive Gupta and DW1 Karandeep Singh as well as the documents on record, it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the respondents are tenant under the applicant who failed to pay rent despite demand notice. It is further stated that the demand notice was served upon the respondents calling upon to pay the arrears but despite receipt of the notices the respondent failed to make payment within two months, rent @290.40P per month w.e.f. 1.7.2009 to 27.4.2011 and rent @ Rs.320/ per month w.e.f. 28.4.2011 alongwith interest. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that an eviction order be passed against the respondent. 11 Per contra, having drawn my attention on the testimony of the witnesses and the documents on record, it is submitted by E. No. 11/12 Page no.8 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr counsel for the respondents that the application for eviction be dismissed.
12 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
13 In the present application for eviction the applicant has sought eviction of the tenant on the ground prescribed in clause (a) of the proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act 59 of 1958 which read as follows:
14. Protection of tenant against eviction.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months on the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882);
* * *
E. No. 11/12 Page no.9 of 12
Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr
* * *
* * *
14 It has been claimed by the respondents no. 5 to 7 in the
written statement that this application is not maintainable and the respondents are regularly tendering the rent to the petitioner who refused to accept the same. It is further mentioned that there is no reason to file this petition. The applicant claims that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents having let out the premises to the respondent by way of Ex. PW1/2.
15 The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties alongwith rate of rent is not disputed. It is also proved from the materials on record that the respondent have defaulted in making the payment of due rent. The DW1 during his crossexamination admitted that no rent was paid to the petitioner within two months after receipt of the demand notice dated 25.3.2011. DW1 also admitted the rate of rent as claimed by the petitioner in the petition. In view of admission of DW1 as well as unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of PW1, the application of the petition is proved to the effect that the respondents have failed to pay the due rent despite E. No. 11/12 Page no.10 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr service of the legal notice dated 25.3.2011.
16 In the light of the testimony of PW1, admissions of DW1/respondent made during his cross examination, I hold that the premises was let out by the applicant to the respondents and the applicant was entitled to receive rent from the respondents. Further, there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the respondents in respect of the premises in question. 17 From the above discussion it has been proved that on the basis of rent agreement Ex. PW1/2 there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the respondents since 1975. There is no dispute also with respect of rate of rent between the parties. It has also been proved that since 1.7.2009 to 27.4.2011, the respondents did not pay or tender rent at the rate of Rs.290.40P/ per month to the applicant. Further, the respondents failed to pay the rent @ Rs.320/ w.e.f. 28.4.2011 onwards. It has also been proved that a demand notice Ex. PW1/4 dated 25.3.2011 was served by the applicant upon the respondents whereby they were called upon to pay arrears of rent but despite receipt of notice Ex. PW1/4, the respondents neither paid nor tendered rent, as above mentioned to the applicant.
E. No. 11/12 Page no.11 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr 18 In these circumstances the ground for eviction under
clause (a) of proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 has been established by the applicant against the respondents. There is no material before the court to suggest that in any other proceedings under clause (a) of proviso to subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 initiated by the applicant against the respondents in respect of the premises, the ground of eviction was established against the respondents and the respondents were given benefit under section 14(2) of the Act 59 of 1958. Thus, it is a case of first default on the part of the respondent and therefore, eviction order cannot be passed straightaway.
19 As per section 14(2) of the Act 59 of 1958 no order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by section 15. Therefore, put up for consideration on the point of benefit under section 14(2) of the Act 59 of 1958 to the respondent on 12.12.2013.
Announced in the open court (Gorakh Nath Pandey) on 22nd November, 2013 Rent Controller : New Delhi E. No. 11/12 Page no.12 of 12 Sh S K Gupta v Smt Raminder Kaur & Anr