Delhi District Court
Smt. Phoolwati vs Ronak Ali on 7 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-CUM-
COMMERCIAL CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH-EAST),
KKD COURTS, DELHI.
E No.01/14
Unique Case ID No.: 02402C0010992014
In the matter of :
Smt. Phoolwati
W/o Sh. Ram Charan
R/o C-2/37, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi.
.......Petitioner/Landlord
Versus
Ronak Ali
R/o C-2/37, Second Floor,
Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110032.
......Respondent/Tenant
Date of Institution : 10.01.2014
Date of Final Argument : 07.04.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2014
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION ON THE GROUND OF
SECTION SECTION 14 (1)(e) r/w SECTION 25 B OF THE
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Eviction Petition has been filed by the petitioner Ms. Phoolwati. It is stated that one room, kitchen, E. No. 01/14 Page 1 to 9 latrine, bathroom and open space at second floor at property no. C-2/37, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi (herein after referred to as the tenanted premises), shown in red colour in the site plan was rented out to the respondent in the year 2002 by way of oral agreement. The tenanted premises was rented out for residential purpose. The monthly rate of rent was Rs.3,000/- p.m. including other charges. The petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises. The same was purchased by petitioner from Ms. Kanti Devi vide GPA, Agreement to Sell, receipt dated 04.5.83.
The family of the petitioner is consisting of her husband and two sons namely Sh. Povinder and Sh. Rohit Kumar besides the petitioner herself. The elder son of the petitioner is married. The younger son of the petitioner is aged about 24 years. The petitioner further submits that her younger son is to be got married. However, due to paucity of accommodation the marriage of the younger son of the petitioner is getting delayed. The petitioner has three daughters. All of them are married. When they visit the petitioner's house, lot of inconvenience is caused due to lack of proper accommodation. In para no. 7 of the petition the petitioner has further specified the requirement of accommodation for the members of her family.
It is further stated that the petitioner does not own any E. No. 01/14 Page 2 to 9 other property in Delhi which can meet her requirements. The petitioner is not having any other reasonably suitable accommodation except for the tenanted premises. The respondent is having his own property at Gali No. 15, Brahampuri, Delhi and another property at Akhade Wali Gali, Chauhan Bangar, Ghonda, Delhi. Further, the petitioner states that the tenanted premises will be occupied by her for her own use and will not be let out if the same is vacated. The tenanted premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for her own need.
2. An application u/s 25 B (4 & 5) of DRC Act seeking leave to defend the case was filed by the respondent. In the affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the respondent is regularly paying the rent to the petitioner. A sum of Rs. Two lakhs as Pagri was given by the respondent to the petitioner on 20.01.02. In this regard an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent in the presence of the witnesses (it is not mentioned whether the agreement was written or oral). The respondent has denied that he owns properties as alleged by the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondent does not have any immovable property in his name. He has no sufficient accommodation except for the tenanted premises. The petitioner is having immovable properties in her name and also in the name of her children. It E. No. 01/14 Page 3 to 9 is denied that the tenanted premises is required for bonafide needs of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner wants to evict the respondent from the tenanted premises without any reasonable grounds.
3. In reply the petitioner has also filed her counter affidavit wherein she has denied having taken any amount as Pagri from the respondent. She has further denied the case of the respondent. It is stated that the respondent has not raised any triable issue.
4. Ld. Counsel for petitioner also relied upon judgments Shafiquddin vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, 193(2012) DLT 788, Sushil Kanta vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, 1999 Rajdhani Law Reporter, 289, Saroj Khemka vs. Indu Sharma, Rajdhani Law Reporter, 295 and Harsh Kumar & Ors. vs. Man Mohan & Ors., 188 (2012) DLT 536.
5. Arguments on the petition heard.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the tenanted premises is required bonafide by the petitioner for the use of her family members. The younger son of the petitioner is of marriageable age. The petitioner would require additional accommodation for her younger son after his marriage.
6.1. In his reply to the legal notice, the respondent has admitted the landlord tenant relationship and also admitted E. No. 01/14 Page 4 to 9 that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises. The respondent has not raised any triable issue in his leave to defend. The respondent has baldly stated that the petitioner is owning several other properties. However, no details regarding those properties have been mentioned. Since the respondent has failed to raise any triable issue the petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
6.2. Ld. Counsel for respondent stated that vide receipt dated 20.01.02 the petitioner acknowledged having taken Rupees Two lakhs from the respondent. The same has not been refunded. In the said receipt it was agreed that the rent would not be enhanced. Specific court query was put to the respondent as to what are the triable issues raised by him in the present matter. It was stated that since the petitioner has taken the pagari amount from the respondent she cannot seek eviction of the respondent.
7. Section 5 of the DRC Act prohibits the claiming or receiving of any sum as premium or Pagri in cash or kind in addition to the rent. The effect of Section 5 of the DRC Act is that the premium or Pagri paid is not legal. In view of this it is clear that the issue of Pagri has no bearing on the present eviction petition.
8. For deciding a petition u/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act the following points are to be considered:
E. No. 01/14 Page 5 to 9 A. The petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises. B. The tenanted premises is required bonafide for accommodation and his/her residence by the petitioner for his/her own use or for any family member dependent upon him or her.
C. The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
Whether in this case the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises.
9. In this regard the petitioner has filed the copy of GPA, Agreement to sell and receipt dated 04.5.83 regarding the tenanted premises executed in her favour by Ms. Kanti Devi. In Sushil Kanta vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that for the purpose of Section 14(1)
(e) of DRC Act the petitioner need not be the absolute owner of the tenanted premises. The petitioner may be owner by way of the Sale Agreement and Power of Attorney in his favour.
9.1. The respondent in his reply dated 12.02.14 to the legal notice of the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not owner of the tenanted premises since she was not having valid documents of the tenanted premises in her favour. In view of the law as expounded in Sushil Kanta vs. Rajeshwar Kumar, (supra), it is clear that the petitioner need not be the E. No. 01/14 Page 6 to 9 absolute owner of the suit premises. For the purpose of the present petition the respondent will be considered as the owner of the tenanted premises upon the basis of the documents which have been filed alongwith the petition.
The tenanted premises is required bonafide for accommodation and his/her residence by the petitioner for his/her own use or for any family member dependent upon him or her.
10. The petitioner has stated that her younger son Rohit Kumar is aged about 24 years. He is of marriageable age. The tenanted premises is required as additional accommodation for the younger son of the petitioner, since he will require additional accommodation after his marriage. The respondent has not denied that the younger son of the petitioner is of marriageable age. It is also not pleaded by the respondent that the younger son of the petitioner is not dependent upon her. Even during arguments this point was not raised by the respondent. These facts as mentioned by the petitioner have remained uncontroverted. 10.1. It is a matter of common knowledge that after marriage a separate room would be required for the residence of the person married, in this case the younger son of the petitioner. As such, additional accommodation would be required upon the marriage of son of the petitioner. This is a bonafide need E. No. 01/14 Page 7 to 9 of the petitioner and her family members. The petitioner cannot be asked to live in a cramped accommodation despite availability of additional accommodation. In view of this it is clear that the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for her own and her family members requirement.
The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
11. The petitioner has stated that except the tenanted premises, she has no reasonably suitable accommodation to accommodate her family members. The respondent in his affidavit has stated that petitioner and her family members are having several properties in their names.
It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that these were bald statements. The respondent has not specified or given any detail of so called alternative accommodations. In Shafiquddin vs. Mohd. Ibrahim,(supra) it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the respondent is required to clearly specify what alternative accommodation the petitioner has. Further the respondent is also required to produce credible material to show that the petitioner is having alternative accommodation available with him or her. Further in Harsh Kumar & Ors. vs. Man Mohan & Ors., (supra), again the same legal position is reiterated.
In view of the above noted legal position it was the E. No. 01/14 Page 8 to 9 burden of the respondent to produce credible material before the court to show that the petitioner is having reasonably suitable accommodation available with her. The respondent has failed to produce any such material.
12. In view of the above, the petition of the petitioner deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the same is allowed. Further, the petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain the possession of the aforesaid tenanted premises from the respondent before expiry of period of six months from the date of passing of this order as prescribed u/s 14(7) of the DRC Act. The eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) r/w section 25-B DRC Act is accordingly disposed off. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT 07.04.2014 (RAJINDER SINGH) ACJ/ARC/CCJ (NE)/ KKD COURTS, DELHI.
E. No. 01/14 Page 9 to 9