Delhi District Court
Mst. Aneesa Siddiqui vs Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary on 22 October, 2018
In the Court of CCJ cum ARC, Pilot Court (Central District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
Case No. E365/17
U. ID No. 421/17
In the matter of :
Mst. Aneesa Siddiqui
W/o Mohd. Muqeem Siddiqui,
R/o Top floor, 44804481, Ward No. XI,
(Old Plot No. 7/20,) Ram Tel,
Bhanwan, Now known as Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi. ...........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary
S/o Late Sh. R P Chaudhary
Eastern Side Ground floor,
44804481, Ward No. XI,
(Old Plot No. 7/20,) Ram Tel,
Bhanwan, Now known as Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi. ..........Respondent
Date of institution : 18.05.2017
Date of reserved for judgment : 09.10.2018
Date of decision : 22.10.2018
Decision : Dismissed
JUDGMENT
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Mst. Aneesa Siddiqui against the respondent Sh. Sandeep Chaudhary for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., premises consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, common latrine bathroom on Eastern Side of property No. 44804481, Ward No. XI, (Old Plot No. 7/20,) Ram Tel, Bhanwan, Now E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 1 of 15 known as Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act').
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner / landlady of property No. 44804481, Ward No. XI, (Old Plot No. 7/20,) Ram Tel, Bhanwan, Now known as Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi having purchased the same by virtue of registered sale deed dated 10.08.2009. The father of the respondent was inducted as tenant in the premises in question by previous owner / landlord. However, from the date of purchase of property, the respondent's father had become tenant under the petitioner by operation of law.
3. The tenanted premises is bonafidely and urgently required by the petitioner for residence for herself as well as her family members dependent upon her. The husband of the petitioner alongwith his two brothers Mohd. Jameel Siddiqui and Abdul Basit Siddiqui is residing jointly as one unit having same single mess and joint business. The family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband and two sons namely Abu Sufiyan Siddique and Mohd. Zibran Siddique aged 29 years and is marriageable age whereas Abu Sufiyan is married and his wife name is Binish. Mohd. Jameel Siddique has his wife namely Mst. Madina Jameel Siddique, one married daughter Mst. Rakshina and son in law Mohd. Akram Khan who have two children, one son and one daughter respectively who are studying and another married daughter namely E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 2 of 15 Alvira Siddique. The said daughter alongwith her husband is living abroad and she comes alongwith her husband and children and stays with the family for days together. Abdul Basit Siddique has his wife namely Nussrat Basit Siddique and three daughters who are college going students and all are dependent upon the petitioner for residence. The family consists of 20 members and all are major. The petitioner requires 5 rooms, one drawingcumdinning room, bathroom, latrine and kitchen for herself, her husband, two sons and daughter in law. Mohd. Jameel Siddique requires 5 rooms, drawing cum dinning room, bathroom, latrine and kitchen for himself, his wife, daughters and sons in law and Abdul Basit Siddique requires 5 rooms, one drawing cum dinning room, bathroom, latrine and kitchen besides one study room for himself, his wife and three daughters. The petitioner and her family are men of status and several guests visit them, therefore, one room atleast is required as guest room. The petitioner and her entire family is living on top floor of the said property which is highly inadequate and insufficient for their requirement. The accommodation in her occupation is shown in green colour.
On the above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
4. Summons were served upon the respondent, who appeared and filed leave to defend application, which was allowed vide order dated 10.08.2017 and the respondent was granted leave to contest the present eviction petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed written statement E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 3 of 15 denying the contentions made by the petitioner. It is submitted by the respondent that the ground of the petitioner is fanciful. The premises in question is not bonafidely rquired by the petitioner for her real needs. The construction shown in the site plan filed on record is not correct. The petitioner has shown the need of persons who are not members of her family and are not dependent on her. The petitioner has not dicslosed the accommodation in her occupation/possession and available to her in suit premises. The petitioner has stated in her petition that the petitioner and her entire family is living on top floor of the said property which is inadequate and insufficient for her requirement but the petitioner did not disclose the accommodation available to her on first floor and ground floor of the said property. The families of brothersinlaws of petitioner and their unmarried as well as married children & grand children are not members of family of the petitioner. The petitioner wants to relet the property at a higher rent after getting it vacated. There are at least 1213 rooms in occupation of the petitioner in the suit property. The petitioner and her brotherinlaws are also owner of other properties which petitioner did not disclose.
5. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed just to cause harassment to the respondent. The petitioner did not disclose that as to how the premises under the tenancy of the respondent is the only premises suitable to her for her alleged requirement. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to give the details of other properties owned by her either jointly or severally. The petitioner is guilty of concealing E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 4 of 15 availability of rooms with her and her brotherinlaws. It is submitted that the area where the suit property is situated is a 'slum area'. Further, the petitioner has pleaded that there are other tenants in the suit property but they have concealed as to who are those tenants and as to what premises have been let out and as to on which date the premises have been let out. It is submitted that most of the tenants in the suit property have been freshly inducted. The rooms have been let out to new tenants even at the time of filing of the present petition. The petitioners are greedy landlords who want to relet the premises in question to a new tenant at a higher rate.
6. Neither the premises is required bonafide by the petitioner for her occupation as a residence for herself (or for any member of her family dependant on her) as alleged. The husband of the petitioner is doing separate and independent business and his two brothers, namely, (1) Abdul Basit Siddiqui & (2) Mohd. Jameel Siddiqui are doing their own business separately and independently. They are not doing joint business. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a false averment in the petition to the effect that there is a common kitchen whereas all three brothers are having/using three separate kitchens. It is submitted that there are many tenants in the building. The petitioner has filed eviction petition on different ground against some of those tenants.
7. It is submitted that the rent, sent through money order, is not accepted by the petitioner herself and the respondent has to deposit the same with the authority/Rent Controller appointed under the Delhi Rent E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 5 of 15 Control Act. The rent upto 30.09.2017 is already deposited with Ld. ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi in DR Case No. 125/2017 titled as 'Sandeep Chowdhary v. Aneesa Siddiqui' u/s 27 of the DRC Act. The next date fixed in DR Case No. 125/2017 is 14.11.2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed the sale deed registered on 10.08.2009 which on the face of it appears to have been executed by Sh. Swadesh Kumar Joshi alongwith six other persons, whereas, the respondent is having the rent receipts issued by the earlier owner by the name of Sh. Sudesh Kumar Joshi. In these circumstances, it is submitted that there is a doubt regarding the sale transaction of the property by the real owner(s).
8. Replication filed, wherein the petitioner has denied all the averments made by the respondent in his written statement, reaverring what was averred by her in the eviction petition. Further, it is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has no accommodation with her on first floor and ground floor. It is denied that there are at least 1213 rooms in occupation of the petitioner in the suit property. It is not stated as to on which floor and where the alleged 1213 rooms are existing. It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in question and she requires the same bonafide for her own use as residence and for the residence of her family members dependent upon her, as she is lacking adequate premises to live in. It is submitted that it is not necessary to state as to what premises are in occupation of other tenants and what are their names. There is no fresh tenant in the property. The respondent has E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 6 of 15 not disclosed as to which room is let out at the time of filing of this petition and to whom and where.
9. It is stated that it is not the irrational desire or wish of the petitioner against the respondent, rather she requires the premises bonafide and her need is genuine and she is entitled to live in her own property comfortably. All the three brothers are having joint business and joint mess. Petitioner admits that there are other tenants in the property and it is matter of record that the petitioner has filed petitions against some of the other tenants. It is submitted that the Swadesh Kumar Joshi and Sudesh Kumar Joshi is the same person. There is no question of any doubt. It is denied that the families of brothers of husband of the petitioner cannot be family of the petitioner.
10. During evidence, Sh. Abdul Basit Siddiqui stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of the eviction petition. Further, he relied upon the following documents :
a) Deed of Power of Attorney : Ex. PW1/1 b) Copy of Sale Deed : Ex. PW1/2 c) Site plan : Ex. PW1/3
d) Aadhar Card of the petitioner : Ex. PW1/4
11. During respondent evidence,the respondent himself stepped into the witness box as RW1 and deposed on the lines of the written statement filed by him and relied upon the photographs showing the board of the tenant to which part of suit property was let out as Ex. RW1/1 (colly.)
12. Sh. A. R. Nasir, Notary Public was examined as RW2.
E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 7 of 1513. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through the record.
Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958. i. Petitioner is the owners/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
ii. She requires the premises bonafidely for herself or for family members dependent upon her;
iii. She has no other reasonable suitable accommodation. Ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship :
14. In the present case, the respondent has not specifically disputed the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties. The only contention raised by the respondent is that the respondent is having rent receipts issued by the earlier owner by the name of Sh. Sudesh Kumar Joshi, whereas, the sale deed registered on 10.08.2009 placed on record by the petitioner shows that the same has been executed by Sh. Swadesh Kumar Joshi alongwith six other persons. However, the said rent receipts have not been exhibited and proved by the respondent and hence, the said contention of the respondent is not tenable. On the other hand, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 registered on 10.08.2009 vide which she had purchased the suit premises, perusal of which shows that the name of the father of the respondent as tenant is also mentioned in the said sale deed as R. R. Chaudhary. Even otherwise, it is immaterial that the respondent /tenant attorns to the petitioner/landlady as landlady or not, as law does not require any act of E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 8 of 15 attornment. It is settled principle that in case respondent is admittedly tenant under earlier owner, and once Sale Deed is registered by the earlier owner in favour of petitioner/landlady any attornment by the tenant to the petitioner/ landlady is not required. Reference may be made to : Sanjay Singh v. M/s Corporate Warranties Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 204 DLT 12; Harvinder Singh v. M/s. Paradise Tower Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 199 DLT (CN) 25; Ambica Prasad v. Mohd. Alam (2015) 13 SCC 13. Hence, keeping in view the registered sale deed Ex. PW1/2 placed on record by the petitioner in her favour, the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties stands duly proved for the purpose of the DRC Act.
15. The other contention raised by the respondent is that the Power of Attorney was not duly notarized before the concerned Notary Public, for which the respondent has even examined the Notary Public Sh. A. R. Nasir as RW2. However, the Notary Public has duly stated that the Power of Attorney Ex. PW1/1 was attested by him but he could not enter the same in his register as his register was locked in his chamber in Almirah and the keys of the said Almirah has been misplaced. He has also admitted his signatures at point Mark 'X' on Ex. PW1/1. Hence, the Power of Attorney was duly produced before the Notary Public for attestation, as has been admitted by RW2 in his deposition in the Court. Despite there is irregularity in the conduct of the Notary Public in not entering the document attested by him in his register. His such conduct needs to be deprecated, being unacceptable. However, the Power of E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 9 of 15 Attorney Ex. PW1/1 was duly produced before the concerned Notary Public and the same is accordingly proved.
Bonafide requirement and availability of alternative suitable accommodation :
16. It is submitted by the petitioner that the tenanted premises is bonafide and urgently required by the petitioner for residence for herself as well as her family members dependent upon her. The husband of the petitioner alongwith his two brothers Mohd. Jameel Siddiqui and Abdul Basit Siddiqui is residing jointly as one unit having same single mess and joint business. The family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband and two sons namely Abu Sufiyan Siddique and Mohd. Zibran Siddique aged 29 years and is of marriageable age whereas Abu Sufiyan is married and his wife's name is Binish. Mohd. Jameel Siddique has his wife namely Mst. Madina Jameel Siddique, one married daughter Mst. Rakshina and son in law Mohd. Akram Khan who have two children, one son and one daughter respectively who are studying and another married daughter namely Alvira Siddique. The said daughter alongwith her husband is living abroad and she comes alongwith her husband and children and stays with the family for days together. Abdul Basit Siddique has his wife namely Nussrat Basit Siddique and three daughters who are college going students and all the dependent upon the petitioner for residence. The family consists of 20 members and all are major. The petitioner requires 5 rooms, one drawingcumdinning room, bathroom, latrine and kitchen for herself, her husband, two sons and daughter in law.
E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 10 of 15Mohd. Jameel Siddique requires 5 rooms, drawing cum dinning room, bathroom, latrine and kitchen for himself, his wife, daughters and sons in law and Abdul Basit Siddique requires 5 rooms, one drawing cum dinning room, bathroom, latrine and kitchen besides one study room for himself, his wife and three daughters. The petitioner and her family are men of status and several guests visit them, therefore, one room atleast is required as guest room. The petitioner and her entire family is living on top floor of the said property which is highly inadequate and insufficient for their requirement. The accommodation in her occupation is shown in green colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/3.
17. Per contra, the respondent has stated that neither the premises is required bonafide by the petitioner for her occupation as a residence for herself nor for any member of her family dependent upon her, as alleged. The petitioner has shown need of persons who are not members of her family and are not dependent upon her. The petitioner has not disclosed the accommodation in her occupation/possession and available to her. The families of the brotherinlaw of the petitioner and their children are not members of family of the petitioner. It is averred that there are 1213 rooms in occupation of the petitioner in the suit property. Further, the petitioner, during the pendency of the present petition, has got the tenanted premises vacated from other tenants, namely, Sh. K.K. Mago vide order dated 25.10.2017 in case No. ARC/478496/2016 by the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa, Ld. ARC, Delhi. The petitioner has also settled the case with Sh. Virendra Singh Verma in Case No. ARC/590922/2014 in E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 11 of 15 Lok Adalat and the said case was disposed of vide order dated 06.12.2014. The petitioner has also got dismissed her two petitions, one bearing No. ARC/479697/2016 in the Court of Sh. Rajinder Kumar, the then Ld. ARC, Delhi on 21.01.2017 for default and another No. ARC/478166/2016 on 01.07.2017 for nonprosecution. The petitioner and her brotherinlaws are owner of the properties other than the tenanted premises and the same is available to them for their residence. The husband of the petitioner is doing separate and independent business and his two brothers, namely, (1) Abdul Basit Siddiqui & (2) Mohd. Jameel Siddiqui are doing their own business separately and independently. The petitioner has recently let out the portion of the same premises which the tenanted premises forms part of to M/s Caravan International and in proof of the same three photographs are being filed as Ex. RW1/1 (colly.).
18. Perusal of the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 shows that the suit property has been purchased by the petitioner Aneesa Siddiqui and at the time of its purchase, the same was three storey pucca built up property measuring 324.4068 sq. meters. The petitioner is stating to be residing in the said property alongwith 20 other family members who are allegedly dependent upon her for residential purposes. However, the brothersin law of the petitioner cannot be considered to be the family members who are dependent upon the petitioner as it is the husband and children of the petitioner who can be said to be dependent upon her and not the brothers inlaw and their family members. In case, it is alleged by the petitioner that her brothersinlaw and their family members are dependent upon her E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 12 of 15 for the purpose of accommodation as they are living jointly having a single mess and joint business, then also, it is nowhere clarified by the petitioner either in the main petition or in the evidence led by her that there is no other alternative suitable accommodation or property in the name of the alleged dependent family members, despite the respondent specifically stating that the petitioner and her brothersinlaw are the owners of the properties other than the tenanted premises. The petitioner has not even vaguely stated that alleged dependent family members are not having any other property even in the petition or in replication or in evidence. Moreover, the petitioner has placed on record the photocopies of 14 Aadhar Cards on the address of the suit property, whereas, she is stating number of members in her family as 20. Thus, the petitioner has failed to prove the number of family members residing in the suit property and how they can be considered as dependent upon her for the purpose of accommodation.
19. Further, the petitioner has relied upon one site plan Ex. PW1/3. The said site plan shows that the property is built up to 3 floors, i.e., consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. Perusal of the site plan Ex. PW1/3 shows that on each floor, there are 08 rooms, one hall and 3 kitchens. The respondent/tenant is only in possession of two rooms, one kitchen and WC. That means on the said three floor, there are 24 rooms, 3 halls and nine kitchens besides toilet and bathrooms, out of which, the respondent is only having possession of two rooms with common WC and kitchen.
E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 13 of 1520. RW1 during crossexamination has stated that the entire second floor of the suit property and one portion on the first floor is in occupation of the petitioner. Further, RW1 has relied upon the copy of the eviction order Mark 'D1' in eviction petition no. 923/14 dated 25.10.2017, whereby the petitioner got eviction order against the tenant K. K. Mago. The petitioner has also not denied the settlement with tenant Sh. Virendra Singh Verma before the Lok Adalat in Case No. ARC/590922/2014 on date 06.12.2014.
21. Further, the respondent has submitted that after filing of this petition, the petitioner has let out the part of the suit property to Caravan International and in support of this submission, he has placed on record the photographs of the said property showing the name of Caravan International as Ex. RW1/1 (colly.). The petitioner has even failed to put a suggestion to RW1 that no such property has been let out by the petitioner to M/s Caravan International. On the other hand, the respondent as RW1 has categorically stated that the tenant Virendra Singh Verma, K. K. Mago and Gauri Shanker Lakotia are not residing on the first floor of the suit property. Further, he has stated that on the premises vacated by Gauri Shanker Lakotia, the lock of Mukim Siddiqui (brotherinlaw of the petitioner) is there and one portion of the said premises is used as an office by some person, whose name RW1 does not know. Even though the petitioner has averred that the first floor of the premises is occupied by tenants, however, the petitioner has failed to examine any such tenants as a witness or prove their rent receipts/rent E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 14 of 15 agreement on record. Hence, the petitioner has failed to prove that the said first floor of the property is occupied by any such tenants.
22. Moreover, the petitioner has placed on record the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 which also mentions that the suit property purchased by the petitioner is three storied built up property, as shown in colour red in the site plan attached. However, the petitioner has failed to file the said site plan annexed with the Sale Deed Ex. PW1/2 on record. Hence, the petitioner is found to be concealing the actual accommodation available with her. Whoever comes to the Court has to come with clean hands, without concealing the material facts of the case. Hence, on this ground alone, the petition filed by the petitioner ought to be rejected.
23. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner has failed to prove her bonafide requirement as well as nonavailability of alternative suitable accommodation with her for her alleged bonafide requirement. Hence, the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, is dismissed as rejected. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Digitally signed by SUSHEEL SUSHEEL BALA DAGAR
BALA DAGAR Date: 2018.10.23
17:12:54 -0400
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 22nd Day of October, 2018 CCJ cum ARC
Pilot Court (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 15 pages.)
E365/17 Aneesha Siddique v. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 15 of 15