Delhi District Court
Sh. Jai Prakash vs Sh. Shyam Lal on 16 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMIT DASS, ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGECUMADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
(NORTHWEST), COURT NO. 214, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
E No. 25/11.
In the matter of :
Sh. Jai Prakash
S/o Sh. Jagat Ram
R/o H. No. 14, Khasra No. 951/31
Near Chotu Ram Chowk
Malik Colony, Sonepat
Haryana ....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Shyam Lal
S/o Sh. Thanmun Ram
R/o H. No. T17, Mool Chand Colony
Adarsh Nagar
Delhi110033 ....Respondent
Date of Institution : 25.03.2010.
Date of Final Argument : 14.08.2013.
Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2013.
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 14
(1) (a) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
JUDGMENT :
E. No. 25/11. 1/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
1. Eviction in respect of property house no. T17, Mool Chand Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi37 (henceforth as 'tenanted premises') has been sought on the ground that the respondent / tenant had defaulted in payment of rent despite service of demand notice and hence, committed 'first default', as envisaged under Clause (a) to the proviso of Subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short DRC Act).
2. Brief resume of the facts is desirable, same is as under:
Petitioner claims to be the landlord of the tenanted premises. The rate of rent was Rs.2,000/ per month and the tenanted premises was given on rent in the month of February, 1995 without any rent agreement. In fact, the petitioner had purchased the property from the previous owner Sh. Mukesh Kumar in the month of February, 1995, however, the ownership documents i.e. registered GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit of seller, payment receipt and Will were executed on 22.01.2002. The respondent was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and was in arrears since very beginning i.e. February, 1995. The respondent had on 28.11.95 filed a suit bearing no. 426/6/95 for perpetual injunction against one Surinder Kumar alleging him to be his landlord which was decreed ex parte by the court of Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge. The respondent also had filed a petition u/s 45 of the DRC Act against Surinder Kumar bearing no. 3/2009 in which the petitioner herein had filed an application u/o I rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment. A prior legal notice dt 12.05.09 was also served which was duly replied by the respondent vide a E. No. 25/11. 2/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
reply dt 02.07.09. The respondent failed to comply with the mandate of the legal notice and hence, the present eviction petition.
3. Written statement was filed by the respondent. It was asserted that the petitioner was not the landlord of the suit property nor he had any right, title or interest in the same and the respondent was a tenant in respect of the whole of the property under one Surinder Kumar R/o A36, Gali no. 5, Rajan Babu Road, Old Adarsh Nagar, Delhi35 on a monthly rent of Rs 200/ per month besides electricity and water charges. The present case was filed by the petitioner in connivance with the said Surinder Kumar and by fabricating the title documents to harass the petitioner. The averments made in the petition were denied in toto. Dismissal of the petition was sought for.
4. Rejoinder (replication) to the written statement was duly filed.
5. Parties were directed to lead evidence. The order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act was deferred in terms of order dt 26.05.2011.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner had stepped into the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He has proved documents i.e. site plan of the property Ex. PW1/1, registered GPA Ex. PW1/2, Agreement to Sell Ex. PW1/3, affidavit of seller dt 22.01.02 Ex. PW1/4, payment receipt dt 22.01.02 Ex. PW1/5 and Will dt 22.01.02 Ex. PW1/6, legal notice Ex. PW1/7, regd. AD postal receipt Ex. PW1/8 and reply sent by the respondent Ex. PW1/9, copy of ration card of the petitioner Ex. PW1/10 and certificate u/s 203 of the E. No. 25/11. 3/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
Income Tax Act issued by MCD to the petitioner Mark B. He was cross examined by the Ld. counsel for respondent. Thereafter, PE was closed.
7. On behalf of respondent, the respondent has got examined himself as RW1 by way of affidavit which is Ex.RW1/A. He has relied upon the document i.e. ration card and voter I card Ex. DW1/1 (colly), copy of application u/s 45 (2) of DRC Act Ex. DW1/2, copy of decree dated 10.10.06 Ex. DW1/3. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Thereafter, respondent evidence was closed.
8. Heard either side.
9. The crux of the dispute is with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se. The respondent has claimed that he is a tenant under one Surinder and the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the suit property. He asserts that the petitioner has not dealt with him throughout and is a total stranger to him. However, in so far as his status is concerned he admits himself to be a tenant and does not set up any title in himself. Thus, it can be said that the moot question to be adjudicated is as to whether the petitioner by virtue of the documents in his favour/ evidence adduced by either side is 'the landlord' in respect of the tenanted premises. Now, in this regard, petitioner has filed documents i.e. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/6 whereby and where under he had purchased/ acquired rights in the suit property. Two of the documents are registered i.e. GPA as well as the Will. There is no cross examination on behalf of the respondent with respect to the said documents whereby the E. No. 25/11. 4/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
genuineness of the same is rendered under some suspicion. The respondent has merely asserted that the documents are forged and fabricated. It is pertinent to note that in the written statement the respondent has stated that he is regularly paying rent to the true owner Sh. Surinder Kumar whom he considers to be the landlord. Now, in view of the fact that the respondent was litigating with Sh. Surinder Kumar since the year 1995 his plea that he was paying/ tendering rent to Sh. Surinder Kumar is absolutely an untenable one and can not be believed. The falsity of the case of the respondent is apparent. There is no payment by any document or through the court process by depositing the same in the court to show the bonafides of the respondent.
It has also been stated by the respondent in the written statement that he was a tenant in the tenanted premises since the year 1994 whereas in his cross examination he has stated that he was a tenant in the tenanted premises since the year 1987. He has also admitted that he has not paid rent since the last 67 years as no one has turned up for collecting the rent. It is also apparent from the record that Sh. Surinder Kumar has never contested the claim of the respondent and the suit was also exparte decided. Surinder Kumar had also not appeared in the injunction suit and was served through publication. Thus, there is no document produced on record by the respondent/ circumstances pointed out whereby relationship of landlord and tenant could have been probablized inter se the respondent and Surinder Kumar. There is also no E. No. 25/11. 5/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
document produced on record by the respondent showing that the electricity meter or water meter installed in the premises was in the name of Sh. Surinder Kumar or any NOC was obtained from him so that his interest in the property could have been established.
The reply has also been given by the respondent to the legal notice issued by the petitioner through his advocate Sh. Satinder Kumar Verma Ex. PW1/9. In the said reply to the legal notice, it was asserted that respondent was a tenant under Sh. Surinder Kumar, however, the rate of rent was also not specified in the said reply notice.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner has relied upon registered documents in support of his case and the counter case/ stand of the respondent that he is a tenant under Sh. Surinder Kumar being an unbelievable one, full of glaring lacunae's, the petitioner's version has to be accepted. It is also trite that the petitioner is only to discharge the burden that he has a better title than that of the respondent though it may not be an absolute one. Reason is obvious. The question of title is not an issue u/s 14 (1) (a) of The DRC Act. Thus, the relationship between the parties is prima facie established on record.
10. Now, coming to the aspect of rate of rent. The case of the petitioner is that the rate of rent was Rs 2,000/ per month and per contra, respondent has alleged that the rate of rent was Rs 200/ per month.
11. Section 26 of Delhi Rent Control Act obligates the landlord E. No. 25/11. 6/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
to issue receipts of having received the rent. There is also a Form B in Delhi Rent Control Act Rules 1959 in this regard. It appears that the said obligation was never adhered to. There is no documentary evidence also produced by the petitioner pertaining to the rate of rent nor there is evidence that rent was ever paid by way of any instrument from which reasonably rate of rent could be deciphered. There is no evidence adduced by the petitioner in whose presence the respondent was inducted as a tenant or in whose presence the terms of the tenancy were thrashed.
12. Further basically, in pith and substance an oral evidence is pitted against / countered by an oral version. So much so apart from any document of having received such a sum of money as rent from the respondent, the petitioner has also not filed any document, for example any income tax return or any other statutory compliance(s) to suggest that indeed such an amount of money was payable to him as rent or due to him despite being employed in MCD/ assessed to Income Tax. The petitioner is a employee of MCD and his income is Rs 3 lacs odd yearly as per the Income Tax Certificate 'Mark B' and to say that the petitioner would forego a sum of Rs 24,000/ per year for a considerable period of time is also untenable. Further, no notice of demand was also served immediately after the respondent had defaulted and the petitioner had also not taken any steps for recovery of rent for a substantial long period of time. That being the situation, the version of the respondent that the rent was Rs.200/ has to be accepted.
E. No. 25/11. 7/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
13. Coming to the period since when arrears of rent are recoverable/ due. The legally recoverable rent can only be permitted which in the facts of the case is three years rent preceding the filing of the petition. The respondent, is therefore, liable to pay rent w.e.f. 24.03.2007 at the rate of Rs 200/ per month till date. The ingredients of section 14 (1) (a) of DRC are squarely made out.
Put up the matter now for consideration under section 15 (1) of DRC Act on 29.08.2013 in as much as the said aspect was deferred by my ld. predecessor.
Announced in the open court (Sumit Dass)
Dt. 16.08.2013. ACJ/ARC (NW)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
E. No. 25/11. 8/ 9
Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.
E. No. 25/11.
16.08.2013.
Present: None.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, it has been held that the respondent is liable to pay rent w.e.f. 24.03.07 at the rate of Rs 200/ per month till date. The ingredients of section 14 (1) (a) of DRC are squarely made out.
Put up the matter now for consideration under section 15 (1) of DRC Act on 29.08.2013 in as much as the said aspect was deferred by my ld. predecessor.
(SUMIT DASS) ACJcumARC (North West) Rohini Courts, Delhi/16.08.2013 E. No. 25/11. 9/ 9 Jai Prakash v. Shyam Lal.