Delhi District Court
Prachin Gaur vs Ved Sagar Gupta on 17 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. TISTA SHAH, ARC-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. 654/14/13
RC ARC No. 78340/2016
In the matter of:-
Sh. Prachin Gaur,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gaur,
R/o H. No. 612-E, Tank Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005. ...Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Ved Sagar Gupta,
S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram Gupta
R/o 31-A, LIG Flats,
Prasad Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. ...Respondent
Date of Institution of the case 13.11.2013
Under Section 14(1)(e), read with Section 25-B of
Delhi Rent Control Act (or in short the
"Act" or "DRCA").
Date of Judgment 17.02.2024
Decision Eviction petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. This is an eviction petition for bonafide requirement of the petitioner filed u/s 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 1 of 26 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act).
Petition
2. Briefly stating, the petitioner's case is that the petitioner and his brother Sh. Navin Kaushik are the co-owners/landlords of the property bearing no. 612-A/E, Ground Floor, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as suit premises). That earlier late Smt. Anaro Devi, sister of the grandfather of the petitioner was the owner of the suit premises and after her death late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gaur, father of the petitioner became the owner of the suit premises in pursuance of a Will executed by Smt. Anaro Devi in favour of Sh. Jagdish Prasad. Thereafter Sh Jagdish Prasad executed a Will in favour of his wife Smt. Gindori Devi and she became the owner of the suit premises. After the demise of Smt. Gindori Devi, the petitioner and his brother became the owner of the suit premises, through a will executed by late Smt Gindori Devi.
It is stated that Sh. Tulsi Ram Gupta, the father of the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises which consisted of two shops with shed in front of the shops on the ground floor in the property no 612 -A/E at a monthly rent of Rs. 48/- excluding electricity and water charges. The tenanted premises is shown with red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. It is stated that after the demise of father of the respondent, the respondent is in possession of the tenanted premises and is running commercial activity from there. It is stated that the sister of the petitioner namely Smt Leela Gaur, is in possession of two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor of the tenanted premises and one room on the first floor is E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 2 of 26 being used by the petitioner and other family members as a drawing room. Further it has been stated that the petitioner is in possession of two other rooms on the first floor and a kitchen on the second floor and the brother of the petitioner is in possession of the other rooms on the second floor.
3. It is further stated that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for his office as he is an advocate by profession and he has been practicing in the District Courts for the last about 25 year however he has no other suitable premises for his office to attend to his clients and the tenanted premises would be a suitable space for the petitioner to use it as his office to attend his clients as the petitioner was born and brought up in the area and he is known as an advocate in the area for the last many years. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no chamber allotted in his name and does not have any other alternative suitable accommodation for the said purpose. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
Written Statement
4. Summons under Third Schedule of DRC Act of this petition were served upon the respondent whereupon the respondent appeared and filed his leave to defend application which was allowed vide order dated 03.11.2014. Thereafter, the respondent filed his written statement stating therein that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit premises. It is further stated that the petitioner has not filed on record the ownership document of Smt. Anaro Devi nor the alleged E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 3 of 26 will executed by her. It is further submitted that the land underneath the suit premises falls under Khasra no. 1422/662/364/2 of Village Sadora Khurd under the ownership of Santosh Kumar & Ors. It is further stated that as per the reply to the RTI received from the MCD, no mutation certificate has been issued in any name in respect of suit premises. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed the forged house tax receipt in the name of Smt. Anaro Devi. It is also submitted that the petitioner has alternative accommodation available with him and that one shop near the stairs is lying vacant which is adjacent to the shop of "My Fair Lady" and the petitioner is having a number of big shops and halls as shown in yellow colour in the site plan which are let out to various tenants. It is also submitted that only one tenant is in possession of two rooms shown on the first floor in yellow colour at right side in the name of Gupta Fabrics under the proprietorship of Prabhat Gupta, remaining entire first floor and second floor are in possession of the petitioner and his married sister Smt. Leela Gaur who are living alone with the petitioner and there is no tenant in respect of a hall and three rooms shown in yellow colour and this portion is also in the possession of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is operating his office from room Mark D at the first floor of the suit premises. An assertion has also been made that the brother of the petitioner is not a resident of the property in which the tenanted premises is situated and lives elsewhere in some other property. It is further stated that the petitioner has many other shops on the ground floor with other tenants which could be most suitable than the shop of the respondent and the need of the petitioner for bonafide requirement is absent. Hence, it is prayed that the present E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 4 of 26 petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Replication
5. In reply to the written statement, a replication was filed by the petitioner stating therein that the respondent has himself admitted the ownership of Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gaur, the father of the petitioner in suit no. 1478/78 and had agreed to pay him the rent and has been paying rent to late Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gaur and after his death to his wife Smt. Gindori Devi and after her death to his sons i.e. petitioner and his brother. It is submitted that the petitioner has placed all the ownership documents on record and the will executed by Smt Anaro Devi in favour of the father of the petitioner has already been probated by a court of law. It is further stated that the alternative room that the respondent has alleged to exist in his written statement is under the stair case and the height of the premises is about 5' or 6' and one cannot even stand easily in this and same is used as scooter garage by the petitioner. Further the averments of the respondent that the petitioner does not require the suit premises for his bonafide requirement or he is already having a chamber no. 20 or also attends his clients from the first floor in drawing room or this room is used as office by the petitioner are denied. It is further stated that the aforesaid chamber no 20 has been allotted to Sh. Navin Kaushik, the brother of the petitioner who himself is a seasoned lawyer and the copy of the allotment letter has also been placed on record. The remaining contents of the written statement have been denied and the contents of the petition have been reaffirmed.
E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 5 of 26 TRIAL
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner got himself examined as witness PW1.
7. Petitioner/PW1 Sh. Prachin Gaur tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of his petition and replication. He also led in evidence the following documents:-
(i) Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) i.e. site plan of the suit property.
(ii) Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) i.e. house tax payment receipt.
(iii) Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) i.e. house tax payment receipt.
(iv) Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) i.e. house tax payment receipt.
(v) Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR) i.e. house tax payment receipt.
(vi) Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) i.e. copy of order dated
28.07.1976
(vii) Mark A i.e. copy of cheque issued by the
respondent.
(viii) Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter sent by the
respondent to the father of petitioner.
(ix) Ex. PW-1/8A (OSR) i.e. copy of envelop.
(x) Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR) i.e. death certificate of Smt.
Anaro Devi.
(xi) Ex. PW-1/10 (OSR) i.e. copy of Will dated
25.08.1960
(xii) Ex. PW-1/11 (OSR) i.e. copy of income tax return.
(xiii) Ex. PW-1/12 (OSR) i.e. copy of death certificate of
Jagdish Prashad.
(xiv) Ex. PW-1/13 (OSR) i.e copy of Will of Sh. Jagdish
Prashad.
(xv) Ex. PW-1/14 (OSR) i.e copy of letter sent by petitioner.
(xvi) Ex. PW-1/15 (OSR) i.e copy of letter sent by Sh. Manish
Chauhan.
E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 6 of 26
(xvii) Ex. PW-1/16 (OSR) i.e. copy of Will Smt. Gindori Devi.
(xviii) Ex. PW-1/17 (OSR) i.e. copy of death certificate of Smt. Gindori Devi.
(xix) Ex. PW-1/18 (OSR) i.e. copy of rent letter alongwih cheque.
(xx) Ex. PW-1/19 i.e. copy of envelop in which letter was received.
(xxi) Ex. PW-1/20 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dated 15.04.2010.
(xxii) Ex. PW-1/21 (OSR) i.e. copy of UPC (xxiii) Ex. PW-1/22 (OSR) i.e. copy of postal receipts. (xxiv) Ex. PW-1/23 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dated 06.03.2013 receipt from respondent alongwith photocopy of cheque.
(xxv) Ex. PW-1/24 (OSR) i.e. copy of envelop was received. (xxvi) Ex. PW-1/25 i.e. copy of original letter dated 17.02.2011 sent by respondent to the petitioner towards rent of the tenancy.
(xxvii) Ex. PW-1/26 (OSR) i.e. copy of envelop Ex. PW-1/25 was received.
(xxviii) Ex. PW-1/27 i.e. copy of original letter dated 15.02.2012 sent by the respondent towards the rent of the tenancy.
(xxix) Ex. PW-1/28 (OSR) i.e. copy of envelop in which letter was received.
(xxx) Ex. PW-1/29 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter dated 07.01.2014 sent by the respondent to the petitioner.
(xxxi) Ex. PW-1/31 (OSR) i.e. copy of certified copy of the statement of respondent recorded in suit no. 30/83. (xxxii) Ex. PW-1/32 (OSR) i.e. copy of statements recorded in the court of Sh. R. Dayal.
(xxxiii) Ex. PW-1/33 (OSR) i.e. copy of certificate of enrolment of petitioner.
(xxxiv) Ex. PW-1/34 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter issued by Delhi Bar Association dated 06.01.2015.
E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 7 of 26 (xxxv) Ex. PW-1/35 (OSR) i.e. copy of allotment of chamber of Sh. Naveen Kaushik.
8. In his evidence the respondent got examined three witnesses i.e. himself as RW1, Sh. Yogesh Sharma (JJA) as RW-2 and Sh. Santosh Dutt (Patwari) as RW-3.
9. RW-1/respondent tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. RW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of his written statement. He also led into evidence the following documents:-
(i) Ex. RW-1/1 (colly -7 pages) i.e. the original letter of RTI as well as reply and copy of transfer application ID No. 693 dated 22.07.2014 is Mark A (which is part of Ex. RW-1/1).
(ii) Ex. RW-1/2 (colly) i.e. three photographs of vacant shop namely my fair lady.
(iii) Ex. RW-1/3 (colly) i.e. three photographs of chamber no. 20, Western Wing in the name of the petitioner.
(iv) Mark B (colly -2 pages) i.e. copies of Khasra Gridwari of Khasra No. 1422/662/364/42 of village Saroda Kurd.
(v) Mark C (colly-2 pages) i.e. copies of request letter in case titled as Tarseem Singh & Ors. Vs. MCD & Ors.
(vi) Mark D (colly-4 pages) i.e. the photocopies of court proceedings in case title Mangal Singh VS. Satender Pal & Ors.
(vii) Ex. RW-1/7 i.e. copy of water bill dated 01.02.1977 consist of 2 pages.
(viii) Ex. RW-1/8 i.e. renewal receipt of MCD no. 13001 dated 18.03.1998.
(ix) Mark E i.e. copy of the water bill dated 01.02.1977.
E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 8 of 26
(x) Mark F i.e. photocopy of registration of eating house dated 18.05.2001.
(xi) Ex. RW-1/9 (OSR) i.e. copy of registration of eating house issused by the office of Additional Commissioner of Police, Delhi dated 06.09.2013.
10. RW-2 Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Junior Secretariat Assistant, MCD was summoned as a witness who had brought the copy of reply of RTI vide no. TAX/KBZ/2014-2015/D-1415 dated 22.08.2014. The same was exhibited as Ex. RW-2/1 (OSR).
11. Another witness RW-3 Sh. Santosh Dutt, Patwari, Office of LAC Central, Dargyaganj as well as from the Office of SDM, Civil Lines, Burari, Delhi was summoned who had brought the record of award no. 1235 of village Sadhora Khurd. Copy of the same is Ex. RW-3/A (06 pages) (OSR). The witness had also placed on record the copy of khasra girdawari of khasra no. 1422/662/364/2 of Village Sadhora Khurd. Copy of the same is Ex. RW-3/B (03 pages).
12. Final arguments advanced by ld. counsels for both the parties were heard at length and the case file perused.
Findings
13. In a petition u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act in order to get an eviction order the petitioner/landlord is required to establish the following :-
E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 9 of 26
(i) That he/she is the owner/landlord of the property and there is a landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
(ii) That he/she requires the premises for his or her bonafide requirement and
(iii) That he/she does not have any other alternative suitable accommodation for this purpose.
14. The primary objection of the respondent is that the petitioner was not the owner of the tenanted premises. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not filed the ownership documents of Smt Anaro Devi from whom the father of the petitioner is claimed to have received his title to the property. On the other hand the petitioner has stated that Late Smt Anaro Devi was the owner of the property bearing no 612 in which the tenanted premises is situated at the ground floor. It is stated that Late Smt Anaro Devi had executed a will in favour of the father of the petitioner Sh Jagdish Prasad Gaur who had then executed a will in favour of his wife Smt Gindori Devi. Thereafter Smt Gindori Devi had executed a will of the property in favour of the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner has filed on record the house tax payment receipts in the name of Smt. Anaro Devi which are present on record as Ex. PW1/2, PW1/3 and PW1/4 and PW1/5 (all as OSR documents). Reliance has been placed upon the original will of Late Smt Anaro Devi and its translated copy which are Ex PW1/10(OSR), the copy of the will of Sh. Jagdish Prasad Ex PW1/13(OSR) and copy of the Will of Late Smt. Gindori Devi Ex PW1/16(OSR).
E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 10 of 26
15. It is important to note here that in the present case it is an admitted fact that the rent of the premises was paid by the father of the respondent and by the respondent to Sh. Jagdish Prasad who was the father of the petitioner and subsequently the rent was paid to the petitioner. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has placed on record Ex PW1/8 which is a letter addressed to Sh. Jagdish Prasad by the respondent mentioning the details of the cheque by which the respondent had sent the rent for the period 01-12-05 till 31-01-07. Further Ex. PW-1/14 is the letter dated 17.03.2009 sent by the petitioner to the respondent where in the notice so sent it is specifically mentioned that the owner/landlord Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gaur had expired on 06.01.2009 and according to his will, Smt. Gindori Devi was now the owner of the tenanted premises. The respondent was thereafter called upon to pay the rent in favour of Smt. Gindori Devi in future. Ex. PW-1/15 is the reply dated 24.03.2009 to the letter received by the petitioner from the side of the respondent wherein the terms of the letter dated 17.03.2009 have been accepted by the respondent and it has been mentioned that a cheque for the rent amount has been issued in favour of Smt. Gindori Devi alongwith the reply.
Ex. PW-1/18 is the letter dated 27.04.2010 received from the respondent addressed to the petitioner and his brother namely Naveen Kaushik wherein reference has been made to the Will executed by Smt. Gindori Devi in favour of the petitioner and Sh. Naveen Kaushik. The contents of the said letter are necessary to be reproduced for establishing the proof of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The subject of the said letter is payment of rent of E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 11 of 26 the property bearing no 16/612 A/E. It is also mentioned therein with respect to a cheque of rent issued by the respondent that "In view of the fact that by virtue of will you have become the owner of the shop in question, then you should have accepted the same on your mother's behalf ". Further on in the notice a request has been made that since the addressees were living on the first floor of the said shop, the monthly rent should be taken from the respondent and the rent receipts be issued to avoid complications. Ex. PW-1/19 and Ex. PW-1/20 are the envelope of the registered post and the copy of the cheque of the rent amount issued by the respondent with the name of the petitioner and his brother as payee. Ex. PW-1/21 has also been filed by the petitioner which is the copy of the letter dated 15.04.2010 issued to the respondent by the petitioner and his brother Sh. Naveen Kaushik whereupon the respondent has been called upon to pay the arrears of rent and also the increased rent. Ex. PW-1/22 is the copy of the postal receipt with regard to the issuance of the notice. Ex. PW-1/23 is the letter dated 06.03.2013 addressed to the petitioner by the respondent requesting for accepting the rent for the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 and also for issuance of a rent receipt. Ex. PW-1/24 is a copy of the envelope of the registered post received by the petitioner. Ex. PW-1/25 is a letter dated 17.02.2011 issued to the petitioner and his brother with regard to payment of rent. Ex. PW-1/27 is another such letter dated 15.02.2012 and Ex. PW-1/29 is a letter dated 07.01.2014 addressed to the petitioner and his brother by the respondent with regard to the payment of rent for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014.
E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 12 of 26
16. Thus, what is clear from the above mentioned correspondence filed on record between the respondent and the petitioner is that the respondent had attorned the tenancy in favour of the petitioner and had accepted his being a tenant of the tenanted premises and the petitioner as his landlord. The tendering of rent to the petitioner by the respondent is also evident from the above documents. Furthermore, the Will executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of Smt Gindori Devi has also been accepted by the respondent. The existence and the contents of the above mentioned documents have not been denied by the respondent. Furthermore in the cross examination of Respondent/RW-1, the respondent has admitted paying the rent to the petitioner and to his father. It has also been accepted by him that the rent was paid by his father to the father of the petitioner.
Thus, there can be no doubt on the fact that there is a landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The relationship of landlord and tenant having been thus admitted by the respondent, the respondent was estopped from challenging the title/ownership of the petitioner, by virtue of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act.
17. The law in this regard has been elaborately dealt with in the case of in Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi reported as 157 (2009) DLT 450 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held:
".......... The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 13 of 26 imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent acts dishonestly.........".
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra v. Stanley Parker Jones (2006) 3 SCC 91 had held that:
".....13. The underlying policy of section 116 is that where a person has been brought into possession as a tenant by the landlord and if that tenant is permitted to question the title of the landlord at the time of the settlement, then that will give rise to extreme confusion in the matter of relationship of the landlord and tenant and so the equitable principle of estoppel has been incorporated by the legislature in the said section.
19. The argument of the respondent is that as soon as he came to know that the petitioner and his predecessor were not the owner of the tenanted premises, the respondent had stopped paying the rent of the premises to the petitioner and hence, the principle of estoppel would not apply in the present case.
The said argument is not maintainable for the reason that it is a well settled law that once a tenant always a tenant. Thus once the relationship of landlord and tenant had been accepted by the respondent, he could not turn back on his admission. Besides Ex. PW- 1/29 is a letter dated 07.01.2014 addressed to the petitioner and his brother by the respondent with regard to the payment of rent for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, which itself shows that the respondent had all along accepted the petitioner as his landlord. The E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 14 of 26 present suit was instituted on 13.11.2013 and summons were received by the respondent on 09.12.2013 and hence till after the filing of the present suit there is documentary proof on record of the admission of the respondent.
20. In case of Tej Bhan Madan v. II Additional District Judge and Ors 1988 (3) SCC 137, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a tenant was precluded from denying the title of the landlady on the general principle of estoppel between landlord and tenant and that this principle, in its basic foundations, means no more than that under certain circumstances law considers it unjust to allow a person to approbate and reprobate. Thus, once the respondent had accepted the petitioner as a landlord and paid rent to the petitioner, the principle of estoppel would immediately be applicable and the tenant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.
21. The respondent has gone on to challenge the ownership of Late Smt Anaro Devi stating that she had no right to execute a will in favour of the father of the petitioner. In this regard it is important to bear in mind the principle laid down in the case of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Teckchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 which is as follows:-
"The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 15 of 26 legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner.
22. The Hon'ble Delhi High court in Ram Chander v. Ram Pyari 109 (2004) DLT 388 and Plastic Chemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha and Ors, 114 (2004) DLT 408 has laid down the law that it was not for the tenant to challenge the Will of the landlord and any such challenge made by the tenant is a baseless and frivolous challenge.
Thus as has been held in the above mentioned cases it was not open to the respondent to challenge the ownership of the petitioner in the present case and hence once the landlord and tenant relationship has been admitted, the question of challenge to the title of the pre decessor's of the petitioner did not remain an issue in the present case.
23. Even though as has been discussed above, this court need not go into the question of title of the petitioner yet for argument sake if the contention of the respondent with regard to challenging the ownership is to seens, the respondent has submitted in his written E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 16 of 26 statement that the petitioner has not filed the ownership documents of Smt. Anaro Devi and the respondent had sought information from MCD and had come to know that the land underneath the tenanted premises falls under Khasra number 1422/662/364/2 of village Sadora Khurd and was under the ownership of Santosh Kumar & Ors. It is further stated that the Chief Commissioner of Delhi had through a notification dated 13.11.1959, acquired 34070 acre of land of the abovementioned village and an award dated 30.10.1961 was passed and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken over by DDA. It is thus stated that Smt. Anaro Devi from whom the petitioner's father is stated to have derived from his title, was an unauthorized occupant in the tenanted premises. In support of his contention, the respondent had examined witness /RW-2 from MCD, Karol Bagh Zone, New Delhi who had placed on record Ex. RW-2/1 (OSR) which is the copy of the reply of the RTI sent on behalf of the respondent to the MCD, Karol Bagh Zone, Delhi. The said document no where supports the contention of the respondent as it is mentioned therein that information so sought does not pertain to the department of Karol Bagh Zone, Delhi. It has also been mentioned in Ex. RW-2/1 that no mutation certificate has been issued in any name in respect of property bearing no. 16/612E. It is an accepted principle that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes the title to a property. The petitioner has filed on record ownership documents pertaining to the property in question and simply because no mutation had taken place, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner was not the owner of the tenanted premises.
E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 17 of 26
24. Further, RW-3 was examined by the respondent who is the patwari from the office of LAC, Central, Darya Ganj and SDM, Civil Lines who had placed on record documents Ex. RW-3/B. One of the document is the award of LAC by virtue of which the land of village Sadhora Khurd was acquired. Further, the khasra of land bearing kharsa no. 1422/662/364/2 has been filed which shows the name of Santosh Kuamr & Ors as the owner. At the outset, the said documents pertain to khasra number 1422/662/364/2 and no further document has been filed on behalf of the respondent to show that the tenanted premises is the same as the abovementiond property. Moreover, RW-3 in his cross examination had himself stated that he could not state whether the tenanted premises were covered in Ex. RW-3/A and whether the entry in the khasra pertains to the tenanted premises. It is also seen that the respondent /RW-1 in his cross examination had stated that khasra no. 1422/662/364/2 is located adjacent to Shakti Nagar. It is further stated by him he cannot say if the property bearing no. 16/612E, Tank Road, Karol Bagh is part of the above khasra.
25. The respondent has further raised an objection stating that in the order present on record as Ex. PW1/6 which is dated 27.07.1976 and which is the order of probate with regard to the will of Smt Anaro Devi, it has been clearly mentioned that the Executor of the Will had undertaken to make a full and true inventory of the said property and credits and exhibit the same in this court and also to render a true account of the said property and credits within one year from the same date or within such further time as the court may from time to time E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 18 of 26 appoint. It has therefore been stated that the said order Ex. PW1/6 cannot be said to be the proof of the Will of Smt. Anaro Devi, since the conditions abovementioned were not complied with by the Executor. The same is however a mere statement and no proof whatsoever has been filed on record to show that the order dated 28.07.1996 was set aside by any court or did not attain finality. In the absence of any proof, there is no reason to doubt that the terms of the order dated 28.07.1996 were not complied with.
Moreover the petitioner has filed on record Ex. PW1/32 (OSR) which is the copy of the statement dated 03.01.1979 of the respondent recorded in suit filed by Sh. Jagdish Prasad Gaur against the respondent for recovery of the arrears of rent, wherein it has been stated by him on oath that " After seeing the probate granted in favour of the plaintiff, I admit the claim for Rs. 480/- of the plaintiff. I could not pay the rent to the plaintiff earlier as he had not shown the probate to me nor he had mentioned about the probate in the notice dated 07.04.1978". Thus, the respondent has himself admitted the claim of the father of the petitioner with regard to the arrears of the rent and has also admitted the probate on oath, and hence for this reason as well the respondent could not retract from his previous statement and challenge the ownership of the petitioner's pre decessor.
26. The translated version of the will of Smt Anaro Devi has also been stated to be not a true translated copy of the will for the reason that it does not bear the names of the witnesses which are mentioned in the original Will yet the said aspect is immaterial for the purposes of the present suit where this court need not decide upon the E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 19 of 26 question of title of the petitioner.
The petitioner has placed on record Ex. PW1/2 (OSR), Ex. PW1/3 (OSR), Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) and PW1/5 (OSR) which are stated to be the house tax receipts of Smt. Anaro Devi. On the contrary, the respondent has not placed on record any document to show that Smt. Anaro Devi was not the owner of the specific premises namely 612-A/E. The petitioner was not expected to show a perfect title and the only requirement was that the petitioner/landlord had a better title than that of the respondent/tenant which has adequately been proved by the petitioner.
27. Be that as it may, any ownership dispute if would lie, would be between the petitioner and any third party claiming a title to the suit premises and the same cannot be decided in the present suit between the petitioner as a landlord and the respondent as a tenant.
28. Another argument of the respondent is with regard to the property number of the tenanted premises where the old number of the said premises is stated to be 2221. In his cross examination, RW-1 has voluntarily stated that the old number of the property is 2221 and the new number of the property bearing no. 16/612E, Tank Road, Karol Bagh is in place of the old number.
29. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon Ex. RW1/8 and has stated that the same is the renewal receipt of MCD with respect to the tenanted premises and therein the number of the suit premises is mentioned as 2221, Tank Road. However, further E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 20 of 26 documents filed by the respondent which is the original Trade License of MCD fee Ex. RW1/9 dated 11.06.2010 and 28.01.2011 show the suit property mentioned as 16/612E, Ground Floor which is also the number of the tenanted premises. Further, receipts of the MCD of the registration charges of the shop of the respondent mentions the address of the shop of the respondent as that of the tenanted premises mentioned in the petition. The electricity bill filed on record by the respondent also shows the same address as that of the shop and the tenanted premises.
30. The schedule in the order of grant of probate Ex. PW-1/6 specifically mentions the property as property bearing no. 2222. No dispute with regard to the new number of the property had been raised by the respondent in his written statement. The property number of the tenanted premises has been admitted by the respondent in his written statement and in the letters discussed above, sent by the respondent to the petitioner. The RTI filed on behalf of the respondent which is Ex. RW-2/1 itself shows that the record sought by the petitioner was with regard to the property bearing no. 612A/E, Tank Road, Karol Bagh. Even if it is stated that there is some discrepancy in the old number of the property mentioned in the records filed by the respondent yet the same is immaterial for the reason that the present number of the tenanted premises has not been disputed and it has himself admitted by RW1 in his cross examination that it is correct that both property bearing no. 2221 and 2222 belong to the petitioner.
As far as the new number of the tenanted property is concerned, the petitioner had during oral arguments clarified that the E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 21 of 26 property bears no. 612 and the numbers of 612A/E, 612B/E, 612C/E, 612D/E and 612E/E are the private numbers and that the tenanted premises was situated on the ground floor in the property bearing no. 612A/E, Tank Road, Karol Bagh. The same is also evident from Ex PW1/13 and Ex PW1/16 which are the respective Wills of the father and mother of the petitioner. The respondent has nowhere disputed the site plan filed on record and no other site plan has been filed by the respondent. The respondent has also not stated that the present address of the tenanted premises was incorrect. Thus, it can be stated that there is no dispute on the number of the tenanted premises.
31. As far as the ground of bonafide requirement is concerned, the petitioner has stated that he is practicing advocate and that he has no suitable premises for his office/chamber to attend to his clients. The respondent has objected to the said averment stating that as on date, the petitioner has a chamber and practices from chamber no. 20, Western Wing, Tis Hazari. The petitioner has filed on record documents Ex. PW-1/34 (OSR) which is the certificate of Delhi Bar Association stating that the petitioner does not have any chamber/seat in Tis Hazari Court and as per the office record, chamber bearing no. 20, Western Wing, Tis Hazari stands in the name of Sh. Naveen Kaushik. The copy of the allotment letter issued in the name of Sh. Naveen Kaushik dated 17.02.1992 is also present on record as Ex. PW-1/35. The respondent had filed certain photographs present on record as Ex. RW-1/3 and it was stated that the said photographs pertain to chamber no. 20, on the door of which the name of the petitioner is reflected. To the contrary, the petitioner has also filed E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 22 of 26 certain photographs on record which were put to the witness RW-1 which are present on record as Ex. RW-1/PX-3 and Ex. RW-1/PX-4 which shows the name of brother of the petitioner affixed as a board on the outside of chamber no. 20. Thus at most what comes out from the photographs filed on record is that the petitioner was using chamber no 20 for running a chamber however fact of the matter remains that the name of the brother of the petitioner was also affixed on the outside of the chamber.
The respondent has not filed any document to show that either any other chamber has been allotted to the petitioner or chamber no. 20 has been allotted in the name of the petitioner as on date. Though the allotment no. Ex. PW1/35 (OSR) pertains to 17.02.1992 and the letter of the Bar Association Ex. PW1/34 (OSR) pertains to 06.01.2015, yet no document has been filed on record by the respondent to either rebut the veracity of the above mentioned document filed by the petitioner or to show that any other chamber had been subsequently allotted to the petitioner. Moreover, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was using the chamber of his brother at Tis Hazari, still considering the profession of the petitioner where there are strictly speaking no fixed hours of working and a lawyer is also expected to attend to his clients even after court hours and in some cases on holidays as well, a chamber on the ground floor of the residence of the petitioner does appear suitable for the requirement of the petitioner.
32. It has been submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has an alternative accommodation where one shop near the stairs in E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 23 of 26 the property of the petitioner is lying vacant which is adjacent to the shop of 'My Fair Lady'. The respondent has relied upon Ex. RW1/2 (colly.) which is stated to be the photograph of the shop 'My Fair Lady' where the shutter of another shop pulled down is reflected in the photograph. It has been submitted by ld. Counsel for the respondent that the said shop whose shutter is lying closed, is the vacant shop which is an alternative accommodation available to the petitioner. Per contra, the petitioner has stated that the said area is not a shop and is not near the staircase. It is stated that the said area is under the staircase and the height of the premises is about 5 or 6 ft. It is further stated that one cannot stand easily in the said area and the same is being used as a scooter garage by the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record a photograph which is Ex. RW1/PX2 which is stated to be the photograph of the above mentioned premises and which reflects a scooter being parked at the said area. Moreover, when witness RW1 was confronted with the said photograph Ex. RW1/PX2, it was stated by him that the same is of a scooter garage below the staircase and the size of the garage might be 6x4 ft. Apparently, what appears from the photographs filed by the respondent himself which are Ex. RW1/2 (colly.) is that the said area which has been stated to be an alternative premises is a very small area which cannot be used for the purposes of running a chamber. A chamber of a practising Advocate would require a reasonable amount of space, for which the premises shown in Ex. RW1/2 can definitely not be called as sufficient.
33. It has been submitted by the respondent that the petitioner E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 24 of 26 has number of big shops and halls which are shown in the yellow colour in the site plan and which are let out to the other tenants. It is submitted that the petitioner has not explained as to why he has chosen only the tenanted shop under the possession of the respondent and not the other shops in possession of other tenants. The said submission is not maintainable for the reason that the tenant cannot dictate to the terms to the landlord as to from which premises he should run his chamber. The tenant cannot also determine the suitablity or non-suitablity of a particular premises and the same is the prerogative of the landlord.
It has been submitted by the respondent in his written statement that the brother of the respondent does not reside at the premises mentioned in the petition and resides elsewhere and hence the petitioner has ample space at his disposal. The said contention is not believable for the reason that it was for the respondent to prove his statement, however, the respondent has not filed anything on record to prove his submission.
34. Lastly it has been submitted that the drawing room on the first floor mentioned as Mark D on the site plan is being used for the purposes of a chamber and the petitioner has been attending clients from the said premises and therefore, the petitioner does not require any other room for operation of his chamber. In this respect, it is to be noted that the petitioner has mentioned in his petition that the petitioner and his sister were using the rooms on the first floor for the purposes of their residence and the room Mark D was being used by the petitioner and other family members as a drawing room. A E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 25 of 26 drawing room per se cannot be equated with a chamber of a lawyer. The requirement of a chamber for a practicing lawyer is on account of his being required to attend to his clients, for the purposes of which certain amount of privacy and a particular environment is required. The said purpose can certainly not be fulfilled in a drawing room, the rooms adjacent to which are being used for residential purposes. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner was forced to use his drawing room for attending his clients also goes on to show the bonafide of his requirement and non availability of any alternative accommodation for the purposes of running a chamber.
35. In view thereof, the petitioner has been able to prove her case whereas respondent has not been able to establish his defence. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, the eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is allowed and an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of tenanted premises, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before the expiry of six month running from today.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed(Announced in an open Court). TISTA by TISTA SHAH Date:
2024.02.17 SHAH 16:57:35 +0530 (Tista Shah) ARC-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 17.02.2024 E No.654/14/13 (RC ARC no. 78340/2016) Prachin Gaur Vs. Ved Sagar Gupta Page of 26 of 26