Delhi District Court
Manmohan Lal & Anr. vs . Harsh Kr. & Ors. on 27 August, 2011
Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KR. SHARMA,
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER, DISTRICT: NORTH. DELHI.
E No. 195/2009
Unique Case ID No: 02401C
1. SH. MANMOHAN LAL
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o 1227, Mahal Sarai,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
2. SMT. MANJU LATA
W/o Sh. Manmohan Lal,
R/o 1227, Mahal Sarai,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006.
...Petitioners.
Versus
1. SH. HARSH KUMAR
S/o Late Sh. Kotu Ram,
R/o 1224, Mahal Sarai,
Chhota Bazar, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi.
2. SH. RAMESH KUMAR
S/o Late Sh. Kotu Ram,
R/o 1224, Mahal Sarai,
Chhota Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.
3. SH. SUSHIL KUMAR
S/o Late Sh. Kotu Ram,
R/o E-452-B, LIG Flats,
Pitam Pura, Delhi-110034.
E no. 195/2009 Page 1/24
Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
4. SMT. USHA RANI
W/o Late Sh. Kotu Ram,
1224, Mahal Sarai,
Chhota Bazar, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi.
5. SMT. URMILA RANI
D/o Late Sh. Kotu Ram,
R/o 1224, Mahal Sarai,
Chhota Bazar, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi.
6. SMT. PROMILA
D/o Late Sh. Kotu Ram,
R/o 1224, Mahal Sarai,
Chhota Bazar, Kashmere Gate,
Delhi.
...Respondents.
Date of institution of the petition : 08/05/2007
Date on which order was reserved : 24/08/2010
Date of Decision : 27/08/2011
ORDER
27.08.2011 Vide this order, I shall dispose of the leave to defend application filed on behalf of respondent U/s 25-B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as D.R.C. Act, 1958) for seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition as well as on the application U/Sec. 151 CPC for taking into consideration the subsequent E no. 195/2009 Page 2/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
events by filing additional affidavit as well as placing the documents on record.
Relevant facts for disposal of both the applications are as follows:-
1. That the present petition was filed with the allegations that suit property bearing no. 1227, Mahal Sarai, Chhota Bazar, kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 was purchased by the mother of the petitioner no. 1 from Smt. Maya Devi who had purchased the property from Sh.
Munshi Lal vide registered Sale Deed and after the death of mother Smt. Satyawati, the petitioners became the owners by virtue of a Will executed in their favour and the premises was let out to the father of respondent by Sh. Munshi Lal, the erstwhile owner for residential purposes and the premises is consisting of one room, kitchen, W.C. and verandah on the first floor of property bearing no. 1227, Mahal Sarai, Chhota Bazar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).
2. The family of the petitioners consists of petitioner, their two grown up children aged about 20 and 22 years and the petitioners are in occupation of one room with Baithak and W.C. as shown in blue colour in the site plan filed with the petition which is being used by the son of the petitioners and the petitioners are in occupation of another room, E no. 195/2009 Page 3/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
W.C and kitchen with a kolki as shown in green colour in the site plan attached and another portion consisting of one room, W.C. and bath are being used by the petitioner no. 1 as factory for which the license has been obtained by petitioner no. 1 for about 8-10 years back and said portion has been shown as Mark-X in the site plan and requirement of the petitioners are one room for themselves, one room for their sons and one room for their daughter who has grown up and is aged about 22 years and one room as guest room for the married sisters who used to visit the petitioner along with their respective families and petitioners also require a pooja room because the petitioner no. 2 is very religious lady and one drawing room and a whole time servant is accommodated in the factory portion and, thus, petitioners require bonafidely the accommodation in occupation of the respondents and petitioner no. 2 is the teacher and petitioner no. 1 is an Income Tax Assesses and is a man of status and, thus, accommodation available is not sufficient for their residence as well as residence of other dependent family members.
3. Upon service of summons, respondent no. 1 filed his separate leave to defend application along with supporting affidavit. Respondent nos. 4 to 6 have also filed their separate leave to defend application along with supporting affidavits. One of the legal heir of respondent no. 3 namely Neha Duggal also filed a separate leave to defend application along with supporting affidavit and despite service other respondents have not filed any leave to defend application.
E no. 195/2009 Page 4/24Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
4. Respondent no. 1 in his leave to defend application has alleged and deposed that he was served on 03/09/2007 and on 06/09/2007 and, therefore, leave to defend application has been filed within limitation period further alleging and deposing that the petition is not maintainable as earlier two petitions bearing E no. 269/1989 and E no. 29/1991 qua the same premises on the ground of Sec. 14 (1)(e) & 14-D of the D.R.C. Act were filed which were ultimately dismissed as withdrawn but no permission to file the fresh petition upon the same cause of action was taken or granted to the petitioner, thus, petition is barred by law as no new ground has been shown by the petitioner and the cause of action as pleaded in the present petition is the same which was alleged in the previous two petitions aforesaid and even if in petition no. 269/1989 the permission was taken that was fraudulently by misrepresenting the facts or by concealing the relevant facts.
5. It is further deposed that petitioners are not owners of the premises which was owned by Smt. Satyawati wife of Mr. Om Prakash who had already expired and had left three sons and four daughters and no probate and letter of administration has been ever obtained by the petitioners from any Court and, thus, execution of the Will is also denied.
6. It is further deposed that at the time of inception of tenancy it was agreed that premises can be used for residential or residential-cum- commercial or even for commercial purpose and, thus, tenancy was for E no. 195/2009 Page 5/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
composite purpose and at the time of inception of tenancy neither the petitioners nor any member of their family was present.
7. It is further deposed that there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioners or their alleged family members but they are only desirous to evict the deponent so that they may encash the possession at the prevailing fancy pagri as the suit property is situated in the heart of the Motor Spare Parts Market at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and petitioner no. 1 is carrying out the business of Real Estate and their main function is to get suit premises vacated so that they may get fancy premiums or encash the same at prevailing exorbitant prices and the petition has been filed malafidely and with oblique desire.
8. It is further deposed that the accommodation available to the petitioner and the members of their family is much more than their requirement and said fact is corroborated by the fact that petitioner no. 1 has recently constructed unauthorisedly two large rooms on the ground floor and instead of using them for residential purpose has started using one of them for their business/profession purpose under the name and style of Mohan Property Dealers and has also installed a telephone in his office on the ground floor and the other room is being used by the petitioners for themselves and the license shown by the petitioners for commercial activities is an eye wash which has been procured to take advantage of Government Scheme for allotment of commercial site/plot in the industrial area.
E no. 195/2009 Page 6/24Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
9. It is further deposed that besides those two rooms, petitioners are in occupation of three rooms, one kitchen, two bathrooms, two latrines etc. on the ground floor and is also in occupation of adjacent portion of house no. 1227, Mahal Sarai, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi purchased from Sh. Parmanand and that accommodation comprises of identical accommodation as on the ground floor and on the first floor of the premises in dispute and petitioners are in possession of one room, one kitchen, one toilet-cum-bathroom with roof rights on the first floor and, thus, petitioners are in possession of six rooms including two unauthorised rooms, two kitchen, two toilet, two bathrooms, one toilet-cum-bathroom on first floor as well as on ground floor of premises no. 1227 (supra) and to the knowledge of the deponent none of the sisters of the petitioners ever visit them as they being some family disputes and, thus, no room in addition is required.
10. It is further deposed that petitioner no. 1 is also the owner of part of property bearing no. 1234, Mahal Sarai, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-06 which has been let out on high premium and same is presently being used commercially by the tenants consisting of about six rooms and an open place.
11. It is further deposed that the deponents have learnt that petitioners have acquired one more residential unit on the ground floor of premises bearing no. 1227 (supra) from erstwhile owner Smt. E no. 195/2009 Page 7/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
Jamuna Devi on the basis of an Agreement to Sell, Registered receipt for consideration, indemnity bond, Will and General Power of Attorney executed in favour of petitoner no. 1 and petitioner had been given the symbolic possession of the premises which consists of three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine etc. who got the same vacated from the old tenants and petitioners on obtaining huge premium and exorbitant rent has let out this portion on the ground floor to Ms. Savitri Dhama and her family members on rent and beside the aforesaid accommodation, petitioners possess several other suitable residential accommodation which have not been disclosed intentionally and the petitioners are also have shares in the accommodation earlier owned by Smt. Satyawati along with other legal heirs at Rohini and Kasheer Sagar Group Housing Colony, Patpar Ganj, Delhi-92 and details of those accommodation will be given along with additional affidavit and petitioners have also shares in accommodation at 50, Tagore Apartments, Near Minto Road, New Delhi and 896-Z, Timarpur, Delhi-07.
12. It is further deposed that the present petition is for partial eviction and according to their own allegation the suit premises consists of one room, kitchen, latrine, bath and balcony on the first floor but infact the suit premises is consisting of one large room, kitchen, toilet and balcony besides open terrace on the second floor and description of the tenanted premises in para-8 of the petition does not tally with the extent of the accommodation shown in the site plan annexed with the petition, thus, the site plan is incorrect and allegation of the petitioner E no. 195/2009 Page 8/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
that respondents are joint tenants is incorrect and claim of the petitioners are highly exaggerated and several accommodation have been rented out by the petitioner and the property is situated in the Slum Area and no permission has been obtained from the Competent Authority (Slum) and, thus, there being number of triable issues, leave to defend application may kindly be allowed to contest the present petition on merits.
13. Reply to leave to defend application along with counter affidavits of both the petitioners filed wherein preliminary objection has been raised that since leave to defend application is not verified in accordance with the rules, therefore, same is liable to be rejected and on merits denied all the material allegations further deposing that the petition no. E 69/1989 and 29/1991 were filed by Smt. Satyawati and not by the present petitioner and, thus, having no relevance to the present proceedings and there is no need to get probate of the Will and respondent can not challenge the execution of Will by Late Smt. Satyawati and tenancy was not for composite purpose nor any commercial activities were carried out from the suit premises and there is no question of reletting the premises and has denied that the petitioners have raised two rooms recently on the ground floor and further deposed that petitioners are having a factory and is not doing any other work and the ground floor of the property is being used for the factory purpose and has further denied that the petitioner has got three rooms, two both, two kitchen and two latrine on the ground floor of E no. 195/2009 Page 9/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
adjacent property or in any property.
14. It is further deposed that the property nos. 1234 (Supra) is not owned by the petitioners or even let out by the petitioner to the tenants but the said property is owned by Mr. Kishan Bihari Rohtagi and petitioners have not got any other property except property no. 1227 as mentioned in petition and no ground floor portion of the said property no. 1227 as alleged by the respondent have been purchased on the basis of Agreement to Sell etc. or any possession has been obtained or same was relet on exorbitant rent to any Ms. Savitri Dhama and no other properties at Rohini, Parpat Ganj, Timar pur or Minto Road is in possession of the petitioners being the legal heirs of Smt. Satyawati, petitioner have no other accommodation except shown in the site plan attached with the petition and respondent is not the tenant in respect of the terrace on the second floor and there being no triable issue, leave to defend application filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 may kindly be dismissed.
15. Rejoinder to the reply along with rejoinder affidavit of petitioner no. 1 was filed and petitioner has denied all the preliminary objections as well as allegations on merits and reiterated moreover the same facts as alleged in the leave to defend application and in supporting affidavit.
16. In her leave to defend application, respondent no. 4 Smt. E no. 195/2009 Page 10/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
Usha Rani has raised similar grounds as raised by respondent no. 1 and in addition to that she has also alleged that entire ingredients of Sec. 14 (1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act has not been mentioned and present petition is barred under the principle of res-judicata U/s 11 of CPC and petition is bad for non joinder of other legal heirs of Smt. Satyawati as all the sons and four daughters have not been impleaded and otherwise also, the petition has been filed against only some of the co-tenants as legal heirs namely Sh. Ashok Kr. Duggal and others have not been impleaded as respondents though they are the legal heirs of Mr. Kotu Ram and petitioner has asked many times to increase the rent @ Rs. 3,000/- or to vacate the suit premises and petitioners are also in possession of two rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom, open space in the premises no. 1234 (supra) and the premises at Sageer Co-operative Group Housing Society comprising of two rooms, drawing/dinning room, kitchen, two bathrooms and balcony etc.
17. Reply to leave to defend application alongwith the counter affidavit of petitioner no. 1 was filed denying all the allegations on merits.
18. Rejoinder to the reply was filed along with rejoinder affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 4 denying the allegations and reiterating moreover the same facts as alleged in leave to defend application.
19. In her leave to defend application, respondent no. 6 has also E no. 195/2009 Page 11/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
raised similar grounds as that of respondent nos. 1 & 4.
20. Reply to the same along with counter affidavit of Sh. Manmohan Lal was filed denying the allegations and reiterating moreover the same facts as alleged in leave to defend application.
21. Rejoinder to the reply was also filed on behalf of respondent no. 6.
22. Separate leave to defend application was filed on behalf of Ms. Neha Duggal, one of the legal heir of respondent no. 3 who was impleaded in place of original respondent no. 3 along with other legal heirs and she has also taken objection that the petitioners have not filed the entire site plan of the building deliberately and respondent is filing the complete and correct site plan and none of the family members of the petitioner are dependent upon petitioners for the purpose of residence, business, financially or otherwise and the present petition has been filed for additional accommodation and now the petitioners are in possession of property no. 1227 (supra) purchased from Smt. Jamuna Devi which was earlier let out to the tenants.
23. Reply to leave to defend application along with counter affidavit was filed wherein petitioner has denied all the allegations on merits.
E no. 195/2009 Page 12/24Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
24. Rejoinder to the reply was filed wherein respondents have denied all the material allegations and reiterated moreover the same facts as alleged in the leave to defend application and supporting affidavit.
25. During the pending proceedings, it came to the knowledge of petitioners that the respondent no. 3 has already expired prior to filing of present petition and application U/o 22 Rule 4 CPC was filed and same was allowed vide order dated 16/03/2010.
26. After conclusion of oral submission on leave to defend application an application U/s 151 CPC along with additional affidavit of respondent no. 1 and a copy of legal demand notice dated 26/07/2010 and copy of the order dated 22/02/2003 in the matter titled as Manmohan Lal Vs. Dalip Singh through LRS have been filed on record and petitioner came to know certain facts after conclusion of the oral submission further deposing that a legal notice dated 26/07/2010 was sent through Mr. H.S. Sahni, Advoate on behalf of Mr. Pramod Kr., Sukhbir Kumar and Manmohan Lal i.e. Present petitioner in respect of property no. 1234 (supra) to one Mr. Roshan Lal Mahindra claiming the rent in respect of first floor of the property no. 1234 (supra) claiming to be the landlord, though in reply to leave to defend application, petitioner has denied any concern with the said property and, thus, atleast he is having 1/3 rd E no. 195/2009 Page 13/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
share in the said property and this fact was concealed and due to order in petition no. 90/1995 titled as Manmohan Lal Vs. Dalip Singh dated 22/02/2003, petitioner came into possession of one room set on the first floor and the petitioner has made the said portion by alteration of two rooms set and in the said petition, petitioner has claimed that he along with other LRS are having rights over the suit premises, but in the present petition he is claiming to be the sole owner and the said petition was decided in the year 2003 and the present petition was filed sometime in the year 2007 and the mother of the petitioner stated to have expired in the year 1996, thus, the Will relied upon by the petitioner and her wife on the face of it appears to be forged and fabricated document and since said fact came into the knowledge of the respondent after the conclusion of the arguments, therefore, the present application was filed.
27. In reply to the application as well by filing counter affidavit, petitioner has denied all the material allegations and has deposed that the petitioner was tenant along with Mr. Pramod Kumar, Sukhbir and Kishan Bihari Rohtagi and was collecting rent of the property no. 1234 (supra) in view of the Rent agreement dated 17/01/1996 and no portion of the said property is in occupation of the petitioner or Pramod Kumar or Sushil Kumar and the portion obtained after vacation of the previous tenant Dalip E no. 195/2009 Page 14/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
Singh is already shown in blue colour in the site plan already filed on record and has filed copy of Rent Agreement dated 17/01/1996, General Power of Attorney executed by Mr. Kishan Bihari Rohtagi alongwith reply.
28. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties and have perused the record carefully.
29. Petitioners have placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 1990 RLR (Note) 153, 1997 RLR 651, 1996 RLR 106, 158 (2009) DLT 442. On the other hand, respondent has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 20 (1981) DLT 236, I (2001) SLT 1, AIR 2009 SC 2448.
A. First ground taken is that the present petition is not maintainable as the earlier eviction petition was filed upon the similar grounds U/s 14 (1)(e) and 14-D of D.R.C. Act which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn without taking any permission or, if any, that was obtained fraudulently and petition is barred U/s 11 of CPC. Nothing has been placed on record to show that both the petitions were filed upon similar grounds and admittedly, the petition U/s 14-D of D.R.C. Act which is alleged to have been filed E no. 195/2009 Page 15/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
by the mother of the petitioner and admittedly she died even prior to filing of the present petition about in the year 1995, thus, the petition U/s 14-D of the D.R.C. Act has become infructuous and the other petition was filed in the year 1989 i.e. about 18 years prior to filing of the present petition and if the ages of the family members i.e. sons and the daughters of the petitioners are taken into consideration, they were of the tender age at that time and, thus, it can not be said that the present petition is barred even if no permission was obtained and since ultimately the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, decision, if any, can not be said to be res-judicata as there was no final determination after the trial and thus it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
B. The next ground taken is that the petitioners are not the owners of the premises in dispute and the Will relied upon by the petitioners is not a Will in the eyes of Law and similar grounds have also been taken by filing additional affidavit that there was no execution of Will in favour of the petitioners and the Will alleged and relied upon by the petitioners is forged and fabricated. In the entire leave to defend application, none of the respondents have disclosed that who else is the owner of the suit property who is demanding the rent or to whom they are paying rent and they E no. 195/2009 Page 16/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
themselves even admitted that Smt. Satyawati to be the owner of the suit property and they have not denied that the petitioner no. 1 is not son of Smt. Satyawati and, thus, being one of the legal heir/co-owner he otherwise also can maintain the petition and, thus, the said objection appears to have been taken for the sake of defence without any substance.
C. The next ground taken is that the tenancy was for composite purpose as well as commercial purpose, but the said objection has become infructuous in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati's case.
D. The next ground taken is that the petitioners are having alternative accommodation in property no. 1234 (supra) which was let out on high premium and is in occupation of the tenants. By their own admission, the property is stated to be in occupation of the tenants and nothing has been disclosed that as to when the said property was let out by the petitioners and moreover a copy of the notice has been placed on record and perusal of the notice filed by the respondent itself makes it clear that the petitioners have not claimed any ownership right in the said property but are claiming to be the landlords of the said property and a copy of the rent agreement and G.P.A has been filed wherein it is clearly E no. 195/2009 Page 17/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
mentioned that petitioner is one of the tenant in the said property and otherwise by virtue of G.P.A in his favour, he is authorised to maintain the said property and to sub-let the said property and, thus, in view of the same the aforesaid property can not be said to be an alternative suitable accommodation and the said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
E. The next ground taken is that the petitioners are in occupation of other portion of the property bearing no. 1227 aforesaid comprising of identical accommodation as of the suit property and the said property was purchased through agreement to sell etc. and was let out to somebody else on higher rent and petitioners possess several other alternative accommodation which have not been disclosed intentionally at Rohini, Patpar Ganj, Minto Road and Timar Pur. Petitioners have denied all the allegations. Nothing has been placed on record to show prima-facie that the properties disclosed by the respondents belong to the petitioners except making bald allegations that these properties belong to the petitioners and as a matter of fact in earlier litigations, copy of judgment of which have been placed on record by respondent no. 1, the similar objection was taken by the tenant therein but there is finding by the Ld. A.R.C. as he then was that the tenant in the said E no. 195/2009 Page 18/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
petition failed to corroborate the allegation pertaining to alternative accommodation in the property no. 1227 and other properties as aforesaid and moreover in the said judgment itself it is held that Smt. Savitri Dhama was the tenant of the sister of petitioner and not of the petitioners and it is well settled law that a bald allegation without any substance either in the form of House Tax receipt etc. can not be said to be a triable issue and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
F. The next ground taken is that the petitioners are having intention to get higher rent by re-letting the premises in dispute. The said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of defence as every tenant is protected U/s 19 of the D.R.C. Act.
G. The next ground taken is that the accommodation already available with the petitioners is more than their requirement and petitioner no. 1 has unauthorisedly constructed two large rooms on the ground floor and besides of using them for residential purpose, he started using one of them for commercial purpose and he is in possession of atleast six rooms. No counter site plan has been filed by any of the respondents though LRS of respondent no. 3 Smt. Neha Duggal has alleged that she is filing E no. 195/2009 Page 19/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
the counter site plan. Perusal of the site plan filed on record makes it clear that there are two rooms on the ground floor measuring about 11ft.X17ft., one another room without any measurement, a Kolki about 11'X5" and one room on the first floor which is admitted to have been occupied after vacation of previous tenant Sh. Dalip Singh and a ground has been taken that the petitioners have converted the room Mark-X in the site plan into two rooms and out of which one room is being used for commercial purpose and, thus, as per allegation of the respondents, petitioners are in possession of six rooms on the ground floor as well as first floor and even if for the sake of argument it may be believed that the petitioners have constructed two anauthorised rooms on the ground floor, the same can not be said to be alternative suitable accommodation being constructed unauthorisedly and otherwise also, since no counter site plan has been filed, therefore, their contention can not be said to be correct and moreover from the site plan filed on record, at the best they can be said to be in occupation of four rooms and out of those rooms, one room is being used for commercial purpose for which the petitioners have already obtained the license from the M.C.D. and, thus, he can be said to be in possession of three rooms. There is no denial of extent of family members of the petitioners which comprises of both the petitioners and two grown up children, therefore, atleast E no. 195/2009 Page 20/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
three bed rooms are required for them and the requirement of the petitioners for a guest room can not be said to be malafide and their requirement of pooja room as well as drawing room is also can not be said to be malafide and, thus, petitioners atleast require six rooms for themselves and for other family members dependent upon them for the purpose of residence and atleast one room for the commercial activities, thus, from the record it is established that requirement of petitioners is bonafide.
H. The next ground taken is that the present petition is filed for partial eviction as respondents are tenants in respect of terrace floor as well. But there is no construction on the roof above the suit property in the site plan nor it has been shown as to how they are using the same and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
I. The next ground taken is that the suit property is situated in Slum area, therefore, petition is bad. The said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance as in a petition on the ground of bonafide requirement there is no need to obtain the permission from the Competent Authority (Slum).
E no. 195/2009 Page 21/24Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
J. The next ground taken is that petition is bad for non joinder of other legal heirs of Smt. Satyawati as no objection has been filed. The said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of defence as in the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement the petition can be maintained even by one of the co- owner and otherwise also, a Will has been filed on record and being the tenants respondents can not challenge the title of the petitioners and there is no need to obtain probate or letter of administration in Delhi.
K. The next ground taken is that petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party as other legal heirs of original tenant have not been impleaded. It is well settled law that petition is maintainable even against some of the joint tenants who inherited the property by virtue of being legal heirs and moreover nothing has been placed on record to show that other legal heirs are in possession of suit property or they are paying the rent, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for sake of defence without having any substance.
L. The next ground taken is that the petitioners have demanded the increase of rent in manifold. In view of judgment of E no. 195/2009 Page 22/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 6319 of 2007, titled as Mohammad Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors., the said ground can not be said to be the triable issue.
M. The next ground taken is that the family members of the petitioners are not dependent upon the petitioners. Nothing has been placed on record that family members of the petitioners are having any other accommodation in their names or they are so placed that there is no need for assistance of their parents or having any source of income independently and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
30. In the light of above discussion, this court is of the opinion that respondents have failed to raise any triable issue and its defence appears to be moonshine. On the other hand, petitioners have shown their bonafide requirement of the suit premises and, therefore, leave to defend application being without any merits is hereby dismissed.
31. In consequence thereof an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in respect of one room, kitchen, W.C. and verandah E no. 195/2009 Page 23/24 Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
on the first floor of property bearing no. 1227, Mahal Sarai, Chhota Bazar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the Site Plan Ex. P-1 (as put by the court itself today) attached with the petition. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act. The order be sent to the server (www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 27th August, 2011.
Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
(1+2 separate copies are attached).
E no. 195/2009 Page 24/24Manmohan Lal & Anr. Vs. Harsh Kr. & ors.
E no. 195/2009MANMOHAN LAL & ANR. VS. HARSH KR. & ORS.
Date: 27/08/2011 Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, leave to defend application filed on behalf of respondent is dismissed.
In consequence thereof an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one room, kitchen, W.C. and verandah on the first floor of property bearing no. 1227, Mahal Sarai, Chhota Bazar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the Site Plan Ex. P-1 (as put by the court itself today) attached with the petition. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act. The order be sent to the server (www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
E no. 195/2009 Page 25/24