Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: structural changes in 555 vs Smt. Bimla Devi on 3 July, 2014Matching Fragments
1. This is an eviction petition filed by the petitioners u/s 14 (1) (a) &
(j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [in short "the Act"]. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition, are that the petitioner is the wife of late Sh. Pankaj Bahri, who expired on 17.07.2008 leaving behind his wife and a minor daughter. That the respondent is a tenant with respect to shop bearing no. 1099/25, Shiv Motor Market, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. It is averred by the petitioner that the respondent is a regular defaulter in making payment of rent and has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent w.e.f. January, 2007 till date @ Rs. 200/ per month. It is submitted that a legal notice Ex. PW1/2 dated 28.07.2008 was served upon the respondent for demand of arrears of rent and again a legal notice dated 20.11.2008 was served upon the respondent but despite service of both the legal notices, the respondent neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent. It is also averred by the petitioner that respondent has done structural changes in the tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord, which is objectionable to the landlord as well as concerned authorities.
2. Summons was served upon the respondent, who appeared and filed his written statement wherein he disputed the ownership of the petitioner with regard to tenanted premises as well as landlordtenanted relationship. It is averred by the respondent that initially Sh. V. R. Bahri was owner of the property who received rent till January, 1995 (copy of rent receipts issued by Sh. V. R. Bahri are Ex. RW1/6 to Ex. RW1/16). After his expiry, Smt. Satvati Bahri (his wife) received rent till April, 1997 (copy of rent receipts issued by Smt. Satvati Bahri are Ex. RW1/17 to Ex. RW1/35 and after her death, her sons Sh. S. K. Bahri and Sh. D. K. Bahri become owner of the property and received rent of the tenanted premises w.e.f. May, 1997 to March, 2003 (copy of rent receipts issued by Sh. S.K. Bahri and Sh. D.K. Bahri are Ex. RW1/36 to Ex. RW1/65). Thereafter, family settlement was entered into by which Sh. S.K. Bahri become sole owner of the property in question and received the rent till December, 2006 by way of rent receipt, counter foils of which are Ex. RW1/66 to Ex. RW1/81. After his death, his wife Smt. Dalbir Kaur Bahri started receiving the rent and received the rent upto September, 2009 against rent receipts Ex. RW1/82 to Ex. RW1/87. It is the case of the respondent that Pankaj Bahri, being son of Sh. S.K. Bahri used to collect rent on behalf of Sh. S.K. Bahri and therefore, counterfoils of some rent receipts bears signatures of Sh. Pankaj Bahri wherein name of the owner in those rent receipts is shown to be of Sh. S.K. Bahri only. It is also averred by the respondent that initially the rate of rent was Rs. 200/ per month but w.e.f. January, 2007, the said rent was enhanced to Rs. 220/ per month. Further, respondent has denied to have made any structural changes in the demised premises. Further, it is stated that reply to legal notice dated 28.07.2008 (Ex. RW1/2) was sent to counsel for the petitioner wherein it is submitted by the respondent that Sh. Pankaj Bahri was never the owner/landlord of the respondent and that previously rent was paid to Sh. S.K. Bahri and after his death, the same was paid to his wife Smt. Dalbir Kaur Bahri.
GROUNDS OF EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(j) OF THE ACT:
13. For succeeding in a petition for eviction filed under Section 14 (1)
(j) of the Act, the petitioner is required to prove:
(a) that the tenants have, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises.
14. In the present case, the petitioner has made a bald allegation that the respondent has made structural changes in the tenanted premises without describing nature and kind of the structural changes made or whether these changes are of permanent or temporary nature. Further, it is admitted by the petitioner that the site plan of the tenanted premises was prepared at the time when the tenanted premises was closed. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to place on record any document to prove that any structural changes were made by the respondent in the tenanted premises. In these circumstances, petition u/s 14 (1) (j) of the DRC Act is also dismissed as rejected.
15. In the light of findings given above, it has been held that petitioner has failed to fulfill the requirements of provisions of Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act. Hence, petition is dismissed u/s 14 (1) (a) of the Act. Further, in absence of any cogent evidence by the petitioner to prove that any structural changes has been made by the respondent without the consent or the permission of the landlord after the premises was let out to her, the petition also stands dismissed u/s 14 (1) (j) of the Act. Parties are left to bear their own costs.