Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Further, it is averred by the petitioners that the respondent without obtaining the consent from his father Sh. Haji Hafiz Mohd. Sani, also the MCD, illegally carried out extensive structural changes in the premises in suit. The altered superstructure as existed in early 2004 of the presmies is shown as Annexure 'B' in the site plan. As soon as the said construction came to the knowledge of the father of the petitioner, his father instituted a petition before the Competent Authority (Slums) under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 and the said authority vide judgment dated 04.07.2008 was pleased to grant the requisite permission to sue with respect to two portions of the tenanted premises. Even after the said permission, the respondent onc again carried out structural changes in the suit premises which are shown in Annexure 'C', i.e., site plan filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed three site plans, i.e., one of the initial property existing at the time of letting out and the others are the site plans relating to structural changes carried out by the respondent firstly in the year 2004 and thereafter in 2008. Even, a legal notice dated 24.06.2000 was sent by the petitioners terminating tenancy of the respondent with respect to two demised premises and also requesting the respondent to restore both the tenanted premises to their original condition. This notice was duly served upon the respondent but no reply thereto was received from the respondent.

5. Further, it is averred that the respondent has also permitted to be caused substantial damages to the premises in suit as has already been explained and it is also averred by the petitioner that earlier there was a mumty covering the staircase so as to prevent the staircase from the vagaries of weather, but the said mumty was demolished by the respondent with a view to carry out further structural changes on the open terrace. After removal of the said mumty, the respondent in order to protect his possession of that portion had inducted an illegal sub­ tenant, namely, a Chaiwala on the said open terrace, who had been paying to the respondent 'usufruct' for use and occupation of the said space @ Rs. 20/­ per day. The said sub­tenancy has been created by the respondent without obtaining the consent either orally or in writing of the petitioner. The respondent has also permitted to be placed on the terrace wooden almirahs and boxes, which are let out by the respondent on daily/weekly basis to petty traders coming to the city to make purchases of goods and merchandise. The Chaiwala referred above acts as a watchman for these wooden almirahs and pettis and thus, the petitioner is seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises on the ground of sub­tenancy as well.

6. Summons were duly served upon the respondent, who filed written statement denying all the averments made by the petitioners in their petition. It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioners are neither the landlords nor the owners of the shops in question. That the shops in question were let out to the respondent by late Sh. Haji Hafiz Mohd. Sami about 42 years back and that the respondent has never tendered the rent in respect of shops in question to the petitioners at any point of time. It is further submitted by the respondent that no structural changes have been made in the superstructure of the shops in question and that they are in same condition as they were at the time of letting out to the respondent by the landlord Sh. Haji Hafiz Mohd. Sami. It is further submitted that the respondent was regularly paying the rent of the shops in question to Sh. Haji Hafiz Mohd. Sami, who always refused to accept the same for the reasons best known to him. It is further submitted by the respondent that two separate tenancies were created for two different shops at the different point of time but the petitioners have deliberately combined the eviction petition for both these portions in one petition in order to harass the respondent. Respondent has denied that he has sub­letted the portion to Chaiwala stating that petitioners have made fictitious story in order to harass the respondent. It is further submitted by the respondent that Sh. Haji Hafiz Mohd. Sami had apparently sold the property to some other persons before his death, who are also claiming to be the owners of the said property. As per the respondent, the alleged mumty over the staircase was never let out to the respondent at any point of time and was never required by the respondent and therefore, there is no question of demolishing of the said mumty or any structural changes in the said premises. That only minor repairs and whitewash was carried out by the respondent in the tenanted premises in order to maintain the same. It is admitted by the respondent that the rent for the shop marked 'A' is Rs. 100/­ per month and the rent for the shop marked 'B' is Rs. 200/­ per month, excluding other charges. Further, it is submitted by the respondent that since the landlord Sh. Haji Hafiz Mohd. Sami always refused to accept the rent, therefore, respondent had deposited the rent qua the tenanted shops in March, 2008 in the ARC Court. The respondent has denied to have permitted to be placed any wooden almirahs or boxes on terrace. It is further submitted by the respondent that he through his counsel Sh. Amit Jain had sent a letter dated 07.10.2005 to the landlord alongwith a cheque bearing no. 515251 dated 07.10.2005 for a sum of Rs. 6,042/­ drawn on State Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Delhi towards the entire arrears of rent due alongwith interest but the landlord refused to accept the same. That the petitioners have falsely alleged that original cheques alongwith communication dated 25.11.2005 were never received by him.

(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.

16. It is averred by the petitioner that the respondent has carried out structural changes and alterations in the tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord. In order to substantiate the said contention, the petitioner has placed on record three site plans annexed as Annexure 'A', 'B' & 'C' with respect to the status of the tenanted premises which existed at the time of letting out of the tenanted premises by the father of the petitioner to the respondent and then, subsequently in the year 2004 & 2008 when allegedly structural changes were carried out by the respondent in the tenanted premises. Per contra, it is submitted by the respondent that no such structural changes were carried out by him and only minor repairs and white wash was done with the consent of the petitioner. It is also averred by the petitioner that a mumty was got demolished by the respondent so that open terrace could be used for other purposes by the respondent. During cross­examination, the respondent has himself admitted that the lay out of the tenanted premises as on date is as per Annexure 'C'. It is also admitted that in the year 2006, Annexure 'A' & 'B' were changed as per Annexure 'C'. Thus, there is a clear cut admission on the part of the respondent that he had carried out certain structural changes in the tenanted premises as it has been proved by way of three site plans filed by the petitioner relating to different period of time. On the other hand, no document or record has been filed by the respondent to substantiate that consent of the landlord was obtained by him before carrying out any structural changes in the tenanted premises and thus, it stands duly proved that structural changes were carried out by the respondent in the tenanted premises without consent of the landlord and thus, respondent is also liable to be evicted u/s 14 (1) (j) of the DRC Act.