* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.02.2014
+ RC REV. No.67 of 2014 & CM No.2204 of 2014
RAGHAV @ PAPPU & ORS. ...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Arun Sharma, Adv.
versus
SATISH KUMAR SAINI ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This petition impugns an order dated 15.7.2013, whereby the petitioner/tenant's application for leave to defend has been rejected and an eviction order apropos tenanted premises comprising: one room of 8ft. X 10ft., one kitchen of 7ft. X 5ft., one verandah/balcony with a tin shed of 8ft. X 4.6ft. and one lobby of 5.6ft. X 4.6ft. in the eastern portion of the first floor of property bearing No.3164, Ward XI, Kucha Tara Chand, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. The landlord/eviction petitioner had sought the premises on the ground of bona fide need.
2. The eviction-petitioner's case was that the tenancy of Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, father of the present petitioners, existed prior to the purchase of the property by his mother Smt. Savitri Devi, vide registered sale documents. During his lifetime Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma accepted as a tenant of Smt. Savitri Devi @ Rs.36/- per _______________________________________________________________________ RC Rev. No.67 of 2014 Page 1 of 6 month, excluding other charges. Rent receipts were issued by Smt. Savitri Devi. Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma expired on 2.4.2001 and since then his LRs - the present tenants, have been in possession of the premises. The eviction-petitioner claimed ownership of the tenanted premises through a Will executed by his mother, Smt. Savitri Devi, on 14.2.1999. The Will apportioned certain portions of the suit property to the petitioner and some to his brother, Shri Brahmajit Saini. After the demise of Smt. Savitri Devi, Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma started paying rent to the petitioner and the last rent paid was Rs.144/- for four (4) months, from October, 2000 to January, 2001, @ Rs.36/- per month. After the demise of the said tenant - Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, his LRs defaulted in payment of rent despite the repeated demands by the eviction-petitioner in this regard. The petitioner contended that he survived on whatever meagre earning his wife earned by sewing ladies clothes at home; that he was about 65 years old; that they had a daughter aged about 18 years, who was studying in Gargi College, Delhi, therefore, a separate accommodation was required for her, particularly, for the advancement of her studies; that the accommodation available with him comprising two rooms on the first floor and a store room on the second floor was insufficient and inconvenient particularly regarding the layout of the house where one room was being used as bedroom and the other connected room was being used as a drawing-cum- guest room and the room on the second floor which was smaller in size was used as a store, therefore, it was inconvenient for residence or "study" purposes. The eviction-petitioner contended that he lacked _______________________________________________________________________ RC Rev. No.67 of 2014 Page 2 of 6 the resources to either buy or construct any other additional accommodation. Therefore, he claimed, he had a bona fide need for the tenanted premises and the eviction of the tenant therefrom was urgently warranted.
3. The petitioner/tenant sought to contest the eviction petition by filing an application for grant of leave to defend on the grounds that the eviction-petitioner was not the landlord as the Will on which he based his ownership was forged and fabricated; even otherwise, if the Will were to be acknowledged, the tenanted premises fell into the share of Shri Brahmajit Saini, the eviction-petitioner's elder brother. Hence, the eviction petition was not maintainable. The tenant had further contended that the site plan was wrong and the eviction- petitioner had adequate accommodation in his possession. That he had let out a room admeasuring 10ft. X 10Ft. to students and nurses and had also dismantled two rooms to deliberately, not constructed anything fresh so as to create an artificial scarcity. It was argued that the conduct of the eviction-petitioner clearly revealed that there was no bona fide need. It was further argued by the tenant that the eviction-petitioner had concealed his ownership of various residential and commercial properties, including one which he had purchased in the immediate past in Dwarka.
4. The eviction-petitioner denied the averments made in the application for leave to defend. He asserted that he did not own or possess any other property in Delhi and had a right over the tenanted premises by virtue of his mother's Will.
5. The Trial Court then considered the submissions of the parties and on _______________________________________________________________________ RC Rev. No.67 of 2014 Page 3 of 6 the basis of the record available and insofar as Smt. Savitri Devi was accepted as the landlady by the present tenants' father, Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, and continued to pay rent to the eviction-petitioners, therefore, the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents could not be challenged. He continued to tender the rent to the eviction-petitioner. Therefore, the landlord-tenant relationship was established and the successors of the late tenant, Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, could not challenge the said relationship or even question the Will. Upon a reading of the copy of the Will which was adduced by the eviction, the Trial Court found that the tenanted premises fell into the share of the eviction-petitioner. In this regard reliance has been placed on Anil Kumar Verma v. Shiv Rani & Ors. 190 (2012) DLT 130 to the effect that an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which is not a title suit, the Rent Controller has only to see whether the eviction- petitioner established a prima facie title in his favour as its owner. Accordingly the Court held that the tenants had no locus standi to challenge the Will executed by the eviction-petitioners' mother. It found the tenants challenge to the Will untenable.
6. Apropos the contention that alternate accommodation was available with the eviction-petitioner, the Trial Court found the averments to be mere bald statements and vague. It was not supported by any material which could raise a doubt in the mind of the Rent Controller that there was indeed a triable issue; thus, causing an impediment in the passing of the eviction order. The Trial Court accordingly concluded that no triable issue had been raised by the tenant.
_______________________________________________________________________ RC Rev. No.67 of 2014 Page 4 of 6
7. The Trial Court then proceeded to examine the issue of bona fide requirement and concluded that mere two rooms on the first floor and another room on the second floor were not sufficient for the three members of the family and that the petitioner required a room for himself and his wife, a room for his daughter, another room for drawing-cum-dining purposes. The challenge to the petitioner's site plan too was found baseless since the tenant filed no other site plan. Hence, the eviction-petitioner's site plan was accepted to be true and the Trial Court held there was no concealment of any alternate accommodation in the premises by the evistione-petitioner. The Trial Court found the bona fide need in favour of the eviction petitioner/landlord and accordingly the eviction order was passed.
8. From the above discussion, this Court is of the view that for a family of three persons, at least, one room would be required by the elderly couple, one room for the college going daughter, another room for drawing-cum-dining purposes, etc. The tenants' contention that the landlord had additional room measuring 10ft. X 10ft., which was otherwise let out to another tenant, is untenable as it amounts to a tenant dictating to the landlord as to how he should use his property so as to not disturb the tenant's occupation of the leased premises. Such prerogative is neither available to the petitioner nor to the Court. It is settled law that the landlord is the best judge of how to use his property. All that the Court has to see is that the landlord has no other suitable accommodation and that his need for the tenanted premises is bona fide. These two aspects having been duly found in favour of the eviction-petitioner. Hence logically the eviction order _______________________________________________________________________ RC Rev. No.67 of 2014 Page 5 of 6 was bound to follow. In the present case that is exactly what has been done. Each of the contentions of the tenant was duly addressed by the Trial Court, which concluded that none of the issues raised were found to be triable and accordingly an eviction order was passed.
9. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
FEBRUARY 04, 2014 NAJMI WAZIRI, J. b'nesh
_______________________________________________________________________ RC Rev. No.67 of 2014 Page 6 of 6