Satya Gupta And Anr. vs Munshi Ram Aggarwal And Ors.
1994 Latest Caselaw 476 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) This petition has been filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) against the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) challenging the eviction order dated 2nd April, 1993 passed by Shri K.S. Khurana, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the landlord filed an eviction petition bearing No. E-265/84 against the tenants under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of bonafide requirement with regard to the premises consisting of one room, a kitchen, one store, a latrine, bath room on the first floor and a barsati and terrace on the second floor of the premises bearing Municipal No.1810, Sohan Ganj, Roshanara Road, Chandrawal, Subzi Mandi Old, Delhi. The learned Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 2nd April, 1993 held that the landlord had been successful in bringing out his case within four corners of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and accordingly he passed the eviction order in favor of the landlord and against the tenants in respect of the premises shown 'red' in the site plan Ex.AW-4/5. Aggrieved by this order, the present petition has been filed by the tenants.-

(3) The petition came up for hearing on 14.7.93 and a notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why petition be not admitted. Notice on the application for stay was also issued on that date. On 4th February, 1994, the dispossession of the tenants from the impugned premises was stayed. The arguments on the main petition were partly heard on 5th July, 1994 and further arguments were heard on 20th July, 1994.

(4) Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants did not address any argument against the findings of the learned Additional Rent Controller that the need of the landlord was bonafide. He, however, submitted that in the present case there were joint owners of one undivided premises let out to the tenants and since one of the joint owners namely Smt. Sudarshan Soni had not sought eviction of the tenants from the premises owned by her, the eviction petition filed by the other Jon owner was not maintainable. He submitted that in the same building, the landlord who is respondent No. 1 in this petition, had filed the eviction.petition in respect of the portion which was owned by him but the owner of the other portion, Smt. Soni had not filed any eviction petition with regard to the premises owned by her which were also let out to the tenants.' Learned counsel further submitted that since the physical partition of the premises owned by the aforesaid two owners was not possible and there was only one access to the premises belonging to both the owners, the impugned order directing eviction from one portion of the premises in question was illegal and liable to be set-aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Sharma VS. Smt.Prem Lata & Another, 1986 (2) Rci 375

(5) Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord drew my attention to the sale deed Ex.AW.4/l dated 12.12.56 and submitted that the landlord had purchased the suit property from the previous owner in terms of the said sale deed. The site plan Ex.AW.4/2 was attached Along with the said sale deed. He also drew my attention to the site plan Ex.AW.4/5 and this site plan is with regard to the same premises as were purchased by the landlord from the previous owner. He further submitted that Ex.AW.4/5 further showed that the portion marked 'red' out of the premises purchased by the landlord was let out to the tenants on 16th September, 1957 and it was thus clear that the landlord was the exclusive owner of his own portion and it was not a case of joint owners of one premises. He also submitted that in the present case the landlord had claimed recovery of tenancy premises which had been actually purchased by him from the previous owner and it had been let out to the tenants as shown in the site plan Ex.AW.4/5 in red colour. He, therefore, contended that there was no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the tenants as in the present-case, the landlord was the exclusive owner of his property and he was not the joint owner with any other person.

(6) Learned counsel also submitted that assuming the tenants were correct in claiming larger portion of the premises to be in their tenancy than the portion claimed by the landlord, the order of the trial court could be modified and the decree of recovery of possession of the larger premises claimed by the tenants could be passed against the tenants. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of S.B. Khanna Vs. Trilok Nath, 1980 Rlr 187.

(7) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. From the sale deed Ex.AW.4/1 and site plans Exs.AW.4/2 and Aw 4/5, it is clear that the landlord had filed the eviction petition against the tenants for recovery of the tenancy premises which had been actually purchased by him from the previous owner and a portion of which had been let out to the tenants, as shown in the site plan Ex.AW.4/5 in 'red' colour. From the records, I do not find any evidence which could show that the tenanted premises which are in occupation of the tenants were owned by one owner/landlord at the initial stage. When the suit premises were let out to the tenants, they were aware of the fact that the landlord was the owner of one portion of the property and the other portion was owned by Smt. Sudarshan Soni. The tenants cannot be permitted now to urge the contention that the premises belonging to two different owners/landlords have only one access and physical partition between the two portions was not possible. Since the landlord was claiming the recovery of tenancy premises which was actually purchased by him from the previous owner and thereafter a portion of which was let out to the tenants, I do not find any merit in this petition

(8) The ratio of the judgment in the case of Shyam Sunder Sharma (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In the case of Shyam Sunder (supra), the petitioner (tenant) initially was the tenant of Ram Chander and Ram Partap, who were the joint owners of the property and later on there was a partition between the said joint owners and the tenant started paying RS. 10.00 per month to each one of them after the partition. Sine the tenant was enjoying the entire premises as one unit prior to the partition and the premises had only one access and the physical partition was not possible, it was held that the order of eviction from part of the premises was illegal. But in the present case admittedly there were no joint owners of the suit property nor there was any partition of the entire premises allegedly being enjoyed by the tenants as one unit. In the present case when the suit premises were let out to the tenants, they were aware of the fact that one portion of the property belonged to the landlord and the other portion belonged to Mrs. Sudarshan Soni.

(9) In view of the reasons given herein above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 4th February, 1994 stands vacated. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. The lower court records be also sent back forthwith.

(10) With this order petition and CMs 1938/93 and 926/94 stand disposed of.