Amar Nath And Anr. vs Kiranwati
1994 Latest Caselaw 482 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) This petition filed on behalf of the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 3rd February, 1994 passed by Shri O.P. Gupta, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi in the eviction petition bearing No.E-211/82.

(2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Kiran Wati (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) who is the owner of house No.146, Gali Batasha Chawri Bazar, Delhi filed an eviction petition bearing No.E-211/82 against the tenants in respect of one room measuring 8'X12.9", two kothas measuring 8'X8.3" and 8'X7.5", kitchen, bath and W.C. on the ground floor of the said house which were let out to the tenants in the year 1961. As per averments made in the eviction petition, the premises in dispute are residential in nature and were let out for the same purpose and the same were being used by the tenants for residential purpose. It is further stated in the petition that the family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband, two sons, their wives and two children. it was also stated that younger son of the petitioner was married in December, 1980. It was further stated that the petitioner was in possession of the entire first floor in the suit property which consisted of two bed rooms and one drawing room. It was then pleaded that one of the daughters of the landlady was married at Delhi and she had been also visiting her several times. It was further stated that it was not possible for the landlady to accommodate the entire family in the accommodation already in her occupation and the premises which were in occupation of the tenants were needed by the landlady for her bonafide requirement.

(3) "THE tenants in their written statement submitted that the suit premises were let out to them by the landlady in July, 1961 for both residential and non-residential purpose vide rent agreement dated 30th June, 1961, though a copy of the said rent agreement was not supplied to them. It was further stated in the written statement that in the year 1968-69 the husband of the landlady raised an illegal objection with regard to the user of the suit premises for non-residential purposes and thereafter with the intervention of one common relation Shri Hazari Lal, the matter was settled and a fresh rent Agreement between the landlady and the tenants was executed on 25th November, 1969 and pursuant to this agreement in the Rent Receipt No.30 dated 25.1.69 issued by the landlady a rubber stamp showing the purpose of letting as 'residential and non-residential' was affixed. It was further stated that the tenants had confidence in the landlady and her husband and so they never insisted for the aforesaid rubber stamp indicating the purpose of letting on the rent receipts issued to them subsequently. Regarding bonafide requirement of the landlady, it was stated in the written statement that there was no such requirement as the landlady had let out a big room measuring 15'X9' on the ground floor of the property for commercial purpose to one Sharma & Co. in the year 1977-78, after accepting a huge Pagri.

(4) In the replication the landlady controverter the allegations made in the written statement. It was specifically denied in the replication that the suit premises were let out to the tenants for residential-cum-commercial purpose. It was stated that in fact when the suit premises were let out to the tenants in the year 1961, both the tenants were in employment in private firms and were not doing any business. It was further stated in the replication that the alleged agreement dated 30.6.1961 was not executed and the landlady had also not executed any rent agreement dated 25.11.69 nor any rubber stamp showing the purpose of letting as 'residential and non-residential' was affixed on receipt No.30 dated 25.11.69. It was also stated that the counter-foil of the said rent receipt which was duly signed by one of the tenants, namely, Amar Nath for himself and on behalf of the other tenant, did not contain any rubber stamp showing the purpose of letting as 'residential and non- residential. It was further stated that the alleged rent agreement dated 25.11.69 was a forged and fabricated document. It was denied that any residential accomodation was let out to Sharma & Company. It was however, stated that said one room on the ground floor was never used by the landlady for residential purposes and she had been using the same for godown and since the said godown was not required by the landlady in the year 1977, the same was let out to Shri K.N. Sharma, proprietor of M/s.Sharma & Company on 25.2.77 and that tenant was in occupation of the said godown.

(5) During the pendency of the eviction petition, a copy of the alleged rent agreement dated 25.11.69 (Ex.RW.2/5) and rent receipt (Ex.AW 1/RI) Along with the admitted signatures of the landlady and of her husband were sent by the Trial Court to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, R.K. Puram, New Delhi on 5.1.88. Thereafter a report about these two documents was received from the said laboratory Along with the letter dated 20th September, 1989 and as per this report the signatures of the landlady on the copy of the said rent agreement did not tally with her admitted signatures. The signatures of the husband of the landlady on the rent receipt, however, could not be tallied due to want of sufficient admitted signatures.

(6) By the impugned order dated 3rd February, 1994, the learned Additional Rent Controller accepted the report of the Cfsl, New Delhi and he also held that the tenants themselves had stated in the written statement that in 1968 the landlady and her husband objected to the user of premises and as such the same landlady . could not have executed the alleged agreement dated 25.11.69 reciting the purpose of letting as residential-cum-commercial. He also rejected the contention of the tenants that the rent receipt No.30 dated 25,11.69 contained the stamp showing the letting purpose as 'residential and non- residential' on the ground that the counter-foil of the same receipt did not contain any such stamp. He further held that the requirement of the landlady was bonafide and passed the eviction order dated 3.2.1994 in respect of the suit premises. Aggrieved by the said order of eviction, the tenants have filed the present petition.

(7) Mr. Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants submitted that the learned trial court had based its decision on evidence which could not have been admitted. In this connection he submitted that the trial court had sent 72 admitted signatures of the landlady Along with her questioned signatures to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, but the hand-writing expert of the said laboratory had selected 58 signatures out of those 72 signatures for comparison with the questioned signatures. He submitted that any one of the remaining 14 signatures might have tallied with the questioned signatures. He further submitted that hand- writing expert had not given any opinion regarding questioned signatures of the husband of the landlady on the rent receipt No.30 as he needed a few more admitted genuine signatures of the husband of the landlady. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, an application on behalf of the tenants was moved on 4.2.91 wherein it was prayed that the tenants be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of the said hand-writing experts, but said application was rejected by the learned trial court while passing the impugned eviction order. He also drew my attention to para 13 of the impugned order and submitted that the learned Additional Rent Controller himself had observed in his order " To the naked eyes all the signatures appear to be the same skill but opinion of the expert must be preferred to that of layman". Learned counsel further submitted that the hand-writing expert had given no opinion regarding rubber stamp affixed on the rent receipt. He, therefore, contended that the rejection of the application dated 4.2.91 was illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(8) Learned counsel for the tenants also drew my attention to an extract from the Register of the Deed Writer, copy of which is Ex.RW.1/1 and submitted that this document showed that a rent deed was executed on 30th June, 1961 by the landlady n favor of the tenants. Regarding bonafide requirement of the landlady, the learned counsel submitted that the landlady in her application had admitted that she had let out one room on the ground floor to a firm Sharma & Co. in the year 1977 for use as a godown and from this fact it was evident that the landlady was not in need of the suit premises. He, therefore, contended that the eviction order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller was liable to be set-aside.

(9) Mr. Sahai, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the landlady submitted that. the family of the landlady consisted of herself, her husband, two sons, their wives. He further submitted that at the time of filing of the petition the sons of the landlady were having two children but during the pendency of the petition they had two more children and the age of the said four children at present was 17 years, 14 years, 13 years and 6 years. He further submitted that at present the landlady was having only four rooms at the first floor. He further submitted that one room at the ground floor all along was being used as a godown and was let out by the landlady in the year 1977 and thereafter one of her sons was married in 1980 and the present petition was filed in the year 1982. Relying on these facts, he contended that the requirement of the landlady of the suit premises was bonafide.

(10) Learned counsel drew my attention to the site plan of the suit premises which is Ex.AW.1/1 and submitted that the tenanted premises consisted of one room of 8'X12'.9" and two kothas measuring 8'X8.3" and 8'X7".5" and kitchen, W.C., bath etc. and this accommodation was hardly sufficient for both the tenants and their families to reside. He further submitted that as per evidence on record both the tenants were in employment of private firms when the suit premises were let out to them in the year 1961. He, therefore, contended that there was no question of the suit premises having being let out to the tenants for non-residential purpose.

(11) Learned counsel for the landlady further submitted that the questioned signatures on the alleged agreement dated 25.11.69 Along with the admitted signatures were sent by the trial court to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, R.K. Puram, New Delhi which is a Government Laboratory and as per report of the hand-writing expert, the alleged signatures of the landlady on this agreement did not tally with her admitted signatures. He further submitted that the alleged rubber stamp showing the letting purpose as 'residential and non-residential' on the rent receipt No.30. dated 25.11.69 was also forged as the counter-foil of the same receipt which was on record did not contain the said stamp, though the counterfoil was duly signed by one of the tenants. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the finding of the learned trial court that the suit property was let out for the residential purpose was perfectly legal and valid.

(12) Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court was based on legal evidence on record and there was no miscarriage of justice and as such this petition was devoid of any merit and should be dismissed. In support of this contintion, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shankar Vs. Rao Godavari Lal Chaudhany. Air 1963 Sc 698.

(13) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. From the facts stated hereinabove, admittedly, the family of the landlady consists of herself, her husband, two married sons, their wives and four children including two children born during the pendency of the petition. Besides, the landlady has a married daughter residing in Delhi who visits the landlady occasionaly. From the records it is also clear that accommodation available with the landlady at present is three rooms, one store, kitchen, bath, W.C. Keeping in view these facts, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned Additional Rent Controller that the requirement of the landlady is quite bonafide. I do not find any merit also in the contention of learned counsel of the tenants that since the landlady had let out one room on ground floor to M/s. Sharma & Co. in 1977, she did not require any accommodation. The evidence on record shows that the room throughout was being used as a godown and in 1977 when the husband of the landlady was in financial difficulty, the same was let out and till date it is with the same tenant.

(14) As regards the contention of learned counsel of the tenants that the said premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose, I do not find any merit in this contention also. Admittedly in 1961 when the suit premises were let out to the tenants, both the tenants were in employment of private firms and were not having any business. Besides, the tenanted premises let out to the tenants consist of one room measuring 8'X12'.9", two kothas measuring 8'X8.3" and 8'X7.5", kitchen, bath, W.C. and this accommodation was hardly sufficient for the residence of both the tenants and members of their families and there was no scope to use any portion of the suit premises for commercial purpose. Though the ten- ants had alleged that the landlady had executed a rent deed on 30th June, 1961 and in this connection the learned counsel for the tenants relied on the extract from the Register of the deed writer (Ex.RW.1/1), but the tenants did not bring on record a copy of the rent deed though according to remarks on RW.l/1, a copy of the rent deed was given to one of the tenants, namely, Amar Nath.

(15) As regards the alleged rent agreement dated 25th November, 1969, the same does not appear to be a genuine document. The tenants in the written statement have themselves stated that in the year 1968-69 the husband of the landlady had raised the objection with regard to the user of the rent premises for non-residential purpose. It does not appear logical that the husband of the landlady having objected to user of the suit premises for non-residential purposes in 1968-69, the landlady would have executed a rent agreement on 25.11.69 permitting the tenants to use the suit premises for non-residential purpose and that too without any increase in the rent.

(16) Further the handwriting expert from the Government laboratory, C.F.S.L., R.K. Puram, New Delhi has given the opinion that the signatures of the agreement on the alleged rent agreement dated 25.11.69 do not tallied with her admitted signatures. The said expert has been put thorough cross-examination by the learned counsel for the tenants and he has satisfactorily explained every point about his opinion. He has also explained why he had excluded 14 signatures out of 72 admitted signatures of the landlady. I do not find any infirmity in the opinion given by the said hand- writing expert.

(17) Regarding rubber stamp showing letting purpose as residential and nonresidential, allegedly affixed on the rent receipt No.30 dated 25.11.69, it cannot be relied upon as admittedly the similar stamp is not affixed on the counter- foil of the said rent receipt No.30 which bears the signatures of one of the tenants.

(18) In view of the reasons given herein- above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

(19) Lower court records be sent back forthwith.