K.C. Agrawal vs Hardip Singh
2004 Latest Caselaw 1427 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. C.R. 981 of 2001 is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.05.2001 of the Additional Rent Controller (for short 'Controller') in E-147/96 allowing the petition of the landlord-respondent herein filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'Act') while giving the tenant-petitioner herein six months' time to vacate the premises in question.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Controller, are as under :

"Shri Hardip Singh (hereinafter refered as petitioner) has filed the present eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, in short the Act, against Sh. K.C. Aggarwal (hereinafter referred as respondent), alleging that property No. C-19, Green Park, New Delhi, was purchased by Dr. Premjit Singh, Sh. Surinder Pal Singh and the petitioner, all sons of Dr. Onkar Singh from Sh. Roshan Lal vide Sale Deed dated 15.4.1965, a duly registered document. Dr. Premjit Singh, the co-owner, under the Power of Attorney dated 30.1.1968 constituted and appointed his mother, Mrs. Kartar Kaur, as his lawful attorney and she was authorised to collect the rent and let out the premises etc. Smt. Kartar Kaur was also power of attorney holder of petitioner as well as of Surinder Pal Singh with respect to the property in dispute. Shri Premjit Singh through his General Attorney, Mrs. Kartar Kaur leased out the premises No. C-19, Green Park, New Delhi, to the respondent vide lease agreement dated 1st October, 1984. The premises comprised of three bed rooms, drawing-cum-dining room, two bathrooms and the open terrace, existing on the ground floor, shown in red in the site plan. Rent was Rs. 2,000/- excluding electricity and water charges. The said letting was done by Dr. Premjit Singh on his own behalf and on behalf of Surinder Pal Singh and the petitioner.

Petitioner is the co-owner of the premises in dispute and the co-landlord and now requires the premises bona fide for occupation as a residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him. The petitioner has no other alternative suitable residential accommodation in Delhi except the premises in dispute. The petitioner has no other accommodation available in Delhi to him. The petitioner had been residing at Bangkok, Thailand, along with his wife and children as he was employed in United Nations Organisation from 20.1.1995. The petitioner retired from the said organisation on 6.10.1995. In Bangkok petitioner and his family members are living in five storeyed building. There are three bed rooms, one dining room, stereo system room, one store room, one sitting room, kitchen and garrage in property No. 670/755, Charansnitwong. R.D. Soi 68, Bangkok, Thailand, which is owned by the real brother of the petitioner's wife.

Wife of the petitioner is also working with United Nations office in Bangkok and she is expected to retire within 2-1/2 years. The petitioner have got two daughters. The elder daughter is studying in School of Engineering in Second Year and the younger daughter is studying in School at Bangkok and will be competing her Higher Secondary in the next year.

Petitioner along with his family members wants to shift to Delhi and stay in the premises in dispute. His daughters also want to get higher education in Delhi, where there are more and ample facilities for higher education as compared to Bangkok.

Petitioner have got two sisters namely Mrs. Rani Rajpal Kaur and Mrs. Sarabjit Kaur. One is settled in Delhi and other in USA. Both sisters are likely to visit their brothers, when the premises are vacated.

Dr. Premjit Singh, one of the co-owner has permanently settled in Malaysia and Shri Surinder Pal Singh, another co-owner has settled in Thailand. However, Dr. Premjit Singh has got two daughters studying Medicine at Malipur (India). During holidays his daughters normally visit Delhi and stay with the petitioner. According to the prevalent law in Thailand, petitioner being Indian citizen, cannot own any immovable property in the Thailand. On account of non-availability of accommodation in Delhi the petitioner, his wife and children are forced to stay in Bangkok.

Summons under Schedule-III were sent to the respondent on PF. Application for leave to defend was moved and the leave to defend was granted by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 12.4.1997. Learned counsel for petitioner conceded the same.

Written statement to the petitioner was filed wherein the respondent has alleged that petitioner is neither the owner nor landlord of the property in dispute. The respondent is tenant under Dr. Premjit Singh. The petition has not been filed by a competent person and is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Dr. Premjit Singh who is the landlord/owner of the premises is a necessary party and in the absence of Dr. Premjit Singh petition is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. Petitioner has alleged that respondent has not received the notice but in fact respondent has even sent a reply to the notice but the petitioner is silent about the same. Petitioner does not require the premises bona fide as alleged by petitioner as the petitioner is resident of Thailand and has permanently settled there. On merits it is alleged that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and petitioner is not the owner of the premises in dispute. It is Dr. Premjit Singh who is the owner. With respect to the extent of accommodation of the tenanted premises, it is alleged that tenant premises have not been correctly mentioned in para 8. In fact roof is also forming part of the tenancy. It is alleged that Smt. Kartar Kaur was attorney of Dr. Premjit Singh only and the tenancy was created by Smt. Kartar Kaur working as Attorney of Dr. Premjit Singh and not of the petitioner of Surinder Pal Singh, as alleged in the petition. Dr. Premjit Singh has let out the premises on his own behalf and not on behalf of petitioner or Surinder Pal Singh. It is alleged that petitioner does not need the suit premises for his own or for his family members' residence. It is denied for want of knowledge that petitioner is employed in UNO. All other averments mentioned in the petition are denied. It is also denied that they want to shift to Delhi or that daughters of Dr. Premjit Singh studying in India will reside with him in Delhi or that sisters of the petitioner will visit him in Delhi.

Replication to the written statement was filed by the petitioner wherein he has denied all the averments made in the written statement and reasserted the facts mentioned in the petition. Thereafter, the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence."

3. The learned Controller, on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, namely, statements of AW-1 and AW-2 on behalf of the landlord/owner and RW-1 on behalf of the respondent-tenant, returned a finding that the respondent herein was co-owner of the premises in question, and, therefore, a landlord even though the premises had been let out by his mother as an attorney of AW-2, Dr. Premjit Singh.

4. It is agreed between the parties that the crux of the matter lies in interpretation of Section 2(e) of the Act and the meaning that is to be ascribed to the word "landlord/owner" in context of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

5. It was contended by counsel for the petitioner that Section 14(1)(e) of the Act envisages eviction by a landlord/owner if he requires the premises bona fide for his residence or for residence of members of his family dependent upon him and that the premises was let out for residential purposes as also he has no suitable alternative accommodation. He contended that great stress is to be laid on the word "landlord" in the aforesaid section which necessarily means that the owner must be a landlord also. Counsel contended that in the present case, the petition has been filed by co-owner who is not the landlord and, therefore, he cannot seek eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-co-owner contended that the definition of the word "landlord" in Section 2(e) of the Act is all embrasive, i.e. every owner is deemed to be a landlord but the reverse is not always true. In other words, according to the counsel, the co-owner, petitioner before the Controller, could maintain the petition being owner of the whole premises in his own right and landlord for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

6. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant relied upon judgments in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagganath , Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and Ors. , Kallan v. District Judge. Allahabad , New Delhi Municipal Committee v. H.S. Rikhy, , Vijay Kumar Bajpai v. Inder Sain Minocha and Anr. , Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, , Ram Charan Mowar v. Ved Prakash, , J.P. Anand v. D.G. Baffna, , Harinder Mohan Rana v. Sohan Lal, 1980 (1) RLR 705, Hira Nand G. Massand v. R.R.Gulrajani 1985 (2) All. Ind. RCJ 666, Ujagar Singh Kakkar v. Chander Mohan and Ors. , Bisram Singh and Anr. v. Danna AIR 1929 Oudh 459 and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. while counsel for the respondent-landlord relied upon judgments in Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh , Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, , Sh. Madan Lal v. Hazara Singh, 1977 (2) RLR 641, Smt. Ram Piari v. M/s Delhi Fruit Co. and Ors. 1980 (1) All Ind. RCJ 62, Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. K.C. Bhaskaran Nair, and S.B. Abdul Azeez by L.Rs. v. M. Maniyappa Shetty and Ors., .. It is not necessary to discuss each and every judgment referred to by counsel. I am, therefore, referring only to the judgments which are relevant and to the point in issue.

7. Counsel for the parties were heard at great length on various dates. They have filed their written submissions. I have given my careful consideration to the written submissions filed as also have gone through the judgments referred to by counsel and the material placed on record including the statements of witnesses. Section 2, sub-section (e) of the Act, defining the word "landlord" reads as under :

"2. ...............

(e) "landlord" means a person who, for the time being, is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of, or on behalf, or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant."

8. The definition admits of little or no ambiguity. The same is all embrasive and has been adjudicated upon in Madan Lal v. Hazara Singh 1977 (2) RLR 641 to include every person who is entitled to receive rent as also includes owner of the property. A co-owner is very much the owner of the whole unless premises has been partitioned and can maintain a petition even without impleading the other co-owners in the eviction petition who may be proper parties but not necessary parties. Reference may be had to the cases of Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh )supra), The Supreme Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagan Nath (supra) has held as under :

"Now jurisprudentially, it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. This position will change only when partition takes place. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission of the plaintiff who submits that the landlord and co-owner of the premises is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of Section 13(1)(f). It is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property for the purposes of Section 13(1)(f), as long as he is a co-owner of the property being at the same time the acknowledged landlord of the defendant."

9. Much capital is sought to be made of the words "acknowledged landlord" in the judgment in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath (supra) by the petitioner herein who professes that he never acknowledged the present respondent as his landlord. The so-called acknowledgment is hardly of any consequence; a co-owner is owner of premises and deemed to be landlord for purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It is not for the tenant to challenge the inter se arrangement of owners as to how they should manage the property. So long as there is no dispute between the owners themselves, no advantage can be taken by the tenant. In the present case, the so-called acknowledged owner-landlord has himself step into the witness box to support the petition of his brother, the co-owner. Making it clear, I hold that an owner/co-owner is a landlord within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act and a landlord/owner within the meaning of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. This point having been decided as above, there is hardly anything that needs to be gone into further in view of the findings arrived at by the Controller that the premises was let out for residential purposes; the same is bona fide required by the landlord for his residence and for residence of members of his family on account of him and his wife having retired from active service with the United Nations at Bangkok, need the premises for their own residence and also finding that they have no other suitable alternative accommodation, I find no infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the Controller.

10. In this view of the matter, Civil Revision No. 981 of 2001 is dismissed. No order as to costs.