Kartar Kaur Etc. vs Jasbir Singh And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 612 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 365/1982, which appeal was preferred against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 19th April, 1982, awarding benefit under sub-Section 2 to Section 14 to the appellant herein on compliance of the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and further ordering the eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. The brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Tribunal are as under :

"(2) Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent filed a petition for eviction with respect to the property in dispute detailed in the eviction application. The grounds of eviction taken up by the respondent were under clause (a), (e), (d) of the proviso to sub-section 1 to Section 14 of the Act. Of these grounds, the ground of eviction under clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section 1 to section 14 of the Act was not pressed before me and finding of the trial court dismissing the petition of the respondent on this particular ground necessarily thus have to be affirmed. The sole surviving ground of eviction are under clause (a) and (e) of the proviso to sub-section 1 to Section 14 of the Act.

(3) Respondent pleaded that appellant is a tenant in the property in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- and is in arrears of rent from 1.9.1975 which have not been paid despite the service of the notice of demand. Their case further was that they are the owners/allottee of the property in question which has been let for residential purpose and is reasonably and bona fide required by them as their residence and for member of their family dependent upon them. The property is stated to have devolved upon them by the death of their father Jit Singh and it is explained that all the respondents are married. Respondent No.1 was stated to be having his wife and five children between the ages of 5-18 years, respondent No.2 was pleaded to be having his wife and four children between the ages of 9 and 16, respondent No.3 was having his wife and two children while respondent No.5 was recently married when the petition was filed. One of the sisters of the respondent who was married was also stated to have been deserted by her husband and living with them while it was pointed out that they only have 7 rooms besides a common hall which accommodation is insufficient for respondents and members of their family because one of the uncles of the respondents was also stated to be living on one of the rooms.

(4) In the written statement filed by the appellant, the petition for eviction has been contested. Preliminary objection was taken that the premises No. 34 Church Lane, Bhogal, is a Muslim Wakf property and respondents are not the owners thereto. They were not even admitted to be the landlord. Appellant case was that he is in occupation of the property in question which is a Wakf property. It was denied that the appellant had executed any rent agreement dated 26.6.1971 and plea was raised that this agreement is forged and fabricated. Appellant contended that he is in possession of the property prior to 1957 and so the question of execution any agreement dated 21.6.1971 by late Gurbachan Singh does not arise. It was denied that the respondent bona fide requires the property or have no other suitable residential accommodation. Plea was raised that Jit Singh left behind 3 daughters besides the respondents and those daughters also inherited the rights of ownership and are necessary and proper parties.

(5) At this stage, it may not be out of place to mention that appellants are the heirs of Gurbachan Singh who died during the pendency of the eviction petition.

(6) In the replication preferred by the respondents, they denied that the property in question is a Wakf property and insisted that they themselves are the owners of the property in question. It was denied that the respondents are comfortably living in house No.48 Masjid Lane, or that they do not require the premises.

(7) Shri Kuldip Singh Addl. Controller, Delhi vide the impugned order held that appellant had never attorney to Delhi Wakf Board nor have they pleaded that they are the tenants of the Delhi Wakf Board. The Trial Court further held that the notification declaring the particular premises as Wakf does not tally with the property in question. The trial court further held that the appellant's predecessor in interest was a tenant under Jit Singh and had executed the agreement Mark A. Keeping in view that the notice of demand had been served and order passed under Section 15 of the Act was complied, the trial court awarded benefit of sub-section 2 to section 14 of the Act to the Appellant. With respect to the ground of eviction under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (I) to Section 14 of the Act. It was held that the property was let for residential purpose and further it was concluded that keeping in view the members of the family of the respondents, 7 rooms accommodation is insufficient and accordingly the order of eviction was passed."

3. The learned Tribunal while affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 19th April, 1982 had held that the property in dispute was not WAKF property and that Ajit Singh, predecessor in interest of the respondent was sole occupant and the allottee of the premises in question.

4. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to formulate any question of law much less a substantial question of law but has merely reiterated that ownership of the property in dispute was not proved by the respondents and that there was a bar under Section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to try the case. He also contented that subsequent events should be taken into consideration and that the family needs of the respondent no longer require the tenant to be evicted.

5. I have counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the judgments under challenge. Two courts have concurrently held that the respondent's predecessor in interest was the allottee of the premises in question. Once this is established as a question of fact, the objection under Section 3 of Delhi Rent Control Act automatically does not survive. Counsel for the respondents has contended that the family needs have, since the filing of the petition, increased and not decreased. Having therefore evaluated the material on record I find no grounds to interfere in the valid reasoned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal. RC.SA. 257/1983 is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. CMs 2641/1983 and 266/2000 also stand dismissed.