Parvesh Chand vs Santosh Kumari & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1480 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Judgment Reserved : 28.02.2012
                               Judgment Pronounced:02.03.2012

+     C.R.P. 512/2000

      PARVESH CHAND                              ..... Petitioner
                  Through             Ms. Usha Kumar, Adv.

                   versus


      SANTOSH KUMARI & ORS.                         ..... Respondent
                  Through   None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. Petitioner is the tenant before this court. He is aggrieved by the

judgment dated 11.01.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Controller

(ARC) vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlady, Santosh

Kumari & Another seeking eviction of her tenant from the disputed

premises i.e. premises bearing No. G-99, New Seelam Pur, Shahdara,

Delhi had been decreed in favour of the landlady. Vide the same order,

two eviction petitions filed by the respondent No. 2 (Krishan Kumar), at

his request, had also been permitted to be withdrawn by him.

2. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the

landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA);

contention was that the petitioner is the landlord/owner of the premises;

the premises had been let out to respondent No. 1 vide an oral agreement

sometime in the year 1985 for a residential purpose at the rent of

Rs.300/- per month which was exclusive of electricity charge.

Contention of the petitioner was that after the death of her father-in-law

Devi Dass by virtue of a Will dated 07.11.1972 executed by the

deceased, the petitioner had become the owner of the said premises. The

family of the petitioner comprised of herself, her husband, two sons and

one daughter; on the date of the filing of the eviction petition, she was in

occupation of two rooms besides a chowk and kitchen in the rear

portion and the verandah on the front portion; contention being that the

accommodation available with her was insufficient for the needs of her

family; the suit premises is required bona fide for herself and her family.

3. Leave to defend had been granted. Written statement had been

filed by both the respondents disputing this contention. Respondent No.

1 is Parvesh Chand; respondent No. 2 is Krishan Kumar. Both the

respondents had filed separate written statements. Respondent No. 1

denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

Ownership of the present petitioner has also been denied. Contention

was that the original owner was one Satya Singh who had sold the

property to Baldev Kumar; Baldev Kumar in turn sold this property to

Raj Bhasin; respondent No. 1 had in fact been informed by Baldev

Kumar that he should attorn to Raj Bhasin. The present petitioner/tenant

has been recognizing Raj Bhasin only as his owner /landlord.

Contention is Raj Bhasin has also entered into the witness box and

deposed that he had purchased this property from Baldev Kumar and as

such the claim of the petitioner that she is the owner of the property has

not been established. The bonafide need of the landlady was also

disputed.

4. The contention of the respondent No. 2 in his written statement

was that the landlady Santosh Kumari is not the owner of the suit

premises; the status of the landlady is only that of a tenant herself;

premises are not owned by her; the disputed property had in fact been

allotted by the DDA to Sant Singh; the actual allottee Satya Singh had

thereafter sold this property to Mohd. Sami on 13.07.1992 and

respondent No. 2 had purchased this property on 16.10.1992. However,

this defence of the respondent No. 2 was never substantiated as he did

not come into the witness box to prove his case; as such the defence set

up by the respondent No. 2 cannot be read.

5. Oral and documentary evidence was led by the respective parties;

7 witness were examined on behalf of the landlady and 6 witnesses had

come into the witness box on behalf of the tenant. Landlady Santosh

Kumari had entered into the witness box as PW7. She had reiterated the

averments made in the eviction petition claiming herself to be the owner

by virtue of a Will dated 7.11.1972 (Ex. PW5/A) executed by her father-

in-law Devi Dass in her favour; she categorically denied the suggestion

that property had been sold by Sh. Satya Singh to Baldev Kumar or

Baldev Kumar in turn had sold it to Raj Bhasin. PW5 an attesting

witnesses had identified her signatures at point „A‟ and that of the

deceased at point „B‟ on Ex. PW5/A. PW6 had signed the Will as a

marginal witness and he had also identified his signatures at point „x‟ on

Ex.PW5/A reiterating the deposition of PW5 and PW7 that the deceased

Devi Dass had signed the said Will. PW 1 to 4 had produced relevant

summoned record substantiating the claim set up by the petitioner that in

various litigations filed interse between the parties, all efforts made by

the petitioner to implead Raj Bhasin had failed; the suit filed by the Raj

Bhsin seeking a declaration qua ownership of the suit property had also

been disposed of and thereafter the final order passed in that suit was

never agitated by Raj Bhasin; contention of the landlady being to the

effect that she was the owner of the disputed premises and not Raj

Bhasin as was the stand set up by respondent No. 1.

6. Per contra, the tenant had deposed as RW1; his deposition was to

the effect that he was residing in these premises since July 1986 and the

premises had been let out to him by Baldev Kumar and he was paying a

rent @ Rs. 100/- to him; in September 1991 Baldev Kumar had sent

him a notice intimating him about the sale of this property in favour of

Raj Bhasin and thereafter RW1 had started paying rent to Raj Bhasin;

he admitted his signatures on the petition filed under Section 45 of the

DRCA(Ex. PW4/1) which was a petition filed by him in which Santosh

Kumari had been impleaded as a party. In his cross-examination RW1

has stated that his signatures were obtained on EX.PW4/1withouth his

knowledge as he has not able to read English and the advocate got these

papers signed from him; he has also admitted that he had withdrawn his

petition under Section 45 of the DRCA on 27.05.1994; he had also

admitted that he had filed a petition under Section 27 of the DRCA

seeking deposit of rent in favour of Feteh Chand; he further has admitted

that Baldev Kumar has never issued any rent receipt to him; RW5 Raj

Bhasin and RW6 Baldev Kumar had also come into the witness box to

support the stand of the petitioner.

7. This evidence had been examined and appreciated by the ARC.

8. The ARC had returned a positive finding on this oral and

documentary evidence that the landlady has proved her case for a bona

fide requirement; she is the owner of the suit premises; she being in

occupation of insufficient accommodation eviction petition is liable to

be decreed in her favour. Eviction petition had accordingly been

decreed. This petition is the subject matter of present proceedings in

revision.

9. This court is conscious of the fact that it is sitting in its powers of

revision unless and until there is a manifest or patent error which is

evident on the fact of the record interference by the High Court is not

called for. The Apex Court in AIR 1999 SC 2507 Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs.

Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, the Apex Court in this context had noted

herein as under:-

"The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 25-B (8) is not so limited as is under Section 115 CPC nor so wide as that of an Appellate Court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or re-appreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of "whether it is according to law'. For that limited purpose it may enter into re-appraisal of evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached that conclusion on the material available.Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the established facts as betray the lack of reason and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller 'not according to law' calling for an interference under proviso to sub-Section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act. A judgment leading to miscarriage of justice is not a judgment according to law."

10. Record has been perused. Vehement arguments had been

addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Reliance has been

placed upon a judgment of a Bench of this Court reported in 1993(2)

RCR 117 titled as Trilochan Singh vs. Usha Dhir, 2003(IV) Ad (Delhi)

46 titled as Mani Ram vs. Ratan Lal Saini as also another judgment of a

Bench of this Court reported in 2005 (I) AD (Delhi) 83 titled as MCD

vs. Harish Chander & Ors. to substantiate the submission that where

the tenant has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and

contesting claims qua the title of the suit property are involved, it is

only the Civil Court which can determine this question of title; the

Controller would have no jurisdiction to decide disputes in this regard.

Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in

2002(1) SCC 90 titled as Rajendra Tiwary vs. Basudeo Prasad and Anr.

to support the submission that the existence of landlord-tenant

relationship is the very foundation of an eviction petition under a rent

control statute and where such a relationship is found not to be

established any further enquiry into the title of the parties is beyond the

scope of a court exercising jurisdiction under such a statute.

11. None has appeared for the respondent.

12. The primary objection raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner which was also the grievance in the Trial Court relates to the

ownership of the landlord/non-applicant. Contention of the petitioner

being that these premises were not owned by Santosh Kumari and this

has not been considered in the correct perspective by the Trial Court;

submission being reiterated that the original owner of the premises was

Satya Singh who had sold the property to Baldev Kumar; Baldev

Kumar had written to the tenant to attorn in favour of the Raj Bhasin

being the new purchaser and as such the tenant has since been attorning

to Raj Bhasin recognizing him only as his owner/landlord; Santosh

Kumari who is claiming through Devi Dass (her father-in-law) has no

right/title in the suit premises. In fact, this is the only defence raised by

the present petitioner/tenant which has to be considered.

13. Record shows that Raj Bhasin(the person to whom the present

petitioner/tenant had allegedly attorned in view of the instructions from

Baldev Kumar) had filed a suit (i.e. Suit No. 133/1994) for declaration

and injunction against Santosh Kumari, Parvesh Chand and Fateh Chand

(Fateh Chand is the husband of the landlady/Santosh Kumari). The

plaint has been proved on record as EX. PW1/2; in this suit Raj Bhasin

had sought a declaration claiming himself to be the owner qua this

property; this suit had been disposed of in September 1994; on a

statement made by Santosh Kumar and Fateh Chand that they would not

transfer or alienate the suit property, this suit for declaration filed by Raj

Bhasin was accordingly disposed of; no appeal or revision was filed

against the said order which have since attained a finality. In fact Raj

Bhasin after September 1994 has not claimed ownership qua this suit

land.

14. Record also shows that the petitioner (vide

EXPW2/1)(which was a petition under Section 27 of the DRCA i.e. DR

NO. 141/1991) had filed a petition seeking permission of the court to

deposit the rent in favour of Fateh Chand; however, orders were not

passed on this petition and on 14.02.1997 it was adjourned sine die as

the question of title was in dispute. Record shows that even in these

proceedings, the petitioner on 01.12.1993(Ex. PW1/4) had moved an

application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code seeking permission of the

court to implead Raj Bhasin; contention being that Raj Bhasin is the

owner of the said premises; simultaneously, an application under Order

1 Rule 10 of the Code had been filed by the Santosh Kumari seeking her

impleadment in these proceedings under Section 27 of the DRCA;

contention being that the submission of Parvesh Chand that Raj Bhasin

is a necessary and a proper party is factually incorrect; Raj Bhasin has

no connection with the property; he is in no manner connected with the

property; she is the owner; she had accordingly sought impleadment.

The petitioner (RW1) in his cross-examination has also admitted that he

had filed a petition under Section 45 of the DRCA(Ex. PW4/1); RW1

had admitted his signatures on the said document. Contention being that

he was not aware of these contents and his advocate played a forgery

upon him and had made him to sign certain documents for which a

complaint had also been lodged by him against his advocate. Ex. PW4/1

is the petitioner‟s application seeking a water connection from Fateh

Chand and Santosh Kumari. Thus even vide this document, the

petitioner had recognized the status of Santosh Kumari and Fateh Chand

in the suit premises.

15. Record further shows another suit for permanent injunction i.e.

Suit No. 319/1991 had also been filed on 16.07.1991 by the petitioner

against Baldev Kumar and Fateh Chand (Ex. PW3/1); this was a suit for

permanent injunction; prayer was to the effect that the defendants i.e.

Baldev Kumar and Fateh Chand (Fateh Chand is the son of Devi Dass)

be restrained from dispossessing him from the suit property; in the

course of these proceedings an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the

Code was again filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of Raj

Bhasin; this was vide application filed on 27.09.1993 (Ex. PW3/2);

simultaneously, in these proceedings Santosh Kumari on 29.09.1993

(Ex. PW 3/5) had also sought her impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of

the Code; contention being that Raj Bhasin is in no manner connected

with the suit property; Santosh Kumari was allowed to be impleaded as

a party; the application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of

Raj Bhasin had been dismissed; this was on 28.01.1994 (Ex. PW3/13);

amended memo of parties was accordingly filed and Santosh Kumari

was impleaded as a party.

16. Both these two suits i.e. Suit No. 319/1991 and Suit No. 334/1994

pending between the parties were consolidated by order dated

19.11.1996.

17. This documentary record was proved in the court below. From

this record it is clear that the petitioner first filed a suit seeking restraint

from dispossession against Baldev Kumar and Fateh Chand even in

this suit he had sought impleadment of Raj Bhasin as a party; this

application was disallowed; application of Santosh Kumari was allowed

and she was impleaded as a necessary party as she had produced

documentary evidence to support her contention that she was a

necessary and a proper party. Consecutive applications filed by the

petitioner seeking impleadment of Raj Bhasin had been declined.

Record also shows that an earlier suit which had been filed by Raj

Bhasin against Fateh Chand and Baldev Kumar (Ex. PW1/2) seeking a

declaration of ownership had been disposed of in September 1994 which

order since attained a finality and was never the subject of challenge

before any court; the question of ownership of Raj Bhasin had come to

close at that stage only. The present petitioner was deliberately and mala

fidely trying to implead Raj Bhasin at every stage which applications

were consecutively dismissed; Raj Bhasin himself did not pursue the

litigation(claiming ownership in suit premises) after his suit had been

disposed of in September 1994; his claim that he was owner of the suit

property had since not been agitated by him. All these facts were noted

in the correct perspective by the Trial Court.

18. Record further shows that by virtue of a Will (Ex. PW5/A) of

deceased Devi Dass (who is also the father of Baldev Kumar); the

disputed property had been bequeathed to Smt. Santosh Kumari; two

attesting witnesses to the Will, PW5 and PW6 had also been examined

to certify the correctness of this document; the Will stood proved; this

documentary evidence established that Devi Dass had bequeathed this

property in favour of his daughter-in-law Santosh Kumari who is now

claiming herself to be the owner/landlord of these premises. She is the

wife of Fatech Chand who is also the son of Devi Dass. Record shows

that Baldev Kumar is another son of Devi Dass and he had come into

the witness box as RW6 to support a stand that he had purchased this

property from Satya Singh whose loan he had re-paid; he admittedly

had no document of title; his further deposition was to the effect that the

back portion of these premises were tenanted out by him to his brother

Fateh Chand where he was admittedly residing; his further deposition

was to the effect that he had sold his property to Raj Bhasin but there is

no reference to any date or any document qua this sale. He denied the

suggestion that his father Devi Dass was the owner of the suit property;

he admitted that he had issued rent receipts to Parvesh Chand but

admittedly no such rent receipts were filed. RW5 Raj Bhasin, in his

cross-examination deposed that he did not have any document vide

which the property was transferred in favour of Baldev Kumar from

Satya Singh. PW7 had categorically deposed that her father-in-law/Devi

Dass had purchased this property from Satya Singh and the original

papers were taken away by her father-in-law/Devi Dass. Thus the claim

of the present petitioner that Baldev Kumar (other son of Devi Dass)

was the original owner of the property is negatived by this documentary

evidence. No documentary evidence had been brought on record. Raj

Bhasin even as per the present petitioner/tenant was claiming through

Baldev Kumar; Baldev Kumar himself not being able to prove his title;

the question of Raj Bhasin being the owner of these premises does not

arise. The submission of the petitioner that he has been paying rent to

Raj Bhasin who was issuing rent receipts has also not been substantiated

by any document; no rent receipts have been filed by the petitioner to

support this submission that he had either paid rent to Baldev Kumar or

Raj Bhasin.

19. The eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA

necessitate that the owner/landlord who claims the eviction of his tenant

on the ground of bona fide ground must prima facie prove his title in

the suit property; he must be landlord/owner of the suit property. at the

same time question of ownership cannot strictly construed as the courts

dealing with a petition even under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA that is

not dealing with title suits. In Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. vs. Smt. Ved

Praha & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 RLR 526, the Apex Court had an

occasion to examine the concept of „owner‟ as envisaged under Section

14(1)(e) of the DRCA. The relevant extract is noted hereinunder:-

"The word „owner‟ is not used in Section 14 (1) proviso (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act in the sense of absolute owner; where the person builds up his property and lets out to the tenant and subsequently needs it for his own use, he should be entitled to an order or decree for eviction, the only thing necessary for him to prove being bona fide requirement and he is the owner thereof. In this context the meaning of „owner‟ is vis-à-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. In most of the modern townships in India the properties stand on plots of land leased out either by the Government or the Development Authorities and therefore it was not contemplated that for all such properties the landlord or the owner of all such properties the landlord or the owner of the property used in common parlance will not be entitled to eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement and it is in this context that we have to examine this contention. It could not be doubted that the term „owner‟ has to be understood in the modern context and background of the scheme of the Act."

20. In T.C. Rekhi Vs. Usha Gujral 1971 RCJ 322, a Bench of this

Court had noted that the word „owner‟ appearing in Section 14 (1)(e) of

the DRCA seems to have been inspired by the word „landlord‟ as

contained in Section 2 (e) of the Act which is wide enough to include a

person receiving or entitling to receive the rent of the premises on

account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person.

21. It is thus clear that the present petitioner had no locus standi to

question the title of the landlady; non-applicant/Santosh Kumari has

prima facie established her title in the suit premises; the ownership title

of the non-applicant/Santosh Kumari in the suit premises is definitely

superior to that of the tenant; she has proved through documentary

evidence that her father-in-law Devi Dass had purchased this property

from Satya Singh and thereafter vide Ex.PW5/A bequeathed this

property to his daughter-in-law Santosh Kumari. Contention of the

petitioner that it was Baldev Kumar who was the owner of the suit

premises has been negatived as there was no evidence to substantiate

this submission.

22. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the

aforenoted judgments is misplaced. There is no dispute to the admitted

position that the Rent Controller is contained with the jurisdiction to

deal with a rent dispute only if the relationship of landlord and tenant is

prima facie established; where serious questions of title are raised and

disputed, it is Civil Court who will decide the said dispute. This is not

one such case. In the instant case, it is not as if the tenant is claiming an

ownership or setting up an independent title in the suit premises; he in

fact appears to be fighting a battle on behalf of a third person; whether

this is Baldev Kumar or Raj Bhasin is not clear; be that as it may, this

defence set up by the petitioner that Raj Bhasin who is the owner of the

premises in turn has acquired this property through Baldev Kumar could

not be established. The title of the landlady Santosh Kumar has been

prima facie found to be superior to that of the tenant.

23. This question was accordingly rightly answered in the correct

perspective in favour of Santosh Kumari/landlady. This argument is

clearly without any merit.

24. No other argument has been urged or pressed. Petition is without

any merit; dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 02, 2012 rb