Shambhoo Singh Verma vs Triloki Nath Sharma
2012 Latest Caselaw 3496 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                          Date of Judgment:25.05.2012

+     C.R.P. 207/2004

SHAMBHOO SINGH VERMA                                  ..... Petitioner
                   Through:           Mr.V.K.Sharma, Adv.
            versus

TRILOKI NATH SHARMA                             ..... Respondent
                 Through:             Ms.Kusum Lata Sharma, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Order impugned is the order dated 12.01.2004; the eviction

petition filed by Triloki Nath Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the '

landlord') seeking eviction of his tenant Shambhoo Singh Verma

(hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') under Section 14 (1)(e) of the

Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed.

2 Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by

the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement. Premises comprise

of one room and dalan in front of premises No.9961/XVI, Ram Behari

Road, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi; contention was that the premises had been

let out to the tenant for a residential purpose; there was no written

agreement; tenancy was oral; the petitioner now requires the premises

bonafide for his own residence; his family consists of himself, his wife,

his three sons ages 48 years, 42 years and 38 years; elder son is also

married and has three children; the second son is also married with two

children and the third son is also married and has two daughters. The

petitioner also has three daughters all of whom are married. The

accommodation presently available with the petitioner is in the same

property i.e. property bearing No. 9954/A, street No. 5, Sarai Rohilla,

Delhi which comprises of three rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and

one store room out of which one room is in occupation of his youngest

son Raj Kumar Sharma and his family; these premises are required by

the petitioner for the residence of his eldest son who has a family of

three children aged 20 years, 15 years and 10 years; the petitioner is the

owner of properties bearing No. 9954 to 9956/XVI and 9961 to

9965/XLI, Ram Behari Road, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi; this was by virtue of

a Will; all the aforenoted properties are occupied by different tenants

except property bearing No. 9954/A in which the petitioner is residing

with his family members who are dependent upon him. Accommodation

presently available with the petitioner is highly insufficient. The

petitioner's three married daughters along with their husbands and

children often visit him; he cannot entertain his relatives and guests; he

also has no separate pooja room; for all the aforenoted reasons, the

eviction petition was filed.

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

was filed. Relationship of landlord-tenant was disputed; it was denied

that the landlord is the owner of the disputed premises; contention was

that the Will purported to have been executed in favour of the petitioner

is not a valid document; the property belongs to Mahant Budha Dass

who is the owner of the said premises; there being no relationship of

landlord-tenant, present eviction petition is liable to be dismissed.

Further contention was that the bonafide requirement of the landlord has

not been depicted and for all the aforenoted reason, the eviction petition

is liable to be dismissed.

4     Oral and documentary evidence was led.

5     PW-1 was the landlady Kusum Lata Sharma; she was the legal

representative of deceased Triloki Nath Sharma who had been brought

on record; she was his daughter; she has proved the Will Ex. PW-1/A by

virtue of which her father had become the owner of the suit property;

mutation letter whereby the property had been mutated in the name of

her father Triloki Nath Sharma was proved as Ex. PW-1/B; house tax

receipts were proved as Ex. PW-1/C to Ex. PW-1/D; she had on oath

deposed that elder brother Rajeshwar Nath Sharma is residing in a

rented accommodation in the same locality along with his wife, two sons

and one daughter of whom Manish is now marriageable age; her mother

is handicapped; she needs two attendants to look after her; her brother

Rajeshwar Nath visis his mother regularly both in the morning and

evening but because of paucity of accommodation he is not in a position

to stay with his mother and to look after her; PW-1 has also deposited

that she also visits her mother along with her three children frequently

and even during emergency, she has to return home but because of

paucity of accommodation, they cannot stay with their maternal

grandmother; her other brother is also living in a rented accommodation;

he is 47 years of age and has a wife and two daughters; he also cannot

stay with his mother (although she is unwell and requires help) for the

same reason that there is not enough accommodation; her mother

Vidyawati is a religious lady; she never accepts food without offering

pooja; there is no separate room to perform pooja. In her cross-

examination she has admitted that as far as he knows the earlier owner

of the property was one Mahant Buddha Dass; she does not know if

Mahant Buddha Dass has left behind him his widow and a daughter; she

has admitted that Ex. PW-1/A was not executed in her presence; she

denied the suggestion that her father is not the owner of the premises.

PW-2 has produced the summoned record showing the mutation of the

property in favour of Triloki Nath Sharma as Ex. PW-2/A. Per contra,

the respondent has produced one witness namely Shambhu Singh

Verma, the tenant. He had reiterated his stand which he adopted in the

written statement. In his cross-examination he has admitted that Raj

Kumar, the youngest son of Vidyawati is staying with his mother along

with his wife and children; he was not in a position to state how many

children Raj Kumar had; he denied the suggestion that the family of the

landlady is falling short of accommodation; he had admitted that he had

never paid rent to Mahant Buddha Dass or after his death to the legal

heirs of Mahant Buddha Dass; he has in fact admitted that he has never

paid any rent of this property.

6 This was the sum total of evidence which led before the trial

Court. Arguments have been heard.

7 Vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the petitioner/tenant has never admitted the status of Triloki Nath

Sharma as his landlord; there is nothing on record to show that he had

acquired this property from Mahant Buddha Dass; attention has been

drawn to the testimony of PW-1 wherein she has admitted that the

property did originally belong to Mahand Buddha Dass; contention

being that the Will relied upon by the landlord Ex. PW-1/A dated

15.08.1974 does not also show as to how Kalu Dass had himself

acquired this property; in the absence of which the title of the landlord

as owner is under a cloud; in the absence of this essential ingredient i.e.

the status of the non-applicant as an owner/landlord not having been

proved, the whole petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA is liable

to be dismissed.

8 Arguments have been countered. Contention is that the tenant has

himself in various correspondences admitted the status of Triloki Nath

Sharma as the landlord.

9 Record has been perused. The essential ingredients to establish a

case under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA are as follows:

(a) The applicant has to be a landlord;

(b) He has also to be an owner;

(c) The premises in question should have been let out for residential or commercial purpose or both;

(d) The said premises are required bon fade by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or his family dependent upon him and;

(e) That the landlord or such person dependent upon him has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation."

10 Arguments addressed are only on the status of Triloki Nath

Sharma as owner/landlord. Contention of the landlord in his eviction

petition is that by virtue of a Will dated 15.08.1974 which is the Will of

Kalu Dass, the landlord Triloki Nath Sharma s/o Mr,. Bhiku Ram has

become the owner of the disputed property. The judgment of 09.08.1995

in LPA No. 103/1976 had also put the controversy to rest. In the

eviction petition it has been disclosed that one Kewal Dass had in fact

contested the right of the individual properties of Mahant Buddha Dass

but this has been declined. There is no dispute to this point. Ex. PW-1/J

is the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in RSA No.

237/1967 on 13.08.1975 wherein the Court had dismissed the suit of

Kewal Dass wherein he had claimed individual rights in the property of

Mahant Buddha Dass; this right having been declined to Kewal Dass,

the present property which is admittedly an individual property of

Mahant Buddha Dass could not be claimed by Kewal Dass. This order

dated 13.08.1975 was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in

LPA No. 103/1976 of 09.08.1995 wherein the appeal filed against the

order passed in RSA proceedings was dismissed. It is thus clear that

Kewal Dass was no longer having any right to the individual property of

Mahant Buddha Dass. The Will Ex. PW-1/A dated 15.08.1974 of Kalu

Dass has been relied upon by the non-applicant Triloki Nath Sharma to

establish his title as owner/landlord of the suit premises. This Will of

Kalu Dass has bequeathed the suit premises to Triloki Nath Sharma who

is the son of Bhiku Ram and who had been treating Kalu Dass as the

adopted son of Mahant Buddha Dass; in this Will Kalu Dass has stated

that his son has already died and he is bequeathing this property in

favour of Triloki Nath Sharma. Relevant would it be to state that this

Will was proved in the version of PW-1 and not a single suggestion has

been given to PW-1 on any score that this will is forged, fabricated or

otherwise not a genuine document.

11 A Bench of this Court in AIRCJ 1971 2 Arjan Dass Vs. Madan

Lal, in the context of a landlord-tenant relationship has in fact held, as

follows:

"a tenant has no locus standi to challenge the validity of the Will made by the landlord as he is not an heir of the landlord."

12 Ex.PW-1/G is the reply given by the present petitioner/tenant to a

notice issued by the landlord before the eviction petition was filed. In

this document dated 30.01.1986, it has been admitted that the tenant

namely Shambhoo Singh Verma has been inducted in the suit property

by Mahant Buddha Dass and Kalu Dass as tenant. This admission being

clear and categorical it now does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to

deny the status of Mahant Buddha Dass as his landlord; Triloki Nath

Sharma has claimed his right through Kalu Dass in terms of the Will

dated 15.08.1974. That apart in the written statement filed by the tenant

in separate suit proceedings (suit for injunction filed by Triloki Nath

Sharma) in paras 2 & 4 it has been admitted that the tenant namely

Shambhoo Singh Verma was a chela of late Kalu Dass; the present

petitioner has thus all along recognized the status of Kalu Dass as his

guru. Ex. PW-1/L (mark 'A') is also a rent receipt issued by Kalu Dass

in favour of the present petitioner Shambhoo Singh Verma; this

document also establishes the relationship of landlord-tenant between

the petitioner and Kalu Dass. The present petitioner in his capacity as

tenant of Kalu Dass had also written a letter to the MCD seeking

mutation of the above noted property in the name of Kewal Dass i.e. of

the suit property (page 285 of the trial Court record) (admitted

document).

13 All these facts are admitted and have been brought to the notice of

the Court by the learned counsel for the non-applicant; the petitioner

clearly has no legs to stand on; it is not as if the Court is dealing with a

title suit. The aforenoted facts which have been borne out from the

record clearly establish the status of Triloki Nath Sharma as the

owner/landlord. Shambhoo Singh Verma has recognized the Kalu Dass

as his landlord/owner; in fact he has admitted that Kalu Dass inducted

him in the property along with Mahant Buddha Dass as a tenant; Kalu

Dass vide Will dated 15.08.1974 had bequeathed this suit property in

favour of Triloki Nath Sharma; Triloki Nath Sharma thus steps into the

shoes of Kalu Dass and Shambhoo Singh recognizing the status of Kalu

Dass as his landlord has little option but to recognize Triloki Nath

Sharma as his landlord. This controversy rests here.

14 In 1995 RLR 162 Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. a Bench of

this Court while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending

eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA had noted as

follows:

"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."

15    No other argument has been urged.

16    In this background, the impugned order having decreed the

eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA in favour of the

landlord in no manner suffers from any infirmity.

17    Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.



                                                    INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY        25, 2012
A