Delhi High Court
Ram Nath Madan Through Lrs. vs Promila Chopra & Ors. on 17 September, 2013
Author: Manmohan Singh
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: September 17, 2013
+ RC. Rev. No.325/2013, C.M. No.13619/2013
RAM NATH MADAN THROUGH LRS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Tara Chand Sharma, Adv.
versus
PROMILA CHOPRA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section
25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
against the eviction order dated 3rd May, 2013 passed by the ARC (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in an eviction petition filed by the respondents
against the petitioner in respect of a room in the property bearing No. 53/27,
Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110005 (hereinafter referred to as
"the tenanted premises").
2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petitioner are
that the respondents filed the eviction petition stating that they bonafidely
require the same for their occupation as well as occupation of their family
members' dependent upon them, in the absence of other reasonably suitable
residential accommodation. It was stated that the tenanted premises was let
out by way of an oral agreement in 1973 for residential purposes to Ram
Nath Madan and Shyam Sunder Madan and after their death, the present
petitioners became the tenants.
3. Petitioner in their written statement contested the landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties. It was contended that the respondents were
neither the owners nor the landlords of the tenanted premises. And in fact
Smt. Ram Piari (mother-in-law of respondent no.1 and mother of the
remaining respondents) was the owner/landlady of the entire premises
including the tenanted premises and after her death all her LRs, namely
Virender Chopra, Narinder Chopra, Mahinder Chopra and Surinder Chopra
became the owners/landlords. It was also contended that the tenanted
premises was let out for commercial purposes and since the inception of
tenancy the same was being used as a godown. It was further contended that
besides the tenanted premises, there were six other shops in the said property
and the same were let out for commercial purposes. It was averred that the
tenanted premises is not required by the respondents for bonafide use as
residence as they already had sufficient accommodation with them for that
purpose and that the sons of respondent no.1 are not dependent upon her for
their residence as they have their own houses in Delhi. It was only with the
ulterior motive to let out the tenanted premises at an enhanced rate that the
vacation of the petitioners was sought. The petitioners also disputed the
correctness of the site plan filed by the respondents.
4. After the examination of parties, the learned Trial Court passed the
impugned eviction order in favour of the respondents and against the
petitioners. On the issue of ownership, the learned trial court observed that it
was an admitted fact that respondent no.1 is the wife of Virender Chopra
who pre-deceased her and two of the other respondents were Narinder
Chopra and Mahinder Chopra and that as per the settled law, even co-owners
of the property could institute and file eviction petition on the grounds of
bona-fide requirement. Even otherwise, the petitioner's witness Ashtutosh
Madan in his cross-examination had admitted to the copy of the counterfoil
of the rent receipt issued by the respondents. The learned trial court opined
that once it is admitted by the petitioner that Late Smt. Ram Pairi,
predecessor in interest of the respondents was the owner as well as the
landlady of the tenanted premises, it stands proved on record that that there
was in fact a relationship of landlords-tenants between the parties.
5. With respect to the issue of nature of property was concerned, it was
observed by the learned trial court that since the tenancy was an oral one, the
testimony of the witnesses was the determining factor in this aspect. In view
of the learned trial court, it could be inferred that the tenanted premises were
in fact let out for commercial purposes, also considering that the neither
earlier tenancy with one Ram Nath Gokal Chand, who was doing the
business of sweets therein, nor the electricity meter which was in his name
were contravened by the respondents through their evidence. It was opined
that irrespective of their respective affidavits in evidence, in view of the case
of Satyawati v. Union of India, III (2008) SLT 553, the purpose of letting
was no longer an issue.
6. With regard to the issue of availability of alternative accommodation,
the learned trial court, for the reasons stated in the impugned order, opined
that the petitioners had failed to controvert the assertions of the respondents
that they do not have any other alternative accommodation in their
possession and that they bonafidely require the tenanted premises for the
purposes of their residence. The eviction order was passed by the learned
trial court after recording the evidence of the parties.
7. On the issue of ownership and purpose of letting, the learned trial
court has discussed the said issue in para 7 of the impugned order. The
relevant extract of the finding after considering the evidence of the parties is
as under:
"It is an admitted fact that petitioner no.1 Smt.Promila Chopra
is the wife of Virender Chopra who pre-deceased her and two
of the other petioitner are Narinder Chopra who pre-deceased
her and two of the other petitioner are Narinder Chopra and
Mahinder Chopra. The law is well settled that even one of the
co-owners of a property can institute and file an eviction
petition on the grounds of bona fide requirement against the
tenant. Even otherwise, it is to be seen that RW-1 Ashutosh
Madan in his cross-examination admitted that copy of the
counterfoil of the rent receipt Ex RW1/X was issued to his
father (Late Shyam Sunder Madan) and his uncle (respondent
no.1 Ram Nath Madan since deceased and through LRs).
Perusal of the said counterfoil which has been admitted by the
respondents reflects that the same was issued by the three
petitioners Promila Chopra, Narinder Chopra and Mahinder
Chopra (since deceased and represented through petitioner
no.2). Reference can also be made to the judgments cited as:-
(i) Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs. Leela Wati & Ors 155
(2008) DLT 383, wherein it was held that the landlord is not
supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under
Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is
more than a tenant. (ii) Shanti Sharma Vs. Ved Prabha, AIR
1987 SC 2028, wherein it was held that for the purpose of
Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, ownership is not to be understood
as absolute ownership but only as a title better than that of the
tenant.
Once it is admitted by the respondents that Late Smt Ram Piari,
predecessor in interest of the petitioners, was the owner as well
as the landlady of the tenanted premises, it stands proved on
record that there was in fact a relationship of landlord-tenants
between the petitioners and the respondents with respect to the
suit property and that the petitioners are the successor in
interest/owners of the tenanted premises. Further, as already
noted, the respondents have also admitted the counterfoil of the
rent receipt Ex RW1/X wherein the name of the three
petitioners is shown in the column of landlord/owner. The
issue of ownership of the tenanted premises accordingly stands
proved in favor of the petitioners."
8. With regard to purpose of letting is concerned, it has come out in
evidence that it was let for residential purpose. The relevant extract is as
under:
"Petitioner no.1/PW-1 in her cross-examination admitted as
correct that in the site plan Ex PW-1/1, the property in question
shown in red is shown as a shop. It was further submitted that
in her further cross-examination, PW-1 also admitted that
neither Ram Piari nor her son got the latrine and bathroom
constructed for the use of the alleged tenanted room by the
respondents. It was further submitted by the Ld. Counsel for
the respondents that it cannot be believed even on the fact of it
that the tenanted premises was a room and was let out for
residential purposes as it cannot be believed that a room which
has been let out for residential purposes to the tenants would
not include the latrine and bathroom which are the essential
sanitary facilities to be provided by the landlords to the tenants.
Further, even the petitioner/PW-1 was unsure in her cross
examination as to whether at present there exists any bathroom
or latrine or bathroom or latrine even offered as a common
usage has been shown by the petitioners. It was further
submitted that notwithstanding the fact that after the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Vs. Union of India III
(2208) SLT 553, the purpose of letting is no longer an
issue/requirement u/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act, still the eviction
petition is not maintainable on the ground of
concealment/misrepresentation of a material fact which is with
respect to the nature of the suit premises, by the petitioners in
their eviction petition. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, on the
other hand, submitted that even if it is presumed that the
tenanted premises was in fact a shop and was let out for
commercial purposes, it cannot be said that there is any
misrepresentation of facts by the petitioners as the purpose of
letting post Satyawati Vs Union of India Case (supra) is no
longer relevant for the purposes of adjudication of an eviction
petition on the ground of bona fide need u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC
Act."
9. With regard to issue of alternative accommodation and bona fide
requirement the learned trial court has discussed the statement of the
witnesses as under:
"9......PW-1 Promila Chopra in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex
PX not only reiterated in para no. 14 thereof that she owns a property
in Rohini which is under the occupation of a tenant @ Rs. 3600/- per
month, she went ahead in deposing regarding the present state of
affairs of the said property by stating that the said flat at Rohini has
been disposed of in April, 2006 i.e during the pendency of the eviction
petition. She also reiterated that the petitioners or their family
members do not own any other property except the property bearing
no. 53/27, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Even in her cross
examination, PW-1 stood her ground by deposing that she is not in
ownership or possession of any other property except the property in
dispute and that she had already disposed of her flat at Rohini in the
year 2006. Merely because, she did not file on record any document
concerning the sale of the said flat, it cannot be said that her testimony
regarding the sale of the said flat is to be disbelieved, more so, when
even the respondents have failed to bring on record any cogent
evidence so as to substantiate their plea that the petitioners are the
owners of properties in Rohini and Noida. The other aspect of the
matter is with respect to the issue as to whether the accommodation
available and in possession of the petitioners is sufficient for their
existing need and requirement of residence. As already noted, the
respondents took a plea that not only the two sons of petitioner no.1
are not residing with the petitioner no.1 and have their own residence
in Delhi, even the petitioners have in their possession sufficient
accommodation in property no. 53/27, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. PW-1 not only denied the suggestion in her cross-
examination that her son Dharmender Chopra is not living with her,
she in fact reasserted that even her second son is also living with her.
PW-2 Naveen Chopra also reiterated in his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex P-2 that the family of petitioner no.1 consists of the
petitioner no.1 her two married sons and their family members. This
aspect of the evidence of PW-2 was neither controverted nor rebutted
by the respondents in his cross-examination. Going further, one of the
respondents who is respondent no.3 Ashutosh Madan stepped into the
witness box as RW-1 and deposed as per his affidavit Ex R-1. In his
cross-examination, the witness stated that he can understand English
and that he is also a part time coaching language teacher at American
School, Gurgaon and that he is also running business of ball bearing
and machinery parts from 10314, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi as a
partner with his brother/another respondent Lalit Madan. From this
testimony of the witness/respondent no.3, it can be safely inferred that
he is a man of reasonable intelligence and prudence. Further cross-
examination of the witness is to be dealt accordingly in the light of the
said fact of his education. In his further cross examination, not only
the respondent no.3 feigned ignorance about the other shops in the
premises bearing no. 53/27, Ramjas Road in possession of the
petitioners but also stated that he is not aware whether the petitioners
are the owners of the shops in between the confectionery shop and the
Sindhi Tikki shop. He further stated that he is also not aware as to
who is owner of shop marked Z in site plan Ex PW-1/1. He further
admitted that adjacent to the shop marked Z, there is a residential
portion. He further admitted that Smt. Ram Piari had let out the
tenanted portion shown in red in the site plan Ex PW-1/1 to his father
and his Tauji. In his further cross-examination he also admitted that
family of petitioner no.1 Smt. Promila Chopra resides in property no.
53/27, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and that her two sons namely
Raju @ Dharmender and Naveen and are also residing alongwith her
in the said property. He further admitted that even the wife and
children of Dharmender also reside in the said property. He also
admitted that Naveen Chopra after his divorce married one Ms.Deepti
on 15.04.2011. About the residence of petitioner no.2 and 3, the
respondent also showed his ignorance as to whether they reside on the
first floor of the said property. He also admitted as correct that Smt.
Promila and her family members are residing on the ground floor of
the property no. 53/27 which is shown bounded as A,B,C,D.E and F
in site plan Ex PW-1/1. He also admitted that the other petitioners are
residing on the first floor as shown bounded by G,H,I,J,K and L in site
plan Ex PW-1/1. Thus, from the testimony of the sole witness
examined by the respondents, it stands established that they have
failed to controvert the assertions of the petitioners in their eviction
petition that they do not have any other alternative accommodation in
their possession and that they bona fide require the tenanted premises
for the purposes of their residence."
10. RW-1 in cross-examination admitted that Smt.Promila Chopra resided
in the suit property. Her two sons are also residing alongwith their mother in
the suit premises. Wife of one of the sons Dharmender and their children
also resides in the said property. RW-1 has also admitted in cross-
examination that there is no electricity connection in the tenanted premises
and the same is disconnected and he is not aware when the said electricity
connection was disconnected, i.e. whether the same was disconnected prior
to filing of his affidavit as defence or prior to filing of eviction petition.
11. RW-1 admitted that he has not visited the property and is not even
aware how many rooms are available for the petitioners. He also cannot tell
as to what construction is carried out in the said property.
12. In view of the abovementioned reasons, this court is not inclined to
interfere with the impugned order. The learned trial court while passing the
eviction order has considered each and every aspect of the matter and has
also considered all the points raised by the petitioner. The impugned order
has been passed after discussing the evidence of the witnesses.
13. Thus, the present petition has no force. The same is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2013
