Delhi High Court
Md. Irfan vs Smt. Jamuna Devi & Ors. on 22 July, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC REV No. 238/2014
% 22nd July , 2014
MD. IRFAN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.K. Maitra, Advocate.
VERSUS
SMT. JAMUNA DEVI & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.11574/2014 (exemption)
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M.No.11576/2014 (condonation of delay)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 30 days in re-
filing the appeal is condoned.
C.M. stands disposed of.
RC REV No.238/2014 Page 1 of 6
+ RC.REV. No.238/2014 and C.M. No.11575/2014 (stay)
3. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the judgment of the
Additional Rent Controller dated 18.12.2013 by which the leave to defend
application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and the eviction
petition has been decreed with respect to the premises being a shop in the
front of property bearing no.2956, Gali no.41-42, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi.
4. The respondent/landlords required the premises for carrying on
their business. Three respondents/landlords are the sons of the respondent
no.1/mother. All the respondents are legal heirs of Sh. Chattru Ram who
expired on 21.9.1992. Sh. Chattru Ram was the husband of the respondent
no.1 herein. Sh. Chattru Ram as also Sh. Manohar Lal and Sh. Tej Singh
were sons of Sh. Sukhdev (expired on 27.2.1988) who was co-owner of the
suit property alongwith one Sh. Manohar Lal. Therefore, Sh. Sukhdev was
half owner of the suit property and Sh. Chattru Ram alongwith Sh. Manohar
Lal and Sh. Tej Singh became 1/3rd co-owners in the half portion of Sh.
Sukhdev, and the respondents/landlords became 1/6th owners of the suit
property. There was an oral partition by which the legal heirs of Sh. Chattru
Ram became 1/6th owners of the property and the portion allotted to them on
RC REV No.238/2014 Page 2 of 6
partition comprised of the tenanted shop at the ground floor and three rooms
on the first floor.
5. In a petition for bonafide necessity, three aspects are required to
be established. First is the relationship of landlord and tenant. Second is the
bonafide requirement of the landlord for himself or for the need of his family
members. Thirdly that the landlord/respondent has no other alternative
suitable accommodation.
6(i) In the present case, so far as the aspect of relationship of
landlord and tenant is concerned, the same is clearly established by two
aspects. Firstly, many counterfoils of rent receipts bearing the signatures of
the petitioner/tenant were filed by the respondents/landlords and therefore
the present petitioner is undoubtedly a tenant. In any case, it is not disputed
that the petitioner/tenant had taken tenancy from the predecessor-in-interest
of the respondents, and therefore the respondents/landlords being co-owners
of the suit property are entitled to file the eviction petition. As per the
definition of 'landlord' as found in Section 2(e) of the Act a person who is
entitled to receive the rent is a landlord. An owner is always entitled to
receive rent and therefore all owners are automatically landlords. Therefore,
the respondents/landlords are owners and landlords of the suit premises.
(ii) As already stated above, the suit premises originally belonged
RC REV No.238/2014 Page 3 of 6
to Sh. Manohar Lal and Sh. Tej Singh and the respondents/landlords are
claiming through Sh. Chhatru Ram who was the son of Sh. Sukhdev. As per
the eviction petition oral partition was pleaded whereby the
respondent/landlords have become the co-owners of 1/6th share in the
property and their share comprising of the tenanted shop at the ground floor
and three rooms on the first floor in the property. In the leave to defend
application the aspect of partition is not denied by the present petitioner.
Once the aspect of partition is not denied by the petitioner/tenant, then, it
cannot be disputed that the respondents/landlords are the owners of the suit
shop. Also, I may note that a tenant would have no locus standi to question
the ownership of the landlord once there are no inter se disputes between the
co-owners, and the other co-owners do not dispute or challenge the
ownership of the respondents/landlords of the suit shop.
I therefore hold that the Additional Rent Controller has rightly
held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
7. At this stage, I would like to advert to one aspect urged on
behalf of the petitioner/tenant with respect to the relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties and which aspect is that the tenancy is pleaded not
only to be of the present petitioner but also of one Mohd. Irfan. The
Additional Rent Controller, in this regard, has rightly dismissed this
RC REV No.238/2014 Page 4 of 6
argument by observing that by a bald allegation, a person cannot become a
co-tenant, more so because in the present case many counterfoils of the rent
receipts have been filed by the respondents/landlords showing tenancy only
of the present petitioner. The petitioner/tenant may conveniently deny his
signatures on the rent receipts, however, such denial cannot raise bonafide
triable issues. If in fact such a stand of the petitioner/tenant is permitted to
be raised for grant of leave to defend, then, in almost every case, leave to
defend has to be granted where the tenant will state existence of an
imaginary co-tenant. This argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is also
therefore rejected.
8. So far as the bonafide urgency and availability of alternative
premises is concerned it is be noted that, the aspect of partition is not
disputed by the petitioner, and as a result of the partition the
respondents/landlords have got the suit shop alongwith three rooms for
residential purpose on the first floor. Once partition is not disputed it cannot
be said that the bonafide necessity does not exist because the facts are that
the elder son of the respondent no.1 is an electrician and he has no shop to
carry out his business. Accordingly, there is no other alternative suitable
premises for carrying on the business, and for which purpose the tenanted
shop is the only premises available to the respondent/landlord. I may also
RC REV No.238/2014 Page 5 of 6
note that the rooms on the first floor are residential and are being used for
residential purpose and therefore cannot be an alternative suitable premises
for being used as a shop.
9. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and
the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 22, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
