Delhi High Court
Prince Kapoor & Anr. vs Dhiraj Khosla on 9 May, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.05.2014
+ RC.REV. No.163 of 2014
PRINCE KAPOOR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. N.P. Singh, Adv.
versus
DHIRAJ KHOSLA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
This petition impugns an order dated 10.3.2014, which declined the
petitioner/tenant leave to defend in a motion by the respondent/landlord
seeking eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') from property bearing No.5189,
Kohlapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The learned counsel for the
petitioners states that there was clear lack of evidence apropos the claim of
ownership of the tenanted premises in favour of the eviction petitioner. He
submits that there is apparent incongruity in the documents and the claims of
the eviction petitioner, i.e. on the one hand he claims ownership of the suit
premises by inheritance of a Will executed on 5.2.1986 while on the other
his own father had claimed ownership of the premises. The tenant had
contended that the eviction petitioner had adduced no evidence regarding his
ownership of the property. However, the Trial Court took into consideration
_______________________________________________________________________
that in earlier litigations the tenant had admitted to the eviction-petitioner
being the landlord of the tenanted shop. Therefore, it concluded that the
respondent would be estopped from taking contrary pleas in the later
eviction petition. Accordingly the landlord-tenant relationship stood proved.
The tenant had not disputed the landlord's lack of any other accommodation.
In the circumstances, the Trial Court concluded that the only dispute left for
examination is whether the landlord's need was bona fide. On the latter
issue having found in the affirmative the impugned eviction order was
passed.
There is no dispute that Suit No.1195/93/91 titled Master Dheeraj
Khosla (Minor) Vs. Shir Vijay Kumar & Ors. for declaration, possession,
injunction and damages was filed in the year 1991. The father of the
petitioner/tenant late Shri Vijay Kumar, present respondent No.1, filed a
joint written statement on 19.9.1991 admitting that he was a tenant in Shop
No.5189, Kohlapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 at a monthly rent of
Rs.350/- and they also admitted that the tenancy was created by a Rent
Agreement dated 8.4.1991. Thus, it was clearly admitted by the defendants
in the suit that the respondent was the owner and landlord of the suit
premises. Subsequently the said suit was withdrawn on 14.12.2011 with
liberty to seek appropriate remedies before the competent court. The
aforesaid stand taken by the father of the tenant indisputably establishes the
landlord-tenant relationship and the between the respondent and the
petitioner. Therefore, the tenant's argument to the contrary is untenable.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the admission in
the written statement was only to the extent that he had not entered the
_______________________________________________________________________
property unauthorisedly but on the basis of a Rent Agreement, hence, the
Trial Court could not take a view that there was admission of tenancy.
However, this Court is of the view insofar as the Rent Agreement is
admitted, the landlord-tenant relationship gets clearly admitted and
established. The learned counsel further submits that under Section 14(1)(e)
of the Act very specific pre-conditions are required to be met before an
eviction order can be passed. It does not give any advantage to the landlord
or tenant. It has to be first established that the eviction petitioner was the
owner of the premises. However, this argument cannot be countenanced
because of the settled law that the eviction petitioner is only required to
show is that he has a superior right viz-a-viz the tenant. A reference in this
regard may be made to a judgement of the Supreme Court in M.M. Qasim
Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. (1981) 3 SCC 36.
Insofar as the tenancy has been admitted, the tenant is now estopped
from raising the issue again. Therefore, this argument too needs to be
rejected that the eviction was motivated by avarice only to relet- out the
premises at a higher rent after getting it vacated.
This Court finds, like the Trial Court did, the said plea to be
moonshine, whimsical, fanciful and without merit. Nothing has been
brought on record to substantiate the contention. Section 19 of the Act
stipulates the consequences of the non-occupation of vacated premises by
the landlord within two months or it being let out within three (3) years of
such vacation. The tenant's contention that the landlord's father had two
shops which are lying vacant with him and the same could be put to use for
his son for starting his business venture. The Trial Court was of the view
_______________________________________________________________________
that a father was under no legal obligation to provide accommodation to his
son and the former could, at best, permit his son to use the premises owned
by him which could, at best, create a relationship of a licensor and a licensee
between them. This plea of the tenant would tantamount to directing the
relatives of the landlord to provide their property for the use of the landlord.
Such a plea is preposterous to say the least and needs to be rejected. When a
tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how to adjust himself within his
own properties, the question of coercing or directing the relatives of the
landlord to proffer their properties for the use of the landlord does not arise.
In view of the foregoing this Court is of the view that the reasons for
arriving at the eviction order are based upon the records and are just. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.
The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
MAY 09, 2014 NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
b'nesh
_______________________________________________________________________
