Delhi High Court
Prabhu Dayal vs Lekh Raj on 13 April, 2018
$~11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 13th April, 2018
+ RC.REV. 589/2012
PRABHU DAYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Ahuja, Advocate with
Mr. D.S. Vohra, Adv.
versus
LEKH RAJ ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The respondent had filed a case (E. No.113/2011) for eviction
against the petitioner on 14.09.2010 on the ground of bona fide need
under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect
of premises described as shop forming part of property bearing
No.618/5-F, Near Ravidas Mandir, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi,
as shown in colour red in the site plan (Ex.PW-1/A) submitted with
the petition.
2. Having regard to the ground for eviction, additional rent
controller (ARC) applied the procedure envisaged in Section 25-B of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner on being served with
the said summons under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958, moved an application seeking leave to contest, which was
granted by order dated 06.08.2011. The case was thereafter put to trial,
it eventually resulting in eviction order being passed by judgment
dated 06.09.2012 in favour of the respondent. It is the said order
which is under challenge by the petition at hand.
3. The respondent had pleaded before the ARC that he is the
owner of the property of which the tenanted portion forms a part, he
having let out the said portion to the petitioner in March, 2002, the
tenancy being oral at a rental of Rs.300/- per month for running a milk
dairy, the petitioner having stopped such user, having kept the shop
closed for the last four years, not even paying rent after the last
payment for the month of May, 2005. The respondent claims that he
is a cobbler by profession and that he has been earning his livelihood
by working for gain in that capacity from a pavement in the area of
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. He sought eviction on the ground
that he is a person skilled in his profession and wants to establish
himself in a proper premises and, thus, requires the said shop for his
own needs.
4. The petitioner by his pleadings in the written statement denied
any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, also
disputing the claim of the respondent about he being the owner of the
subject property. On the contrary, he claimed ownership of the
property vesting in him. The claim of the respondent of bona fide
need for his own purposes was also resisted.
5. Both sides led evidence including the respondent appearing as
his own witness (PW-1), also examining other witnesses primarily
from the neighbourhood, they including Harkhayal Singh (PW-2),
Veer Singh (PW-4) and Prabhu (PW-5), and in addition, an official
witness Satinder Kumar Bhatti (PW-3), an employee of the house tax
department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioner, on the
other hand, examined himself as RW1.
6. The additional rent controller considered the evidence led by
both sides. He found that the evidence led by the respondent was
credible and, thus, rejected the contentions of the petitioner about he
being the owner of the subject property. The claim of the respondent
that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the subject premises was
accepted. The ARC also found the claim of the respondent for eviction
on the ground of bona fide need to be just and proper and
consequently granted the order of eviction.
7. Having heard both sides and having perused the record with the
assistance of the respective counsel, this court finds no error or
infirmity in the impugned judgment of the additional rent controller.
8. The respondent, by his evidence, has clearly brought home his
claim to the ownership of the property of which the tenanted premises
forms a part. His testimony as PW-1 on the strength of his affidavit
(Ex.PW-1/1) is corroborated by the evidence of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-
5. As part of the evidence adduced, the respondent had also proved
that the property in question is assessed to house tax in his name,
house tax receipt (Ex.PW-3/A) having been proved by the official
witness summoned from the concerned department. The respondent
had also proved that he is a registered voter of the area from the
address of the said property (Ex.PW-1/E), he also holding a ration
card (Ex.PW-1/C) in its respect. There is ample evidence to show that
he and his brother have been residing in the said property since 1970s.
9. In contrast, the petitioner has sought to prove his title to the
subject property merely by placing reliance on a license (Ex.RW-1/1)
issued by Municipal Corporation of Delhi statedly in his favour in the
name of the firm M/s. F.S. Kharkhodi Welding Works. As noted by
the ARC, the said municipal license pertains to another property
(bearing municipal no.618/5-B), there being no clear connection
between the document and the property in question. Even if the said
document was to be believed, all that it would show is that the
petitioner had been running some business in name and style of M/s
F.S. Kharkhodi Welding Works from the tenanted portion. This
would be hardly a material on which claim to the title to the property
could be inferred.
10. It does appear that the respondent has not come up with any sale
deed or conveyance deed so as to strictly prove his claim as to the
ownership. He has also not executed any rent document nor is in a
position to produce any rent receipt. But then, evidence of the
neighbor about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties provides sufficient corroboration to the word of the respondent.
In these circumstances, when sufficient evidence is available to infer
the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the case of
the respondent about he being the owner cannot be thrown out only
because he is unable to come with clear documents evidencing his
ownership. In proceedings of this nature, the landlord only needs to
prove his title better than of the opposite party. [See: Shanti Sharma
vs. Ved Prabha, (1987) 4 SCC 193].
11. In above view, the conclusions reached by the additional rent
controller on the issue of ownership and the relationship of landlord
and tenant cannot be faulted.
12. No other point was urged at the hearing on the revision petition.
13. The petition is thus, found to be devoid of substance. It is
dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 13, 2018
vk
