Delhi High Court
Ghansar Singh vs Kusum Lata Sharma on 17 April, 2018
$~ 13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 17th April, 2018
+ RC. REV. 80/2015 and CM APPL.3023/2015 (stay)
GHANSAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Adarsh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
versus
KUSUM LATA SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. V.K. Garg, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Sagar Saxena, & Ms. Noopur
Dubey, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner admittedly is a tenant in a portion described as
two rooms each on the first and the second floor of the property
bearing No.C-586, Gali No.12, Majlis Park, Delhi-110 033
(hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises"). The respondent
had instituted a case for eviction (E.No.03/2011) on 06.01.2011
against him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The eviction case was contested by
the petitioner (the tenant) on various grounds, the prime plea being
that the respondent (landlady), a widow, who does not have any
children of her own, has available to her sufficient accommodation,
the property in question comprising of a number of rooms, out of
which two bed rooms have been in use and occupation of the landlady,
the brother-in-law (devar) (Prem Kumar Sharma) and his wife
(devrani) (Geeta Sharma) along with their children (two un-married
daughters and one son), not being members of her family nor persons
dependent on her for residential purposes. The petitioner (tenant) also
took up the plea that the brother-in-law (devar) for whose residential
needs the eviction was sought, himself owns property No.C-588, Gali
No.12, Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi and further that his wife (Geeta
Sharma) also owns property bearing No.C-587, Gali No.12, Majlis
Park, Azad Pur, Delhi, in addition to another property bearing No.C-
600, Gali No.13, Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi.
2. The case was put to trial in which both sides led evidence. It
was decided by the learned additional rent controller (ARC) by
judgment dated 21.11.2014. All the grounds of contest raised by the
petitioner were repelled and eviction order was consequently granted
in favour of the respondent/ landlady. The petition at hand challenges
the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings returned and the
eviction order resultantly passed.
3. At the hearing, the ground raised by the petitioner primarily is
that the respondent/landlady has not acted bona fide as she has
concealed the crucial facts concerning property No.C-587, Gali No.12,
Majlis Park, Azad Pur, Delhi. It is the argument of the
petitioner/tenant that the pleadings of the respondent/landlady, in
above regard have been misleading and that a false case was set up,
the true fact being that Geeta Sharma (wife of the brother-in-law) for
needs of whose family the eviction case is pressed, is owner and in
possession of the said property in her own rights and, therefore, she
not being a dependant for such purposes on the respondent/landlady,
has been withheld.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having
perused the record, this Court finds merit in the grievance of the
petitioner/tenant. The reasons may be set out hereinafter.
5. A perusal of the eviction petition presented before the additional
rent controller would show that the respondent had described herself
as a resident of ground floor of property No.C-586, Gali No.12, Majlis
Park, Delhi-110033, the tenanted portion in possession of the
petitioner having been described as two rooms, one room each on th
first and second floor, in the rear portion of the property. The tenanted
premises was described to be part of the property bearing No.C-586,
reference being made to its graphical depiction in the site plan
(Annexure-'A') in colour red. The Copy of the site plan, which was
filed with the eviction petition, it having been captioned as the site
plan of property No.C-586, Gali No.12 & 13, Majlis Park, Delhi-110
033, would show the property to be a three storeyed structure, there
being two bed rooms, one drawing room, atleast three rooms, besides
kitchen, toilet, verandah and other areas (courtyard, staircase, etc.) at
the ground floor and atleast three rooms on the first floor and the
second floor (Ex.PW-1/16). Reliance was also placed on another site
plan (Ex.PW-15) which would primarily depict the accommodation at
the first and the second floor level, the said site plan also having been
captioned as one of property No.C-586, Gali No.15, Majlis Park,
Azadpur, Delhi. For clarity, it may be added here that there was no
reference to property No.C-587 in the site plan, the impression thereby
created being that the entire structure/accommodation depicted therein
relates to property No.C-586 only.
6. The respondent appeared as her own witness (PW-1) and during
her cross-examination, she explained that her husband had passed
away in 1999 and further that she does not have any child of her own,
she not even having adopted any child. She, however, sought to
explain in that context that she considered the children of her brother-
in-law (devar) as her own children and that they had been residing
with her since the very beginning. This clearly shows improvement
being made over the case as originally set up.
7. Be that as it may, PW-1 in cross-examination stated that she
would not remember as to when she had purchased property No.C-
586, Gali No.13, Majlis Park, Delhi. She admitted that Geeta Sharma,
wife of her brother-in-law (Prem Kumar Sharma) for whose needs the
eviction is sought is owner of property bearing No.C-587, Gali No.12,
Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. She also admitted that Geeta Sharma
was residing in her property bearing No.C-587. It was at that stage that
she would add that the plot No.586 and 587 had been joined for
raising a construction of one building and that she and her sister-in-
law Geeta Sharma are residing in that one building as one family.
8. The argument raised against the above backdrop has been that
the site plans (Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/6) depict a common building
constructed over two adjoining plots, they bearing No.C-586 and C-
587. This argument cannot be accepted as it is not based on any
pleadings to this effect. On the contrary, in the averments in the
petition it was a clear case of the respondent/landlady that the tenanted
portion forms part of property No.C-586, which is depicted in the said
site plan filed therewith.
9. Faced with the above argument, the counsel for the
respondent/landlord sought to place reliance on pleadings in para
18(a)(ii) where it was, inter alia, mentioned that "as stated above ...
the front portion of the property bearing No.C-586/587, Gali No.12,
Majlis Park, Delhi-110033 comprises of only ground floor and is
having two bed rooms, one drawing room, two kitchen, two
latrine/bathroom, two small store rooms, one pooja room and one
court yard and petitioner is presently having the aforesaid
accommodation in her possession."
10. It is correct on the part of the petitioner/tenant to argue that the
pleadings in above nature are misleading. There is no reference to
property No.C-587 in any of the earlier or even in the later part of the
eviction petition. Therefore, the pleadings beginning with the
expression "as stated above" were factually incorrect. There was no
reference made to the right, title or interest of Geeta Sharma (wife of
brother-in-law) in the property in question or the same having been
built over two adjoining plots of land as a common super-structure.
The respondent/landlady cannot be allowed to make out a new case
beyond her own pleadings.
11. For the foregoing reasons, it must be held that the respondent
landlady has failed to prove her case of bona fide need. Consequently,
the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 is set aside. Her eviction
petition is dismissed.
12. The petition and the application filed therewith stand disposed
of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 17, 2018
vk
