Delhi High Court
Shiv Ram vs Anand Kumar on 15 October, 2019
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 15.10.2019
+ RC.REV. 593/2019
SHIV RAM ..... Petitioner
versus
ANAND KUMAR ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ram Niwas Buri and Mr. Lalit Narayan Singh,
Advocates
For the Respondent: None.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 05.07.2019 whereby the
petition filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent on the
ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 has been dismissed after trial.
2. Subject eviction petition was filed by the petitioner with regard
to one room out of the residential building in property bearing No. D-
1/230, Nand Nagari, Delhi.
3. The defence taken by the respondent was that he is not a tenant
in the property and that the property was jointly allotted to the
petitioner as well as the father of the respondent i.e. late Shri Shanti
Swaroop in the year 1976 by the Delhi Development Authority
(DDA) and being the son of Shri Shanti Swaroop he is a co-owner of
the subject property and in possession of the said shop in his own
right.
4. In response the petitioner contended that Shri Shanti Swaroop
had died issueless and his wife Smt. Maya Devi had deserted him and
started living with one - Narayan Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the
school record of the respondent to contend that at the time of the
admission in the school, the name of his father was shown as Narayan
Singh and his date of birth was shown as 15.05.1979.
6. Learned counsel further contends that the respondent has relied
on the date of birth entry in the Register of Municipal Corporation
dated 30.06.1978 in which the date of birth is allegedly shown as
26.06.1978.
7. Learned counsel submits that the register produced showed that
the entry is made on information provided by the petitioner and
allegedly bears his signatures and thumb impression. He submits that
the handwriting expert confirmed that the alleged signature and thumb
impression are not of the petitioner. Hence, it is contended that the
respondent had falsely pleaded that he is son of late Shri Shanti
Swaroop.
8. Rent Controller in the impugned judgment has noted that it is
not in dispute that the property, in which the tenanted premises is
situated was allotted by DDA jointly to the petitioner and the
deceased Shanti Swaroop. It is also not in dispute that Shanti Swaroop
was married to Smt. Maya Devi. It is also not in dispute that Smt.
Maya Devi is the mother of the respondent.
9. Rent Controller has noted that the case of the respondent is that
he is born out of the wedlock of Shri Shanti Swaroop and Smt. Maya
Devi and he is the biological son of Shri Shanti Swaroop and
accordingly is the legal heir and that the possession of the said shop
was given by the petitioner to the respondent being a co-owner.
10. Rent Controller has noted that the copies of the Birth Certificate
and record of the Birth Register produced by the MCD showed that
the date of registration as 30.06.1978 and name of the child born as
Anand Kumar. The date of birth of child recorded is 26.06.1978 and
the names of mother and father of the child recorded are Maya Devi
and Shanti Swaroop, respectively and the address mentioned is that of
the subject property.
11. The relevant Births and Death Register of the Municipal
Corporation (Exb. RW4/A) is more than 30 years old document and
has been produced from proper custody and is a public document.
12. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said document has
been manipulated or prepared later. The only contention raised by the
petitioner to doubt the authenticity of the said document is that there
was no corresponding contemporaneous application available on
record based on which the entry is made in Exb. RW4/A.
13. It is observed that the entry in the Register is a public document
and has been produced from a public source i.e. from the custodian of
the records of Births and Deaths. The entry in the Register is of the
year 1978 and which is more than 30 years old and the Court has to
presume the genuineness of the said document. The Register
categorically records the name of the parents as Maya Devi and Shanti
Swaroop and the address of the subject property. The name of the
respondent is recorded as the child born on the said date.
14. AS noticed by the Rent Controller, there is no requirement in
law for the Municipal Corporation to preserve and maintain record of
the contemporaneous documents based on which the entry is recorded
in the Register.
15. Further, it is not possible for someone to have forged and
fabricated a document as far back as in the year 1978 with an
intention to use it after 40 years to defend and application for eviction.
There is no basis to raise a doubt on the authenticity and veracity of
the entry recorded in the Register.
16. Merely because in the school records the name of the father of
the respondent is recorded as Narayan Singh is no ground to doubt the
genuineness and veracity of the entry contained in the Register of
Births.
17. The Rent Controller has rightly held that since the allegations is
that Maya Devi was residing with Narayan Singh, there is a probable
explanation as to why the name of the Narayan Singh figures in the
school record. The case set up by the respondent is that because
Narayan Singh has taken the responsibility of a father and guardian
after the marriage of Maya Devi with Narayan Singh, the name of the
Narayan Singh figures in the records of the school as the father.
18. Further, it may be seen that the respondent has also proved on
record his Ration Card, Voter Identity Card as well as other
contemporaneous public document which mention the name of the
father as Shanti Swaroop.
19. Further, it may be noted that petitioner had also filed a suit for
recovery of rent in the year 2006 contending that respondent was a
tenant. Respondent had filed his written statement to the suit
specifically denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and
contended that he was in possession of the subject property as an
owner thereof being son of Shri Shanti Swaroop. It is contended by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the said suit was dismissed for
non prosecution.
20. Since the defence raised by the respondent in the Suit for
recovery of rent filed by the petitioner was that he is the owner of the
subject property and in possession thereof as an owner of the same
and the said Suit has been dismissed, the principles of issue estoppel
will clearly debar the petitioner from once again agitating that the
Respondent is his tenant or that there is relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties.
21. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the view taken by
the Rent Controller that the petitioner has not been able to even prima
facie establish that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between
the parties and that respondent is not a tenant in the shop under the
petitioner and accordingly the petition is liable to be dismissed.
22. Since I find no infirmity in the impugned order, I find no merits
in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 15, 2019
'rs'
