Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar Gupta & Anr. vs Chetan Lal on 17 October, 2019
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.10.2019
+ RC.REV. 550/2019 & CM APPL. 41230/2019
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
CHETAN LAL ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Arya, Advocate with petitioner
in person.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate with respondent in
person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 02.03.2019 whereby leave to
defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an
eviction order passed.
2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking
eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under
Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 from first floor
of property bearing No. 634, Gali No. 14, Adarsh Mohalla, Maujpur,
Delhi (consisting of two rooms, latrine, bath, kitchen, balcony, lobby),
more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with
the eviction petition.
3. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition contending
that subject property is situated in an area measuring 75 sq. yards
which consists on ground floor and first floor. The ground floor
consists of one hall measuring 15'x45' ft., latrine and bath therein and
first floor consists of two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bath, balcony and
lobby which is under the tenancy of petitioner herein.
4. It is contended in the eviction petition that the family of the
respondent consists of himself, his wife and four children, i.e., three
sons; aged 23, 20 and 15 years and one daughter; aged 21 years.
Besides his wife and children, the family of the respondent consists of
his mother and two unmarried sisters aged 28 and 26 years and the
respondent along with his wife, children, widow mother and sisters
are residing in property bearing No. 129, Gali No. 4, Bhajanpura,
Delhi which is a house owned by the mother of the respondent and
said property consists of three rooms on the ground floor, out of
which one room was being used as a drawing room, two kitchens, one
Pooja room, two store rooms, latrine and two bathrooms and first
floor consists of two temporary rooms with tin-shed, latrine and bath.
5. It is contended that the respondent also has a younger brother
who along with his wife and children is living in Maujpur, Delhi, in
his own house but visits the respondent, his mother and sisters.
Besides this, the respondent also has four married sisters who though
live with their families but visit the mother off and on.
6. It is contended that there is no other vacant suitable
accommodation available with the respondent for residence of his
family and since his family is very large, the accommodation at D-
129, Gali No. 4, Bhajanpura, Delhi consisting only five rooms is
insufficient to accommodate the respondent, his wife, his four
children, his unmarried sisters and mother and also the visiting the
guests of his mother and his married sisters and brother.
7. Subject leave to defend was filed by the petitioner disputing
that respondent is owner/landlord of the subject property. It is
contended by the petitioner that Shri Jagdish Mittal had let out the
property to the petitioner and there is no relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties. It is further contended that the hall on the
ground floor of the subject premises is lying vacant.
8. In response to leave to defend application, it is contended by
the respondent that he had purchased the property from Smt. Sushma
Mittal wife of Sh. Jagdish Prasad Mittal. It is further contended that
Smt. Sushma Mittal had even sent a legal notice to the petitioner
directing the petitioner to attorn to the respondent.
9. Petitioner has not that he is a tenant in the property. The only
dispute is that he claims to be a tenant of Shri Jagdish Prasad Mittal.
10. In support of the claim respondent has filed the property
documents executed by Smt. Sushma wife of Shri Jagdish Prasad
Mittal i.e. registered agreement to sell, registered general power of
attorney, registered special power of attorney and notarized agreement
to sell, etc. in favour of the respondent.
11. It is a settled position of law that to maintain an eviction
petition, the respondent-landlord does not have to show absolute
ownership but has to show a title better than that of the tenant.1
12. Petitioner has claimed to be a tenant under Shri Jagdish Mittal.
Respondent has claimed ownership based on the documents executed
by Smt. Sushma Mittal wife of Shri Jagdish Mittal. Smt. Sushma
Mittal has also sent a legal notice to the petitioner requiring the
petition to attorn to the respondent.
13. It is also the admitted case of the parties that prior to this
petition, a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act was filed
against the petitioner. In the said petition, orders were passed under
Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, directing petition
to deposit rent in court and the petitioner claims to have duly
deposited the rent in compliance of the said directions, though it is
contended that the same was deposited only to comply with the
directions of the Court.
14. Be that as it may, since the respondent has shown that
Shanti Sharma & Others Versus Ved Prabha & Others (1987) 4 SCC 193;
Suresh Kumar Anand Versus Suman Bala 2014 SCC Online Del 4051;
respondent has a better title than the petitioner and petitioner has only
claimed tenancy rights in the property, the petition is maintainable on
behalf of the respondent.
15. With regard to the bonafide necessity and alternative
accommodation, it is seen that the respondent has pleaded that
respondent has a large family comprising of his wife, four grown up
children; three boys and one girl aged 20 to 21 years. Respondent is
presently residing with his mother where not only the mother but two
unmarried sisters are also residing. Married sisters and brother of the
respondent also visit the mother.
16. Even if, entire accommodation at the house of the mother was
taken into account, the same does not satisfy the requirement of the
respondent, his family as also the mother and her family.
17. Petitioner has not pleaded that apart from the subject property
in which the tenancy premises are situated, respondent owns or
possesses any other property.
18. With regard to the plea of the petitioner that the ground floor of
the subject property comprising of a hall is lying vacant, it is seen that
it is not the case of the respondent that there are rooms, etc. on the
ground floor but contention is that the same is a big hall. Even if the
said hall was taken into account and clubbed to the accommodation
already available with the respondent at his mother's house, the same
would not still satisfy the requirement of the respondent.
19. I am satisfied that the Rent Controller has correctly held that
there is no triable issue arising in the present petition and petitioner
has not been able to show any ground, which if proved, would
disentitle the respondent-landlord from an order of eviction.
20. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the order of the Rent
Controller in declining to grant leave to defend to the petitioner.
21. I find no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
22. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J,
OCTOBER 17, 2019
'rs'
