Delhi High Court
Ravinder Singh & Anr. vs Saroj Singh & Ors. on 31 October, 2019
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.10.2019
+ RC.REV. 539/2016
RAVINDER SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
SAROJ SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Suri, Advocate with petitioner no. 1 &
2 in person.
For the Respondent: Ms. Gita Dhingra, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner/landlord impugns order dated 19.08.2016 whereby
eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of bonafide necessity has
been dismissed by the Rent Controller after trial.
2. Petitioner had filed the subject eviction petition seeking
eviction of the respondents from one room, one kitchen, one
bathroom/WC on the first floor of Property bearing No. 11200-B,
First Floor, Mandir Road, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Near Arya
Samaj Mandir, Delhi, more particularly shown in red colour in the site
plan annexed to the eviction petition.
3. Petitioners had filed the subject eviction petition seeking
eviction of the respondents on the ground that they are residing on the
ground floor consisting of four rooms, four kitchens and WC and the
family of petitioner no. 1 comprises of petitioner no. 1 himself, his
wife, two daughters and one son. One daughter and one son of
petitioner no. 1 are married and the son also has a daughter from the
wedlock. Accordingly, family of petitioner no. 1 comprises of him, his
wife and one married son, one unmarried daughter, daughter-in-law
and granddaughter. Family of Petitioner no. 2 comprises of himself,
his wife and three unmarried daughters, two of whom are major. In
these circumstances, the petitioners submitted that they require 7
(seven) rooms for their use and occupation and they only had four
rooms on the ground floor.
4. There are two tenants on the first floor; both having equal
accommodation of one room, one kitchen and one bathroom/WC
each.
5. Subject eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller
holding that as per the respondent tenant, petitioners are in occupation
of 8 (eight) rooms on the ground floor and further that the site plan
filed by the petitioner was not proper as it did not have the exact
dimensions of the properties. It was further held that at the time of
grant of leave to defend the petitioners had admitted that petitioners
had inducted tenants in two rooms and the petitioner has not been able
to show which are the said two rooms.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even if the site
plan filed by the respondent was to be taken into account, it clearly
shows that there are only four rooms in possession of the petitioners.
The four rooms held by the Rent Controller to be rooms are of the
dimensions 7.3' x 6', which would not qualify as bed rooms.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it was for
the tenant to show that Petitioner had inducted any fresh tenant and
the Rent Controller has incorrectly placed the onus on the petitioner.
8. After some arguments, learned counsel for respondents under
instructions from the respondents submits that the respondents admit
the relationship of landlord-tenant and admit that the Petitioners are
the owners and landlords of the subject premises. They further admit
that the need of the petitioners is bonafide. They further admit that the
petitioners do not have any other suitable alternative accommodation
available with them.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents under
instructions from the respondents submits that the respondents admit
the claim of the petitioners and do not wish to contest the eviction
petition and pray that an eviction order be passed, however, permitting
them to continue to occupy the premises till 30.04.2020.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further
undertakes on behalf of the respondents that the respondents shall
vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted
premises to the petitioner on or before 30.04.2020. Learned counsel
further undertakes on behalf of the respondents that they shall pay use
and occupation charges per month at the agreed rates till the time they
hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to
the petitioners on or before 30.04.2020.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents further undertakes that
respondents undertake to clear the water, electricity and other
dues/charges in respect of the tenanted premises before they vacate
the premises. She further undertakes that they shall not sublet, assign
or part with the possession of the tenanted premises or any part
thereof. She further undertakes that they shall not cause any damage
to the property and shall hand over the peaceful vacant possession of
the same in the condition as it exists today subject to normal wear and
tear.
12. The undertaking is accepted.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners under instructions from the
petitioners submits that the undertaking is also acceptable to the
petitioners.
14. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 19.08.2016 is
set aside. The eviction petition is allowed. Decree of eviction is
passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent in
respect of one room, one kitchen, one bathroom/WC on the first floor
of Property bearing No. 11200-B, First Floor, Mandir Road, Gaushala
Marg, Kishan Ganj, Near Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi, more
particularly shown in red colour in the site plan (Exhibit PW1/7)
annexed to the eviction petition.
15. Affidavit of undertaking in the above terms shall be filed by the
respondents within a period of two weeks from today.
16. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
17. List on 19.12.2019 for reporting compliance, with regard to
filing of the affidavit of undertaking by the Respondents.
18. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 31, 2019
'rs'
