Delhi High Court
Ravinder Singh & Anr vs Naresh Kumar & Ors on 24 February, 2020
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 24.02.2020
+ RC.REV. 266/2019 & CM APPL. 19993/2019
RAVINDER SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
versus
NARESH KUMAR & 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: Mr.Niraj Chaudhary with Mr.A.S.Sharma,
Advocates for R-1 to 3.
None for respondent No.4.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. None is present on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 despite
service. Respondent No. 4 is the brother of the petitioners/landlord
and is a co-owner of the subject property. He has filed his affidavit of
no objection to the eviction petition.
2. Petitioner/landlord impugns order dated 04.04.2019 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.
3. 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. 11203, First
Floor, Mandir Road, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Near Arya Samaj
Mandir, Delhi-110006, more particularly as shown in red colour in the
site plan annexed to the eviction petition.
4. 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.
5. There are two tenants on the first floor; both having equal
accommodation of one room, one kitchen and one bathroom/WC
each.
6. Leave to defend the eviction Petition has been granted by the
impugned order taking into account the site plan filed by the
Respondent/tenant.
7. 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.
8. After some arguments, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1
to 3 under instructions from the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 submits that
the said 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 respondents Nos. 1 to 3 under
instructions from the said respondents submits that the respondents
admit the claim of the petitioners and do not wish to press their leave
to defend application and contest the eviction petition and pray that an
eviction order be passed, however, permitting them to continue to
occupy the premises till 23.02.2021.
10. Respondents who are present in court undertake that
Respondents 1 to 3 shall vacate and handover the peaceful vacant
possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioner on or before
23.02.2021. They further undertakes that they shall pay use and
occupation charges with effect from 01.08.2020 @ ₹5000/- per month
till the time they hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the
tenanted premises to the petitioners on or before 23.02.2021.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents further undertakes that
they shall clear the water, electricity and other dues/charges in respect
of the tenanted premises before they vacate the premises. They
further undertake that they shall not sublet, assign or part with the
possession of the tenanted premises or any part thereof. They further
undertake 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 04.04.2019 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. 11203, First Floor, Mandir Road, Gaushala
Marg, Kishan Ganj, Near Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi-110006, more
particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan 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. It is further directed that in terms of Section 14(7) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958, the eviction order passed herein shall not be
executable for a period of six months. However, subject to filing of an
affidavit of undertaking by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in terms
hereof, the eviction order shall not be executable till 23.02.2021.
17. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
rk
