Smt Natho Devi v. Padam Singh

1. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958[1], has been filed seeking the following prayers: - “In view of the above said facts and submissions, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: For short, ‘DRCA’ a) call for records of Eviction Petition No.E-123/14/10 titled as 'Smt.Natho Devi vs Padam Singh' from Ld.Trial Court; b) set-aside the impugned Order dated 24.2.2021 passed by Shri Ajay Nagar, Ld.ARC (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. E- 123/14/10 titled as 'Smt.Natho Devi vs Padam Singh' and allow the petition of the petitioner, as prayed for, in the interest of justice c) pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent..”

2. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord assailing the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 passed by learned ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition No.E-123/14/10 qua the premises comprising one room and balcony on the First Floor at Property No.10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘demised premises’). By way of the impugned judgment, learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-landlord.

3. The petitioner had filed subject eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises. It was stated that the premises were let out by the petitioner to the respondent for residential purposes and the latter has been residing there along with his family members. In the eviction petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the demised premises and same was purchased by her vide usual document, i.e., Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc., all dated 27.12.1990, from the grandfather of her husband, namely, Bholu Ram. It is further stated that, even otherwise, the grandfather of her husband was the owner of the demised premises. It is further stated that after death of the father-in-law of the petitioner, the subject property default on all the legal heirs of her father-in-law which included five other brothers, besides her husband. All six brothers are residing in the property bearing No.10525-27, and all six brothers are having their own family members. Five brothers of petitioner’s husband were residing on the ground floor and first floor of the property along with their respective family members. It is further stated that legal heirs of three deceased brothers of her husband were residing in ground floor of the aforesaid property, whereas two brothers and their family members were residing on the first-floor portion of the said property. It is the case of the petitioner that she is staying on the second-floor portion of the property and is having one room and one tin shed only which is not habitable and cannot be counted as a room. The family of the petitioner comprised of her husband, her three daughters, and herself. The petitioner and her husband are senior citizens and their one daughter is married and other two unmarried and are staying with the petitioner in the said one room with great difficulty. It was further stated that their married daughter visits the petitioner along with her husband and due to lack of accommodation, the petitioner cannot accommodate her married daughter owing to the insufficient space available with her, and therefore, requires the demised premises bonafidely for herself as well as for the benefit of her other family members who are dependent upon the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that staying in aforesaid one room at the second floor of the property along with her two daughters and husband is very difficult. It is further stated in the eviction petition that, in fact, the petitioner is having virtually one room in the entire property and the said property also belongs to other legal heirs of her fatherin-law. Further, the petitioner wanted to stay on the first-floor portion of the property where the respondent is staying and her need is genuine and bonafide as she is a senior citizen and is having health problems due to which she is not in a position to climb every time to the second floor of the property. It is the case of the petitioner that the said property was purchased in 1990 and after purchasing the same, the petitioner renovated the property and started doing business from the ground floor of the property. In fact, husband of the petitioner was stated to be doing labour job from the said shop and the petitioner is also assisting her husband in doing the said job work.

4. It is further stated that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the demised premises and the respondent is a tenant of the said premises. Further, the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi or elsewhere and as such her need qua the suit premises is genuine and bonafide for the benefit of her own family members and herself. It is further stated that one sister of the petitioner due to matrimonial dispute with her husband had started staying with the petitioner and subsequently, petitioner along with her sister had purchased one plot in Palam, New Delhi and one room has been constructed on the said plot by petitioner’s sister. It is further stated that though the petitioner and her sister are owners of the said property in Palam; however, her sister is staying in the said property and the same is very far from the demised premises and the property in Palam is not reasonably suitable for residential requirement of the petitioner. The property in Palam was primarily purchased to accommodate petitioner’s sister and in any event, said property does not solely belong to the petitioner.

5. It is further stated that it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that respondent has also acquired some accommodation in Ghaziabad. However, he is not shifting there and not vacating the demised premises, and besides that, the respondent has also acquired another premises situated at 10539, Manak Pura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, and, he sometimes stays there. Lastly, it was the case of the petitioner that she has no reasonable alternative suitable residential accommodation in Delhi or elsewhere except the demised premises to fulfil her requirement.

6. In the present case, application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent was allowed vide order dated 24.03.2015. In leave to defend, it was stated that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide inasmuch as the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question. The respondent stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and in view of the same, the subject eviction petition was not maintainable. Respondent at no point in time had admitted the petitioner as owner or landlady of the premises in question. It was further stated that the petitioner had intentionally and wilfully concealed the accommodation available with her and wrongly alleged the same is insufficient for her requirement for residence of her family members dependent upon her. It was submitted that there were 12 rooms in the said property and the petitioner also own a residential property bearing No.412, Gali No.4, Raj Nagar-II, Palam, New Delhi, consisting of two rooms, washroom and kitchen, etc. Further, the petitioner has four storey property bearing No.10528 and two rooms on the ground floor of the side property are lying vacant. It was further stated that the petitioner is claiming ownership of property No. 10528, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, allegedly purchased by her from Bholu Ram and Kharati sons of Gopal Singh on 27.12.1990. It was the case of the respondent that Kharati Ram and Bholu (sons of Gopal Singh-grandfather of her husband), the alleged sellers and from whom the petitioner allegedly claims to have purchased the subject property were not the owner of the said property and the alleged sale documents were forged, fabricated and manipulated documents and were not trustworthy. It was further the case of the respondent that he had already filed two cases, one for permanent injunction wherein Hon’ble Court had granted injunction against the husband of the petitioner and second, all deposit of rent against the husband of the petitioner, and both the said cases were pending disposal before the Court of learned ARC, Delhi. It was further the case of the respondent that the subject property No. 10528 was owned by Shri Manak Chand who had died issueless and he had not sold his property to anyone during his lifetime. It was pointed out that the petitioner on the one hand that stated that she has purchased the property from grandfather of her husband on 27.12.1990 and on the contrary in para (n), it was stated that she has purchased the property from her father-in-law. It was stated that alleged agreement to sell was executed by Bholu and Kharati on 27.12.1990; however, Bholu had died before 1988 and Kharati had died before 1985, which clearly shows that the documents were forged and fabricated. It was further stated that the thumb impression of the seller and witnesses in the agreement to sell were forged and the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence with respect to property in question. It was also stated that the site plan filed by the petitioner along with the eviction petition was not correctly demonstrating the position of the property. In view of these grounds, learned ARC was of the view that, prima facie, triable issues were raised by the respondent/tenant and leave to defend was granted on 24.03.2015.

7. Respondent filed written statement dated 09.04.2015 in pursuance of the grounds raised in the leave to defend application making similar averments. During the course of trial, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1 to prove her case. Petitioner tendered evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon several documents. Respondent also led evidence by examining himself as RW-1 and relied upon several documents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the entire written statement, the respondent had only alleged that petitioner is not owner of the tenanted premises and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; however, he has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove his allegations. It is further submitted that learned ARC gave contradictory findings by holding that there existed landlord and tenant relationship between the parties; however, due to minor discrepancies in the cross-examination of the petitioner, the subject eviction petition was dismissed. It is further submitted that the respondent had not approached the Court with clean hands and had concealed the previous litigation between husband of petitioner and him, where he had admitted that the husband of the petitioner is landlord. It is further submitted that learned ARC failed to appreciate the cross-examination of the respondent wherein, he had deliberately concealed the material fact regarding landlord and tenant relationship and even deliberately did not identify his signature on the petition under Sections 27 and 45 of the DRCA filed by him against the husband of the petitioner.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that learned ARC that site plan placed on record by the petitioner clearly show the extent of accommodation available in both the properties. The respondent raised objection with respect to the site plan filed by the petitioner; however, he did not file any site plan in support of his contentions. It is further submitted that the petitioner and her husband are senior citizens and it is very difficult for them to climb up to 2nd floor and therefore, due to this reason they wanted to shift to the first floor. It is further submitted that husband of the petitioner is pursuing his job work on the ground floor and there is no space to live on the ground floor.

10. It is further submitted that learned ARC has not considered the bonafide requirement of petitioner and had dismissed her petition in mechanical manner. The respondent has not brought on record anything to show that the petitioner is having alternative accommodation as alleged by him. It is the case of the petitioner that she has duly described the accommodation available with her including alternative accommodation but the same are not suitable for residence and requirement of the petitioner considering her age and health issues of her husband. It is further submitted that the respondent while cross-examining the petitioner had only confronted her with respect to ownership of the subject premises and nothing else.

11. It is further submitted that after passing of the impugned judgment, the old structure of the subject property was demolished and new construction was raised by all co-owners/ co-sharers and the petitioner, as was earlier residing in second floor of this property, is still residing on the second floor of the said property and the bonafide requirement of the petitioner is still the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner had stated in eviction petition that husband of the petitioner was doing labour job work from ground floor of the portion of property No.10528 and due to old age, petitioner and her husband were not able to carry on said job any further and in order to meet their daily basic needs, the petitioner let out one portion of the property to Anganwadi and another small store to one tenant. It is further submitted that due to her bonafide need and requirement, the petitioner sold tin shed portion on the third floor in 2022 as she and her husband have no source of income and are solely dependent upon their rental income. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and eviction petition filed on behalf of the petitioner be allowed.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner had never disclosed the true facts before learned ARC and had filed the eviction petition solely with intent to dispossess the respondent from the property on the basis of false and frivolous grounds. It is submitted that the subject eviction petition was filed by the petitioner alleging bonafide requirement comprising of one room each for petitioner, her husband, two unmarried daughters, one married daughter, and one guestroom. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has alternate suitable accommodation on the ground floor of the subject property and the same has also been admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination dated 06.02.2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner had categorically stated that two rooms on the ground floor lying in property No.10528 and only one of the said rooms is sealed by MCD. It is, therefore, the case of the respondent that petitioner had intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts in subject eviction petition and an attempt was made to mislead learned ARC. It is further submitted that it is highly unlikely to believe that a person who claimed himself to be owner of a property does not have knowledge whether property owned by him is sealed or de-sealed. It is further pointed out that there is a categorical admission on part of the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the present petition that she had let out said two rooms situated on the ground floor to property to Anganwadi and to some other tenant. Therefore, if the petitioner bonafidely required space for residential purposes then, she should have satisfied her requirement from the space available at the ground floor of the subject property. It is further submitted that in contrast to her own case, the petitioner had not utilised the accommodation available on the ground floor and rented out the same to different tenants instead of satisfying her requirement.

13. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in habit of making false statements as in her cross-examination dated 06.02.2017, she had stated that she has been residing on the third floor of the subject property; however, the petitioner never resided on the third floor of the property at any point in time. It is further pointed out that in the memo of parties of the eviction petition as well as in the present Revision Petition, petitioner had mentioned her address as H.No.10525-10527, Second Floor, Hari Chand Chowk, Delhi. It is further submitted that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodation in the form of property No.412, Gali No.4, Raj Nagar-II, Palam, New Delhi, and one daughter of the petitioner has been residing there and the same has been admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination. It is further pointed out that no separate space is required by the petitioner as all her daughters have now been married and the same has also been stated by her in her cross examination. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed by learned ARC after duly appreciating all the facts as well as the grounds raised by the respondent in the written statement. Lastly, it is prayed that the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 does not require any interference and the present petition may be dismissed.

14. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

15. Learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed on behalf of the petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 only on the ground that the petitioner had an alternate accommodation available and her requirement was not even Bonafide. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -