Seth Sunder Lal Sonthalia Trust v. Rani

1. The respondent Seth Sunder Lal Sonthalia Trust (Regd) through the trustee Sakshi Sonthalia filed present eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 2 Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) titled as Seth Sunder Lal Sonthalia Trust (Regd.) V Rani bearing no. E-109/14 on the ground of bona fide requirement in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. one room situated on the first floor of property bearing no. 1761, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006 as shown in red color in site plan annexed with the petition.

2. The respondent pleaded that Sunder Lal Sonthalia was greatgrandfather of Sakshi Sonthalia, trustee of the respondent who died on 01.04.1958 leaving behind wife Kamla Devi and adopted son Ganeshi Lal Sonthalia. Kamla Devi died on 20.03.1976 and adopted son Ganeshi Lal Sonthalia was pre-deceased to her and died in the year 1963. Ganeshi Lal Sonthalia left behind legal heirs, namely, Shyam Bihari Sonthalia, Kunj Bihari Lal Sonthalia, Vijay Bihari Lal Sonthalia, Mukut Bihari Lal Sonthalia and Chand Kiran. Mukut Bihari Lal died issueless in the year 1965 and Shyam Bihari Lal died on 08.12.2007. 2.[1] Sunder Lal Sonthalia was owner of various properties including the property in question, which he purchased vide sale deed dated 10.11.1945 and the said property was a double storey building CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 3 constructed on a plot of land measuring 450 sq. yards. Sunder Lal Sonthalia immediately after purchase of the property, created a religious and charitable trust and dedicated a portion of the property measuring 225 sq. yards to the trust known as Lala Sunder Lal Trust created vide a registered trust deed dated 18.10.1946. Kamla Devi wife of Sunder Lal Sonthalia and Ganeshi Lal Sonthalia son of Sunder Lal Sonthalia were among the eight trustees, including Sunder Lal Sonthalia. Sunder Lal Sonthalia also made a condition in the trust that at least two of his family members would always be trustees of the trust but the said condition was never followed strictly. The trust was managed by the sole trustee. Kamla Devi was managing the trust after the death of Sunder Lal Sonthalia and Ganeshi Lal Sonthalia and subsequently also assisted by Shyam Bihari Lal Sonthalia, grandfather of the Sakshi Sonthalia, trustee of the respondent. 2.[2] The tenants were inducted in the trust property for earning the income required to maintain the trust property and the petitioner was one of the tenants. Shyam Bihari Lal Sonthalia, grandfather of the respondent due to property dispute, filed a suit for declaration and CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 4 cancellation of documents and other reliefs against his own family members and outsiders, who were staking claim in properties on the basis of alleged forged and fabricated documents and the said suit is still pending. Shyam Bihari Lal Sonthalia died in the year 2007 and after his death, Sakshi Sonthalia was substituted as his legal heir in the said suit as Sakshi Sonthalia, at present, is managing the trust property as trustee of the respondent. 2.[3] The petitioner is a tenant in respect of one room on the first floor forming part of the property bearing no. 1761, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006 at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- per month since 01.06.2012. The respondent trust is a charitable trust and is managing the trust property, which is occupied by the tenants. The respondent-trust does not have any place in the trust property to manage the office and as such, the respondent-trust filed the present eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement. It is also pleaded that the respondent-trust does not have any alternate property.

3. The petitioner after service of summons, filed an application under section 25B (5) of the Act along with an affidavit for grant of CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 5 leave to defend. The petitioner primarily pleaded that Sakshi Sonthalia, who is claiming to be the trustee of the respondent is a stranger to the property as she is not the owner/landlord of the property including the tenanted premises. Sakshi Sonthalia does not have any right, title or interest to file the present eviction petition. The petitioner also takes other grounds for grant of leave to defend as detailed in the application itself.

4. The court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal CCJ cum ARC-1 (Central) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi passed an eviction order in eviction petition bearing no. E-109/14 titled as Seth Sunder Lal Sonthalia Trust V Rani in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner in respect of the tenanted premises. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the present revision petition.

5. The applicant/Puran Chand filed the present application under Order I Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for impleadment as necessary and proper parties in the present petition. The applicant besides stating factual position, pleaded that the respondent has concealed the material fact as the property has already been CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 6 transferred and sold to Puran Chand i.e. the applicant, Mannu Lal and Uma Sonthaliya by the members of the trust including father of Sakshi Sonthalia. The respondent as such, does not have any right, title or interest in the property in question in any manner. The respondent to create a dispute over the title of the purchasers, filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of documents, which is still pending. 5.[1] The applicant was not aware of the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner as well as the eviction order passed by the court of Additional Rent Controller, subject matter of the present revision petition. The applicant came to know about the pendency of the eviction proceedings as well as the present revision petition when the applicant went to the house of petitioner for demanding the rent in respect of tenanted premises on 01.03.2016. The applicant is one of the co-owner of the property in question, which is already transferred by the respondent-trust in the year 1998. The present eviction petition was not maintainable. 5.[2] The applicant is a necessary and proper party to the eviction proceedings and is having substantial interest in the property bearing CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 7 no. 1761, Cheera Khana, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006 being the registered lawful owner of the property by virtue of three registered sale deeds. Subsequently, Mannu Lal transferred and sold his share in the property to Ashok Aggarwal. If the respondent succeeds in getting the possession of the tenanted premises, in that eventuality, there will be multiplicity of the litigation as the respondent is neither the landlord nor the owner of the property. It is prayed that the applicant be impleaded as necessary and proper party to the present revision petition.

6. The respondent filed the reply to the application. The respondent in preliminary objection stated that the present application is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed. The applicant is neither the owner nor landlord of the property as alleged sale deed in favour of the applicant stated to be executed by Prem Lata Sonthaliya, Raj Deep Sonthaliya and Deepali Deewan who were never appointed as trustee of the respondent-trust and never acted as trustee as such, they were not having right, title or interest over the property. The sale deeds are bogus documents and are liable to be declared as null and void. Shyam Bihari Lal Sonthalia, who was the CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 8 grandfather of Sakshi Sonthalia, trustee of the respondent has already filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the applicant and other persons. The applicant on the basis of alleged sale deed never demanded any rent from any tenant in the property and never served any notice of atonement to any tenant since 1988 till date. The respondent in reply on merit denied the averments as made in the application under consideration.

7. Order 1 of the Code deals with parties to the suit. Rule 10(2) of Order 1 deals with the power of the court to strike out or to add the parties. It provides that the court may at any stage of the proceedings, may order impleadment of any party either as plaintiff or defendant whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and to settle all the questions involved in the suit. It is accepted proposition of law that a party seeking to be impleaded as a party to a suit must demonstrate that it has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of a suit and that such interest would be effected directly by the decree that may be passed in the suit. The plaintiff/petitioner is a Dominus Litis and no person can be impleaded unless he is necessary CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 9 or proper party. The plaintiff/petitioner cannot be compelled to implead a party against whom he does not have any grievance unless and until it is required under law. It is correct that although the petitioner/plaintiff may be the Dominus Litis but the impleadment of a person as necessary party cannot be resisted if the interest of that persons are likely to be affected in the litigation.

8. The present revision petition is filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and for the applicability of the Act, there must exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In order to succeed in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Act, the petitioner has to prove that he is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is for the petitioner to prove affirmatively that he is the landlord/owner of the tenanted premises in a petition filed under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Act is not a title suit where the rights and title of the parties can be adjudicated. In an eviction petition or any proceeding arising out of the eviction petition, the court of Rent Controller is not supposed to adjudicate upon the issue of the title, otherwise such determination by CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 10 the court in an eviction petition would frustrate the very object of the Act. The respondent Seth Sunder Lal Sonthalia Trust through trustee Sakshi Sonthalia in eviction petition, pleaded that Sunder Lal Sonthalia who was stated to be the original owner of the property, created a religious and charitable trust and dedicated a portion of the property measuring 225 sq. yards to the trust known as Lala Sunder Lal Trust created vide a registered trust deed dated 18.10.1996. The respondent is claiming to be the owner/landlord of the property being the sole trustee of Lala Sunder Lal Trust. It is for the respondent to prove that she is entitled for the eviction order being the sole trustee of Lala Sunder Lal Trust and owner of the tenanted premises.

9. It is also pertinent to mention that the suit for declaration and injunction is pending between the parties where the ownership right, title or interest is to be adjudicated by the civil court. There is a force in the arguments advanced by counsel for the respondent that the rent court cannot go into the question of title in eviction petition and inter se dispute regarding the ownership cannot be decided in the proceedings under the Act. The counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has purchased the property vide registered sale deed CM APPL. 12492/2016 in RC.REV. 71/2016 Page 11 from Prem Lata Sonthaliya, Raj Deep Sonthaliya and Deepali Deewan executed in favour of the applicant, Mannu Lal and Uma Sonthaliya by way of three registered sale deeds. However, in the context of the present application, the argument so advanced by the applicant are misconceived as if the applicant is having any right, title or interest in respect of the property being owner/co-owner then he has to initiate proper legal proceedings in accordance with law. The right, title or interest, if any, in respect of the property, cannot be adjudicated in the present petition, which is filed to impugn the eviction order passed in eviction petition bearing no. E-109/14 titled as Seth Sunder Lal Sonthalia Trust V Rani against the petitioner.

10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit found in the application, hence, dismissed. RC.REV. 71/2016, CM APPL. 4197/2016, CM APPL. 13197/2016 & CM APPL. 25350/2019

11. List before the Roster Bench on 14.10.2024.

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN (JUDGE) OCTOBER 04, 2024 N/TK