Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Judgement reserved on : 18.05.2023
Judgement pronounced on : 01.09.2023
SHRI V K TANDON ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Khanna, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate
151 CPC for ex-parte stay on the Operation of the order dated 20.09.2022]
JUDGMENT
1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant seeking an ex-parte stay on the operation of the Order dated 20.09.2022 [hereinafter referred to as the “Eviction Order”] passed by Learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RC ARC NO. 504/2019 qua the Property bearing No. 20-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Kamala Nagar, New Delhi – 110007 measuring 195.31sq./18.14.metres [hereinafter referred to as “demised Premises”]. 1.[1] The reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner/tenant are: (a). The application may kindly be allowed by granting stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed by Hon’ble Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in RC ARC No.504/2019. (b). Stay the executing proceedings Execution Petition No.484 of 2023 pending before Ms. Priyanka Rajpoot, Ld. CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi...”
2. By the Eviction Order, application for Leave to Defend/Contest filed by the Petitioner/tenant was dismissed and as a consequence thereof, directions were passed for the recovery of the demised Premises upon the expiry of six months from the date of the Eviction Order. 2.[1] On 10.04.2023, an Execution Petition was filed by the Respondent/landlord to obtain possession of the demised Premises.
3. The Respondent/landlord thereafter on 29.05.2023 filed the present Revision Petition impugning the Eviction Order, which was listed before this Court on 01.05.2023. 3.[1] The matter was heard by this Court briefly on 01.05.2023, and thereafter on 18.05.2023. 3.[2] It was contended by the Respondent/landlord that the present Revision Petition was filed only upon the Petitioner/tenant becoming aware of the pending Execution proceedings. 3.[3] Since the Petitioner/tenant was unable to show any triable issue during the hearing, the parties were granted time to file their Written Submissions qua the contentions as raised in the Application for stay in the matter. 3.[4] In the meantime, a second stay Application CM APPL. 26278/2023 was filed by Petitioner/tenant on the ground that warrants of possession had been issued which was listed on 18.05.2023. Time was sought once again on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant to file his written submissions in the matter on that day.
4. The matter was heard by this Court, and judgment was reserved. While the judgment remained reserved, on 03.06.2023 the possession of the demised premises was recovered in the Execution proceedings filed by the Respondent/landlord.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant raised the following contentions:
(i) The Respondent/landlord claim of bonafide need of the premises for the Respondent/landlord mother is questionable as she is an old lady and suffering from various ailments and will not be capable of running a shop/boutique. Further, the mother of Respondent/landlord is not dependent on him.
(ii) There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The Respondent/landlord has placed on record a legal notice dated 31.05.2012 issued by the Respondent/landlord to Mr. Vedant Therani who was stated to be in occupation of the demised premises. While relying on legal notice dated 31.05.2012 addressed to the said Mr. Vedant Therani, it is submitted that no Notice was ever issued to the Petitioner/tenant. The Respondent/landlord has not placed on record any rent receipt/document to show that the Petitioner/tenant had attorned to the Respondent/landlord. Therefore, the Petitioner [Mr.V.K. Tandon] is admittedly not the tenant of the demised premises.
(iii) The ownership of the Respondent/landlord is disputed and that no document of title has been presented. The Respondent/landlord has failed to prove his ownership. The Petitioner/tenant has become the owner of the demised premises by adverse possession.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord has submitted as follows:
(i) The Application for injunction is to be dismissed on account of material suppression as a response to the legal Notice dated 31.05.2012 was sent on 21.06.2012. This fact has not been placed before this Court and hence the Petitioner/tenant is not entitled to any relief. Reliance is placed on this reply to legal Notice dated 21.06.2012 wherein it is clearly stated that the Petitioner/tenant is a tenant.
(ii) That the Respondent/landlord is the owner and the landlord of the demised premises which was inherited by him from his grandfather late Sh. Swaran Singh. The said Sh. Swaran Singh let out the demised premises to the grandfather of the Petitioner/tenant late Sh. V. P. Tandon more than 60 years ago. In any event, the ownership of the premises has devolved upon the Respondent/landlord through succession being, a Class-I, legal representative of the original owner.
(iii) That the need of the Respondent/landlord is bonafide and as contended in the Eviction Petition, the requirement is for the Respondent/landlord's mother who is dependent upon him. The Respondent/landlord’s mother intends to be self-sufficient and intends to run with the help of a servant, a small tailoring shop with showroom from the demised Premises and since, she is residing on another floor in the same building, it is the most convenient place for her to run the said shop.
(iv) The Petitioner/tenant has delayed in approaching this Court and only filed a Petition after an Execution Petition was filed by the Respondent/landlord and failed to place any reason on record for belatedly approaching this, Court. Thereafter, the Petitioner/tenant filed not one, but two Applications for stay of the Eviction Order being CM Appl. 26278/2023 and CM Appl. 21763/2023. Relying on the judgment dated 16.08.2016 passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court, [in Cm No. 29674/2016 in RC.REV. 190/2016] titled “Ramesh Chand Panchal and Anr. Vs. Narender Kumar Sharma[1] ”, it is submitted that repeated filing of Applications seeking stay of the proceedings is a ground for dismissal of the Application.
7. Although, the Application for interim relief filed is entirely based on the legal notice dated 31.05.2012, the Petitioner/tenant raised the additional averments in the Written Submission, filed which briefly set forth in paragraph 5 above.
8. It is settled law that one who approaches the Court must do so with clean hands and must make a complete disclosure before the Court. The basis for the present Application is the legal notice dated 31.05.2012 which was sent on behalf of Respondent/landlord to Mr. Vedant Therani. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord that the said Mr. Vedant Therani is the son-in-law of the Petitioner/tenant and the Petitioner/tenant along with his daughter and son-in-law were running a shop from the demised premises as partners in a firm called "Dhara". 8.[1] Although, no disclosure was made either in the Petition or in the order dated 16.08.2016 in RC REV 190/2016 present Application, the notice dated 31.05.2012 was replied to by the Mr. Vedant Therani, through his counsel, by a legal notice dated 21.06.2012 [hereinafter referred to as the "Reply of 21.06.2012"]. The Reply of 21.06.2012 forms part of the pleadings before the Trial Court at para 19 (v) of the Eviction Petition and was subsequently filed before this Court. 8.[2] It is contended by the Petitioner/tenant that since the Reply of 21.06.2012 has been sent by Mr. Vedant Therani and not the Petitioner/tenant, i.e., V.K. Tandon, thus as per the landlord, the tenant is Mr. Vedant Therani and not V.K. Tandon. 8.[3] Since the Petitioner/tenant has not denied his relationship with the said Mr. Vedant Therani and there is no denial of the fact that the Petitioner/tenant, his daughter and his son-in-law were running a business together under the name and title of "Dhara", prima facie, these averments denying the tenancy by the Petitioner, on the face of it seem to be unbelievable. 8.[4] Further, a plain reading of this Reply of 21.06.2012 shows that although it was sent on behalf of Mr. Vedant Therani, the son-in-law of the Petitioner/tenant, the contents stated therein clearly show that it could not have been sent without the concurrence of the Petitioner/tenant, since it discusses in detail the tenancy from 1960s of the Petitioner’s grandfather. The relevant extract is set forth below: “The brief facts of the matter are as under: That during 1960s Sh. V.P. Tandon, who was a Government contractor, stepped in as a tenant upon the premises describable as Garage alongwith an open verandah and metal gate in the front on the ground floor of 20-UB, Jawahar Nagar, kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 (hereinafter to be referred as the said premises) and took the premises on rent from Sh. Swaran Singh at the monthly rental of Rs. 25/- to use the said premises as his office to run his operation and also to store his expensive building material there. Till the year 1985 said Sh. V.P. Tandon continued to pay rent as tenant and during the lifetime of his father, Sh. V.K. Tandon took possession of the premises as a tenant and started paying rent of the said premises. After the death of Sh. Swaran Singh, the rent was being paid by Sh. V.K. Tandon to Sh. Baldev Singh s/o Late Sh. Swaran Singh. Sh. V.K. tendon paid the rental w.e.f. January 1986 to December 1992 at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month i.e., Rs. 2100/- and this rental was received by Sh. Kuldeep Singh. Thereafter, Sh. V.K. Tandon sent a money order of Rs. 2100/- as rental but the same was received back unclaimed. In the said premises Sh. V.K. Tandon was running the business under the name and style of “Dhara International” as sole proprietor, however, in the year 2005 the said sole proprietorship concern was converted into a partnership concern of three partners namely Sh. V.K. Tandon, Smt. Priya Thirani (d/o Sh. V.K. Tandon and W/o Sh. Vedant Thirani), and our Client Sh. Vedant Thirani, (son-in-law of Sh. V.K. Tandon and husband of Smt. Priya Thirani) and presently the said premises is in exclusive possession of the above mentioned three partners of “M/s Dhara International” who are running their business in the said premises). The factum of possession of the partners upon the said premises is in the knowledge of Sh. Baldev Singh as well as Sh. Kuldeep Singh.” [Emphasis supplied] 8.[5] In any event, the Petitioner/tenant has not been able to show why this Reply was neither mentioned nor filed along with the Petition, especially in view of the fact that the present Application was premised substantially on the fact that the legal notice dated 31.05.2012 was addressed to Mr. Vedant Therani and not the Petitioner/tenant. 8.[6] In addition to the foregoing, house tax receipts, rental receipts and money order receipts sent by the Petitioner/tenant to the Respondent/landlord’s father were filed along with the Petition. Hence, the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship cannot be denied by the Petitioner/tenant.
9. The contention raised by the Petitioner/tenant that the need of the Respondent/landlord's mother is not bonafide and that there is nothing on record to show that the mother of the Respondent/landlord is dependent on him or that the mother of the Respondent/landlord resides in Delhi, is found to be incorrect from the documents filed along with the Eviction Petition [copies of which have been filed by the Respondent/landlord before this Court] which include copies of Aadhar Card as well as prescriptions from the Doctors etc. showing the address of the mother of the Petitioner/tenant as that of the demised Premises. 9.[1] In any event, it is settled law that the Respondent/landlord is the best judge of his requirement. No document has been brought to the knowledge of this Court or was filed before the learned Trial Court to show that the demised Premises is not required bonafide by the mother of the Respondent/landlord. 9.[2] The Petitioner/tenant has obliquely denied the ownership of the Respondent/landlord. The Respondent/landlord has inter-alia placed the reliance on the Registered Conveyance Deed dated 17.11.1951 in favour of the Respondent/landlord’s grandfather namely late Sh. Swaran Singh and various other documents to support his plea qua its succession and inheritance. The challenge to ownership of a landlord by the Petitioner/tenant is thus untenable. In any event, the Petitioner/tenant is estopped from denying the title of a landlord or his legal heirs under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 9.[3] A contention has been raised by the Petitioner/tenant that no notice has been sent to the Petitioner/tenant prior to filing of the Eviction Petition. This averment is misconceived as there is no such requirement under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 9.[4] The record shows that the earlier CM APPL. 21763/2023 was withdrawn by the Petitioner on 18.05.2023. Hence, the contention of the Respondent/landlord in Paragraph 6(iv) above that this Application should be dismissed in view of the Application filed earlier, is not tenable.
10. However, in view of the aforegoing discussion, prima facie no ground has been made out for grant of stay to the Respondent/landlord. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Respondent/landlord. In these circumstances, prayer (a) of this Application is rejected.
11. So far as concerns the prayer (b) above, the Order dated 20.09.2022 has been implemented by the filing of an Execution Petition by the Respondent/landlord and on 03.06.2023, the possession of the demised Premises was handed over to the Respondent/landlord. This prayer has accordingly become infructuous.
12. This Court finds no ground to stay the operation of the Eviction Order. The Application is, accordingly, dismissed. RC.REV. 115/2023
14. List on 17.01.2024, the date already fixed.
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 /SA/yg