Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 207/2022
ANIL KUMAR JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arun Maitri and Ms.Radhika, Advocates.
Through: Mr. N.P. Singh, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners (‘Tenants’), assailing the order dated 26.07.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge acting as the Rent Controller of South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in RC ARC No. 5084/16, whereby the Petitioners’ application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order has been passed in favour of the Respondent herein (‘Landlady’), in the petition filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’), qua residential tenanted premises i.e., ground floor, property No. K-52, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi (‘tenanted premises’).
2. The facts of the case as averred by the Landlady and relevant for deciding the present revision petition are as follows: -
2.1. It is stated that she has a bona fide requirement, to settle and reside at the tenanted premises along with her husband.
2.2. It is stated that she purchased the property bearing No. K-52, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi (‘Jangpura Property’), wherein the tenanted premises are located on the ground floor, from the erstwhile owner Mr. G.S. Banga on 21.05.1975. The said property was mutated in her favour, in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) on 11.03.2002 and she has since been paying the property tax.
2.3. It is stated that she along with her husband and other family members which includes her son, daughter-in-law and grandson (‘family members’), are currently residing at Khasra No. 134, Village Saidulajaib, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi – 68 (‘Khasra No. 134 property’), which is owned by her husband.
2.4. It is stated in the petition that her grandson is of a marriageable age and has to be suitably accommodated in the accommodation where she is presently residing. There is thus, paucity of accommodation at the existing accommodation. It is stated that therefore, she and her husband wish to shift to the tenanted premises.
2.5. It is further stated that since Khasra No. 134 property is located in an unauthorized colony, there is lack of basic essential amenities. For instance, there is no municipal water supply, no sewerage system, etc. Further, due to lack of water supply, the residents have to rely upon subsoil water for consumption. It is further stated that she has been medically advised not to consume sub-soil water.
2.6. It is stated that she and her husband, who are of an advanced age of 80 years and 86 years respectively, (at the time of the filing of the eviction petition) are suffering from chronic diseases and that she has already undergone a knee surgery. It is stated that both she and her husband have been medically advised not to climb stairs or do any physical exercise and therefore requires the tenanted premises i.e., ground floor residence of the Jangpura Property.
2.7. In the aforesaid facts, it was stated that she has a bona fide need for the tenanted premises which are located on the ground floor and are suitable for the residence of the Landlady and her husband.
2.8. It was also stated that the tenanted premises are lying unused and in fact the Tenants are residing elsewhere in their self-owned premises.
3. An application seeking leave to defend was filed by the Tenants on 03.03.2015, raising the following defenses: -
3.1. Non-existence of Landlord-Tenant relationship between the parties. It was also contended that the Respondent is not the owner of the tenanted premises.
3.2. The Petitioners stated that their mother was initially inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner, Mr. G.S. Banga and she continued to be a tenant till her demise on 04.12.1996.
3.3. The Tenants stated that the Landlady’s current residence i.e., Khasra No. 134 property is situated in a posh colony known as Sainik Farms, Delhi and that her husband is residing separately in Alwar/Mussorie. It is stated that therefore, there is no bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises.
3.4. It was stated that the Landlady has not disclosed the alternate accommodations available with her in the Bengali Market and Civil Lines, New Delhi, though no details of the address of the alleged properties was placed on record.
3.5. It was also stated that the first floor and the second floor of the Jangpura Property is lying vacant and the Landlady can reside in the said portions of the property. It was stated that in fact prior to 2001, the Landlady was residing on the first floor.
4. In the present revision petition, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Tenants, states that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Landlady has no bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises since she is currently residing in a posh residential colony in South Delhi. He states that a fictitious need has been alleged for the demised premises.
4.1. He states that the Landlady in the eviction has not disclosed the details of the accommodation available to her at her current residence on the ground floor. He states that in the absence of the specific details of the said accommodation, the Trial Court could not have accepted the contention of the Landlady with respect to the paucity of accommodation.
4.2. He states that the plea of medical ailment set up by the Landlady in the eviction petition was a triable issue, which should have been subject to trial by recording of evidence. No other plea was urged during oral arguments.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the Landlady is currently residing at Khasra No. 134 property, which is owned by her husband and is located in an unauthorized colony which lacks the basic amenities like municipal water supply, sewerage system, proper internal roads, etc. He states that there is paucity of space on the ground floor of the existing residence.
5.1. He states that the Landlady and her husband are above 85 years of age and are suffering from old age ailments, which require them to occupy the ground floor. He states that the doctor has advised the Landlady not to consume subsoil water or climb stairs. He states that for these reasons the first floor and the second floor at the Jangpura property cannot be used.
5.2. He states that there is no other suitable alternative accommodation available with the Landlady.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 6.[1] The Trial Court has recorded a finding that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. In this regard the Landlady placed before the Trial Court, the letter of attornment dated 18.09.1980 issued by the now deceased mother, Smt. Chanderkala Baid, of the Tenants as well as the copies of the rent receipts issued by her. 6.[2] In fact, the heart of the challenge to the eviction petition set up in the leave to defend was to the issue of lack of landlord-tenant relationship as well as a challenge to the ownership of the Respondent. The Trial Court has after perusing the documents placed on record given an exhaustive finding both on ownership as well as the existence of landlord-tenant relationship in favour of the Respondent herein. 6.[3] Pertinently, no further challenge was laid to the said finding of the Trial Court during the oral arguments. This Court is also satisfied that in view of the registered documents executed by erstwhile owner in favour of the Respondent herein, the finding of the Trial Court with respect to her ownership is correct. Similarly, in view of the letter of attornment as well the rent receipts executed by the mother of the Petitioners and the Petitioners themselves with the name of the Respondent herein, the finding of the Trial Court that a relationship of landlord-tenant exists is correct.
7. With respect to the bona fide need of the Respondent, the Trial Court has returned a comprehensive finding after taking note of the plea of the Landlady and the Tenants, which reads as under:-
7.1. The Tenants have not disputed that the current residence of the Landlady i.e., Khasra No.134 Property is located in an unauthorized colony, which admittedly does not have supply of municipal water, sewerage system, etc. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the Government has declined to regularise the said colony and there are several challenges faced by the residents on account of nonregularisation.
7.2. With respect to the Tenants’ plea of lack of information about the existing accommodation at the ground floor at the current residence, the Landlady has disclosed the details of her family members and pleaded that her grandson of a marriageable age. She has stated that with her grandson’s marriage, the family members will increase and also she would prefer a separate residence in view of the growing family.
7.3. The Tenants do not dispute that her grandson is of a marriable age and the accommodation at Sainik Farms is insufficient for accommodating the family members.
7.4. The plea of the Tenants that since Khasra No. 134 property is located in an upscale colony, it is unlikely that the Landlady will shift to the tenanted premises located in the neighborhood of Jangpura is untenable. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the Tenants, which is speculative in nature and does not give rise to a triable issue. The Tenants in the leave to defend have admitted that prior to 2001, the Landlady resided in the Jangpura property on the first floor. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that the Landlady intends to reside on the ground floor, given the fact that that Jangpura is located in Central Delhi and is prime locality.
8. With respect to the plea of the Tenants that the medical ailments pleaded by the Landlady requires proof at trial also does not give rise to any triable issue, inasmuch as, it is trite law that if a petition is filed by the Landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Court shall presume that the petition is genuine and bona fide. A heavy burden lies on the Tenants to prove that the requirement of the Landlady is not genuine. The Landlady and her husband are above the age of 85 years now and therefore, even in ordinary circumstances such a person would be comfortable residing on the ground floor and therefore, this Court finds no error in the order of the Trial Court accepting the plea of the Landlady. In light of the fact that the Landlady is about 85 years of age and therefore, the medical prescription that she should not climb stairs appears reasonable and genuine.
9. To raise a triable issue, tenant is required to give all necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his/her plea in the leave to defend so that the Rent Controller can adjudicate on the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant is not sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord’s favour that his/her requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine, as held by the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778. In the facts of the present case, all pleas raised by the Tenant are a mere assertion and do not meet the test laid down by the Supreme Court to give rise to a triable issue.
10. This Court under Section 25(B)(8) of the DRC Act, exercises revisional jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court in Abid-ul–Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30 at Para 23 which reads as follows: -
11. Thus, in the overall conspicuous of the fact of this case this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed along with all the pending applications.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JANUARY 31, 2023 pkv/aa