This revision petition challenging an eviction order in a landlord-tenant dispute was dismissed as no illegality was found in the trial court's order affirming the petitioner's bonafide requirement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 22nd January, 2019 Pronounced on: 15th February, 2019
+ RC.REV. 14/2019 & CM APPL No.1003/2019
SETH SITA RAM ..... Petitioner Through : Mr.Anil Agarwalla and Mr.Varun Kapoor, Advocates.
versus SARITA AGGARWAL & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Ms.Shalini Kapoor and Mr.Dikshant Khanna, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
“18(a)(i) BONAFIDE PERSONAL NECESSITY That the petitioners are the owners/landlords of suit property bearing No. 392-395, Hauz Qazi, Delhi 110006, of which the tenanted premises of the respondent/tenant bearing premises No. 394, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-6 forms a part, hereinafter called the suit premises, and more specifically shown in red colour in the annexed site plan. That the mother of petitioner No.l Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Hem Chand Aggarwal was the owner of the entire suit property and she bequeathed the entire suit property in favour of the petitioners by virtue of Will dated 25.9.2012, duly
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 1 of 9
registered as document No.4032, Book No.3, Volume No.987 at pages 57-58 registered on 26.9.2012 and accordingly, after her death on 18.10.2012, the petitioners became the owners landlords of the suit property including the suit premises. That the respondent was the tenant under Smt. Kamla Devi and the respondent was paying the rent of the suit premises to the then owner landlady Smt. Kamla Devi against rent receipt/s through cheque/s and the respondent last paid the rent to the said owner landlady Smt. Kamla Devi for the period ending 31.3.2012 and thereafter, the respondent defaulted in the payment of the rent. After the death of Smt. Kamla Devi, the respondent was duly informed about the inheritance of the suit property by the petitioner by virtue of the aforesaid Will of Smt. Kamla Devi and the respondent was called upon to attorn in favour of the petitioners and pay the rent but the respondent failed to pay the same and not give a single penny have been paid till date. That the suit/tenanted premises are bonafidely required by the petitioners for their residence and the petitioners have no other vacant, reasonable/suitable residential accommodation to live either in the suit property or elsewhere in Delhi and the suit premises is the most suitable and convenient accommodation for the said purpose. That the family of the petitioners consist of following members:1. Petitioner No.l - who is a widow lady and a house wife, aged 57 years.
2. Petitioner No. 2 - Varun Aggarwal, aged 22 years and have recently completed his graduation from Delhi University and pursuing the Post Graduation course from Delhi University. That the petitioners, who have no other family members, are living under the same roof at Flat No.42-A, MIG DDA Flats at Motia Khan, Delhi-55, which flat is owned by Prashant Gupta and Akash Gupta, both sons of Shri Kishore Kumar (brother of petitioner No.l) and earlier, the petitioners were under the impression that the said flat is owned by Prashnat Gupta and his father Shri Kishore Kumar but the picture became clear last month, when the petitioners got the copy of the sale deed of the said flat. That the petitioner No.l was evicted from her ground floor tenanted premises in property No. 1135 Kucha Harjas Mal, Delhi-6 in 2005 by her owner landlord and since then the petitioners are neither in possession of said property or any part thereof nor have any right, title or interest therein. Since the petitioner No.l had no roof for
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 2 of 9
her and her child, so the Petitioner No.l's brother Shri Kishore Kumar in 2005 permitted the petitioner No. 1 to occupy the said flat for her residence, out of love and affection as the petitioner was helpless a widow with the liability of 10 years old son. However, with the passage of time, the relations of petitioner No.l with his brother Shri Kishore Kumar have turned strained and now even the said brother is insisting the petitioners to vacate the said premises as he has two married sons and wants one of his sons to settle down at the aforesaid flat No,42-A (Supra). That the entire suit property is a three storied property comprising of ground, first and second floor, as shown in annexed site plan and the different portion/s of the entire suit property is under the tenancy of different tenant/s. On the Ground floor, the shop marked 'A' is under the tenancy of decades old tenants namely Raju Arora and Saket Arora @ Rs.453.75 paise per month, while the shop marked 'B', shown in red colour is under the tenancy of decades old tenants namely Ramesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar & Ashok Kumar on a monthly rent of Rs.532.40 paise and the third shop marked 'C is under the tenancy of decades old tenant Vijay Kumar Malhotra @ Rs.532.40 paise per month. Similarly, the entire first and second floor is under the tenancy of respondent and apart from the aforesaid accommodations, there is no other accommodation in the entire suit property
xxx xxx
That the suit premises is bonafidely required by the petitioners for their residence as they are facing great hardships besides the mental torture in the hands of the brother of petitioner No.l Shri Kishore Kumar and his two sons and above all, the petitioners do not want to live at the mercy of others in the other's property and they want peace of mind and want to live comfortably in their own property and the petitioners desperately require the suit premises for themselves. The suit premises is most suitable as the petitioner No.l, after getting the possession of the shop No. 393, on the ground floor of the suit property shall be starting her business and it will be practical and feasible for the petitioner No.l to manage the business from the said shop while residing on the upper floors of the suit property and doing all household chores/duties/work and even the petitioner No.2 will have easy access to going to Delhi University through Metro, as the Chawri Bazar Metro Station is situated opposite the suit property. As such, the suit premises are bonafidely required by the petitioners for
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 3 of 9
their residence and the suit premises is the most suitable premises, as detailed above.”
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 4 of 9
“17. In the present case, the respondent has specifically not denied the ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties. However it is alleged that the petitioners have never disclosed to the respondent either about the death of Smt. Kamla Devi, the owner as claimed or about having inherited the suit property or of her having executed any Will in favour of the petitioners and as such the respondent as per the routine schedule had been sending the rent through Bankers' Cheques in the name of Smt. Kamla Devi. The copies of the said Bankers' Cheques dated 04.06.2014 &31.01.2017 alongwith their covering letters which were duly acknowledged by petitioner no. 1 under her signatures are attached as Annexure A. On the other hand the petitioner has placed on record the copy of registered Will dated 25.09,2012 executed by Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of the petitioner. The petitioners also relied upon the copy of the house tax receipt of the suit property. The petitioners have placed on record the counter foil of the rent receipts in respect of first and second floor issued by Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of the respondent. Hence, once the respondent has been paying the rent to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners, they cannot challenged the title / land lordship of the petitioners who are the LRs of the erstwhile landlord. The petitioners are relying on the Will in their favour. It is not the case of the respondent that the Will is forged or fabricated. Thus, in view of the documents placed on record by the petitioner, the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question for the purpose of the DRC
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 5 of 9
Act as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent stands duly proved.
18. xxx
19. xxx
20. In order to prove their bonafide requirement the petitioners have placed on record the copy of the sale deed in respect of flat no. 42-A, MIG DDA Flats at Motia Khan, Delhi registered in the name of Prashant Gupta and Akash Gupta both sons of Shri Kishore Kumar. Further petitioners have relied upon the house tax receipts, water bill and electricity bill pertaining to the said flat no. 42-A. It is not the case of the respondent that Shri Prashant Gupta and Akash Gupta are not the owners of the property no. 42-A, MIG DDA Flats at Motia Khan, Delhi. The petitioners have categorically stated that her brother Shri Kishore Kumar has asked the petitioners to vacate the said premises. The petitioners cannot be forced to live in the premises of others when they have the tenanted premises in their own name. Thus, the contention of the respondent that brother of the petitioner is having many properties in his name does not hold ground, as the petitioners have right to live in their own property.
21. The next contention of the respondent is that the suit premises are even otherwise commercial in nature and are also being used by the respondent for their office purposes, The portion consists of a room measuring 13.5x 15.5 ft. and latrine on the first floor, a room 9.5 x 10 ft. with a bath room on the second floor and there is no provision for a kitchen which accommodation is thus, even otherwise not suitable and conducive for residential use at all, more so, being located in the non residential busy market. The petitioners have allegedly been residing in a spacious SFS MIG flat bearing no. 42, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 to which life style they are accustomed to live and petitioner no. 2 having now grown up and educated in those environments can't be expected to shift to the suit property which is less than half in size thereof, inconvenient for use, each of the two rooms being on different floors and those too without amenities of kitchen and bath room. In reply the petitioners have denied the contention of the respondent submitting that the kitchen portion can easily be carved out in the suit premises and as such the allegations of the non
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 6 of 9
existence of the kitchen in the suit premises is no help to the respondent.
22. xxx
23. xxx
24. Further another contention is raised by the respondent that the petitioner no. 1 is having regular rental income from the different tenants of property bearing no. 9-C, MIG, DDA Flats, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi ' other than the undisclosed sources. In reply, Ld. Counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners have already disclosed the amount of rent being paid by all the tenants as well as the name of the tenants. Moreover, having rental income does not mean that petitioners do not have right to live in the premises which is in their name. Further it has already been discussed above that it is for the petitioner to decide where they wish to reside and which premises suits their requirement. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 it has been held that Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and that when the landlord shows Prima facie case, a presumption that the requirement is bona fide is to be drawn. Thus, the bonafide requirement of the petitioners qua the tenanted premises stands duly proved.
25. xxx
26. xxx
27. In support of their submissions the petitioners have placed on record the certified copy of the eviction petition filed by the petitioners against the tenant Padmesh Verma in the case title Sarita Aggarwal v. "Padmesh Verma bearing eviction petition no. 70/17, pending in the Court of Shri Shirish Aggarwal, Ld. ARC, Delhi. Further she has filed certified copy of the written statement filed by the said tenant in the said eviction petitioner wherein the said tenant has not disputed that the petitioners are residing in property no. 42-A. The petitioners have also relied upon the copy of the summons and copy of the DR petition under Section 27 of the DRC Act filed by the tenant Padmesh Verma in DR Petition no. 235/17 wherein the address of the petitioners have been mentioned as flat no. 42- A, DDA MIG Flats, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. Per contra the
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 7 of 9
respondent has not been able to produce any documents to show that the petitioners are the owners of flat no. 41-A as alleged by them. Hence, the said contention raised by the respondent is merely bald assertions not been proved.
28. Another contention of the respondent is that the intentions of the petitioners is of harassing the tenant to make him pay the enhanced rent. The petitioners have denied the said contention. However, the said contention of the respondent is without any substance as even if the petitioners try to do such act, the respondent is very well protected u/s 19(2) of the DRC Act, for re-possession of the premises.”
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 8 of 9
own accommodation. If the subject premises does not have a kitchen, the respondent may construct one to use such premises for her residence where she can stay with self respect. The subject premises may not be as spacious as that of her brother’s but shall be her own.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
FEBRUARY 15, 2019 DU
RC.REV. 14/2019 Page 9 of 9
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.Referred¶36
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 · Who else cites this
Seth Sita Ram
Sarita Aggarwal
YOGESH KHANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
