Final Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARJINDER KAUR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No: 400/2023
Sh. Shammi Nagpal
S/o Late Sh, Kishan Singh
R/o 1/6, Nicholson Road,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi -110006.
…. Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Parmod Kumar.
S/o Late Sh. Sant Ram
R/o 44, Pocket 20, Sec-24
Rohini Delhi -110085.
…. Respondent
Date of Filing : 31.05.2023
Date of Judgment : 03.06.2024
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 31.05.2023, the
petitioner filed the present petition Under Section 14 (1) (d) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as
“DRC Act”) praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of
the premises bearing no. 1/41, Ganda Nala Bazar, Mori Gate,
Delhi-06 as shown red in the site plan. (hereinafter referred to as
“tenanted shop/tenanted premises”).
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 1 / 9
-- 1 of 9 --
RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
THE PETITION
2. It is averred by the petitioner that petitioner is the owner of
residential property premises bearing no. 1/41, Ganda Nala
Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi-06. That the petitioner is the owner and
landlord of the aforesaid tenanted premises on the basis of
registered Will dated 10.11.2004 executed by his mother and
owner/landlady of the property namely Smt. Daya Wanti. That
the mother of petitioner died on 16.04.2006. That father of
respondent namely late Sh. Sant Ram was already inducted as a
tenant and paid the rent of the tenanted premises to landlady
/mother of petitioner. That in the year 2003-2004, the tenant Sh.
Sant Ram had locked the tenanted premises and left the same
alongwith his bag and baggage. That after his death son of
respondent Sh. Pramod Kumar has continued to lock the said
premises and no one is residing in the tenanted premises. That no
electricity, water fittings are presently available in the premises.
That monthly rent of tenanted premises is Rs. 15/-. That the
owner/landlady Smt Daya Wanti issued the notice dated
30.06.2004 to the tenant Sh. Sant Ram through registered post,
but no avail. That petitioner has also got issued legal notice dated
16.04.2009 through his advocate through registered post as well
as UPC to the tenant Sh. Sant Ram. It is also averred that since
respondent also failed to pay the outstanding amount to
petitioner, therefore, petitioner sent the legal notice dated
16.09.2023 to the respondent, however, same remained unserved
with the report of left. That the son of original tenant Sh. Sant
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 2 / 9
-- 2 of 9 --
RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
Ram had filed a false and frivolous suit for declaration and
injunction against the petitioner titled as Parmod Kumar Vs.
Shammi Nagpal, CS no. 104/2012 qua aforesaid tenant and
disclosed in his suit about the death of his father namely Sant
Ram on 09.10.2005. That petitioner filed WS in said suit
alongwith an application u/o 7 Rule 11 r/w section 151 CPC and
Ld. CJ (Central) vide order dated 06.07.2015 had
rejected/dismissed the said suit for want of cause of action u/o 7
Rule 11 (a) CPC. That respondent has not been residing in the
tenanted premises for last many years and tenanted premises has
been kept locked by the respondent with malafide intentions.
That vide order dated 03.07.2018 the petitioner has granted the
permission u/s 19 of Slums Act to initiate eviction proceedings
against the respondent of the subject property. Lastly, it is prayed
by the petitioner that an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (d) of DRC Act
may be passed against the respondent.
FACTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. Perusal of record shows that the respondent was served
through publication on 12.12.2023 but none appeared on behalf
of respondent and he was proceeded ex-parte by Ld. Predecessor
of this court vide order dated 07.02.2024. Ex-parte evidence was
led by the petitioner wherein he examined himself as PW-1 and
relied upon several documents. Thereafter, PE was closed by the
petitioner.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
4. The petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 3 / 9
-- 3 of 9 --
RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
tendered exparte evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and
relied upon the following documents;
1. Ex. PW-1/1, the copy of Will dated 10.11.2004, Original of
the same is not produce and hence mark X.
2. Ex. PW-1/2 mentioned in evidence affidavit mark Z.
3. Ex. PW-1/3, 8 rent receipts.
4. Mark A, copy of notice dated 30.06.2004.
5. Mark B, copy of postal receipts dated 30.06.2004.
6. Mark C, copy of returned envelope.
7. Mark D, copy of death certificate of mother of petitioner Late
Daya wanti.
8. Mark E copy of legal notice dated 16.04.2009.
9. Mark F copy of registered postal receipt.
10. Mark G, copy of UCP receipt.
11. Mark H, copy of returned envelope of legal notice.
12. Mark I, copy of death certificate of father of respondent Late
Sh. Sant Ram.
13. Ex. PW1/4, the certified copy of order dated 06.07.2015
mentioned in evidence affidavit, original of same is not available
mark Y.
14. Ex. PW1/5, Site plan.
15. Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW1/7, two photographs of the suit
property.
16. Mark J, copy of order dated 03.07.2018.
17. Mark K, Mark L, Mark M, three property tax receipts.
4.1 Vide separate statement of petitioner, exparte
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 4 / 9
-- 4 of 9 --
RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
evidence of petitioner was closed on 03.05.2024.
ARGUMENTS
5. I have heard the exparte final arguments advanced by the
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the
record very carefully and minutely.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING
6. It is necessary at this stage to take note of relevant
clauses invoking which the present eviction case has been filed.
Section 14 of DRC Act, to the extent relevant, reads as under:
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction. (1)
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in any other law or contract, no order or decree for
the recovery of possession of any premises shall be
made by any court or Controller in favour of the
landlord against a tenant.
Provided that the controller may, on an application
made to him in the prescribed manner, make an
order for the recovery of possession of the premises
on one or more of the following grounds, namely:
(d) that the premises were let for use as a residence
and neither the tenant nor any member of his family
has been residing therein for a period of six months
immediately before the date of filing of the
application for the recovery of possession thereof;
7. Noticeably for the above mentioned clause invoked
by the petitioner, it is necessary that the purpose of letting of the
demised premises should be "residence".
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 5 / 9
-- 5 of 9 --
RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
8. The law on the question of proof of letting purpose
particularly in the context of disputes under DRC Act is well
settled. Primarily, the purpose of letting is to be seen from the
agreement whereby the tenancy is created. In the absence of a
lease deed, the terms of letting may also be reflected in
documents in the nature of rent receipts, correspondence
exchanged etc. In cases where there is no written contract or
document indicating the letting purpose, inferences are to be
drawn from the surrounding circumstances, which would include
the nature of the premises, the purpose for which it was
constructed or its predominant use, locality where the premises is
situate etc. Undoubtedly, continued user of the premises since
inception for commercial purposes to the knowledge of the
landlord, particularly when there is no exception taken, would
lead to the inference that the letting purpose was nonresidential.
But then, in case where there is no sufficient or clear evidence
adduced as to since when the use of the premises for business
was commenced, stray documents indicating its address being
utilized for purposes of correspondence will not result in a
conclusion in favour of the tenant claiming commercial tenancy.
9. In the case of M/s Precision Steel and Engg. Works
Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal decided on 7 October, 1982
[1982 AIR 1518] in the context of Section 14(1) (e) DRC Act,
Hon'ble Supreme Court went to the extent of observing that the
expression "the premises let out for residential purposes" should
be construed liberally and not technically or narrowly. It was held
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 6 / 9
-- 6 of 9 --
RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
that so long the purpose and dominant purpose of letting is
residential, merely because there had been mixed user of the
premises or user of the part or incidental or ancillary user of the
premises was permitted for activities other than residential, the
purpose of letting would not cease to be residential.
10. Petitioner as PW1 deposed through his affidavit Ex.
PW1/A that he is owner and landlord of the tenanted residential
premises bearing no.1/41, Ganda Nala Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi
110006 on the basis of registered Will dated 10.11.2004, Ex.
PW1/1 (OSR) duly executed by his deceased mother Smt. Daya
Wanti, who was the owner and landlady of the said property.
That mother of petitioner had purchased the said property vide
sale deed dated 09.04.1965, Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) from erstwhile
owner/landlord and the father of respondent late Sh. Sant Ram
was already a tenant for residential purpose in the said property at
the time of purchase in 1965 and the said tenant Sh. Sant Ram
started paying rent to mother of petitioner. The copy of rent
receipts is Ex. PW1/3 (Colly). That in the year 2003-2004, tenant
Sh. Sant Ram left with his bag and laguage and locked the said
premises. That petitioner’s mother issued notice dated 30.6.2004
(mark A), postal receipts (mark B) and returned envelope (mark
C). That Smt. Dayawanti expired on 16.04.2006 and left behind
her registered Will dated 10.11.2004 (mark D) in favour of
petitioner. That he got issued a legal notice dated 16.04.2009
(mark E) through his advocate, its registered postal receipt is
(mark F) and UPC receipt (Mark G).
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 7 / 9
-- 7 of 9 --
RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
11. That respondent i.e. son of the original tenant Sh.
Sant Ram had filed a false and frivolous suit for declaration and
injunction against petitioner titled as
“Pramod Kumar Vs.
Shammi Nagpal bearing CS No. 104/2012” qua the said tenanted
premises and also disclosed in his suit about the death of his
father Sh. Sant Ram on 09.10.2005. That petitioner also filed
written statement in the said suit also filed an application u/o 7
Rule 11 CPC in the said suit. Vide order dated 06.07.2015 the
said suit was dismissed. The copy of death certificate of Sh.Sant
Ram mark -I and certified copy of order dated 06.07.2015 Ex.
PW1/4. That respondent/tenant has not been residing in the
tenanted premises for last many years and same has been lying
locked, the site plan Ex. PW1/5, two photographs of suit property
Ex. PW1/6 and Ex. PW1/7. That petitioner has filed a case u/s 19
Slums Act titled as
“Shammi Nagpal Vs. Parmod Kumar bearing
case no. 83/2016”, and the copy of order dated 03.07.2018, Mark
J. That the copy of property tax receipt and property challan of
the said property Mark K, Mark L and Mark M.
12. Moving further, it is clear from the bare reading of
the section 14 (1) (d) DRC Act that the non-user of the tenanted
premises by the tenant, or any member of his family, must be for
a period of six months "immediately before the date of filing of
the application (for eviction)".The petitioner has stated on oath
that the tenanted premises is locked at present.
13. Testimony of PW-1 remains uncontroverted and
unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 8 / 9
-- 8 of 9 --
RC ARC No. 400/2023 Shammi Nagpal Vs. Pramod Kumar
the petitioner.
14. Hence, all necessary ingredients of Section 14(1)(d)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act stand duly established in this case.
CONCLUSION:-
15. In view of the discussion, the petitioner has been
able to prove all the ingredients of Sec. 14 (1) (d) of D.R.C. Act
against the respondents. As such, an eviction order is passed in
favour of petitioner and against the respondents in respect of
tenanted premises i.e. premises bearing no. 1/41, Ganda Nala
Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi-06 as shown in red colour in the site
plan annexed with the petition.
16. No order as to costs.
17. This file be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
(ARJINDER KAUR )
ARC-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
(Announced in open court
on 03.06.2024)
(ARJINDER KAUR)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
03.06.2024 Page 9 / 9
-- 9 of 9 --