IN THE COURT OF ACJCCJARC, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
Presided By : Sh. Jay Thareja, DJS
ARC No. 141/2013
S. Mohan Singh
S/o Lt. S. Narain Singh
R/o 53, Radhey Shyam Park,
Delhi51. … Petitioner
Versus
Sh. S. Nirankar Singh
S/o Late Sh. S. Hari Chand Singh Chawla
At Shop in 53, Radhey Shyam Park
Delhi51. … Respondent
APPLICATION/PETITION U/S 14(1)(e) OF THE DELHI
RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, FOR EVICTION OF
TENANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 01.11.2013
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 25.04.2017
DATE OF DECISION : 20.05.2017
ORDER
1. This Order disposes of an application/affidavit filed by the
respondent under Section 25B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(henceforth ‘DRC Act’) on 29.09.2014 seeking leave to contest the
application/petition (henceforth ‘petition’) filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC
Act, by the petitioner. By way of the said petition, the petitioner has sought
eviction of the respondent from shop measuring 8 ft. x 9 ft. approx., on the
ground floor of property no.53, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi51, as shown in red
colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner on 31.03.2015 (henceforth ‘tenanted
ARC No. 141/2013
S. Mohan Singh v S. Nirankar Singh
Page no. 1 of 6
premises’).
2. In the petition, it is interalia pleaded by the petitioner that the
petitioner is the owner/landlord qua the tenanted premises; that the petitioner
had inducted the respondent as a tenant qua the tenanted premises vide rent
deed dated 06.08.1986; that the respondent is running the business of selling
cable wires from the tenanted premises; that the family of the petitioner interalia
comprises of his son, Harpreet Singh, who has passed 12th standard in 2011;
that the petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted premises for opening an
office for his son, Harpreet Singh, who wishes to start the work of computer etc.
and that the petitioner does not have any other premises available to satisfy his
said need.
3. In the application/affidavit (henceforth ‘application’) filed under
Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act on 29.09.2014, the respondent has sought leave
to contest the present petition on various grounds. The first ground taken by the
respondent is that the petitioner and his wife, Smt. Surender Kaur are issueless
and that Sh. Harpreet Singh is not the son of the petitioner. The second ground
taken by the respondent is that there are four shops at property no.53, Radhey
Shyam Park, Delhi51, out of which one shop is the tenanted premises, one
shop is in the possession of Sh. Chander, a tenant of the petitioner and two
shops are in the possession of the petitioner. The third ground taken by the
respondent is that instead of the petitioner, his wife, Smt. Surender Kaur is the
owner of the tenanted premises; that the petitioner is a mere rent collector on
behalf of his wife, Smt. Surender Kaur and that there is dispute between the
petitioner and his wife, Smt. Surender Kaur. The fourth ground taken by the
ARC No. 141/2013
S. Mohan Singh v S. Nirankar Singh
Page no. 2 of 6
respondent is that the petitioner and his wife have huge rental income from the
rooms on the first floor and the second floor of property no.53, Radhey Shyam
Park, Delhi51. The fifth ground taken by the respondent is that alongwith the
petition, the petitioner had not filed any site plan reflecting the tenanted premises
in red colour.
4. In the reply to the application filed by the respondent under Section
25B(4) of the DRC Act, the petitioner has joined issues qua all aforesaid
grounds taken by the respondent. In respect of the first ground taken by the
respondent, the petitioner has pleaded that Sh. Harpreet Singh is the son of the
petitioner because the petitioner has legally adopted him after taking permission
under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1996, from Sh.
P.K. Jain, District Judge, Delhi on vide Guardianship Case No.465/94 decided
on 10.08.1994. In respect of the said plea, the petitioner has placed on record
photocopy of the certified copy of the aforesaid permission granted by Sh. P.K.
Jain, District Judge, Delhi on 10.08.1994 and the copy of the adoption deed
dated 26.08.1994. In respect of the second ground taken by the respondent, the
petitioner has pleaded that there is only one shop at property no.53, Radhey
Shyam Park, Delhi51 and the said fact can be discerned from the site plan and
photographs filed by the petitioner alongwith the reply to the application under
Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act. In respect of the third ground taken by the
respondent, the petitioner has pleaded that he is the owner of the tenanted
premises by virtue of GPA dated 07.04.1979. In respect of the fourth ground
taken by the respondent, the petitioner has denied that the petitioner and his
wife have huge rental income from the rooms on the first floor and the second
floor of property no.53, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi51. In respect of the fifth
ARC No. 141/2013
S. Mohan Singh v S. Nirankar Singh
Page no. 3 of 6
ground taken by the respondent, the petitioner has admitted that inadvertently
no site plan was filed alongwith the petition. Also, the petitioner has filed a site
plan and photographs reflecting the current status of property no.53, Radhey
Shyam Park, Delhi51.
5. In the rejoinder qua the application filed under Section 25B(4) of the
DRC Act, the respondent has denied the contents of the aforesaid reply and
reaffirmed the contents of his application. Also, the respondent has cited certain
judgments of the Superior Courts.
6. I had heard Sh. Vikas Ahuja, Ld. Advocate for petitioner and Sh.
T.R. Arora, Ld. Advocate for the respondent on 25.04.2017. During arguments,
the Ld. Advocates had merely reiterated the contents of the pleadings of the
parties.
7. After the perusing the record of the Court file and considering the
submissions made by the Ld. Advocates for the parties, I find that the first
ground taken by the respondent does not raise any triable issue because the
permission granted under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act, 1996, by Sh. P.K. Jain, District Judge, Delhi vide Guardianship Case
No.465/94 decided on 10.08.1994 and the adoption deed dated 26.08.1994
have not been challenged by the respondent and as such, this Court has no
reason to doubt that Sh. Harpreet Singh is the legally adopted son of the
petitioner. In respect of the second ground taken by the respondent, I find that it
does not raise any triable issue because a combined analysis of the site plan
and photographs filed by the petitioner alongwith the reply to the application
ARC No. 141/2013
S. Mohan Singh v S. Nirankar Singh
Page no. 4 of 6
under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act, clearly reflects that there is only one shop
viz. tenanted premises, at property no.53, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi51 and
because the respondent has not placed on record any photographs to challenge
the photographs of the petitioner and show that there are three shops at
property no.53, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi51, including two shops, adjacent to
the tenanted premises. In respect of the third ground taken by the respondent, I
find that it does not raise any triable issue because the GPA dated 07.04.1979
shows that in contrast to the respondent, the petitioner has better title qua the
tenanted premises and because the issue whether the respondent is the tenant
of the petitioner or his wife, Smt. Surender Kaur has already been put to rest,
interse the parties, by the judgment of Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, the then Ld. ARC,
Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi in E No.2/98, Sardar Mohan Singh and Anr. v Sh.
Nirankar Singh, decided on 05.12.2000. In the said judgment, it has been held
that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises. In
respect of the fourth ground taken by the respondent, I find that it does not raise
any triable issue because the fact that the petitioner and his wife have huge
rental income from the rooms on the first floor and second floor of property
no.53, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi51, is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding
the merit of the present petition. In respect of the fifth ground taken by the
respondent, I find that it does not raise any triable issue because the non filing of
site plan alongwith the petition was a rectifiable error and the petitioner has
rectified the said error by filing the site plan qua the tenanted premises alongwith
the reply to the application under 25B(4) of the DRC Act.
8. As a net result of the aforesaid findings, the leave to defend
application filed by the respondent on 29.09.2014 is rejected. It is ordered that
ARC No. 141/2013
S. Mohan Singh v S. Nirankar Singh
Page no. 5 of 6
the respondent be evicted and the petitioner be placed in possession of the
tenanted premises i.e. shop measuring 8 ft. x 9 ft. approx., on the ground floor
of property no.53, Radhey Shyam Park, Delhi51, as shown in red colour in the
site plan filed by the petitioner on 31.03.2015.
9. Before parting with this Order, it is clarified that as per Section 14(7)
of the DRC Act, 1958, this Order shall not be enforceable for the period of six
months from today.
10. After completion of necessary formalities by the Ahlmad, the file
shall be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (Jay Thareja)
today on 20.05.2017 ACJ/CCJ/ARC/Shahdara
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
ARC No. 141/2013
S. Mohan Singh v S. Nirankar Singh
Page no. 6 of 6