Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 341/2014 & CM 17396/2014 (stay)
th
% Decided on: 8 January, 2015
VED PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Vijay Kasana,
Advs.
versus
SURAJ SAXENA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Puneet Goel, Adv.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM 17395/2014
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CAVEAT 929/2014
Counsel as above appears for the respondent/ caveator, hence caveat is
discharged.
RC.REV. 341/2014 & CM 17396/2014 (stay)
st
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 1 July, 2014 passed by the learned Rent
Controller allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent Smt. Suraj
Mukhi the petitioner prefers the present petition. Smt. Suraj Mukhi, wife of
late Gopi Chand had filed an eviction petition No.E-74/2011 before the Rent
Controller seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises situated at
plot No.209, P.O. Block Krishna Nagar, Delhi i.e. two rooms and one store
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 1 of 8
room on the ground floor which had been let out for residential purposes but
converted to commercial purpose. During the pendency of eviction petition
Smt. Suraj Mukhi passed away and thus the respondents who are her legal
heirs were impleaded as parties.
2. The respondents in the eviction petition plead that they have a large
family, thus requiring at least 21 rooms and one garage, therefore seeking
eviction on bona-fide requirement. According to the eviction petition the
family of Smt. Suraj Mukhi besides herself consisted:
“(1) Petitioner’s eldest son namely, Suraj Kumar Saxena.
Aged about 61 years
(i) Smt. Shila Saxena (Wife/Daughter-in-law).
(ii) Smt. Neelam Saxena, W/o Shri Chandresh Saxena
(married grand-daughter) who has two kids.
(iii) Shri Ajay Saxena (Married Grand Son)
(iv) Smt. Neeta Saxena W/o Shri Sudhir Saxena
(Married grand-daughter having two kids)
(v) Smt. Nishu Chauhan, W/o Shri Charanjit Singh
Chauhan (married grand-daughter).
(2) Petitioner’s son late Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena
(i) Smt. Saroj Saxena (daughter-in-law). Widow and
aged about 62 years
(ii) Shri Nitin Saxena (aged 28 years) (Grand son)
(3) Petitioner’s son Shri Satish Kumar Saxena
(i) Smt. Kiran Saxena (wife/ daughter-in-law)
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 2 of 8
(ii) Shri Ankit Saxena (aged 24 years)
(iii) Ms. Megha Singh W/o Shri Paramjit Singh
(Married Grand Daughter having one kid)
(iv) Ms. Shivani Saxena (aged 20 years)
(Grand Daughter)
(4) Petitioner’s son Shri Gopal Krishan Saxena
(i) Smt. Seema Saxena (Wife/Daughter-in-law)
(ii) Ms. Kajal Saxena (aged 21 years)
(Grand Daughter)
(iii) Ms. Iti Saxena (aged 19 years) (Grand Daughter)
(iv) Ms. Shruti Saxena (aged 15 years)
(Grand Daughter)
(5) Petitioner’s daughter Smt. Krishna Saxena
(i) Shri Yatish Babu Saxena (Son-in-law)
(ii) Shri Rajeev Saxena (married Grand Son)
(iii) Shri Sanjeev Saxena (married Grand Son)
(iv) Smt. Kanchan Saxena (married Grand Daughter)
(v) Smt. Kumud Saxena (married Grand Daughter)
(6) Petitioner’s daughter Smt. Suman Saxena
(i) Shri Akhil Saxena (son-in-law)
(ii) Master Mayenk Saxena (Grand Son)
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 3 of 8
(iii) Master Kamal Saxena (Grand Son)
(iv) Master Sachin Saxena (Grand Son)
(v) Master Tushar Saxena (Grand Son)
3. The details of the portion of the entire property under use and
occupation of Smt. Suraj Mukhi’s family are as under:
“ON GROUND FLOOR:
Two rooms, one store as shown in Red Colour in site plan i.e.
tenanted premises in question are in use and occupation of
respondent. The petitioner is having one living room, two
small rooms (measuring less than 100 square feet), one
bathroom and one W.C.
ON FIRST FLOOR
The said portions are in use and occupation of the petitioner.
The premises under the possession of the petitioners consist of
two living rooms, one hall-cum-passage, three kitchen. Two
kitchen have been made with wooden partition wall between
hall-cum-passage.
ON SECOND FLOOR
One toilet-cum-bathroom and some portion is covered with
plastic/asbestos sheet, however, there is no door or window in
the said plastic sheet covered area and an open terrace.”
4. Since leave to defend was granted to the petitioner parties led their
evidence. On behalf of the respondents four witnesses were examined,
however the evidence of only three witnesses i.e. PW-2 Deepak Mehra, PW-
3 P.C. Tiwari and PW-4 Suraj Saxena who were duly cross-examined was
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 4 of 8
considered by the Trial Court, since Ajay Saxena PW-1 did not appear for
cross-examination his evidence was not considered.
5. In the affidavit the petitioner admitted the jural relationship of
landlord tenant between the parties. He deposed that the premises in
question was let out by the deceased eviction petitioner i.e. late Smt. Suraj
Mukhi in the year 1968-69 for non-residential purposes wherein the
petitioner here-in was running the business of book binding with the help of
small binding machines in the name of M/s. Ved Binding House. It is stated
that Smt. Suraj Mukhi earlier also filed two eviction petitions against the
petitioner herein firstly in 1976 and secondly in 1986 on various grounds
including bona-fide requirements, however the said petitions were
dismissed. While dismissing the second petition it was observed that the
eviction petitioner had alternative accommodation being properties No. 6 &
7, Temple Road, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51. Thus the present proceeding had
been filed only to cause harassment to the petitioner. It is also contended
that Shri Suraj Prakash Saxena along with his son Ajay Saxena has shifted
his residence along with their family members to Arya Nagar Appartments,
I.P. Extn., and thus they are not living in the premises in question. It is
further stated that Gopal Kishan Saxena and Satish Kumar Saxena are
residing in three rooms on the ground floor which are much more than their
requirement though it is admitted that there is no kitchen on the ground
floor. The petitioner further deposed that there are three rooms and three
kitchen on the first floor and after the death of Smt. Suraj Mukhi her widow
daughter-in-law Smt. Saroj Saxena along with her family has been residing
in one room on the first floor while two rooms and one covered hall were
lying vacant. It is also stated that one room on the second floor is also lying
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 5 of 8
vacant and the daughters of Smt. Suraj Mukhi being married they do not
reside at the premises in question. Thus, there was sufficient
accommodation available to the respondent and there is no bona-fide
requirement to get the tenanted premises vacated.
6. In the affidavit the petitioner has not deposed that alternative
accommodation in the form of two properties at Temple Road, Krishna
Nagar are available; however the respondent/ eviction petitioners during trial
examined two witnesses who deposed about sale of the two properties. PW-
2 Shri Deepak Mehra deposed that he had purchased property bearing No.6,
measuring area 110 sq. yds. situated at Krishna Nagar, Temple Tank Road in
nd
the area of village Ghondli, Illaka Shahadara on 22 August, 1995 through
the General Power of Attorney of Smt. Suraj Mukhi i.e. Shri Bintoo Gautam
th
executed dated 9 September, 1994 duly registered on the same day with the
Sub-Registrar of Delhi. This witness was not cross-examined by the
petitioner. Further PW-3 Shri P.C. Tiwari from the Sub-Registrar Office
Nand Nagri appeared and brought copy of the original sale-deed of property
st
bearing No.7, Temple Tank Road, Krishna Nagar executed on 31 October,
1990 by Shri Suraj Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Satish Kumar, Gopal Krishna all
sons of late Shri Gopi Chand Saxena. He also brought the record relating to
the sale-deed in respect of property No.6, Temple Tank Road, Krishna
Nagar. Thus from the testimony of these two witnesses it is amply clear that
properties No. 6 & 7 Temple Tank Road, Krishna Nagar had been sold on
nd st
22 August, 1995 and 31 October, 1990. Even according to the petitioner
in the earlier proceedings the bona-fide requirements of the eviction
petitioners were not disputed, however in view of the fact that there were
alternative accommodations available the eviction petition was dismissed.
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 6 of 8
7. Even accepting the version of the petitioner that Shri Suraj Kumar
Saxena along with his son Ajay Kumar Saxena and other family members
are not residing in the premises in question, it would still be seen as many as
11 members of Smt. Suraj Mukhi’s family are residing in the said premises
excluding Suraj Kumar Saxena’s family and the families of the two married
daughters. For 11 members the accommodation available as noted above
cannot be said to be adequate and thus there is bona-fide requirement of the
respondents for the premises. Further the cause of action for eviction on the
bona fide ground, that is, under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act is a recurring
cause of action and a petition on bona fide requirement can be filed again.
Hon’ble Supreme Court N.R. Narayan Swamy vs. B. Francis Jagan, 2001
(6) SCC 473 held:
+ RC.REV. 341/2014 & CM 17396/2014 (stay)
th
% Decided on: 8 January, 2015
VED PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Vijay Kasana,
Advs.
versus
SURAJ SAXENA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Puneet Goel, Adv.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM 17395/2014
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CAVEAT 929/2014
Counsel as above appears for the respondent/ caveator, hence caveat is
discharged.
RC.REV. 341/2014 & CM 17396/2014 (stay)
st
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 1 July, 2014 passed by the learned Rent
Controller allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent Smt. Suraj
Mukhi the petitioner prefers the present petition. Smt. Suraj Mukhi, wife of
late Gopi Chand had filed an eviction petition No.E-74/2011 before the Rent
Controller seeking eviction of the petitioner from the premises situated at
plot No.209, P.O. Block Krishna Nagar, Delhi i.e. two rooms and one store
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 1 of 8
room on the ground floor which had been let out for residential purposes but
converted to commercial purpose. During the pendency of eviction petition
Smt. Suraj Mukhi passed away and thus the respondents who are her legal
heirs were impleaded as parties.
2. The respondents in the eviction petition plead that they have a large
family, thus requiring at least 21 rooms and one garage, therefore seeking
eviction on bona-fide requirement. According to the eviction petition the
family of Smt. Suraj Mukhi besides herself consisted:
“(1) Petitioner’s eldest son namely, Suraj Kumar Saxena.
Aged about 61 years
(i) Smt. Shila Saxena (Wife/Daughter-in-law).
(ii) Smt. Neelam Saxena, W/o Shri Chandresh Saxena
(married grand-daughter) who has two kids.
(iii) Shri Ajay Saxena (Married Grand Son)
(iv) Smt. Neeta Saxena W/o Shri Sudhir Saxena
(Married grand-daughter having two kids)
(v) Smt. Nishu Chauhan, W/o Shri Charanjit Singh
Chauhan (married grand-daughter).
(2) Petitioner’s son late Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena
(i) Smt. Saroj Saxena (daughter-in-law). Widow and
aged about 62 years
(ii) Shri Nitin Saxena (aged 28 years) (Grand son)
(3) Petitioner’s son Shri Satish Kumar Saxena
(i) Smt. Kiran Saxena (wife/ daughter-in-law)
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 2 of 8
(ii) Shri Ankit Saxena (aged 24 years)
(iii) Ms. Megha Singh W/o Shri Paramjit Singh
(Married Grand Daughter having one kid)
(iv) Ms. Shivani Saxena (aged 20 years)
(Grand Daughter)
(4) Petitioner’s son Shri Gopal Krishan Saxena
(i) Smt. Seema Saxena (Wife/Daughter-in-law)
(ii) Ms. Kajal Saxena (aged 21 years)
(Grand Daughter)
(iii) Ms. Iti Saxena (aged 19 years) (Grand Daughter)
(iv) Ms. Shruti Saxena (aged 15 years)
(Grand Daughter)
(5) Petitioner’s daughter Smt. Krishna Saxena
(i) Shri Yatish Babu Saxena (Son-in-law)
(ii) Shri Rajeev Saxena (married Grand Son)
(iii) Shri Sanjeev Saxena (married Grand Son)
(iv) Smt. Kanchan Saxena (married Grand Daughter)
(v) Smt. Kumud Saxena (married Grand Daughter)
(6) Petitioner’s daughter Smt. Suman Saxena
(i) Shri Akhil Saxena (son-in-law)
(ii) Master Mayenk Saxena (Grand Son)
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 3 of 8
(iii) Master Kamal Saxena (Grand Son)
(iv) Master Sachin Saxena (Grand Son)
(v) Master Tushar Saxena (Grand Son)
3. The details of the portion of the entire property under use and
occupation of Smt. Suraj Mukhi’s family are as under:
“ON GROUND FLOOR:
Two rooms, one store as shown in Red Colour in site plan i.e.
tenanted premises in question are in use and occupation of
respondent. The petitioner is having one living room, two
small rooms (measuring less than 100 square feet), one
bathroom and one W.C.
ON FIRST FLOOR
The said portions are in use and occupation of the petitioner.
The premises under the possession of the petitioners consist of
two living rooms, one hall-cum-passage, three kitchen. Two
kitchen have been made with wooden partition wall between
hall-cum-passage.
ON SECOND FLOOR
One toilet-cum-bathroom and some portion is covered with
plastic/asbestos sheet, however, there is no door or window in
the said plastic sheet covered area and an open terrace.”
4. Since leave to defend was granted to the petitioner parties led their
evidence. On behalf of the respondents four witnesses were examined,
however the evidence of only three witnesses i.e. PW-2 Deepak Mehra, PW-
3 P.C. Tiwari and PW-4 Suraj Saxena who were duly cross-examined was
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 4 of 8
considered by the Trial Court, since Ajay Saxena PW-1 did not appear for
cross-examination his evidence was not considered.
5. In the affidavit the petitioner admitted the jural relationship of
landlord tenant between the parties. He deposed that the premises in
question was let out by the deceased eviction petitioner i.e. late Smt. Suraj
Mukhi in the year 1968-69 for non-residential purposes wherein the
petitioner here-in was running the business of book binding with the help of
small binding machines in the name of M/s. Ved Binding House. It is stated
that Smt. Suraj Mukhi earlier also filed two eviction petitions against the
petitioner herein firstly in 1976 and secondly in 1986 on various grounds
including bona-fide requirements, however the said petitions were
dismissed. While dismissing the second petition it was observed that the
eviction petitioner had alternative accommodation being properties No. 6 &
7, Temple Road, Krishna Nagar, Delhi-51. Thus the present proceeding had
been filed only to cause harassment to the petitioner. It is also contended
that Shri Suraj Prakash Saxena along with his son Ajay Saxena has shifted
his residence along with their family members to Arya Nagar Appartments,
I.P. Extn., and thus they are not living in the premises in question. It is
further stated that Gopal Kishan Saxena and Satish Kumar Saxena are
residing in three rooms on the ground floor which are much more than their
requirement though it is admitted that there is no kitchen on the ground
floor. The petitioner further deposed that there are three rooms and three
kitchen on the first floor and after the death of Smt. Suraj Mukhi her widow
daughter-in-law Smt. Saroj Saxena along with her family has been residing
in one room on the first floor while two rooms and one covered hall were
lying vacant. It is also stated that one room on the second floor is also lying
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 5 of 8
vacant and the daughters of Smt. Suraj Mukhi being married they do not
reside at the premises in question. Thus, there was sufficient
accommodation available to the respondent and there is no bona-fide
requirement to get the tenanted premises vacated.
6. In the affidavit the petitioner has not deposed that alternative
accommodation in the form of two properties at Temple Road, Krishna
Nagar are available; however the respondent/ eviction petitioners during trial
examined two witnesses who deposed about sale of the two properties. PW-
2 Shri Deepak Mehra deposed that he had purchased property bearing No.6,
measuring area 110 sq. yds. situated at Krishna Nagar, Temple Tank Road in
nd
the area of village Ghondli, Illaka Shahadara on 22 August, 1995 through
the General Power of Attorney of Smt. Suraj Mukhi i.e. Shri Bintoo Gautam
th
executed dated 9 September, 1994 duly registered on the same day with the
Sub-Registrar of Delhi. This witness was not cross-examined by the
petitioner. Further PW-3 Shri P.C. Tiwari from the Sub-Registrar Office
Nand Nagri appeared and brought copy of the original sale-deed of property
st
bearing No.7, Temple Tank Road, Krishna Nagar executed on 31 October,
1990 by Shri Suraj Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Satish Kumar, Gopal Krishna all
sons of late Shri Gopi Chand Saxena. He also brought the record relating to
the sale-deed in respect of property No.6, Temple Tank Road, Krishna
Nagar. Thus from the testimony of these two witnesses it is amply clear that
properties No. 6 & 7 Temple Tank Road, Krishna Nagar had been sold on
nd st
22 August, 1995 and 31 October, 1990. Even according to the petitioner
in the earlier proceedings the bona-fide requirements of the eviction
petitioners were not disputed, however in view of the fact that there were
alternative accommodations available the eviction petition was dismissed.
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 6 of 8
7. Even accepting the version of the petitioner that Shri Suraj Kumar
Saxena along with his son Ajay Kumar Saxena and other family members
are not residing in the premises in question, it would still be seen as many as
11 members of Smt. Suraj Mukhi’s family are residing in the said premises
excluding Suraj Kumar Saxena’s family and the families of the two married
daughters. For 11 members the accommodation available as noted above
cannot be said to be adequate and thus there is bona-fide requirement of the
respondents for the premises. Further the cause of action for eviction on the
bona fide ground, that is, under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act is a recurring
cause of action and a petition on bona fide requirement can be filed again.
Hon’ble Supreme Court N.R. Narayan Swamy vs. B. Francis Jagan, 2001
(6) SCC 473 held:
| “6. In our view, the High Court ought to have considered | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| the fact that in eviction proceedings under the Rent Act the | |||||
| ground of bona fide requirement or non-payment of rent is a | |||||
| recurring cause and, therefore, landlord is not precluded | |||||
| from instituting fresh proceeding. In an eviction suit on the | |||||
| ground of bona fide requirement the genuineness of the said | |||||
| ground is to be decided on the basis of requirement on the | |||||
| date of the suit. Further, even if a suit for eviction on the | |||||
| ground of bona fide requirement is filed and is dismissed it | |||||
| cannot be held that once a question of necessity is decided | |||||
| against the landlord he will not have bona fide and genuine | |||||
| necessity ever in future. In the subsequent proceedings, if | |||||
| such claim is established by cogent evidence adduced by the | |||||
| landlord, decree for possession could be passed. | |||||
| [K.S.Sunderraju Chettair vs. M.R.Ramachandra | |||||
| Naidu | (SCC para 10) | and Surajnul vs | . Radhe Shyam | ]” |
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 7 of 8
8. Consequently, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. Petition and
application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2015
‘ga’
RC.REV. 341/2014 Page 8 of 8