LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-94

INDERMAL GUPTA Vs. SUNDER SINGH

Decided On October 10, 2012
INDERMAL GUPTA Appellant
V/S
SUNDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition u/S 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act'), impugns the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by the ARC (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the leave to defend application filed in the eviction petition, was dismissed.

(2.) An eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlords in respect of part of premises bearing No. 3, Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi-110031 (for short "the tenanted premises"). The respondents submitted that the tenanted premises was allotted in the name of one Smt. Maya Devi by Mahila Co-operative Building Society Ltd. vide sale certificate dated 17.02.1975. Subsequently, this property was sold by Smt. Maya Devi to Sh. Sunder Singh (respondent No 1 herein), Smt. Tarinder Jit Kaur, Smt. Ranjit Kaur and Sh. Inderjit Kaur by virtue of registered sale deed dated 22.04.1998 and they acquired equal shares of 1/4th each. Smt. Ranjit Kaur then expired on 30.11.1998 leaving behind one daughter, Smt. Harbans Kaur Arora (respondent no 2 herein) and three sons. The three sons later executed a relinquishment deed dated 23.09.2004, in favour of their sister, Harbans Kaur Arora, by which she got 1/4th undivided share in the property. Now both Sh. Sunder Singh and Smt. Harbans Kaur Arora are the co-owners and co-landlords in the above said property. The respondent/landlord, submitted that the tenanted premises is needed for additional accommodation, as the property available with them is not sufficient for themselves and their large family consisting of their son, Sh. Manpreet Singh, his wife and three children (out of which two are school going), and their divorcee daughter, Sh. Arvinder Kaur. All the members of the family currently live in property No.3 and No. 4 Mahila Colony, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi-110031. Manpreet Singh is running a motor-workshop by the name of M/s Tegh Motors in part of the above mentioned property. On the ground floor of property No 4, there are two rooms, one store, one kitchen and a latrine. One of the rooms measuring 14' x 16'-9', is being used as a drawing room. Behind this room, there is a small room being used by Smt. Arvinder Kaur. On the first floor of property No 4, there is one pucca room measuring 14'x 22' which is being used by Sh. Manpreet Singh and his family for sleeping. There is no other pucca room on the first floor or the second floor of property No 4. The rest of the 3 small rooms have only a tinshed and cannot be used for living purposes as there is a lot of leakage of water in the rainy season and the same gets too hot during the summer. The respondents No 1 and 2 also submitted that they have no permanent space for their sleeping. They also submitted that there is no dining room or study room (for the grandchildren) or a puja room. The respondents no 1 and 2 have three married daughters, who frequently visit with their families and so the extra space is needed as a guest room. They also state that they are aging persons with ailments and are unable to climb the stairs so they want to live on the ground floor which is in possession of the petitioner/tenants.

(3.) In their leave to defend application, the petitioners raised a number of grounds. They raised the plea that there was no relationship of landlord tenant as the ownership of the tenanted premises by Smt. Maya Devi was disputed. They contended that the said property was initially allotted to one Smt. Dhan Devi, being a widow, by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and this property was mutated in her name. She left behind three sons and four daughters and Smt. Maya Devi was not her heir. It was submitted that Smt. Maya Devi got the property in question transferred in her name by fraudulent and illegal means and then sold it. Also, it was submitted that the originally, Sh. S.N. Gupta had been inducted as a tenant by Smt. Dhan Devi. In reply to this, the respondents submitted that Smt. Dhan Devi had died after the allotment and after letting the same to the original tenant, Sh. S.N Gupta. After her death, the property was transferred in the name of Smt. Maya Devi and the Mahila Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. had issued a sale certificate in her favour. This sale certificate was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 27.02.1975. Another issue taken up by the petitioners was that in the relinquishment deed entered into between the sons of Smt. Ranjit Kaur and Smt. Harbans Kaur Arora, the share of one son, Sh. Inderjit Singh, was never relinquished to anybody. As there was no relinquishment on the part of Sh. Inderjit Singh, he ought to be impleaded as a necessary party. The respondents denied this fact and have placed the relinquishment deed on record in the lower court.