GULATI TRADING COMPANY Vs. MAN MOHAN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 31.1.2013 by which the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the bona fide necessity eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been decreed with respect to the tenanted premises comprising of one shop situated at the ground floor in the property bearing no. 3468 -3470, Gali Bajrang Bali, Chawri Bazar, Delhi -110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with the eviction petition.

(2.) THE case of the respondents/landlords was that the original tenant Sh. Hansraj Gulati carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Gulati Trading was let out the suit premises by Sh. Bhagwan Dass, the grandfather of the respondents/landlords. The grandfather, Sh. Bhagwan Dass executed a Will in favour of his son Sh. Shibbo Mal on 13.12.1974. On the death of Sh. Bhagwan Dass i.e. on 30.12.1974, the Will became operative whereby Sh. Shibbo Mal became the owner and during his life time Sh. Shibbo Mal partitioned the property amongst his four sons and two daughters. The daughters of Sh. Shibbo Mal relinquished their shares in favour of the brothers vide a registered relinquishment deed and the property was partitioned between the four brothers by way of a registered partition deed on 17.6.1998. The respondents/landlords by virtue of the partition deed became the owners of the suit premises. The suit premises is pleaded to be required for the needs of both the respondents inasmuch as the respondent no. 1 was doing a business of brokerage of iron goods and respondent no. 2 was doing a business of a property dealer, but as they were having no premises from where to do their business i.e. on account of lack of a commercial property for doing business, they had to entertain their clients on the first floor of their residential property which caused disturbance to their family life. The suit premises were also required for the son of the respondent no. 1 who is a hardware engineer of computer and works on contract basis and who wants to start his own business of computer hardware.

(3.) SO far as the aspect of whether the respondents are owner/landlords of the property, the Additional Rent Controller in the impugned judgment notes that the suit property is mutated in the house tax records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the name of the respondents/landlords who were also paying the house tax of the property. The Additional Rent Controller thereafter rightly notes that the petitioner/tenant from time to time tendered rent not only to the grandfather of the respondents but also to the father of the respondent. To the father of the respondents, the rent was tendered by way of money orders, copies of which were also filed. Qua the grandfather, the rent was deposited in the court of an Additional Rent Controller and of which copy of the challan was filed. Petitioner/tenant had also paid the rent by a cheque of Rs. 5190/ - in favour of the father of the respondents. In view of the aforesaid aspects, the Additional Rent Controller has rightly held that the respondents are the owners/landlords of the property. I may note that once the father of the respondents and the grandfather of the respondents were accepted as landlords, then, by virtue of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 petitioner is estopped from challenging the ownership of the grandfather, the father and now the respondents.