SARDAR SURJIT SINGH ARORA Vs. RAMESH CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is an example as to how Delhi Rent control Act which was meant for the protection of poor tenants is being used to blackmail the landlord and how it is being misused. The tenant who was living in ground floor of the property and was in occupation of three rooms, had left the premises about 4 years back but did not vacate the premises. When the landlord found that premises was stinking and was under a total neglect he made a complaint to the police regarding nuisance being created due to the stinking of premises. A statement of tenant was recorded by the police wherein he admitted that he had shifted from the premises 4 years back but he used to come to the premises once or twice a week and was still continuing the occupation of the premises. He was facing eviction proceedings at the hands of subsequent purchaser Mr. Ramesh Chopra who had purchased this house and who had filed cases against him for recovery of rent as well as for eviction. In his statement to the police he stated that he did not recognize Mr. Ramesh Chopra as the owner of the premises.

(2.) IN his application for leave to defend, the tenant took the same stand before the ARC that he did not recognize Mr. Ramesh Chopra as landlord. He had taken this premises on rent from one Smt. Surinder Kaur and the premises was inherited by Smt. Raghubir Kaur. Surprisingly, the tenant had not paid the rent for last many years either to Smt. Raghubir Kaur or to anyone else. It is not his claim that Smt. Raghubir Kaur had claimed any rent from him after the property was purchased by the present owner from two of the legal heirs of sh. Surinder Kaur namely Darshan Singh and Ram Narain by way of registered sale deeds in 1995 and 1997. However for the sake of raising objections, the objection of ownership was raised. This was turned down by learned ARC in view of the fact that there was no challenge to the sale deed executed in favour of landlord either by Smt. Raghubir Kaur or by anyone else. Smt. Raghubir Kaur herself never claimed any ownership right in the property. She did file a probate Petition but she later on withdrew it. The property had been mutated in the name of landlord in MCD. I consider that the learned ARC rightly rejected the contention of the tenant that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.

(3.) THE landlord had sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of his bona fide requirement. His family consisted of himself, his wife and two married daughters. One of the married daughters, earlier living in USA with her husband, had come back to India and was living in a rented accommodation. The landlord wanted premises for residence of this daughter who had returned from usa and wanted to live with her. He also wanted the premises since the existing premises in his occupation was falling short in view of visiting relatives. His requirement was of a guest room, a servant room, a pooja room, a drawing room and a dining room, a bed room for himself and his wife, one bed room for married daughter and her child and a drawing room for them. The present accommodation with the landlord was five rooms; three rooms on the first floor and two rooms on the ground floor.