Sardar Surjit Singh Arora vs Sh. Ramesh Chopra

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—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.

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.

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.

The learned ARC considering the requirement of the landlord came to conclusion that the landlord required at least eight rooms to meet his requirement of one bed room for himself and his wife, one bed room for daughter''s family, one drawing room for her daughter''s family, one drawing room for himself and his wife, one dining room, one pooja room and one servant room and the accommodation in his occupation was only five rooms. Thus, the landlord''s requirement was bonafide.

The tenant had contended that landlord was in occupation of two more rooms at ground floor. This contention was repelled since one of the rooms was a tailoring shop in occupation of a tenant and this fact was undisputed and another room was less than 100 sq.ft. which could not be said to be proper living room.

The other contention of the tenant was that the married daughters of the landlord could not form part of his family and the requirement of daughters cannot be considered as the requirement of the landlord. The tenant also contended that landlord belonged to lower strata of society and did not require more rooms for himself. He did not require a dining room as there was no tradition in the family of the landlord of taking meals together. It was also contended that he did not require a pooja room since he did not believe in god. There was no requirement of separate guest room as no one used to visit family of the landlord. He did not require separate bed room for each member of his family since he did not have a big family and belonged to poor strata of society. The learned ARC rightly rejected these contentions of the tenant. It only seems that tenant himself was suffering from poverty of mind and status who, though had shifted from the premises 4 years back but was keeping the premises so as to deprive the landlord of its use and occupation perhaps with a greed and hope that the landlord shall ultimately feel compelled to pay hefty amount to him for vacating the premises. Otherwise, I find no reason why the tenant should keep the premises locked when he has practically shifted from the premises. It is settled law that it is not for the tenant to dictate as to what living standard should the landlord adopt, whether he should have a separate guest room and a dining room or not, whether there was a tradition of family dining together or not is not the concern of tenant. Neither the tenant is the judge whether the landlord was a believer in god or not. The tenant cannot dictate the mode of living to the landlord.

I consider that the learned ARC rightly assessed the requirement of the landlord of two bed rooms, one guest room, two drawing rooms, one dining room, one pooja room and a servant room.

It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court wrongly came to conclusion on the basis of statement made to the police by the tenant that the premises was lying locked. This issue was a triable issue and could be decided only after evidence. I consider this argument is not tenable. The Court of ARC while considering the application for leave to defend has to take into account the documents placed on record by the parties and the affidavit of the parties. The tenant in this case had not denied that his statement was recorded by the police. A material part of the statement of the tenant before the police is reflected in his defence raised for contesting the petition before learned ARC. A statement made voluntarily to police after a complaint of the landlord is a material which can be considered by the ARC while considering the application for leave to defend.

Leave to defend is to be granted only where real triable issues are raised. The ARC is supposed to analyze the materials placed before it and come to a conclusion whether the issue raised by the tenant had some basis or it was just being raised for the sake of raising it. It is normal practice to raise all kinds of real and flimsy issues in applications for leave to defend. The issues of denial of ownership, denial of relationship, denial of purpose of tenancy are very common. If a bare denial can be a ground for grant of leave to defend then Section 25-B of DRC itself would become redundant. This denial is to be decided in light of the affidavit and documents filed by the parties and ARC has to come to conclusion whether such denials were bona fide denials or not and if a triable issue was raised.

Counsel for the tenant also argued that the requirement of daughters cannot be considered as a requirement of the landlord. This argument has to be rejected. No distinction can be made between requirement of a son and that of a daughter. Both stand on equal footing. Both enjoy equal rights on the property of parents. Both have equal responsibility towards the parents and both are equal family member of their parents. A son and a daughter both can be dependent on the parents for residence. If daughter is living in a tenanted premises and wants to live with her parents, the requirement has to be considered as genuine. More so, when the landlord in this case had no son and in his old age, only daughters can take care of him and his aging wife. I, therefore, consider that the requirement of daughters who are dependent for residence on their parents has equal importance as requirement of sons, whether the daughters are married or not.

I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.