Delhi High Court Harminder Singh Koghar vs Bimla Devi & Ors.

 
FREE EXCERPT

Delhi:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 1st May, 2015

Decided on: 1st September, 2015

+

RC.REV. 392/2013

HARMINDER SINGH KOGHAR

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Piyush Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Jain,

Advs.

versus

RAMNATH EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD.

..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Ruchira

Arora, Advs.

+

RC.REV. 394/2013

HARMINDER SINGH KOGHAR

..... Petitioner

Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Piyush Sharma, Ms. Sakshi Jain,

Advs.

versus

BIMLA DEVI & ORS.

..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Ruchira

Arora, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

  1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the impugned decision dated 16th September, 2013 passed by the learned ARC is identical except that in RC.REV. 392/2013 „Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd.‟ is the tenant of the petitioner for first and second floor and roof rights and in RC.REV. 394/2013 „Bimla Devi and Ors.‟ are the tenants in respect of basement, ground floor and garage of the petitioner in suit property bearing No.A-7, Green Park, New Delhi.

  2. A brief exposition of facts is that the Petitioner filed two eviction petitions being Eviction No.11/09 and Eviction No.10/09 under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act stating that he was the owner/landlord of the suit property which was built by his father Sardar Sarjeet Singh Koghar (since deceased), who had bought the piece of land from Shri Udhe Singh Gahunia vide sale deed dated 6th November, 1963 which was duly registered on 13th November, 1963. The suit property comprises of a building on A-7, Green Park Main, New Delhi which was let out to the respondents by the petitioner‟s father through his then General Power of Attorney Shri Ram Prakash Lakra (now deceased). The father of the petitioner died leaving behind the petitioner as his son, heir and legal representative and thus after the death of Sardar Sarjeet Singh, the respondents/tenants attorned to the petitioner as their landlord. Though the suit property was let out for commercial purposes, however the same is a residential unit and can be easily and conveniently used for residential purposes. The petitioner is a non-resident Indian and settled in Thailand doing business. The petitioner needed the suit property as the petitioner and his family members have decided to set up their own residence in Delhi, particularly due to the fact that they were setting up business in Delhi. As both the counsels have based their arguments on the requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) on the basis of the pleadings in the eviction petition it would be relevant to note down paragraphs vi, vii & viii of the eviction petition as under:

    vi) Recently, the petitioner has acquired specialized knowledge of processing of oil, particularly used turbine oil and that too "online" (i.e. without stopping the turbines generating electrical energy). The petitioner and/or his private limited company have been negotiating with the various Corporations and Companies (both under the Public Sector as well as the private sector) for reprocessing the same (then and there). The negotiations are in progress (at an advanced stage), as this will result in substantial savings for these electricity "generating" companies. Necessarily, the petitioner has been contemplating to set up his residence and his own office at Delhi so as to advance his business prospects in India. To set up the said business successfully here in India, the petitioner has necessarily to reside here till things are set up and the functioning is made smooth.

    vii) In furtherance of his plans to settle in India and set up business here, the petitioner has also acquired by allotment from the NOIDA authority a plot and parcel of land ad- measuring 2,100 square meters for setting up an appropriate industry here. The petitioner has been paying the installments of the aforesaid plot regularly and this industrial unit is also likely to be commissioned soon. In this case also, when actually setting up the industrial unit here, the petitioner will necessarily have to stay/ live here (to supervise actual execution of works and also to conserve costs).

    viii) It is also of much relevance to add that in order to liaison with the officials concerned (for both the projects) the petitioner has been visiting India from Thailand nearly once a month and due to non-availability of residential accommodation is constrained to stay in a Hotel. The recent happenings in the Hotels at Mumbai has constrained the petitioner to think of alternatives and/or alternate accommodation(s). As such, the petitioner and his family members have decided to set up their own residence in Delhi particularly due their owning a house at Delhi, i.e., the premises in suit. In other words, the petitioner and his family require the premises in suit for their own use and occupation as a residence for themselves. Needless to say that the petitioner and his family members do not own or process any other residential premises/ property in India and particularly at Delhi/ New Delhi.

  3. The petitioner also disclosed in the eviction petitions that the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit being CS No.11/2001 for ejectment mesne profit, recovery of rent and possession in the year 2000-01 titled as „Shri Harminder Singh Koghar Vs. Shri Radhey Lall‟ in respect of eviction of the suit property which was still sub-judice before the learned Civil Judge, Delhi and was at the stage of respondent‟s/ defendant‟s evidence. In the suit the defendant Radhey Lall (since deceased) in the written statement stated that since there always were and still are two distinct tenancies qua different but specified portions of the immovable property bearing No. A-7, Green Park Main, one being @ `2000/- the other being @ `1500/-, civil suit for ejectment was misconceived and untenable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. To put an end to any further delay in adjudication of the cause of action, the petitioner filed the eviction petitions, as the respondents are proceeding on the assumption that there were two tenancies with rentals of `2000/- and `1500/- respectively and the Rent Controller only had the jurisdiction to grant the relief. The petitioner later withdrew the civil suit and pursued his remedy by way of these eviction petitions. The petitioner also placed on record copy of his passport, showing that in the last two calendar years he had visited India particularly Delhi at least on 25 different occasions and due to non-availability of a proper residential accommodation at Delhi/New Delhi, the petitioner has to invariably stay in a hotel paying exorbitant rentals for accommodation. Photocopies of the bills of the hotel were also enclosed. It was stated that the petitioner does not own or possess any other house or other residential accommodation at Delhi/ New Delhi and A-7, Green Park was the only residential immovable property owned and possessed by the petitioner. It was stated that the requirement of the Petitioner of suit property for residential purposes was honest, immediate and bona fide. It was further stated that Shri Radhey Lall (since deceased) and/or his family members including his business houses own extensive immovable properties (residential as well as otherwise in Delhi as well as New Delhi) and gave the addresses of the accommodation available with the respondents as under:

    "a) (Spacious office accommodation at) Statesman House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001;

    1. (Residence cum office at) A-25, Hauz Khas Enclave, near Green Park Church, New Delhi-110016;

    2. (Patiala House at) A-13, West End Colony, near Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110021;

    d)

    (Residential house at) Usha Niketan,

    Safdarjung

    Development Area, New Delhi-110017;

    e)

    (Showroom cum factory/ godown at) Main Aurbindo

    Marg (also known as Mehrauli Road), near Qutab Minar, New Delhi - 110030;

    f)

    (Showroom cum godown at) Gali Guliyan, near Jama

    Masjid, Delhi-110006;

    h)

    (Patiala House at) near Aggarwal Dharmshala,

    Chriwalan, near Chawri Bazar/ jama Masjid), Delhi-

    110006 (which is now totally commercial on its ground floor and still residential on the first and second floors)"

  4. Since leave to defend was granted, the respondents filed the written statement. In the written statement exclusive ownership of the petitioner qua the suit property was doubted on the ground that in the civil suit in cross- examination the petitioner admitted that his father had left behind a daughter but there was no right of his sister in the property. It was further stated that though reference was made to a Will executed by the father of the petitioner but the copy of the said Will has not been placed on record and thus the petitioner cannot claim himself to be the sole owner/ sole landlord of the premises in question. The eviction petition was bad for non-impleadment of necessary parties. The eviction petition could not proceed till the sister of the petitioner was impleaded and Will of the father was placed on record. It is further stated that though in the eviction petition, the petitioner has stated that he and his family members do not own or possess any other residential premises/ property in India and particularly at Delhi/ New Delhi, however in the cross-examination in the suit, the petitioner admitted that they have other properties in Delhi. Since no details of the other properties owned by the petitioner and his family members have been mentioned thus there was deliberate concealment in the eviction petitions regarding all such properties owned by the petitioner and his family members in Delhi. As per the petitioner himself he has properties in Delhi and therefore he has a reasonably suitable alternate accommodation. The petitioner should disclose all the properties owned by him. It was further stated that the respondents verily believes that the petitioner owns one property in Lajpat Nagar, Delhi and the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL