CM(M)--498/2012. Case: KP RAMAKRISHNAN & ORS. Vs. BHAGWAN DAS KALRA DECD. THR LRS & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | CM(M)--498/2012 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | January 22, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
+ CM(M) 498/2012 & C.M. No.7589/2012
KP RAMAKRISHNAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Ms.Amrita Sanghi, Adv. with
Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan & Mr.Aashish, Advs.
versus
BHAGWAN DAS KALRA DECD THR LRS & ORS
..... Respondents Through Mr.Sanjiv Bahl, Adv. with
Mr.Vikrant Arora & Mr.Eklavya Bahl, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
-
By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed order dated 10th February, 2012 passed by learned Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the petitioners against eviction order dated 25th March, 2011 in respect of a shop bearing No (private no.1) forming part of property No. 32, East of Kailash,
Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted shop”).
-
An eviction petition was filed by the respondents against petitioners on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting consent of the respondents under Section 14(1) (a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
CM (M) No.498/2012 Page 1 of 18
shop at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. The rent was later increased Rs.300/- per month. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 had gone to USA in the year 1989 and have been settled there ever since. During their absence, tenanted shop had been in use, control and occupation of petitioner No notice demand dated 23rd March, 2006 was served on the petitioners and 2 alleging failure of payment of rent in respect of the tenanted shop more than 4 years. In a reply to the said demand notice petitioner claimed himself to be an attorney of petitioners No. 1 and 2, seeking tender the rent.
-
The respondents thereafter filed an eviction petition stating that reply dated 10th May, 2006, it was indicated that the arrears of rent tendered through a demand draft No. 934982 dated 9th May, 2006 of of Rs.10,800/- which would mean it was the tendered for 36 months period for which the rent would be legally recoverable. The stated that however, no demand draft was actually sent with the reply instead only a photocopy thereof was received. And even otherwise respondent was not ready to receive or accept the said tender from petitioner no.3 on the ground that there was no privity of contract between respondents and petitioner No.3. The respondents averred that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 having gone out of India, had illegally or unauthorisedly sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the tenanted petitioner No. 3 without the written consent of the respondents.
-
In the written statement filed by the petitioner No.3 for and on of petitioners No.1 and 2, the relationship of landlord-tenant between
CM (M) No.498/2012 Page 2 of 18
document in the nature of GPA executed on 14th June, 1997. It was that he had made payments of rent in the said capacity for and on petitioners No. 1 and 2 to the respondents twice in cash, but no cash was issued acknowledging the said payments. He agreed to the fact photocopy of the demand draft was sent alongwith the reply as the was sent by registered AD post. It was contended that the money tendered for subsequent months of June, July and August, 2006, and same were refused by the respondents. The amount was then deposited in the Court under Section 27 of the Act.
-
Alternative stand is also taken in the written statement that property in question comprised of six shops under the control and possession of six different tenants, out of which, one was the tenanted shop. There an agreement to sale dated 28th September, 2004 whereby the landlord purportedly agreed to sell the entire property in favour of six collectively for consideration, out of which Rs.10,000/- was paid in cash and Rs.70,000/- was paid by cheque, which was never encashed. It was that a Civil Suit had been filed on the basis of the said agreement seeking relief of specific performance against the respondent and that same is still pending.
-
During evidence, the petitioners made certain admissions which been recorded by the learned Trial Court in para 42 to 44 of the order 25th March, 2011. Petitioner No.1 in his evidence stated that during 1996 he started a computer education centre in the tenanted shop in the ‘Little Wizard’ with computer software collected from USA and the
CM (M) No.498/2012 Page 3 of 18
cum display unit of handloom fabrics. But, in the cross petitioner No.1 categorically admitted that the daughter of the No.3 namely Ms. Sonia started her business in the tenanted shop name of M/s. Little Wizard. Petitioner No.3 has also stated voluntarily in his cross examination that petitioner No.1 has sent education computer software to his daughter who started her computer education business for kids tenanted shop. However, he tried to improve his version by again stating that it was with petitioner No. 1 and 2.
-
In view of categorical admission by petitioner No.1 in his examination that daughter of the petitioner No. 3 had started her business the name of M/s. Little Wizard in the tenanted shop, in the opinion learned Trial Court, it was proved that the petitioners No.1 and nothing to do with the said business of M/s. Little Wizard. The No.1 had also admitted in his cross examination that he has nothing to show that he ever carried out the computer education business in the Little Wizard. Although, the petitioner No.1 has stated in his examination that the said business in the name of M/s. Little Wizard done by the daughter of the petitioner No. 3 with his consent, but it matters whether he has consented for running the said business or not. learned Trial court opined that there was nothing on record to show said business which was run by the daughter of the petitioner No. 3 name of M/s. Little Wizard had anything to do with the respondents and 2 who are tenants in the tenanted shop. The petitioner No. 3 has stated in his cross examination that he is not aware whether any bank account
CM (M) No.498/2012 Page 4 of 18
documentary evidence has been placed on record by the petitioners to that the said business of M/s...
To continue reading
Request your trial