Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Ravinder Kumar Suri - Respondent
RC.REV. 105 of 2016 & CM APPL Nos. 44082 of 2016, 27383 of 2017
Decided On : 28-01-2019
eviction petition - ownership dispute - Section 14(1)(e) - [DRC Act, Section 14(1)(e)] - The court discussed the ownership dispute, bonafide necessity, and concealment issues. It highlighted the legal principles related to family partition, oral partition, and the duty of the court to consider subsequent events during the pendency of an eviction petition.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, where the respondent claimed ownership of the premises and the bonafide necessity for himself and his family members. The petitioner disputed the ownership and necessity, alleging concealment by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had proved his ownership through evidence of oral partition and subsequent events. It also concluded that the respondent's bonafide necessity for the premises was established, and there was no concealment on his part.
Issues: The issues involved the ownership dispute, bonafide necessity, and alleged concealment by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles related to family partition, oral partition, and the duty of the court to consider subsequent events during the pendency of an eviction petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the eviction petition, affirming the respondent's ownership and bonafide necessity for the premises.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
1. This petition challenges the order dated 13.08.2015 in eviction petition no.167/2011 titled as Ravinder Kumar Suri vs. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. passed by Commercial Civil Judge-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi wherein the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) was allowed by the Court in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.
2. Before coming to the issues involved it would be appropriate to state few facts, as alleged, in eviction petition:
(a) the tenanted premises comprising of one room on ground floor, two rooms on the mezzanine floor and a basement. It has a private flat no. 6, forming part of the property bearing no.820, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan. The petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs.30/month, excluding other charges. It is alleged the premises is lying locked for the last more than 22 years;
(b) the respondent is an owner/landlord of the premises and he requires the same bonafidely for himself and his family members dependent upon him. The petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 80 years and he has undergone a bye-pass surgery and is living on the first floor of the said property and hence want to shift his residence on the ground floor of the said property as he find it difficult in climbing the stairs on account of his old age and has decided to take up his residence on the ground floor;
(c) the subject flat is most suitable for the petitioner and he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation on the ground floor for his residence;
(d) the petitioner is one of the leading company and have got several business premises at various places and it does not require such suit premises as the same is lying locked for the last more than 22 years.
3. The respondent examined himself as PW1 and proved documents of co-ownership with his brother as Ex.PW1/1 colly.; the site plan regarding partition of the suit property as PW1/2; the site plan of the property owned by the petitioner showing the tenanted premises as Ex.PW1/3; the original office copy of cancellation notice dated 09.09.1992 issued on behalf of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/4; house tax receipts as Ex.PW1/5 colly.; certified copies of the orders dated 09.09.2003 and 27.10.204 passed by the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court as Ex.PW1/6 colly.; documents of heart surgery and medical treatment as Ex.PW1/7 colly.; photographs showing locking of the tenanted premises Ex.PW1/8 colly.; copy of the legal notice with postal receipts, courier receipts and returned AD as Ex.PW1/9 colly.
4. One Mr. Sudarshan Lal Arora was examined as RW1 on behalf of the petitioner herein and he proved site plan Ex.RW1/1; a rent note dated 29.10.1988 as Ex.PW1/R1 and an agreement to sell with KAPL as Ex.PW1/R2.
5. The learned ARC in his impugned order has noted:
“16. The respondent has disputed the ownership of the petitioner over the suit premises on the ground that no actual partition took place between the petitioner and his brothers and that the petitioner had sold off the property under his ownership to M/s Kwality Apartments Private- Limited by way of Agreement to Sell and therefore, the petitioner has no right over the said property. Per contra, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and his brother Sh. Rajan Kunhar Suri were the co-owners of equal share with respect to property bearing no. 816-820, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. That on 01.10.1994, an oral partition took place between the petitioner and his brother whereby portion marked in colour 'Blue' in the site plan came to the share of the petitioner and portion marked in 'Green' came to the share of brother of the petitioner Sh. Rajan Kumar Suri. Thereafter, petitioner's brother Sh.Rajan Kumar Suri sold his entire portion to Rehman & Company vide a duly registered Sale Deed dated 21.10.1982. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the Sale Deed as well as the site plan filed by brother of the pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
