Amrit Mohini vs Brij Mohan Gupta & Ors

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 6018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Amrit Mohini & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Brij Mohan Gupta & Ors - Respondent
RC.REV. 458 of 2019 & CM APPL. 34698 of 2019, CM(M)1829 of 2019 and CM APPLs. 55664 of 2019 & RC.REV. 705 of 2019 and CM APPLs. 55182 of 2019, 55184 of 2019
Decided On : 25-09-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate and Mr. I.S. Alag, Senior Advocate with Mr.Kushagra Pandit Advocate, for the Petitioners.
Mr. G. P. Thareja and Mr. Sagar Kumar Lal, Advocates, for R-1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 in RC.REV. 458/2019 & CM APPL. 34698/2019.
Mr. G.P. Thareja and Mr. Sagar Kumar Lal, Advocates for R-2, 4, 5, 6, 7 in CM(M)1829/2019 and CM APPLs. 55664/2019.
Mr. G.P. Thareja and Mr. Sagar Kumar Lal, Advocates for R-2, 4, 5, 6, 7 in RC.REV. 705/2019 and CM APPLs. 55182/2019, 55184/2019.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) - Eviction proceedings - Dispute concerning the ownership of commercial premises originally owned by Smt. Parvati Bai, passed on to her successors, with the petitioners claiming ownership through a registered agreement to sell and subsequent conveyance deed - Petition by legal heirs of the original owner alleging fraud and challenging the landlord-tenant relationship - Held, courts cannot determine title in eviction proceedings, only the landlord-tenant relationship; hence, proof of better title than the tenant is sufficient - Eviction petition filed by the applicants for bona fide requirement upheld, conflicting earlier orders by Rent Controller not sustained. (Paras 21, 26, 104, 108)

Table of Content
1. factual background of property ownership (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 11)
2. eviction case filings and tenants' claims (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13)
3. disputes over ownership and eviction defenses (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. maintainability of eviction appeals (Para 25 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
5. issues of landlord-tenant relationship (Para 62 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82)
6. conclusions and orders regarding eviction (Para 108 , 109 , 110)

JUDGMENT

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The present petitions arise out of eviction proceedings in respect of commercial premises bearing Shop No.20, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi, 110024 (hereinafter referred to as "the property").

2. The said property was initially purchased by Smt. Parvati Bai in an auction held by L&DO. The said Parvati Bai is stated to have inducted a tenant, namely, Shri Sevti Lal Gupta (predecessor in interest of the current tenants) at a monthly rent of Rs.190/- sometime around 1958. A certificate of sale and lease deed with respect of the said property was executed by the L&DO in favour of Smt. Parvati Bai. Copies of the said documents have been placed on record by the petitioners in RC. Rev.458/2019.

3. Upon the death of Smt. Parvati Bai, the property was mutated/substituted by the L&DO in the name of Smt. Gul R. Shivdasani being her successor by virtue of a Will dated 10.03.1976 of Smt. Parvati Bai and that of her husband dated 15.05.1985. A copy of the Will dated 10.03.1976 of Smt. Parvati Bai as also the Will dated 15.05.1985 of husband of Smt. Gul R. Shivdasani have been placed on record. Prior to mutation/substitution by L&DO in favour of Smt. Gul R. Shivdasani, her children i.e. Smt. Sunita Struck and Mr. Pratap R. Shivdasani are stated to have given their respective no objection certificates dated 06.04.1988.

4. Smt. Gul R. Shivdasani is stated to have entered into a registered agreement to sell dated 24.04.1989 with the petitioner no.2 in RC. Rev.458/2019 for sale of the property. In terms of the said registered agreement to sell, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- is stated to have been paid by the said purchaser to Smt.Gul R. Shivdasani. It has been recorded in the agreement to sell as under:

"1. That out of total sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs fifty thousand only), the purchaser has paid to the seller a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- vide Bank draft No.284690/400019001 dated 25.04.1989 drawn on Indian Bank, Bombay, the receipt whereof the seller hereby admits and acknowledges and the balance sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) shall be paid by the purchaser to the Seller on or before the execution and registration of regular sale deed. "

5. Simultaneously, with the execution of the agreement to sell, a General Power of Attorney dated 24.04.1989 was executed by Smt. Gul R. Shivdasani, constituting "Shri Gurinder Singh Suri" as her attorney. Pursuant thereto, a conveyance deed dated 19.07.1994 was stated to have been executed in respect of the property by Smt. Gul R. Shivdasani through her attorney in favour of the petitioners.

6. It may be noted that the case of the petitioners is that the said power of attorney contains a typographical error inasmuch as the name of the attorney has been wrongly spelt as "Gurinder Singh Suri" instead of "Gurvinder Singh Suri".

7. Pertinently, the conveyance deed executed in respect of the property contains an endorsement which refers to sale permission having been granted by L&DO prior to the execution of the said conveyance deed.

8. Almost immediately after execution of the agreement to sell dated 24.04.1989 and registered power of attorney, a notice dated 28.04.1989 is stated to have been sent by Smt. Gul R. Shivdasani (through her General Power of Attorney) to the tenants calling upon the tenants to pay rent to the new owners. This notice was referred to in Suit No. 501/1989 filed by the tenants, which also came to be filed in the aftermath of the aforesaid transaction. The prayer sought by the tenants