In a significant legal battle at the Delhi High Court, the Kakar and Saluja families are embroiled in a complex landlord-tenant dispute. The judgment sheds light on the intricacies of property ownership and tenancy rights, defining the roles and responsibilities of both parties. This case delves into the nuances of the law governing landlord-tenant relationships, offering insights into the legal framework surrounding property disputes involving the Kakar and Saluja families.
Facts
- A Conveyance Deed was executed by DDA in favor of Mr. Kishan Gopal Kakar, Mr. Prem Nath Kakar, Mr. Pran Nath Kakar, and Mr. Anand Kumar Saluja on 28.07.2010.
- Litigation titled as ‘Smt. Asha Kakar v. Krishan Gopal Kakar & Ors.’ commenced amongst the relatives.
- Final decree of partition passed in the litigation, and the tenanted premises fell exclusively in the share of Mr. Prem Nath Kakar, Mr. Kishan Gopal Kakar, and Mr. Pran Nath Kakar.
- Mr. H. L. Saluja, father of Mr. Anand Kumar Saluja, was inducted as a tenant into the premises by Mr. Pran Nath Kakar.
- Mr. H. L. Saluja paid rent to Mr. Pran Nath Kakar for a period from November 1974 to February 1975.
- Daughters of Late Mr. Prem Nath Kakar sold their undivided interest in the property to their mother, Late Smt. Surendra Kakar, leading to the devolvement of their share in the tenanted premises upon Mr. Prem Nath Kakar, Mr. Kishan Gopal Kakar, and Mr. Pran Nath Kakar.
- Notice of Eviction Petition served upon Mr. Anand Kumar Saluja, and subsequently, an application seeking grant of leave to defend was filed by Mr. Anand Kumar Saluja.
- A detailed judgment passed in RC.REV. 156/2018 related to part of the premises and the decree for eviction was passed in favor of Mr. Prem Nath Kakar, Mr. Kishan Gopal Kakar, and Mr. Pran Nath Kakar against Mr. Anand Kumar Saluja.
- The ARC concluded that a landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties and the landlords were competent to file the eviction petition.
- Mr. Anand Kumar Saluja pleaded that Mr. Ram Kishan Kapoor had surrendered his tenancy rights in October 1974, leading to a fresh tenancy created in favor of Mr. H. L. Saluja by Mr. Pran Nath Kakar.
Issue
- Establishment of Landlord-Tenant relationship between parties is required
- Landlord must demonstrate bona fide need for the tenanted premises for himself or family members
- Issues regarding Rent Revision Petition and the utility of DRC Act have been detailed in RC.REV. 156/2018
- The role of the Learned ARC is to sift through applications for leave to defend
- There is a presumption in favor of the landlord’s bona fide need
- Court does not assess the suitability of alternate accommodation and should not sit in an armchair to decide
Arguments
- Petitioner’s counsel argues that the respondents have failed to establish a bona fide requirement for obtaining possession of the tenanted premises.
- The conveyance deed dated 28.07.2010 still shows the respondents’ address as property No 2290 Arya Samaj Road, Delhi, suggesting that the property remains with them.
- The petitioner’s counsel points out that the respondents sold property No 2290 Arya Samaj, Delhi, but concealed the purchase of property E-175 and E-176 in Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
- The counsel argues that the alleged documents like Conveyance Deed, Sale Deed, and family Will, are self-created and not binding as they lack title in favor of the respondents.
- The respondents claim that the tenanted premises were let out for commercial purposes, not residential purposes, and have been used for commercial activities since the start of the tenancy.
- The respondents are currently in possession of another property at 2290-91, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi, where they conduct their telecom, cyber cafe, and travel businesses.
- The respondents stated that they require the tenanted premises for running a business as they are presently unemployed, which falls under the category of bona fide requirement.
- There is no evidence to suggest that the purported bona fide need of the respondents is whimsical or fanciful, as the need for the premises for business purposes is legitimate.
- The petitioners argued that the respondents were never acknowledged or attorned as owners or landlords by them, and that the respondents have concealed the availability of suitable alternative accommodations.
- The respondents’ need for the tenanted premises for earning a livelihood is considered sufficient to draw a presumption in their favor.
- The landlords have the autonomy to determine their specific requirements for residential or business use, and it is unnecessary for the tenants to dictate how the landlords should manage their work.
Analysis
- Petitioner Girish Kakar claims that the property F-444 was purchased by him, Sh. Rakesh Anand, and Shri Subodh Jain from Sh. Harvinder Singh.
- The respondent states that they were inducted as tenants in the said premises in mid-December 2009 and a decree of ejectment was passed on 28.10.2014.
- The learned ARC dismissed the leave to defend application stating that non-payment of rent does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship.
- The respondents provided sale deeds to prove that they are not the owners of property F-444, 3rd floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
- The court found no reason to doubt the respondents’ bona fide need of the tenanted premises.
- Attornment by tenant not necessary but desirable.
- Possession of a tenant cannot be adverse to the landlord.
- Relied on decisions in Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v. Vishvanath Bhikaji Mogul, Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, and Pal Singh vs Sunder Singh.
- Petitioners established as landlords and owners of the tenanted premises.
- Citing Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co. and Babu Ram Gupta v. Chander Prakash for legal principles.
- Tenant cannot question landlord’s title.
- Rent Controller not required to adjudicate intricate title questions.
- Hajee K. Assainar v. Chacku Joseph referenced for bonafide requirement.
- Non-payment of rent does not extinguish landlord-tenant relationship.
- Respondents/landlords have satisfied the conditions under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
- The properties alleged to be at the disposal of the respondents were not available to them.
- The three properties in question were not suitable as they were not available to the respondents.
Decision
- Observations made in R.C. REV Rent Controller-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi are taken into consideration
- 2281, Naiwala, Laxmi Rani Dwar Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, judgment in favour of the respondents is upheld
- Judgment in favour of petitioner is vacated
Case Title: ANAND KUMAR SALUJA Vs. GIRISH KAKAR & ANR (2024:DHC:4043)
Case Number: RC.REV.-179/2018
