Krishna Devi Sharma (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs & Anr v. Yadukul Guglani & Ors

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. AUGUST 24, 2017 "pp"..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24th August, 2017 + RC.REV. No.568/2015 & CM No.24067/2015 (for stay) KRISHNA DEVI SHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Suhail Khan, Adv. Versus YADUKUL GUGLANI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Sethi, Mr. Sachin Jain, Ishan Khanna and Ms. Mallika Bhatia, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order (dated 23rd April, 2015 in E.No.24/10 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Patiala House Court, New Delhi) dismissing the application of the two petitioners namely Krishna Devi Sharma and Raj Gupta and another application of the respondent no.3 Neeta Sharma and respondent no.4 Varun Sharma, both for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondents no.1&2 / landlords namely Yadukul Guglani and Vipin Guglani and the consequent order of eviction of the two petitioners and the respondents no.3 to 5 from Shop No.8/1 below staircase no.3 situated on the ground floor in Regal Building, Parliament Street, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. 3. The senior counsel for the respondents no.1&2 / landlords appearing on advance notice on 19th October, 2015 assured that the order of eviction shall not be executed. Vide subsequent order dated 29th March, 2016, continuation of the stay of the order of eviction impugned in the petition was made subject to the petitioners paying use and occupation charges @ Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondents no.1&2 / landlords. Vide yet subsequent order dated 27th April, 2016, the rate of use and occupation charges was reduced to Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. The counsels have been heard. 5. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents no.1&2 / landlords in some other proceedings had claimed the petitioners to be trespassers in the premises aforesaid and thus the petition for eviction under the Rent Act is not maintainable. However on enquiry as to what is the stand of the petitioners i.e. whether they are in possession of the premises as tenants or in any other capacity, the counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had come into possession of the premises as tenants under the earlier owner thereof. On being prodded further as to the status of the petitioners in the premises today, the counsel states that today also, the petitioners are tenants. On further enquiry as to whether the petition for eviction from which this petition arises was instituted by the respondents no.1&2 / landlords pleading the petitioners to be trespassers or tenants, it is stated that the petition for eviction was filed claiming the petitioners to be tenants. Once that is so, then the argument urged is misconceived. Once the position is that according to the respondents no.1&2 / landlords as well as according to the petitioners also the petitioners are tenants in the premises, merely because the respondents no.1&2 / landlords may have at earlier stage claimed the petitioners to be trespassers, would not prevent the respondents no.1&2 / landlords from accepting the petitioners, who have always been claiming themselves to be tenants, as tenants and instituting the petition for eviction. 6. The next argument of the counsel for the petitioners / tenants is that the respondents no.1&2 / landlords are not the owners of the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners and thus were not entitled to maintain the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It is argued that though the respondents no.1&2 / landlords along with the petition for eviction did not file any documents of their title to the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners but produced the same at the fag-end of arguments of the leave to defend i.e. after the filing of the application for