Even co-owner can evict: Delhi High Court draws curtains on 40-year shop tenancy

‘Rented shop since 1986’

• The tenant stated that he had been in possession of the shop since October 1986 at a rent of Rs 275 per month under the landlord’s father, Girwar Pradhan.
• It was further explained that Bhimsen Sharma became a co-owner of the property after the demise of his parents in 2014 and following a relinquishment deed executed by his sisters in 2018.
• He, along with his two brothers, subsequently entered into a family partition agreement in 2019, as per which the shop fell under Bhimsen Sharma’s share.
• Thereafter, the landlord filed a suit seeking possession and arrears of rent amounting to Rs 41,400 for the period January 2018 to November 2019.
• The trial court concluded that there was admittedly a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
• The tenant’s challenge to the co-ownership of the alleged landlord, the relinquishment deed of 2018, or the partition deed of 2019 were never raised in his written statement.
• Consequently, the case for possession in respect of the said property was decreed in favour of the landlord by the trial court.
• Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant filed a first appeal, which was dismissed by an order of September 2022, and the decree for possession was upheld.
• The tenant subsequently moved the present regular second appeal.

‘Co-owner can seek eviction’

• The Delhi High Court noted that the father of the landlord, Bhimsen, had inducted the tenant.
• The tenant denied that Bhimsen was a landlord, simply on the ground that after the demise of Girwar Pradhan, the rent was being paid to the other brother, namely, Ramesh Chand.
• However, this assertion does not detract from the position that Bhimsen is also one of the sons and, therefore, a co-owner of the property.
• The contention of the tenant that one of the sons of the landlord did not become the exclusive owner or landlord of the said property or that the tenancy continued exclusively under one of the sons, therefore, has no merit.
• There is no merit in the present regular second appeal, which is hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

‘Not owner of said shop’

• Appearing for the tenant, advocate G S Narula contended that there was no admission of the landlord-tenant relationship between his client and the other party.
• Another ground of appeal was that the trial court, as well as the appellate court, erroneously observed that the tenant had not placed on record any rent receipt to show payment of rent to Sharma, whereas it was the case of the tenant that no rent receipt was being issued.
• It was also contended that the electricity bill in respect of the tenanted premises was installed in the name of Mool Chand Sharma and not Bhimsen Sharma, and that there was no basis to assume that he was the owner-landlord in respect of the said premises.
• It is stated that the past conduct of the tenant has not been taken into consideration. He has been diligently following up the progress of the instant case, and it was only on account of the pandemic that he defaulted in his appearance.
• It was asserted that it has not been taken into consideration that the tenant has been in possession of the tenanted shop since the year 1986 and has been sustaining his family from the earnings coming from it.

‘Not paid rent since 2018’

• Appearing for the tenant, advocate R L Sharma submitted that the tenant was a regular defaulter in payment of rent and had not paid rent arrears since January 2018, despite repeated requests.
• It was added that a legal notice dated November 2019 was served upon the tenant to seek payment of arrears of rent and to vacate the premises on or before December 2019, failing which he would be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs 10,000 per month until the property is vacated.
• It was contented that the said notice was returned with the remark “shop closed”.