Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Singhal vs Gian Singh on 26 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER SINGH,
ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC (NORTH), ROHINI
COURT, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
Anil Kumar Singhal
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Gian Singh
.....Respondent
ORDER
1. New RC No. : 31-18
2. Under section : Eviction of tenant U/s
14(1) (e) r/w Section 25
(B) of DRC Act
3. Date of institution : 06/06/2018
4. Reserved for Order : 23/10/2021
4. Date of final order : 26/10/2021
5. Final order : Eviction petition is
allowed and leave to
defend application is
dismissed.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the Leave to Defend Application filed by the respondent against the RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 1 of 51 present eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (herein referred as DRC Act 1958).
PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES 'Petition'
2. It is the case of the petitioner, that he is the owner and landlord of suit property i.e. property no. F - 14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi including the demised Shop ad measuring about 18'-25 X 9' shown in red colour in the Map / Site Plan annexed as Annexure I and also shown in Photo Annexure II filed with Petition, hereinafter referred as "Suit Property". According to the petitioner the whole ground Floor of the Suit property no. F-14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi was purchased by him on 26/05/1993. The respondent was tenant of erstwhile owner / Landlady Smt. Krishna Kumari since 1970. Thus the respondent became tenant of the petitioner but no Rent Agreement was executed. The Rent was Rs. 150/- per month. Copy of Sale Deed and Rent receipts issued by the petitioner to respondent are annexed with petition as Annexure III and IV(Colly).
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 2 of 51That Shri Garvit Singhal i.e. the son of petitioner is Bachelor of Architect (B. Arch.) since July 2017 from Sharda University, Greater Noida, UP and he is dependent upon petitioner for his office to establish his Architecture Practice. His Provisional Degree Certificate is Annexure V. He has secured First Division and also underwent internship at M/s Imagination Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Subhash Place, Delhi from 12/12/2016 to 12/05/2017. Thereafter he started an Architect concern in the name & style M/s Immense Designs alongwith his friend Mr. Shubham Tyagi at his Mother's shop at 206, Durga Chamber, A-24, First Floor, F-Block, R.D.C. Gaziabad, U.P. in October 2017. Shri Garvit Singhal does not have any other shop in Delhi and therefore daily he has to commute to Gaziabad from his Residence i.e. Model Town, Delhi, which is around 34 kilometers. This commutation period is at the cost of health, well being and social life of Shri Garvit Singhal. Thus the shop in the occupation of the Respondent is reasonably suited to the requirement of son of petitioner.
That there are two other shops in the Suit Property no. F-14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi. One L shape North Side Shop and one Middle Shop. Both clearly shown in the site plan in Green Colour and Yellow Colour respectively. The middle shop is RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 3 of 51 occupied by another tenant i.e. Shri Jaswant Singh and the another shop (in green colour) is occupied by the wife of Petitioner. Where she is running a Flour Mill in the name and style M/s Vinod Flour Mill, being its sole proprietor and for this purpose she pays Rs. 500/- per month as rent to the Petitioner.
That the shop (in yellow colour) in occupation of another tenant is required by the Petitioner for himself to shift his shop M/s Vinod Departmental Store which is being run from tenanted premises i.e. F-14/61, Model Town-II, Delhi. The Petitioner has simultaneously filed another petitioner Under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1956 qua that shop.
That the demised shop is situated on the main road in Model Town and thus it gives visibility to the customers and it can fetch customers to the son of Petitioner. Further the shop is in usable condition and the son of Petitioner need to invest only Rs. 2-2.25 Lacs in the shop to use for his purpose. The son of petitioner was born in Model Town and his friends and relatives are also residing in the vicinity. They can help him in growing his business by recommending the customers.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 4 of 51That said son of Petitioner is of marriageable age and once he starts his practice from the demised shop, his prospect for securing good marriage proposal would increase. That the petitioner and his wife wish that their son becomes a specialist in Architectural planning and designs of residential and commercial buildings. They also wish that his married life is also settled. Accordingly both purposes will be achieved if the demised shop is vacated and office of their son is opened in the said shop. The petitioner does not have any other suitable or alternative shop, office or business premises for meeting such requirements anywhere in Delhi.
In view of aforesaid, the petitioner has prayed for allowing the present petition.
The petitioner has filed following documents in support of his Petition :-
(i) Site Plan,
(ii) A photograph of demised shop showing its full
front view,
(iii) Copy of a Sale Deed dated 26/05/1993 in favour
of petitioner,
(iv) Copy of rent receipts dated 04/04/2018 and
01/06/2018 for the paid rents by the respondent,
(v) Copy of Garvit Singhal's provisional B. Arch degree certificate,
(vi) Garvit Singhal's business visiting card, RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 5 of 51
(vii) Copy of rent receipt issued to Smt. Sangeeta Singhal and
(viii) Office copy of Smt. Sangeeta Singhal's Income Tax returns Form No. ITR-V for A.Y. - 2017-18 alongwith accompanying financial documents.
(ix) A cheque of the rent dated 18/04/2009 for Rs. 1,800/- issued by respondent in favour of the petitioner,
(x) Copy of Sale Deed dated 26/05/1993 in favour of Sh. Jag Mohan Singhal,
(xi) Certified copy of Partition Deed dated 24/04/2003,
(xii) Visiting Card of M/s Aaradhna Creations,
(xiii) Original copy of the atonement notice,
(xiv) The returned registered cover bearing endorsement,
(xv) 2 copies of a couple of paid electricity bills pertaining to M/s Vinod Flour Mill, (xvi) 3 photographs of M/s Vinod Flour Mill and (xvii) Copy of Certified copy of 'Sale Deed' dated 04/03/1972.
Summons of the petition were sent to the respondent and he has put his appearance and filed an application under Section 25 B of DRC Act i.e. the leave to defend application. Copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner and he has also filed reply to RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 6 of 51 the same. The respondent has also filed supporting affidavit with leave to defend application and the counter affidavit is also filed on behalf of petitioner qua the aforesaid affidavit of respondent. The respondent has also filed replication to the reply filed by the petitioner.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION / AFFIDAVIT
3. The respondent has sought leave to defend the eviction petition on the grounds which are as follows through his Power of Attorney Holder Shri Jatinder Singh :-
(a) That the petitioner is not owner of demised shop i.e. IIIrd shop in F-14/64, adjacent to M/s Amar Tent & Furniture House, Model Town-II, Near Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Delhi-110009. Thus there is no Landlord-Tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. According to him one Smt. Krishna Kumari was the landlord of the demised shop.
(b) The petitioner is in occupation of huge commercial premises at F-14/61, Model Town, Delhi-9.
He is also in possession of Ist shop at F-14/64 Model Town, Delhi - 110009 in the very same building. The site plan of the property is himself filed by the petitioner at page no. 36 alongwith the petition. The RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 7 of 51 petitioner also owns the entire M-2/40, Model Town-III, Delhi-9, which is a huge 250 Sq. Yards plot with three storey structure. Besides this the Petitioner also owns M-3/17, Model Town, Delhi - 110009 ad measuring 275 q. Yards. Thus the petitioner is in occupation of suitable alternate accommodation which is several times over the requirement being projected.
(c) The rent receipts relied upon by the petitioner are false and forged. The respondent has never tendered the rent to the petitioner.
(d) That there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner or his son Shri Garvit Singhal as alleged by the petitioner in the petition. The petition is misconceived, bald, sham and based on a falsity.
Respondent has relied upon the following documents :-
1. Photos of the Ist Shop, F - 14/64, Model Town -
II, Delhi - 110009,
2. Photos of the commercial accommodation at the other side of the building property at F - 14/64, Model Town - II, Delhi - 110009.
3. Screen Shot of the result of scan of QR code on Garvit Singhal's visiting card.RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 8 of 51
4. Screen Shot of the result of typing www.immensedesigns.com in browser.
5. Power of attorney executed by Sh. Gian Singh in favour of Sh. Jatinder Singh.
Reply to Leave to Defend Application
4. The petitioner has filed detailed reply to leave to defend application. In his reply, he has interalia contended that the respondent has filed forged and fabricated Spacial Power of Attorney. He has further contended that the grounds taken by the respondent are not triable and they do not disclose any triable issue. He has also contended that his Counsel inadvertently mentioned in the petition that the petitioner purchased entire ground floor of the property in question, however the petitioner herein has purchased only half of the undivided ground floor of the property in question. In the Sale Deed annexure '3' on page no. 3, it is specifically mentioned that the vendor sold only half undivided share of the built up structure of the entire ground floor of the property. Thus, the annexed Site Plan at page no. 36 is of the entire ground floor as existed at the time of execution of Sale Deed dated 26/05/1993.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 9 of 51He has further contended that the other half portion of undivided ground floor of the property in question i.e. 14/64, Model Town, Delhi was purchased by Sh. Jagmohan Singhal i.e. the brother of present petitioner in the year 1993 vide separate Sale Deed dated 26/05/1993 i.e. on the same day when petitioner purchased the half share in the property. He has filed copy of the said Sale Deed as Annexure 'X'.
He has further contended that after purchase of undivided share by respective Sale Deeds i.e. one Annexure 'III' and another Annexure 'X', both brothers partitioned the ground floor of 14/64, Model Town, Delhi by meets and bounds and thereafter also executed partition deed dated 24/04/2003, duly registered in the Register No. 9726 in Additional Book No. - I, Volume No. 3302 at Page Nos. 83-89 on 05/05/2003 in the office of Sub Registrar, VI - A, Pitam Pura, Delhi. Certified copy of Partition Deed is annexed as Annexure 'XI', wherein the front portion of the ground floor fell in the share of petitioner, which is shown in red colour and the back portion of the ground floor fell to the share of Sh. Jagmohan Singhal which is shown in green colour.
After partition Sh. Jagmohan Singhal has converted his portion into big L - Shaped shop where from he has been running shop of Pooja, Hawan & Vivah Samagri in the name and style of M/s Aradhna RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 10 of 51 Creations which ingress and egress are from other side i.e. back lane at the rear of the petitioner's three shops, shown in Annexure 'I'. He has annexed visiting card of M/s Aradhna Creations as Annexure 'XII'.
He has further contended that two offices ad measuring 13 Ft - 10 and 1/2 Fit X 11 Fit depicted in the sale deed's Site Plan and also in the site plan of partition deed annexure 'XI' within the portion of red colour had been merged by carving out thorough passages inter say as well as north / south side of the shop of the petitioner and thereby L shaped shop came into being delineated in colour green of the Site Plan annexure 'I'. In other words, two back offices shown in sale deed's Site Plan at page no. 36 as well as in site plan of partition deed in annexure 'XI' had been merged with north side corner shop which is duly shown delineated in colour green in the Site Plan Annexure 'I' where from petitioner's wife is running a flour mill in the name and style of M/s Vinod Flour Mill, being its sole proprietor.
Thus, the entire ground floor got partitioned, modified and new arrangement came into being inter-se between the petitioner and his brother i.e. in the front half of the property in question at ground floor, the petitioner owned three shops (duly shown in Site Plan Annexure 'I') and behind them exists a big L - Shaped shop which is M/s Aradhna RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 11 of 51 Creations, owned by Sh. Jagmohan Singhal i.e. the brother of petitioner herein and therefore, the said portion was denoted as other part of property no. F - 14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi in the Site Plan. This fact is very well in the knowledge of respondent and that is why he has not filed any counter / alternative Site Plan.
Thus, in another words, the total area behind petitioner's three shops at ground floor at property no. F - 14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi, Model Town, Delhi is owned by petitioner;s brother Jagmohan Singh, which was purchased by him from erstwhile owner Smt. Krishna Kumari vide separate Sale Deed dated 24/04/2003 and three shops are owned by the petitioner being approximately half of the total divided portion of the ground floor. Apart from these three shops, the petitioner does not own any other shop. Where his son Garvit Singhal can open his office.
The respondent has tried to twist the facts and he is deliberately contending selective portion of the pleadings of the petitioner. The petitioner has cat- egorically explained in his petition that his son Garvit Singhal is a qualified Architect and he wants to open office for himself. He does not have any other place or office or shop in Delhi and therefore he has to en- dure the atrocious journey from Ghaziabad to Model RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 12 of 51 Town at a distance of about 34 Kms., which is taking toll of his health, well being and social life.
In view of aforesaid, the petitioner averred that the grounds taken by the respondent are not tri- able and leave to defend application is liable to be re- jected outrightly.
In Parawise reply of the leave to defend application, the petitioner has categorically denied the case of the respondent and he has relied upon the facts of his petition.
He has categorically denied that he is owner of F-14/61, Model Town, Delhi - 110009. However according to him Shri Mohan Vir Singh is the owner of that property. The petitioner is running a shop on rent in the name and style of M/s Vinod Departmen- tal Store from the tenanted shop in those premises. He has already filed another petition against another ten- ant as the petitioner herein want to shift his depart- mental store in his own shop. The another shop is in occupation of the wife of petitioner where from she is running a flour mill in the name and style M/s Vinod Flour Mill being its sole proprietor. In support of that he has filed copy of Income Tax Return of her wife.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 13 of 51The petitioner has categorically denied that he owns entire M-2/40, Model Tow-III, Delhi or it is 250 Sq. Yards plot with three storey structure. Rather he has submitted that he is owner of only ground floor of M-2/40, Model Tow-III, Delhi and he is residing there alongwith his family. Whereas upper floor(s) are owned by his brother Shri Jagmohan Singhal. He has further contended that the said property is comprises of only 2 bed rooms, 2 wash rooms, a lobby, a drawing room and a kitchen. Thus there is no shop or office whatsoever.
He has also denied that he owns M-3/17, Model Town, Delhi or it is a plot ad measuring 275 Sq. Yards or it is being reconstructed into a commercial market. He has submitted that the said plot is a vacant undeveloped plot ad measuring 80 Sq. Yards after having being demolished its structure about 15-20 years ago. He has further submitted that this plot was purchased by Smt. Vidya Devi i.e. the mother of peti- tioner. He has filed copy of registered sale deed dated 04.03.1972 as Annexure XIX.
The petitioner further submitted that the shop is required to open office for the son of the petitioner. The friend of son of petitioner i.e. Shri RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 14 of 51 Subham Tyagi may continue from his current office. Otherwise also that is his own decision.
The petitioner has also submitted that no loss shall be caused to the respondent if the present petition is allowed as the respondent has got many commercial properties in Delhi. According to him the respondent has one showroom in the name and style of "Cantabill" in Model Town IInd Market itself. Thus the petitioner has categorically denied the various contentions of respondent by filing detailed reply / affidavit.
REJOINDER TO THE REPLY TO LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
5. The respondent has contented that the reply to leave to defend application as well as petition are based on concealed, bald and sham facts. The present petition is sheer abuse of process of law under the summary procedure.
In desperate attempt to prove that the petitioner is landlord, the petitioner has fabricated rent receipts.
He has also ventured to the extent that he has submitted a cheque, purportedly drawn by the RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 15 of 51 respondent. However, there is no explanation as to why the cheque was not encashed by the petitioner when it is purportedly tendered for the purpose of payment of rent. The rent receipts are also fraudulent as according to the petitioner, the partition amongst the petitioner and his brother took place in the year 2003, however the rent receipt portraying the petitioner as the sole landlord since 01/01/2000. Thus, it creates triable issues regarding the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner.
Even if it is presumed that the cheque has been preserved by the petitioner, then the entire bonafide need stands falsified as way back in the year 2009, the petitioner knew that his son would became an Architect and then he would be filing this petition on this purported need. Further, as per the stand of the petitioner, the son of petitioner is using a premises measuring 300 Sq. Ft. at Ghaziabad and now he is looking for extension in his profession by shifting to Delhi and the said premises is unsuitable for son of petitioner as area of 140 Sq. Feet approximately will be inadequate.
The petitioner has accepted in his reply that M - 3/17 does belong to him / his family. He conveniently avers that it belongs to his mother, RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 16 of 51 however the petitioner has concealed that after the death of his mother, the entire property has been be- queathed by the petitioner through his deceased mother. Thus, the petitioner fraudulently concealed the availability of a very large alternative suitable com- mercial accommodation, which is at least 10 times the size of the suit premises. Even if the petitioner has taken a stand that M - 3/17 is an open vacant plot, then also the petitioner can built upon it a room ad- measuring 300 Sq. Ft. and give it to his son to use as office and this will satisfy the purported need of the son of the petitioner and also save the bread and butter of the respondent.
The petitioner has annexed with his reply to leave to defend a Conveyance Deed in favour of his mother regarding the commercial plot no. 17 at Block - C, Mohan Park i.e. Model Town, Delhi. On inquiry, it is revealed that even this property has been bequeathed by the petitioner from his mother. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of concealing another alternative suitable commercial accommodation.
The purported partition between the petitioner and his brother is sham and only artificial to create false scarcity on paper. The respondent has contended that allegedly, the property was purchased in the year 1993, the wife of petitioner is running Flour RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 17 of 51 Mill since 1994, the partition was effected in the year 2003, thus, there is no reason that the electric connection of the Flour Mill can be in the name of brother of petitioner i.e. Sh. Jagmohan Singhal alone. Thus, the entire story of the petitioner is concocted one and unbelievable.
He has further contended that the entire story of godowns is also fabricated one and the same can be proved if the leave to defend application is al- lowed. He has also contended that the story of Aradhna Creations being run by the brother of the peti- tioner is also false as no photographs alongwith reply is filed to rebut this fact. Visiting card can be printed at any point of time without supporting evidence.
That as per petitioner the Annexure 'XIII' & 'XIV', the letter was sent by Smt. Krishna Kumari, however the envelope in which it was sent, mentioned the sender as Vinod Departmental Store. Pertinently, Smt. Krishna Kumari cannot use an envelop marked as Vinod Departmental Store and more importantly, the handwriting in which Sh. Gian Singh is written is as the same as on the cheque and also on the rent re- ceipts, thus it is evidently clear that the petitioner has forged the signatures on the alleged cheque and also on the alleged rent receipts.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 18 of 51He has further contended that Income Tax Return of the wife of the petitioner does not show any closing stock. Thus, it is a totally fabricated story that two specious offices adjacent to the shops are being used as godowns. Even otherwise, the purported In- come Tax Return of the wife of the petitioner shows the nature of business as "Atta & Masala Pisai", which does not require a godown. Further as per FSSAI Act, the petitioner's wife should have taken a licence, fail- ing which she is prohibited from conducting this busi- ness.
The respondent has further contended that the petitioner has taken the plea that he is taking rent from his wife for running the Flour Mill and if that is the case, then in case of Garvit Singhal also the petitioner will be hit by Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Hence, any decree favouring the petitioner would be infructuous.
He has further contended that even if the electricity bill is in the name of Jagmohan Singhal, regarding the business allegedly run by the wife of the petitioner, but it is clear from the bill that the business is being run by Garvit Singhal as his e-mail address is registered on the bill.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 19 of 51He has further contended that no eviction order of the respondent can be sought by the petitioner for a business which will be run by Garvit Singhal and Shubham Tyagi as Shubham Tyagi is not the son of the petitioner and this eviction petition is not maintainable.
It is further contended that the petitioner has not shown proof of any nature whatsoever that he is tenant in property No. F - 14/61 and running the departmental store from that place. Further it has come to the knowledge of the respondent that the petitioner has withdrawn his case against Sh. Jaswant Singh i.e. the another tenant of the petitioner. The respondent has denied to each and every contention of petitioner and on aforesaid grounds he prays to allow the leave to defend application.
Findings of the Court
6. Detailed arguments have been heard on behalf of petitioner as well as respondent. They have reiterated the grounds taken by them in their respec- tive pleadings. The petitioner has relied upon:-
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 20 of 511. "Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash" 167 (2010) DLT 80,
2. "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi" 157 (2009) DLT 450,
3. "Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Com pany" AIR 1000 SC 100,
4. Raghvendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery And Co." AIR 2000 SC 534,
5. Mohd. Ayub & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Chand" 2012 (I) RCR (Rent) 56 SC,
6. M/s. Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Smt. Krishna Luthra" 172 (2010) DLT 551,
7. Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja" 2014 (6) SC ALE 572 and
8. K. B. Watts Vs. Vipin Kalra" 2015 (220) DLT 402.
The respondent has relied upon :-
1. Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia & Ors. Vs. Bishan Chand Maheshwari & Anr." (2017) 3 SCC 189,
2. Shambhunath Mitra & Ors. Vs. Khaitan Consul tant Ltd." AIR 2005 Cal 281,
3. Gauri Shankar & Ors. Vs. UOI" (1994) 6 SCC 349,
4. Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran" (2001) 1 SCC 255,
5. S. M. Mehra Vs. D. D. Mallik" (2001) 1 SCC 256, RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 21 of 51
6. S. K. Sattar Vs. Gundappa Ambadas" (1996) 6 SCC 373,
7. O. P. Gupta Vs. R. K. Sharma" MANU / DE / 1646 / 2000,
8. Davinder Kumar Chadha Vs. Pushpa Rani Sahani" MANU / DE / 0359 / 2015 and
9. S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath" 1994 1 SCC 1.
7. That for proving the case under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act 1958, the petitioner has to prove the facts which are as under :-
i) That there is landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent.
ii) The petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for his son, who is dependent upon him.
iii) That, there is no other suitable accommodation for the purpose required by the petitioner with him.
NO LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 22 of 51
8. The respondent has contended that there is no Landlord-Tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. The said relationship is a matter of adjudication by this court. The respondent has last tendered rent to his Landlady i.e. Smt. Krishna Kumari. He has never tendered rent to the petitioner. The rent receipts annexed with the petition are fraudulent and concocted. The petitioner has never informed the respondent that he is new owner of the suit premises. The respondent has seen the Sale Deed first time allegedly executed by Smt. Krishna Kumari. The said sale deed is also fraudulent.
That rent receipts are for the period 01/01/2000 to 31/12/2015, whereas the petitioner is claiming that he is owner from the year 1993. Thus the petitioner could claim the rent from the year 1993. He has not given any reasoning for the period for which the rent receipts are allegedly executed.
That the genesis of dispute lies in the fact that the petitioner approached the respondent in the year 2017 to demand the rentals of the premises at Rs. 10,000/- per month. Till the date of demand of rent the petitioner had never asserted that he is the Landlord. Thus there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 23 of 51That I have considered the submissions of both parties on this point. I have also gone through the judicial file and documents relied upon by the parties.
As per record and admitted pleadings of the parties the respondent is the Tenant in the suit premises i.e. IIIrd shop in F-14/64, adjacent to M/s Amar Tent & Furniture House, Model Town-II, Near Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Delhi-110009. The respondent is claiming that his erstwhile landlord was Smt. Krishna Kumari. The petitioner is also claiming that he and his brother Shri Jagmohan Singhal had purchased the entire ground floor including the suit property of F-14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi vide separate sale deeds dated 26/05/1993. Though according to the petitioner his counsel inadvertently mentioned in the petition that the entire ground floor was purchased by the petitioner. In support of his contention the petitioner has filed copy of both sale deeds on record.
As per both sale deeds the petitioner as well as his brother Shri Jagmohan Singhal have purchased the entire undevided ground floor from Smt. Krishna Kumari i.e. admittedly the erstwhile owner/landlady of the suit property. Thus the Landlord RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 24 of 51 of the respondent and seller of the suit property is the same person i.e. Smt. Krishna Kumari.
Further as per the petitioner after the sale deed the erstwhile owner had informed the respondent vide registered letter that the petitioner and his brother have purchased the suit property. He has relied upon Annexure XIII and XIV. The petitioner has further contented that thereafter the respondent tendered rent to him and in support of that he has relied upon two rent receipts i.e. Annexure IV. He has also relied upon one cheque allegedly handed over by the respondent to tender rent and the same is Annexure IX.
That the respondent has vehemently denied that the petitioner is his land lord. He has also contented that the above rent receipts and cheque are false and forged. But the respondent has failed to tell the court if the petitioner is not the owner of the property then who else is. He has also failed to tell the court that to whom he is tendering the rent. He has not claimed that he is either tendering the rent to Smt. Krishna Kumari or to some other person on her behalf. He has not given any sort of explanation as to who else is claiming rent from him.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 25 of 51The respondent has also failed to give any explanation that how his cheque came in possession of the petitioner. He has also failed to tell what action has been taken by him till date if the rent receipts and cheque were forged. As per record the present petition was filed in the year 2018 and in absence of any pleadings it can be presumed that the respondent has not taken any action against the petitioner till date.
Further even if the letter allegedly sent by Smt. Krishna Kumari to the respondent to inform him regarding selling the suit property to the petitioner and his brother was not received by the respondent, then after receiving the summons/notice of the present case / petition the respondent had sufficient knowledge about the claim of the petitioner. After having knowledge of the claim of the petitioner the respondent could approach Ld. Rent Controller to deposit the rent under section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act, if there was any ambiguity regarding the ownership of the suit premises. But as above said the respondent has not whispered about this fact.
On the other hand the petitioner is relying upon registered sale deed executed in his favour by Smt. Krishna Kumari i.e. the admitted erstwhile landlord of the respondent. He has relied upon RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 26 of 51 registered partition deed arrived between him and his brother Shri Jagmohan Singhal.
That regarding the contention that the Petitioner has claimed that he has purchased the entire ground floor of the F-14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi, the petitioner has clarified that it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of his counsel. In support of that he has filed another sale deed of his brother dated 26/05/1993. In his own sale deed also it is clearly mentioned that he purchased only Half undivided share of the entire ground Floor of F-14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi. Thus he has clarified this fact beyond reasonable doubts. Even otherwise as per law a Co-Owner can always file a petition against a tenant for his bonafide requirement.
In Rajender Kumar Vs Leelawati 155(2008) DLT 383 it is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "The landlord is not to prove absolute ownership and he has to show that he is more than a tenant." In the present case the Petitioner has proved so. Therefore this argument of Ld. Counsel for Respondent is against the settled principles of Law and therefore rejected.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 27 of 51Thus the present contention of respondent regarding denial of Landlord-Tenant relationship are merit less and hence rejected. It is hereby held that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent.
ALTERNATE/ADDITIONAL ACCOMODATION
9. It is the case of the respondent that admittedly the Petitioner is in occupation of a huge commercial premises i.e. F-14/61, Model Town, Delhi - 110009. He is also in possession of 1 st Shop in the same building i.e. suit property situated in. Thus the leave to defend application may be allowed on this ground alone so that the sheer falsity of the claim of the petitioner can be revealed.
That as per the sale deed allegedly executed by Smt. Krishna Kumari, there are at least 4 big office spaces and 2 record rooms which are in possession of the petitioner. These spaces are already being used by Garvit Singhal.
That as per the site plan annexed by the petitioner, there is huge godown at the back that is being used by Mrs. Sangeeta Singhal as part of her business. However the photos Annexure RA show that RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 28 of 51 no passage exists leading to the godown. In fact a wall is present, very much like the site plan submitted by the petitioner. Thus a huge portion of approx 275 Sq. Feet is available for the use of Garvit Singhal. In fact these premises are being used by Garvit Singhal for his professional purpose. Thus the petitioner has got more than required alternate suitable accommodation.
That the case of petitioner is suspicious as there is difference in the site plan annexed with the petition and the site plan annexed with the alleged sale deed. Thus the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the availability of suitable alternate accommodation in the form of two huge offices that he has tried to conceal by showing them as godown and also the offices available at the other side of the same building.
That the Architects are allowed to practice from their residences and there is no need to convert residential accommodation to commercial. Admittedly the petitioner owns the entire M-2/40, Model Town-III, Delhi - 110009, which is huge 250 Sq. Yards plot with 3 storey structure. The petitioner also owns M-3/17, Model Town, Delhi - 110009 ad measuring 275 Sq. Yards, which is being re-constructed into a commercial market. Thus firstly the petitioner has concealed the availability of alternate accommodation and secondly RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 29 of 51 the petitioner has sufficient and suitable alternate property for opening the Architecture office for his son.
F-14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi
10. That in response to the above averments / contentions the petitioner has contended that his Counsel inadvertently mentioned in the petition that the petitioner purchased entire ground floor of the property in question, however the petitioner herein has purchased only half of the undivided ground floor of the property in question. In the Sale Deed annexure '3' on page no. 3, it is specifically mentioned that the vendor sold only half undivided share of the built up structure of the entire ground floor of the property. Thus, the annexed Site Plan at page no. 36 is of the entire ground floor as existed at the time of execution of Sale Deed dated 26/05/1993.
He has further contended that the other half portion of undivided ground floor of the property in question i.e. 14/64, Model Town, Delhi was purchased by Sh. Jagmohan Singhal i.e. the brother of present petitioner in the year 1993 vide separate Sale Deed dated 26/05/1993 i.e. on the same day when petitioner purchased the entire half share in the property. He has filed copy of the said Sale Deed as Annexure 'X'.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 30 of 51He has further contended that after purchase of undivided share by respective Sale Deeds, both brothers partitioned the ground floor of 14/64, Model Town, Delhi by meets and bounds and thereafter also executed partition deed dated 24/04/2003, duly registered in the Register No. 9726 in Additional Book No. - I, Volume No. 3302 at Page Nos. 83-89 on 05/05/2003 in the office of Sub Registrar, VI
- A, Pitam Pura, Delhi. Certified copy of Partition Deed is annexed as Annexure 'XI', wherein the front portion of the ground floor fell in the share of petitioner, which is shown in red colour and the back portion of the ground floor fell to the share of Sh. Jagmohan Singhal which is shown in green colour.
After partition Sh. Jagmohan Singhal has converted his portion into big L - Shaped shop where from he has been running shop of Pooja, Hawan & Vivah Samagri in the name and style of M/s Aradhna Creations which ingress and egress are from other side i.e. back lane at the rear of the petitioner's three shops, shown in Annexure '1'. He has annexed visiting card of M/s Aradhna Creations as Annexure 'XII'.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 31 of 51He has further contended that two offices ad measuring 13 Ft - 10 and 1/2 Fit X 11 Fit depicted in the sale deed's Site Plan and also in the site plan of partition deed annexure 'XI' with in the portion of red colour had been merged by carving out through passages inter se as well as north / south side of the shop of the petitioner and thereby L shaped shop came into being delineated in colour green of the Site Plan annexure 'I'. Where from petitioner's wife is running a flour mill in the name and style of M/s Vinod Flour Mill, being its sole proprietor.
Thus, the entire ground floor got parti- tioned, modified and new arrangement came into be- ing inter se between the petitioner and his brother i.e. in the front half of the property in question at ground floor, the petitioner owned three shops (duly shown in Site Plan Annexure 'I') and behind them exists a big L
- Shaped shop which is M/s Aradhna Creations, owned by Sh. Jagmohan Singhal i.e. the brother of pe- titioner herein and therefore, the said portion was de- noted as other part of property no. F-14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi in the Site Plan. This fact is very well in the knowledge of respondent and that is why he has not filed any counter / alternative Site Plan.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 32 of 51Thus the petitioner has categorically and clearly explained that he is owner of only half portion of the entire ground floor. He has also contended that his Counsel inadvertently mentioned in the petition that the petitioner purchased entire ground floor of the property in question, however the petitioner herein has purchased only half of the undivided ground floor of the property in question. In the Sale Deed annexure '3' on page no. 3, it is specifically mentioned that the vendor sold only half undivided share of the built up structure of the entire ground floor of the property. Thus, the annexed Site Plan at page no. 36 is of the entire ground floor as existed at the time of execution of Sale Deed dated 26/05/1993.
He has further contended that after purchase of undivided share by respective Sale Deeds i.e. one Annexure 'III' and another Annexure 'X', both brothers partitioned the ground floor of 14/64, Model Town, Delhi by meets and bounds and thereafter also executed partition deed dated 24/04/2003, duly registered in the Register No. 9726 in Additional Book No. - I, Volume No. 3302 at Page Nos. 83-89 on 05/05/2003 in the office of Sub Registrar, VI - A, Pitam Pura, Delhi. Certified copy of Partition Deed is annexed as Annexure 'XI', wherein the front portion of the ground floor fell in the share of petitioner, which is RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 33 of 51 shown in red colour and the back portion of the ground floor fell to the share of Sh. Jagmohan Singhal which is shown in green colour.
Thus, in another words, the total area behind petitioner's three shops at ground floor at property no.-, Model Town, Delhi is owned by petitioner's brother Jagmohan Singhal, which was purchased by him from erstwhile owner Smt. Krishna Kumari vide separate Dale Deed dated 24/04/2003 and three shops are owned by the petitioner being approximately half of the total divided portion of the ground floor.
Thus the petitioner has clearly explained that he purchased only half portion of the property F- 14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi. Further, if according to the respondent the petitioner has filed wrong site plan then nothing stopped him to file the correct site plan on record, but he has not filed any Site Plan. Thus the respondent is taking bald and baseless plea only for the sake of taking a plea. What is reflected from the case of the respondent is that, he has denied almost all the contentions of the petitioner but he has failed to put forth that according to him what facts or contention are correct. Being a party to the petition it is the duty of respondent to put correct facts before the court if the RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 34 of 51 petitioner is claiming wrong facts. On the other hand the petitioner has filed ITR of his wife to prove that she is running a Flour Mill in the name of M/s Vinod Flour Mill in one of the shop of building. It is admitted case of the respondent that in another shop there is another tenant. The petitioner has also filed photographs of the godowns having stock to prove that the godowns are being used by his wife. He has also satisfactorily explained that in other part of the property his brother is running another shop in the name and style of Aradhna Creations. Thus the present contention of respondent regarding availability of other accommodation for the use of the son of petitioner in the same building i.e. F-14/64, Model Town-II, Delhi is baseless hence it is rejected.
M-2/40, Model Town-III, Delhi - 110009 ad measuring 250 Sq. yards
11. The petitioner has categorically denied that he owns entire M-2/40, Model Town-III, Delhi or it is 250 Sq. Yards plot with three storey structure. Rather he has submitted that he is owner of only ground floor of M-2/40, Model Town-III, Delhi and he is residing there alongwith his family. Whereas upper floor(s) are owned by his brother Shri Jagmohan Singhal. He has RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 35 of 51 further contended that the said property is comprises of only 2 bed rooms, 2 wash rooms, a lobby, a drawing room and a kitchen. Thus there is no shop or office whatsoever.
After going through the above contentions of the petitioner it is clear that the abovesaid property is residential accommodation of the petitioner. He is owner of only ground floor of the same. In the consid- ered opinion of this Court no prudent person will open an office in residential premises even if it is permitted by some bylaws when he has commercial property in his name. Further why an owner of a commercial premises will take pain to convert his residential premises to commercial one by spending extra money when he has commercial property only to accommodate the tenant. Moreover the respondent has failed to file any cogent proof of document to substantiate his contention regarding property in question even after specific denial of petitioner. Thus this property of petitioner is also not suitable for the purpose for which it is required by him.
M-3/17, Model Town, Delhi - 110009 ad measuring 275 Sq. Yards RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 36 of 51
12. The petitioner has also denied that he owns M-3/17, Model Town, Delhi or it is a plot ad measuring 275 Sq. Yards or it is being reconstructed into a commercial market. He has submitted that the said plot is a vacant undeveloped plot ad measuring 80 Sq. Yards after having being demolished its struc- ture about 15-20 years ago. He has further submitted that this plot was purchased by Smt. Vidya Devi i.e. the mother of petitioner. He has filed copy of registered sale deed dated 04.03.1972 as Annexure XIX. Thus the petitioner has sufficiently explained that firstly he is not the owner of that property. Secondly even if he has some share in that property then also he will have to go through a long exercise of doing partition of the same and then investing huge amount in it to make it usable by his son. Thus it is not expected from the petitioner that he will take so much pain only to accommodate the respondent. Thus firstly the petitioner is not owner of this property and secondly it is not reasonably suitable for the purpose of the petitioner.
NO BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT
13. The respondent has contended that firstly the petitioner has not disclosed alternate accommodations. Secondly admittedly the son of RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 37 of 51 petitioner is doing good practice at his present office at Gaziabad with his friend. Though not accepted but for the sake of arguments if it is admitted that the suit property is best suited and the son of the petitioner is facing hardship in commuting to Gaziabad as explained by the petitioner then in that eventuality the friend of the son of petitioner will face hardship by traveling 34 Kilometers everyday.
Further if the son of petitioner is doing good practice in Gaziabad then no prudent person will shift from good running office to a new office.
That, the bonafide need of the son of the petitioner is being projected on the ground that the son of the petitioner wants to get good "Rishta" and therefore the suit premises are need to be vacated. This is a ridiculous ground as butter and bread of several persons dependent upon the respondent can not be taken away just to facilitate the "Rishta" or marriage of Shri Garvit Singhal. Thus the petitioner has not projected financial/economic need to get vacated the suit premises. Rather the true intention of petitioner has come out in Para 18(a) (xi) where he by implication admitted that he can not bear to see the suit property being utilized by the respondent but would instead be ultimately satisfied when his son RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 38 of 51 would start utilizing the suit property. Thus the petitioner is driven by greed and jealousy and he has failed to establish the need of reasonable or rational persons. Therefor there is no bonafide need of the petitioner or his son.
To this the petitioner has submitted and contended that he has categorically explained in his petition that his son Shri Garvit Singhal is Bachelor of Architect (B. Arch.) since July 2017 from Sharda University, Greater Noida, UP and he is dependent upon petitioner for his office to establish his Architecture Practice. His Provisional Degree Certificate is Annexure V. He has secured First Division and also underwent internship at M/s Imagination Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Subhash Place, Delhi from 12/12/2016 to 12/05/2017. Thereafter he started an Architect concern in the name & style M/s Immense Designs alongwith his friend Mr. Shubham Tyagi at his Mother's shop at 206, Durga Chamber, A-24, First Floor, F-Block, R.D.C. Gaziabad, U.P. in October 2017. Shri Garvit Singhal does not have any other shop in Delhi and therefore daily he has to commute to Gaziabad from his Residence i.e. Model Town, Delhi, which is around 34 kilometers. This commutation period is at the cost of health, well being and social life of Shri Garvit Singhal.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 39 of 51That the shop is situated on the main road in Model Town and thus it gives visibility to the customers and it can fetch customers to the son of Petitioner. Further the shop is in usable condition and the son of Petitioner need to invest only Rs. 2-2.25 Lacs in the shop to use for his purpose. The son of petitioner was born in Model Town and his friends and relatives are also residing in the vicinity. They can help him in growing his business by recommending the customers.
That said son of Petitioner is of marriageable age and once he starts his practice from the demised shop, his prospect for securing good marriage proposal would increase. That the petitioner and his wife wish that their son becomes a specialist in Architectural planning and design of residential and commercial buildings. They also wish that his married life be also settled. Accordingly both purposes will be achieved if the demised shop is vacated and office of their son is opened in the said shop. The petitioner does not have any other suitable or alternative shop, office or business premises for meeting such requirements anywhere in Delhi.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 40 of 51Thus after going through the contentions of petitioner it is clear that he requires the shop for the office of his son who is Bachelor of Architecture. In support of his contention he has relied upon the provisional degree of his son as well as on his visiting card. The respondent has disputed this fact and rather he has contended that the son of the petitioner is not doing the work of Architecture as alleged by the petitioner. He has further contended that the son of the petitioner is already using other portion of the same building for his office purpose. Thus firstly the respondent is taking contradictory stands by denying that the son of the petitioner is an Architect and secondly by saying that he is already using the same building for his office purpose. Not only this the respondent is claiming that he has verified from the office of the son of the petitioner from Gaziabad U.P. and that is a big office of about 300 Sq. Feet and the suit property of about 140 Sq. Feet will not be sufficient for the purpose of office of Shri Garvit Singhal. He has also claimed that the son of the petitioner can open his office from other alternate properties allegedly in the occupation of the petitioner. Thus from the contentions of the respondent it is revealed that he is taking the pleas only for the sake to be taken. He is not realizing that he is taking contradictory pleas.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 41 of 51Further every parent want that his son or daughter establish well financially as well as socially in their life-time. If the petitioner herein wants that his son establish himself in his own property in his life- time then in the considered opinion of this Court it is not malafide intention or purpose.
Further every person who has an option to establish himself in Delhi or Gaziabad then judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the person will certainly choose Delhi. And if the property is his own then there is no doubt that the person will want to use his own property.
Further the petitioner has categorically mentioned that his son is born and brought up in Model Town Delhi. His near-dears, friends and relatives are also residing in the vicinity who can refer the business to him.
He has further explained that the fact that the son of petitioner is operating business from Delhi can get him good marriage proposal.
In the considered opinion of this court there seems to be no malafide on the part of the petitioner if RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 42 of 51 he wants to settle his son in his own shop that also in Delhi. Rather it is bonafide on the part of the petitioner that he wants to settle his son and want to get a good marriage proposal for him.
That the other contentions that wife of petitioner is not running the flour mill i.e. M/s Vinod Flour Mill is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has supported his contention by the ITRs of his wife where she has been shown Proprietor of M/s Vinod Flour Mill. Rather the respondent himself has filed photographs of the mill of wife of petitioner. The facts that whether she is giving rent to the petitioner or she has requisite licence to run the mill is not to be decided by this court. There are other competent forums for the same and the respondent can approach the same if he wants to take any action against her.
Further weather there is any ambiguity in the rent amount, also does not make any difference to the case of the respondent because once it is proved that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent then this is not not a triable issue to decide the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 43 of 51That the contention that if the son of petitioner opens office in the demised shop then his friend Subham Tyagi also will have to commute from Gaziabad to Delhi and thus he will face same hardship is also not tenable at law as the petitioner has required the demised shop for the office of his own son and not for his friend. It is the choice of friend of Shri Garvit Singhal to continue from his earlier office or shift to Delhi. In present petition the court has to see only the requirement of the son of petitioner. Thus it is rejected.
That the respondent has claimed that the present premises is the only source of his bread and butter, but the petitioner has contended that the respondent is also having another show room with the name 'Cantabill' in Model Town itself. The respondent has not given any explanation to the above contention of the petitioner therefore it can be presumed that the respondent has indirectly admitted that he has the above showroom of cantabill. Thus the respondent is concealing material facts from the Court.
SHRI GARVIT SINGHAL IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE PETITIONER
14. Ld. Counsel for respondent has also argued that the Shri Garvit Singhal is not dependent RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 44 of 51 on the petitioner as admittedly he is doing well in his business.
Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has vehemently opposed the present contention of Ld. Counsel for Respondents.
In "Surender Singh Vs Kamal Chand", 2018 VII Delhi 600 it is held that "requirement of member of family dependent upon the land-lord is the requirement of petitioner. Considering the social fabric the family may also include wife, husband, sister, children, married daughter, widowed daughter, her son, nephew, co-parishioners and their kith and kin".
In Section 14 (1) (e), DRC Act itself, it is mentioned that, "the premises let out for residential purposes are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, dependent upon him, if he is the owner thereof." thus in the Act itself, the premises / suit property can be required by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family, dependent upon him. Considering the social conditions in our society it can not be said that the son is not dependent on his father. Therefore the term family should be RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 45 of 51 given a practical meaning and the need of family members is the need of the Landlord.
In "Pardeep Kumar Tyagi Vs. Bimla Tyagi", 2012 VII AD, Delhi 71, "Saroj Malik Vs. O. P. Gupta", 2015 (1) CLJ 351 and "Raghunath G. Vs. Chagan Lal", 1999 (8) SCC 1, it is held that the landlord can start business for additional income and to keep himself busy even if he has income from other sources. In 2020 VI AD Delhi 338 and 2019 VIII AD Delhi 280 and 1999 (8) SCC, it is held that, "it is not expected from landlord to procure licences and make preparations in advance before eviction of the tenant."
In Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs Jay Kishan Dass 2009(2) RCR 455, The Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"However as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition was that in the petition the landlord has alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 46 of 51 even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new business even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also."
In view of the above considerations and case-law, it is clear that in our society a son is always dependent on his father, therefore I do not find merits in the present contention of Ld. Counsel for respondents and hence it is rejected.
CONCLUSION
15. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued firstly the petitioner dose not have any other suitable alternate accommodation and secondly it is purely the choice of the petitioner to choose as to which of the available properties is suitable for his needs and he cannot be dictated in this regard by the tenant. The choice and suitability of the property, as pleaded by the petitioner, has to be believed and respected.
In "Veeran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai", 2010 (2) RCR (Rent) 571, "Asiya Jamil Vs. Canara RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 47 of 51 Bank", 2017 IX AD Delhi 499, "Manika Rani Ghosh Vs. Dharwinder Kaur", 2013 (I) AD Delhi 146, "M/s Sait Nagjee Purushottam Vs. Vimla Bai Prabhulal"
(2005) SCC 8 and "Dinesh Kumar Yusuf Ali", 2010 XI AD (SC) 585, also it is held that the landlord has choice to choose place of busines suitable for him and has complete freedom in this matter. The Court is not to examine viability of business from the tenanted premises to assess its profitability. It is not open to the Court or tenant as to how and what for, he should use the premises. Need of the petitioner is presumed to be genuine and bonafide. Tenant cannot dictate other property for use. It is the prerogative of the landlord as to in which location, he prefers to run business and Law should not and cannot prevent such preference by landlord to meet his requirement.
The arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for petitioner are found more convincible than the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for respondent. The Ld. Counsel for respondent has failed to produce any cogent proof of documents that the petitioner has any other suitable alternate accommodation for opening the office of his son.
On the other hand, the petitioner has convinced this Court that the petitioner does not have RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 48 of 51 any other alternate suitable accommodation for opening the office of his son. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner has malafidely filed present petition only to get evict the respondents and to get additional property.
In Mohd. Ayub Vs Mukesh Chand (2012) 2 SCC 155 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :-
"That the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having moved out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that the respondent is in occupation of the premises for time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstances can not be sole determinative factor." Similar are the facts of the present case.
Further, in Vidhya Dhari Bhagat Vs M/s Allahabad Law Journal Co. Ltd. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "If the tenant is evicted under section 14 (1) (e) and the premises are not occupied by the Landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the premises having RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 49 of 51 been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining the possession, re-let to any person other than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller under sub section (1) of section 19 of the DRC Act or the possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the Controller to be bonafide, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit under Section 19(2) of DRC Act.
Thus, if the respondent is doing business in the rented premises for long time then the petitioner can not be forced to remain out of his own premises even when he has genuine need of the same for starting business of his son who is dependent on him.
In view of aforesaid considerations, facts and circumstances, the petitioner has succeeded in proving that he is landlord and the respondent is his tenant in respect of the suit property i.e. Shop III rd on ground floor in F-14/64, Model Town II, Delhi - 110009. He has also proved that the suit property is required for the bonafide requirement of his son namely Shri Garvit Singhal, as alleged by him in the petition. He has also proved that his son is dependent RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 50 of 51 on him and there is no other suitable alternate property to fulfill the requirements of plaintiff / his son.
On the other hand, the respondent has failed to put forth any triable issue so that he is entitled to leave to defend application, therefore the application under Section 25 B (4) i.e. the Leave to Defend Application of respondent is hereby dismissed and the petition of the petitioner is allowed.
In consequence of the same the respondent is directed to vacate the rented premises i.e property Shop IIIrd on ground floor in F-14/64, Model Town II, Delhi - 110009 as shown in red colour in the site plan. It is hereby clarified that the Landlord/Petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain possession of the rented premises/suit property before the expiration of six months from the date of this order as per section 19(7) of DRC Act.
Announced through Video Conferencing On this 26th Day of October, 2021 Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2021.10.26 16:39:01 +0530 (VIRENDER SINGH) ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURT, DELHI RC ARC No. 31-18 Page 51 of 51