Delhi District Court
Sh. Raj Bansal vs Smt. Savinder Kaur on 4 August, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MR. DHARMESH SHARMA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/RCT: WEST DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCT No. 11/2019
CNR No. DLWT01-002160-2019
Sh. Raj Bansal
S/o Sh. Bhim Sen Bansal
R/o B-50, Hair Nagar
New Delhi - 110064. . . . . . . Appellant
Versus
Smt. Savinder Kaur
W/o Late Sardar Gyan Singh
R/o A-149/A-150, Hari Nagar
New Delhi - 110064. . . . . . . Respondent
Date of filing of Eviction Petition : 23.04.2013
Date of impugned judgment : 07.02.2019
Date of filing of the appeal : 19.03.2019
Date of arguments advanced
through Video Conferencing : 27.07.2020
Date of judgment : 04.08.2020
Appearances:
Mr. Swetank Shantanu, Mr. Pratap Shanker and Mr. Amit Kumar,
Advocates for the appellant/tenant.
Mr. Hitender Kumar Nahata, Advocate for the respondent/landlady.
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide an appeal preferred under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 1 of 22 the 'DRC Act') whereby the appellant/tenant is assailing the order and judgment dated 07.02.2019 in Eviction Petition No. 25422/2016 titled 'Savinder Kaur vs. Raj Bansal', decided by Mr. Ajay Nagar, Ld. Commercial Civil Judge-cum-Addl. Rent Controller (West), THC, Delhi (in short, 'Ld. ARC').
BRIEF FACTS PLEADINGS OF THE PETITIONER/LANDLADY
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner/landlady, the respondent in the present appeal, was that she is owner in respect of the property bearing No. A-149, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-11064; and that she is the landlady with regard to a shop in the said premises measuring 75 Sq. Feet qua the appellant/tenant as shown in red in the site plan Ex. PW1/5, which was let out to the appellant/tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 450/- excluding electricity charges during the period 1977-78. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/landlady claiming that she is more than 75 years old and does not understand English language and has authorised her two sons, namely Baldev Singh and Tarsem Singh through General Power of Attorney Ex. PW1/1 to institute, prosecute and take the present case to its logical conclusion.
3. It is stated that the property bearing No. A-149, Hari Nagar, New Delhi is meauring 220 Sq. Yards and the tenancy premises is situated on the ground floor on a small portion of the property but on the front side of the property. It is averred that the construction of the RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 2 of 22 house is an old one and the same is in a dilapidated condition due to the passage of time; and moreover the petitioner/landlady is experiencing acute paucity of accommodation as in the last five decades the family of the petitioner has expanded manifold times as both her sons got married and now, she is having three grandsons, three grand daughters besides three great grand sons and one great grand daughter. It is further stated that besides residential requirement, the petitioner/landlady also requires commercial space for business of their grandsons for enhancement of her family income and business.
4. It is stated that in order to meet her residential and commercial requirements, the petitioner/landlady applied to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) for sanction of Building Construction Plan and the same has been in process, and the SDMC issued letter dated 10.04.2013 bearing No. 830/B/ha/2012/D/146/AE-VI calling upon the petitioner/landlady for furnishing some documents, which was duly complied with. It is also stated that the petitioner and her family members are having sufficient funds at their disposal to the tune of Rs.60 lacs to construct/reconstruct the property; and that the petitioner/landlady owns a plot and in the event of requirement for further funds, the same would also be disposed of.
5. It is thus stated that since tenant is ocupying a small portion in the front portion of property in question, there is no possibility of construction or reconstruction of the property. It is stated that the landlady shall provide the premises of the same size in the front of the RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 3 of 22 building to the tenant after reconstruction in about a year from the date of his eviction. Acordingly, the present petition was filed for passing an Eviction order in favour of the landlady and against the tenant under Section 14(1)(g) of the DRC Act.
PLEADINGS-WRITTEN STATEMENT
6. The appellant/tenant contested the Eviction petition and in his written statement interalia took preliminary objections to the effect that the petitioner/landlady does not have any bonafide requirement for more residnence and/or commercial needs of herself and her family members; and that the landlady has more than eight rooms for herself and her family members and thus, having sufficient space for her family; and that the petition has been preferred with an ulterior motive to get him evicted; and that the building is in a good and habitable condition for residential purposes since it had been renovated in the year 2000 only and thereafter from time to time and the same is no longer an old construction; and that the petitioner/landlady has not taken any permission for reconstruction/re-building from the SDMC. The tenant also pointed out that as the petitioner/landlady has also filed a separate petition for fixation of standard rent, she is seeking contradictory reliefs and has no intention to allow the respondent/tenant to resettle after completion of the alleged reconstruction.
7. It is further pointed out by the tenant that he is a senior citizen more than 72 years old and running a grocery shop under the name and style of M/s. Bansal Store and has been in possession of the RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 4 of 22 premises since 1977, having no other means to earn his bread and butter for his family. Further, on merits it is stated that the tenancy premises is measuring 56 Sq. Feet and situated at a road permissible for mixed use of land and not for commercial use. Further, a plea is taken that the tenancy is built jointly upon A-149 and A-150, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, and the petitioner/landlady has concocted certain facts to get a favourable order from the Court in the garb of their alleged frivolous application to the SDMC. The tenant has stated that he shall be rendered a destitute if evicted, and therefore, he prays that the petition be dismissed.
8. During the course of trial, Sardar Tarsem Singh was examined as PW-1 whereas the respondent came in the witness box and was examined as RW-1.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
9. The Ld. ARC on appreciation of evidence led on the judicial record found that there is no dispute of relationship of landlord/landlady and tenant between the parties. Further, finding that there were as many as 35 persons in the family of petitioner/landlady and relying on the unrebutted and untested testimony of PW1 besides the perception/believe of RW1 in his cross-examination that he had "no trust" upon the petitioner/landlady, ld ARC came to the conclusion that the tenancy premises was falling in premises No. A-149, which was only constructed upto Ground floor and the requirement of petitioner/landlady to reconstruct/rebuild the property was genuine RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 5 of 22 apart from they having sufficient funds at their disposal, it was held that all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(g) the RC Act have been met.
10. In his decision, the Ld. ARC relied on the decision in Harrington House School vs. S. M. Ispahani & Ors., dated 09.05.2002 in appeal (civil) No. 770/2000; Kandaswamy vs. Bd. of Management H.S.I Said in appeal (civil) No. 2303/2001; S. Venugopal vs. A. Karruppusami & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 1930. In the penaltimate exercise Ld. ARC also found merit in the assertion of the landlady that sanction for reconstruction could only come about after the property was demolished. Finally the following order was passed :-
"25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court ahs come to the conclusion that the petitioner has satisfied all the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(g) and 14(8) of the DRC Act. As such, an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. premises No. A-149, Hari Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring 75 square yards as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition but this order of the eviction shall not be executable unless all the requisite sanctions from all the competent authorities are obtained by the petitioner.
26. However, it is made clear that the matter relating to ascertainment from the tenant in respect of re-occupation U/Sec. 20(1) of DRC Act and undertaking by the petitioner and other ancillary matters shall be dealt with by this court only after obtaining the requisite sanctions by the petitioner.
27. This file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this court after receiving the requisite sanctions from the Competent Authorities for further RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 6 of 22 execution of this judgment/order."
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
11. The impugned order/judgment passed by the Ld. ARC has been assailed in the present appeal inter alia on the grounds that the same is contrary to the law and based on conjunctures drawn contrary to the evidence on the record; and that Ld. ARC miserably failed to address the plea raised by him that the property was not in a dilapidated condition and was good enough to accommodate the residential requirements of the landlady and her family members; and that the Ld. ARC failed to appreciate that no evidence was led by the petitioner/landlady that she requires the premises bondafidely for more accommodation for herself and her family members; and that the Ld. ARC failed to appreciate that the mandate of the Section 20(1) of the DRC Act makes it contingent upon the Court to record the choice of the tenant as to whether they want to take back the possession of the tenancy premises or not after the same has been reconstructed before an Eviction order could be passed.
12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the parties who addressed arguments on being affording hearing through video conferencing. I have also meticulously perused the instant appeal filed as also the Trial Court Record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on the record by the parties.
RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 7 of 22DECISION IN APPEAL
13. In order to decide the instant appeal, it would most expedient to have a re-look at the relevant provision under which the eviction is sought by the petitioner/landlady. Section 14(1)(g) of the DRC Act reads as under :-
"That the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated".
14. The aforesaid provision is but controlled by Section 14(8) of the DRC Act that reads as under :-
"No order for the recovery or possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (g) of the proviso to sub-section (1), unless the Controller is satisfied that the proposed reconstruction will not radically alter the purpose for which the premises were let or that such remedial alteration is in the public interest, and that the plans and estimates of such reconstruction have been properly prepared and that necessary fund for the purpose are available with the landlord."
15. Now, it is when the landlord/landlady succeeds in proving such mandate of the law, that Section 20(1) of the DRC Act comes into play which provides as under :-
"In making any order on the grounds specified in clause (f) or clause (g) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, the Controller shall ascertain from the tenant whether he elects to be placed in occupation of the premises or part thereof from which RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 8 of 22 he is to be evicted and if the tenant so elects, shall record the fact of the election in the order and specify therein the date on or before which he shall deliver possession so as to enable the landlord to commence the work of repairs or building or re-
building as the case may be."
16. A bare plain, grammatical and purposeful reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that a Landlord has to demonstrate that firstly he requires the premises bonafide for the purposes of build- ing or rebuilding or making thereto any substantial addition or alter- ation; and secondly, such building or rebuilding or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises getting vacated. Once such conditions are made out, Section 14 (1) (g) of the DRC Act is controlled by Section 14 (8) of the DRC Act, which mandates, which may be termed as the third condition, that "no order recovery or possession of any premises can be made under Section 14 (1) (g) of the DRC Act un- less the Controller is satisfied that proposed construction shall not radi- cally alter the purpose for which the premises was let out or in the alter- native that such radical alteration is in public interest." Further, and it may be read as fourth pre-condition that the Controller has to be sat- isfied that plans and estimates of such reconstruction have been prop- erly prepared and necessary funds for the purposes are available with the landlord.
OWNERSHIP AND BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 9 of 22
17. In the light of the above referred provisions, reverting to the instant case, there could hardly be any quarrel with the finding given by the Ld. ARC in the impugned Judgment that there is no dispute about relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. As regards ownership of the whole of the premises in dispute, PW-1 Sardar Tarsem Singh in his affidavit dated 25th February, 2014 filed in evidence Ex.PW-1/A made a categorical deposition that property bearing No. A- 149, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and adjoining property bearing No. A-150, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, each plot measuring 33'X66' were purchased by his mother i.e, the petitioner/landlady by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 14.04.1966 and 27.04.1966, which Sale Deeds are Ex.PW- 2/A and Ex.PW-2/2 respectively. It is also uncontroverted evidence of PW-1 that the construction over the two plots were carried out on the basis of sanction of their plan from the MCD in the year 1966 vide sanction letter No. 458/B/66 dated 28.07.1966, which documents are Ex.PW-2/3 to Ex.PW-2/5.
18. That being the case, It is unrebutted and uncontroverted testimony of PW-1 Sardar Tarsem Singh that the construction of the house has become old and dilapidated with the passage of time and the petitioner/landlady has been facing severe paucity of accommoda- tion to accommodate the growing residential and other requirements of her family members. In paragraph (8) of the affidavit of PW-1, the de- tails of family members are mentioned that would go to show that the petitioner/landlady is having two sons and four daughters with all their children besides her grand children and the details of great grand chil-
RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 10 of 22dren are mentioned in paragraph (9) of the affidavit without any iota of challenge.
19. It is further uncontroverted testimony of PW-1 that there is one shop on the ground floor with two garages, three rooms, Verran- dah, one Kitchen, bathroom, toilet in the premises No. A-149, Hari Na- gar, New Delhi whereas premises No. 150, Hari Nagar, New Delhi is comprised of seven rooms, a store room, two kitchen, two toilets and bathroom. Likewise it is uncontroverted and plausible testimony of PW- 1 Sardar Tarsem Singh that petitioner/landlady requires at least nine bed rooms for the family of her two sons, herself and further requires at least two guest rooms besides two drawing and dining rooms, two kitchens, two toilets, two bathrooms, two study rooms, a Pooja room and a store room for reasonable residential accommodation of family members. In the same vain, the testimony of PW-1 that some accom- modation is required for commercial space for grandsons of the peti- tioner/landlady so as to cater to their expanding family business or oth- erwise to augment their earnings has also not been controverted.
20. Treading further on the rigors of section 14(1)(g) of the DRC Act, the testimony of PW-1 is also uncontroverted and unrebutted that the only recourse is to get the tenancy vacated so as to facilitate demolishing of the entire structure for the purposes of building or re- building the same. Firstly, there is absolutely no merit in the plea of the appellant/tenant that his tenancy portion falls under the two properties bearing Municipal Number A-149 & A-150 since RW-1 in his cross-ex-
RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 11 of 22amination fairly conceded that he was a tenant in respect of a portion of the building bearing Municipal No. A-149, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. Sec- ondly, on the aspect of the existing construction in premises No. A-149, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, RW-1 also acknowledged that there is no con- struction over his shop and there is a terrace on the portion above his shop. Such position is depicted in the photographs Ex.DW-1/P-2, which was put to RW-1 the appellant/tenant in his cross-examination and RW- 1 acknowledged that while premises No. A-150 is constructed up to second floor above area shown at point A in the Site Plan Ex.PW-1/6, he further conceded that the portion in which the tenancy shop is lo- cated is constructed only up to ground floor.
21. It is pertinent to mention that RW-1 was put a suggestion in his cross-examination that the petitioner/landlady wanted to carry out fresh construction in the bigger block covering point A, B, C and E by demolishing existing construction, which is constructed up to ground floor only forming part of premises No. A-149, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, to which the witness showed his sheer ignorance, which is not palatable. It may be clarified that RW-1 appellant/tenant on being confronted with the site plan Ex.PW-1/6 acknowledged that his shop is at point A and there was another shop at point C where the tenant was carrying busi- ness in the name of 'Baby World' and he was suggested that the por- tion ahead at point C up to point D was relatable to property No. A-150, and the same too was not refuted by the tenant. It is pertinent to men- tion that the appellant has not cared to file any site plan of his own and RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 12 of 22 there is no challenge to the correctness of the site plan Ex.PW-1/6 filed by the petitioner/ landlady either.
22. To sum up, there is no flaw in the findings given by Ld. ARC in the impugned judgment that the petitioner/landlady bonafidely requires the tenancy premises to be vacated so as to demolish the en- tire structure and rebuild the same as per the sanction plan approved by the SDMC. This bonafide need is also exemplified from the fact con- ceded by the RW-1 in his cross-examination that the family of the peti- tioner/landlady has been constrained to vacate the premises No. A-150 as shown at point D in the site plan Ex.PW-1/6 and have shifted to an- other residence. The blameworthy conduct of the appellant/tenant can also be gauged from the fact that in his zeal to contest the eviction peti- tion 'tooth and nail', he has wrongly described that his tenancy premises is 56 Sq. Feet contrary to his acknowledgment in the cross examination that as per the report of the Local Commissioner on record, the findings of which have not be assailed by the appellant/ten- ant, the shop is much bigger in size viz. 75 Sq. Feet. Lastly, it is not a case where the petitioner/ landlady wants to make substantial additions or alterations but demolish the entire building and reconstruct or rebuild in a manner that affords her and her family members maximum comfort and luxury for their residence and commercial needs.
SECTION 14(8) DRC ACT: RADICAL ALTERATION
23. Thus, finding no illegality, infirmity or incorrect approach in the findings recorded by the ld. ARC with regard to the ingredients of RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 13 of 22 Section 14 (1) (g) of the DRC Act, coming to the satisfaction of condi- tions laid down under Section 14 (8) of the DRC Act, it is uncontro- verted testimony of PW-1 Sardar Tarsem Singh that they have been taken up the matter for building or rebuilding of the premises with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation for sanction of building construction plan and related documents with regard to various compliances with the SDMC are placed on record that are Marked PW-2/7 (colly), without any challenge. Same are with regard to the payment of fee on account of various charges such as development charges, stalking charges, cess charges, building tax, FAR conversion charges, betterment charges etc. as also the proposed plans submitted in sync with the Master Plan 2021. The plea of the appellant/tenant that there is no evi- dence that the building has been in dilapidated condition and that no sanction plan had been obtained is misconceived and ill- conceived. It is no where the mandate of law that a building should always be in a dangerous or dilapidated as a pre-condition for the landlord to seek eviction under Section 14 (1) (g) read with Section 14 (8) of the DRC Act. Even if a building is not in a dilapidated condition, it may be demol- ished for the purpose of erecting a new building on the same site.
24. Further, a bare plain and grammatical reading of Section 14 (8) of the DRC Act would show there is no mandate that the sanc- tion plans must have been obtained before seeking eviction. The only legal requirement is that building sanction plan must be prepared and ready. In any case, during the course of arguments, the ld. Counsel for the respondent/ landlady placed on the judicial record copy of form B-1 RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 14 of 22 pertaining to the "Grant of sanction" for building or reconstruction as per site plan submitted vide file No. 10065381 dated 28.11.2019 whereby landlady/owner has been called upon to reconstruct the premises on or before 27th September, 2024. It is further uncontroverted testimony of PW-1 Sardar Tarsem Singh that there are sufficient funds available with them to the tune of Rupees sixty lakh with regard to which documents Ex.PW-1/9 was placed on record. PW-1 deposed it without any iota of challenge that finances could be easily applied and made available to them through banks, financial institutions and of course from various builders in the contemporary world. There is no reason to doubt the as- sertion of the landlady and the testimony of PW-1 Sardar Tarsem Singh with regard to the availability of sufficient funds for construction, build- ing or rebuilding of the premises. It is well known in the contemporary world that a good number of builders are available in market that are ready to undertake the construction or rebuild the premises on mutual beneficial terms in a time bound manner and otherwise also there is easily availability of home loans from Bank and financial institutions.
25. That brings us to the issue of radical change. Well, there is no hesitation in observing that the sanction plan is a huge deviation from the current nature and extent of the property in question. Ex facie the proposed reconstruction is per se radical. So the question is: whether permitting such radical construction or reconstruction would be in public interest?. It is admitted case that the property in question is located in an area where mixed land user is allowed- for residential as well as commercial. RW-1 acknowledged in his cross-examination that there RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 15 of 22 are shops/commercial set-ups in the adjoining properties on both sides of the tenancy shop as well across on all side. The observation by the ld ARC that the petitioner/landlady proposes to construct shops on the ground floor as per the sanction plan is not challenged by either of the parties in this appeal. In my view, there can not be two opinions that the radical alteration or reconstruction shall be in public interest. In forming this view by this Court, reliance can be placed on decision in Harring- ton House School v. S.M. Ispahani, (2002) 5 SCC 229. The said deci- sion was rendered in the context of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control Act) 1960, wherein the relevant provisions read as under:
14. Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs or for recon-
struction.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Sections 12 and 13, on an appli- cation made by a landlord, the Controller shall, if he is satisfied
--
(a) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for carrying out repairs which cannot be carried out without the building being vacated; or
(b) that the building is bona fide required by the landlord for the immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demoli-
tion is to be made for the purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building sought to be demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building to the landlord before a specified date.
(2) No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building under this section shall be passed--
(a) on the ground specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1), unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the building shall, on completion of the repairs, be offered to the tenant, RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 16 of 22 who delivered possession in pursuance of an order under sub- section (1) for his reoccupation before the expiry of three months from the date of recovery of possession by the land- lord or before the expiry of such further period as the Con- troller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow; or
(b) on the ground specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1), unless the landlord gives an undertaking that the work of de- molishing any material portion of the building shall be sub- stantially commenced by him not later than one month and shall be completed before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the entire building or be- fore the expiry of such further period as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow.
***
15. Tenant to reoccupy after repairs.--(1) Where the landlord recovers possession under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Sec- tion 14, he shall, within two months before the date on which the work of repairs is likely to be completed, give notice to the ten- ant of the date on which the said work will be completed. Within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice, the tenant shall intimate to the landlord his acceptance of the building of- fered for his reoccupation and if the tenant gives such intima- tion, the landlord shall within thirty days from the date of com- pletion of the work of repairs put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions. If the tenant fails to give such intimation, his right to reoccupy the building shall terminate.
(2) If after the tenant has delivered possession, the landlord fails to commence the work of repairs within one month from the date of such delivery, or fails to complete the work before the expiry of three months from the date of such delivery, or before the expiry of the further period allowed under clause (a) of sub-
RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 17 of 22section (2) of Section 14 or having completed the work fails to put the tenant in possession of the building in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Controller may, on the ap- plication of the tenant made within thirty days from the date of such failure, order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions; and on such or- der being made, the landlord and any person who may be in oc- cupation shall put the tenant in possession of the building.
16. Tenant to occupy if the building is not demolished.--(1) Where an order directing delivery of possession has been passed by the Controller under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 and the work of demolishing any material portion of the build- ing has not been substantially commenced by the landlord within the period of one month in accordance with his undertaking un- der clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 14 the tenant may give the landlord notice of his intention to occupy the building the possession of which he delivered. If within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such notice, the landlord does not put him in possession of the building on the original terms and condi- tions, the tenant may make an application to the Controller within eight weeks of the date on which he put the landlord in possession of the building. The Controller shall order the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the building on the original terms and conditions.
(2) Where in pursuance of an order passed by the Controller under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14, any building is totally demolished and a new building is erected in its place, all the provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to such new build- ing for a period of five years from the date on which the con- struction of such new building is completed and notified to the local authority concerned."
RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 18 of 2226. Though a bare comparative perusal of the aforesaid provi- sions in the Tamil Nadu Rent Act vis-à-vis the relevant provisions of the DRC would show that there is a "sea of a difference" in the scope and ambit of the two, however section 14(a)&(b) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Act is some what similar to section 14(1) (g) of the DRC Act except that the DRC Act does not providing for the time bound period for com- mencement of construction or rebuilding of the premise. Be that as it may, there was expressed a definite opinion that the law should prefer greater exploitation of resources so as to create better facilities. It was observed:
"5. The judicial opinion centering around Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, as it has travelled through the passage of time has been no- ticed in a recent decision of this Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta [(2002) 4 SCC 437 : JT (2002) 3 SC 591] . A three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in P. Orr and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Associated Publishers (Madras) Ltd. [(1991) 1 SCC 301] held the field up to the year 1996. The view taken therein was that it was the condition of the building which was determinative of the degree of urgency warranting demolition followed by reconstruction of the building and on such finding depended the bona fides of the requirement within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. However, the Constitution Bench decision in Vijay Singh v. Vijayalakshmi Ammal [(1996) 6 SCC 475] watered down the effect of holding of this Court in P. Orr and Sons [(1991) 1 SCC 301] and held that the age and con- dition of the building was only one of the relevant fac- tors, and certainly not the sole determinative factor, for testing the bona fides of the landlord. The Constitution Bench held that the bona fides of requirement for demo- lition could be found out by taking into account (i) bona fide intention of the landlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenants, (ii) the age and condition of the building, and (iii) the financial position of the land- lord to demolish and erect a new building. However, the Constitution Bench added that these were only some of RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 19 of 22 the illustrative factors to be taken into consideration be- fore an order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). In R.V.E. Venkat- achala Gounder [(2002) 4 SCC 437 : JT (2002) 3 SC 591] this Court has held that apart from the age and condition of the building the capacity of the landlord to demolish and reconstruct, the useful utilization of the property which would on demolition and reconstruction make available more space to be occupied by human beings for residen- tial/non-residential purposes and the genuine desire of the landlord to earn economic advantage are relevant factors pointing to the bona fides of the requirement. In the present case it has been found that the building is an old construction requiring demolition and reconstruction. Out of the total area of the property, only a part is built up and substantial portion is lying open and vacant. There is pressure of popula- tion on the developing city and several multi-storey com- plexes have come up in the vicinity of the property. There is nothing to cast a shadow of doubt on the bona fides of the landlords pleading an immediate need for demolition followed by reconstruction".
{bold & italics sentences emphasized}
27. In the aforesaid view of the matter, without further ado, the area in question West Delhi is one where a lot of multi-storey construc- tions have up come and a radical alteration or reconstruction serves "maximum benefit for the maximum number of stakeholders". I, there- fore, have no hesitation in holding that the present appeal is absolutely devoid of any merits. The testimony of the appellant/tenant that he has no trust or faith in the words of the petitioner/landlady and her sons cut no ice. The appellant/tenant may exhibit some degree of adamancy and blameworthy conduct in this regard but then he should believe in the letter and spirit of the law that provides sufficient safeguards. The petitioner/landlady- owner of the premises enjoys bundle of legal rights, one of which is to demolish her own property and reconstruct or rebuild RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 20 of 22 the same suited to her requirement and to that of her family members, but of-course as per the building bye-laws. The paramount object of the Rent Laws is to protect the exploitation of the tenants at the hands of land owners due to paucity of accommodation but it does not envis- age any fetters or embargo on the legal rights of the landlord/owner to enjoy his/her own property in the best possible manner. Well, this brings the whole case to the stage of consideration under Section 20 of the DRC Act.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant/tenant is a Senior Citizen, I refrain from imposing exemplary costs. The sum result is that the impugned Judg- ment whereby the petition under Section 14 (1) (g) read with Section 14 (8) of the DRC Act has been allowed is upheld and an eviction order is passed in favour of landlady, the respondent in the present appeal, and against the appellant/tenant in respect of tenancy premises No. A-149, Hari Nagar, New Delhi measuring 75 Sq. Feet as shown in the site plan Ex.PW-1/6.
29. However, this eviction order shall remain in-executable pending consideration and appropriate directions that may be passed under Section 20 of the DRC Act. In other words, the appellant/tenant has now to elect whether he wants to remain a tenant under the peti- tioner/landlady with his legal right to reoccupy the premises after its re- construction. The ld ARC has to ensure that the work of construction or RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 21 of 22 rebuilding is commenced and completed in a time bound manner in case the appellant/tenant elects to remain a tenant and to repossess the shop after reconstruction/ rebuilding of the premises. The matter is remanded back to the Ld. ARC for consideration and appropriate direc- tions under Section 20 of the DRC Act within two months of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the ld. Trial Court on 11th Au- gust, 2020 at 11.30 a.m. with direction to join the hearing through Video Conferencing for further proceedings.
30. The Trial Court record along-with copy of this order be sent back to the Court of ld ARC with a copy of this judgment. The appeal Digitally signed by file be consigned to Record Room. DHARMESH DHARMESH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2020.08.06 16:01:15 +0530 Announced in the open Court (DHARMESH SHARMA) on 4th August, 2020 District & Sessions Judge/RCT (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RCT-11/2019 Raj Bansal vs. Savinder Kaur Page 22 of 22