Delhi District Court
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta vs M/S Electro Control on 15 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER SINGH,
SCJ-CUM-RC (NORTH), ROHINI COURT,
DELHI
In the matter of :-
1. Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Shri Kali Ram Gupta
2. Smt. Uma Gupta
W/o Late Shri Pramod Kumar Gupta
Daughter-in-law of Late Sh. Kali Ram Gupta
Both R/o
F - 14/9, Model Town,
Part - II, Delhi - 110009.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Electro Control
Through its Proprietor
Shri Brij Mohan Gupta
S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta
At Shop at Ground Floor,
F - 14/9, Model Town,
Part - II, Delhi - 110009.
....Respondent
ORDER
CNR No. DLNT 0300 1298 2021 RC ARC No. 15-21 RC ARC 15-21 1 of 24
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control Eviction of tenant U/s 14 (1)(e) Under Section r/w Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Date of institution 04/09/2021 Date of reserving 27/01/2023 for order Date of final order 15/02/2023 Eviction petition is allowed / Final order Leave to defend application is dismissed.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the Leave to Defend Application filed by the respondents against the present eviction petition filed by the petitioners 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 petitioners that they are owners of property bearing no. F - 14/9, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi- 110009 since 21/11/2011 by virtue of Relinquishment Deed registered in their favour on aforesaid date before Sub Registrar - VIA after the death of Sh. Kali Ram Gupta who happens to be the RC ARC 15-21 2 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control registered owner of the aforesaid property. The respondent's father Shri Om Prakash Gupta was tenant of Late Shri Kali Ram Gupta. The rent was Rs. 275/- per month excluding electricity charges. After the death of Sh. Om Prakash Gupta, the respondent used to pay rent amount to Sh. Kali Ram Gupta. Sh. Kali Ram Gupta had also died on 29/05/2007 and after his death, the respondent started making payment of rent to Smt. Uma Gupta i.e. the petitioner No. 2. The respondent had lastly paid the rent @ Rs. 275/- per month excluding electricity charges from 01/04/2011 to 31/03/2014 againsat recipt. Thereafter, he has not paid rent. Due to COVID - 19, the business of petitioner no. 1 and of Sh. Tarun Gupta i.e. the Son of the petitioner no. 1 faced losses and thereafter Sh. Tarun Gupta had to close down the business of trading of paper. Wife of Sh. Tarun Gupta i.e. the daughter in law of petitioners requires the shop on the ground floor of property bearing no. F - 14/9, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi - 110009, specifically shown in red colour in the Site Plan (hereinafter referred as 'suit property or demised shop') for starting up the business of Architects and Interior Designers. The shop is required to open office and also for storage of the raw material of the said business. The said Smt. Aditi Gupta is a Masters in Interior Designing from AMITY University and has good knowledge of said business but due to non-availability of commercial and suitable place she RC ARC 15-21 3 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control could not be able to start her business till date. The shop under the tenancy of respondent has been locked by the respondent and he is not opening it. He opens the same once or twice a year and withholding the possession of the shop just to extort the money from petitioners for vacating the demised shop. The daughter-in-law of petitioners is depending upon the petitioners to open her office / shop. The shop under the tenancy of respondent is reasonable and suitable as it is a commercial space and same is the part of residential accommodation of the petitioner. Smt. Aditi Gupta may also take good care of her house while doing the business from said shop. Thus, the tenanted shop is required bonafidely by the petitioners for the use of their daughter-in-law to provide employment and means of earning to her.
3. Notice of petition was sent to respondent. One leave to defend application alongwith supporting affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
4. By way of leave to defend application, the respondent has contended that the petitioner has shown the respondent as proprietorship concern even when M/s Electro Control is a Partnership Firm. Sh. Manish Gupta alongwith Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta are the partners of M/s Electro Control. It is contended on behalf of RC ARC 15-21 4 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control respondent that the petition is frivolous, vexatious and untenable and it does not even meet the minimum requirements of law under Clause (e) of the Proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioners have concealed material facts form the Court and it is a tactics of petitioners to pressurize the respondent / applicant to concede to the petitioner's illegal demands. By way of present petition, the petitioners are trying to acquire additional space for themselves in the garb of catering requirement of their daughter-in-law. The requirement of petitioners is cosmetic and unjustified. According to the respondent / applicant there is abundant free vacant space available in the demised property and the similar properties in the vicinity are being used for commercial purposes wholly. The petitioners can use the other portions of the property for the use and occupation of the requirement of their daughter-in-law. Further, the petitioners in the garb of aforesaid bonafide requirement want to make a profit by sale or fresh letting out of the demised shop.
5. It is further contended on behalf of respondent that the demised premises were acquired by the respondent only after paying a huge amount of Pugree to landlord who was not willing to execute documents of conveyance of the suit premises with a motive to have perpetual interest in the demised RC ARC 15-21 5 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control property. As such token rent was being tendered by the respondent and other partners with a clear understanding that the tenancy of the respondent shall be for indefinite period and the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim eviction of the respondent from the demised premises.
6. The judgment of "Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India" was per incuriam to the earlier judgment/s of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the later judgment of "A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak", AIR 1984 SC 718, therefore the present petition is not maintainable under Clause (e) of the Proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act.
7. The petitioners are guilty of suvpressio- veri and Sueeestio-Falsi as they have made false allegations and suppressed material facts from the Court. The petitioners are in occupancy of the building constructed upto 2nd Floor except two shops situated on the ground floor which are quite rich to venture any such vocation as the petitioner was desiring for their daughter-in-law under the garb of requirement. One shop on the ground floor is being appropriated by the petitioner to run a shop of ready-made suits, Sarees, Kurtis and Fabric in the name and style of M/s Narayan's. Nothing would have prevented the petitioners to allow their daughter-in-law to commence RC ARC 15-21 6 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control vocation in terms of her qualification disclosed in the petition, despite having such a huge space at their disposal.
8. The petitioners have maliciously not disclosed the total commercial space available at their disposal. The petitioners have many other commercial space where-from the daughter-in-law of petitioners can start her business. The bonafide requirement shown by the petitioners is nothing but their wishful desire and it is self-coined, self-professed and not bonafide.
REPLY TO LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
9. The petitioners have filed detailed reply to the leave to defend application and they have also filed counter affidavit. They have reiterated the facts of their petition in their reply as well as in counter affidavit. In addition to that, the petitioners have replied that the respondent was never a Partnership Firm. It was always a Proprietorship Firm. They have relied upon various rent receipts in support of their version. They have also contended that the leave to defend application has not been filed on behalf of respondent. The respondent has not disclosed any triable issue. The property i.e. F - 14/9, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi- 110009 is in occupation of the family of RC ARC 15-21 7 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control petitioners. According to them on ground floor in one room mother of petitioner no. 1 is residing, in one room mother of petitioner no. 1 is maintaining the Pooja Ghar, in one room two Grand-Sons of the age of 10 & 7 years of petitioner no. 2 are residing and one room is being used by the mother of petitioner no. 1 as store room. Further, on First Floor in one room petitioner no. 2 is residing, in one room elder son of petitioner no. 2 alongwith his wife is residing, in one room younger son of petitioner no. 2 alongwith his wife and a son of the age of 6 years are residing. Further, on second floor, in one room petitioner no. 1 is residing alongwith his wife, in one room son of petitioner no. 1 alongwith his wife and their daughter are residing and one room which was earlier used by the petitioner no. 1 as store room is now being used by the daughter of petitioner no. 1 whom their in-laws have thrown out from the matrimonial home and forced her to live with her parents. Thus, according to the petitioners, the entire property is occupied by the family of the petitioners and the shops available on the ground floor i.e. one in the possession of petitioner no. 1 and another is in possession of another tenant and the demised shop is in possession of the respondent. It is also contended on behalf of petitioners that the alleged Partnership Firm is having an alternate suitable commercial premises at 1801, Bhagirath Palace, 2nd Floor, Delhi - 110006 where-from the firm is RC ARC 15-21 8 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control carrying out the business of respondent firm. The respondent is also having a multi storyed building bearing no. F - 14/19, Model Town, Part - II, Delhi - 110009, a huge part of said property is being used commercially by Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta and he has rented out most of the part of said premises on huge rents. Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta is also having one other property bearing no. K - 4/4, 1 st Floor, Model Town, Part - II, Delhi - 110009. He is also having several other properties at Rajendra Palace from where he is carrying out the business of respondent firm.
10. They have also contended that respondent cannot dictate the manner to petitioners to use their properties. By making aforesaid submissions, the petitioners have prayed for dismissal of the leave to defend application and passing eviction order against the respondent.
REJOINDER TO APPLICATION
11. Rejoinder to application and additional affidavit against counter affidavit are filed on behalf of the respondent. In aforesaid rejoinder / additional affidavit of counter affidavit, the respondent has denied the various contentions of petitioners and has reiterated the contentions taken by it in leave to defend application.
RC ARC 15-21 9 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control
12. The petitioner has relied upon the following documents :-
1. Copy of the Relinquishment Deed.
2. Copy of the Sale Deed in favour of Late Sh. Kali Ram Gupta.
3. Copy of old rent receipts.
4. Copy of rent receipt for rent from 01/04/2021 to 31/03/2014.
5. Copy of Masters Degree in Interior Designing from Amity University.
13. The respondent has relied upon following documents :-
1. Copy of Partnership Deed.
2. Photographs.
14. Both the parties have addressed detailed arguments. The plaintiffs have relied upon the following judgments :-
1. Bhawani Shankar Vs. Nand Lal & Ors. (DHC) 146/2020.
2. Abid-Ul-Islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua (SC) 9444/2016 on 07/04/2022.
3. Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash (DHC) 35/2009.
4. Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co. (SC) 5925/1999.
RC ARC 15-21 10 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control
5. Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. Naveen Maheshwari (SC) 5888/2006.
15. The respondent has relied upon the following judgments :-
1. Mohan Lal Vs. Tirath Ram Chopra reported at 1982 (3) DRJ 268.
2. Chandavarkar Sita Ratan Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Gurram reported at AIR 198 SC 117.
3. Union of India & Anr. Vs. G. M. Kokli & Ors.
Reported at AIR 1984 SC 1022.
4. M/s Orient Paper Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State of Orissa & Ors. Reported at AIR 1991 SC 672(3).
5. Charan Das Duggal Vs. Braham Nanda reported at (1983) 1 SCC 301.
6. Inderjit Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh reported at (2001) 1 SCC 706.
7. Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran reported at (2001) 1 SCC 255.
8. Devender Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. M/s Pritam Prakash & Sons (HUF).
9. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Lt. Col. Satyaprakash reported at 194 (2012) DLT 244
10. Sanjay Chugh Vs. Upendra Nath Ahuja & Ors. reported at 207 (2014) DLT 7271.
16. I have gone through the judicial file and considered the arguments of both parties.
RC ARC 15-21 11 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control
17. That for proving the case under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act 1958, the petitioners have to prove three facts which are as under :-
i) That there is landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and respondent.
ii) The petitioners require the tenanted premises bonafidely for their Daughter-in-law Smt. Aditi Gupta who is dependent upon them.
iii) That, there is no other suitable accommodation for the purpose required by the petitioners with them.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT 1. Jurisdiction of this Court
18. The respondent has contended that the Suit property was rented out to the respondents for commercial purposes. The judgment "Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India" (2008) 5 SCC 287, was per incurium to the earlier judgment/s of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the later judgment of "A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak", AIR 1984 SC 718.
RC ARC 15-21 12 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control The Ld. Counsel for petitioners has vehemently opposed the submissions of Ld. Counsel of respondent.
I have gone through the judgment of "Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India" (2008) 5 SCC 287. In the said judgment no such differentiation is created between the property let out for Residential Purpose and Commercial Purpose regarding applicability of Section 25B of DRC Act. Rather the said Judgment has eradicated the unjustified discrimination which was created between the property rented out for Residential and Commercial purpose. Having that at backdrop if the contentions of Ld. Counsel for respondents are admitted about non applicability of the section 25B on the petitions for commercial purpose then in the considered opinion of this Court no benefit would have been caused to the Landlords even after removing the abovsaid discrimination. Further, if the intention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was so regarding applicability of section 25B DRC Act in proceedings regarding commercial property then it would have mentioned in the judgment itself.
Further, validity and the issue of referring the "Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India" (2008) 5 SCC 287 to Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court was considered and decided in the matter of "Vinod Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar Gandhi" 262 (2019) DLT RC ARC 15-21 13 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control 253 (SC) and the same was rejected. The judgment Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 287 was upheld. Therefore, I do not find merits in this contention of Ld. Counsel for Respondent. It is held that this Court has jurisdiction to decide present petition and the provisions of Section 25B DRC Act 1958 are also applicable in respect of proceedings for eviction of commercial properties.
2.The need of the daughter-in-law of the petitioners is not bonafide
19. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the daughter-in-law of the petitioners is a Masters in Interior Designing from AMITY University and has good knowledge of said business since long but the petitioners have not let her do any business or open any office earlier. The present requirement of the petitioners is not a bonafide requirement but it is their wishful desire and it is self coined and self-professed.
The respondent in his entire application as well as affidavit has not mentioned that the daughter- in-law of petitioners is not a qualified Architect and Interior Designer as claimed by the petitioners. Rather, he has affirmed that she is a qualified Architect / Interior Designer. The fact that she was not earlier doing any business does not make any difference. Moreover, the petitioners have satisfactorily explained RC ARC 15-21 14 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control that their daughter-in-law has decided to open office of Architect and Interior Designer only after set back to the business of petitioner no. 1 and husband of Smt. Aditi Gupta. Though the petitioners are not answerable to the respondent as well as to the Court for giving any explanation for earlier non doing of any business by their daughter-in-law but as aforesaid, sufficient explanation has been put forth by the petitioners.
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-parcerners 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 Daughter-in-Law is not dependent on Father-in-Law / Mother-in-law. Therefore, the term family should be given a practical RC ARC 15-21 15 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control meaning and the need of family members is the need of the Landlord. Thus, these contentions of Ld. Counsel for respondent are also rejected being merit-less.
3.That the need of petitioners is of additional accommodation only.
20. Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that there is ample space in the property bearing no. F - 14/9, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi- 110009. If the petitioners genuinely want to settle their daughter-in- law., then nothing was stopping them to give appropriate space to her in other portions of the aforesaid property. In the area where the property is situated, the first and second floors of similar properties are being used for commercial purposes. He has relied upon certain photographs filed with the leave to defend application.
Ld. Counsel for petitioners has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions of Ld. Counsel for respondent. Ld. Counsel for petitioners has explained that the various portions of the aforesaid property are being used by the petitioners in following manner :-
On Ground Floor :
(i) In one room mother of petitioner no. 1 is residing.
(ii) In one room mother of petitioner no. 1 is maintaining the Pooja Ghar.
RC ARC 15-21 16 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control
(iii) In one room two Grand-Sons of the age of 10 & 7 years of petitioner no. 2 are residing.
(iv) One room is being used by the mother of petitioner no. 1 as store room. On 1st Floor :
(i) In one room, petitioner no. 2 is residing.
(ii) In one room elder son of petitioner no. 2 alongwith his wife is residing
(iii) In one room younger son of petitioner no. 2 alongwith his wife and a son of the age of 6 years are residing On 2nd Floor :
(i) In one room petitioner no. 1 is residing alongwith his wife.
(ii) In one room son of petitioner no. 1 alongwith his wife and their daughter are residing.
(iii) One room which was earlier used by the petitioner no. 1 as store room is now being used by the daughter of petitioner no. 1 whom their in-laws have thrown out from the matrimonial home and forced her to live with her parents.
Thus, according to the petitioners, the entire property is occupied by the family of the petitioners and the shops available on the ground floor i.e. one is in the possession of petitioner no. 1 and another in possession of another tenant and the demised shop is in possession of the respondent.
RC ARC 15-21 17 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control
21. It is also contended on behalf of petitioners that the alleged Partnership Firm is having an alternate suitable commercial premises at 1801, Bhagirath Palace, 2nd Floor, Delhi - 110006 where- from the firm is carrying out the business of respondent firm. The respondent is also having a multi storyed building bearing no. F - 14/19, Model Town, Part - II, Delhi - 110009, a huge part of said property is being used commercially by Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta and he has rented out most of the part of said premises on huge rents. Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta is also having one other property bearing no. K - 4/4, 1st Floor, Model Town, Part - II, Delhi - 110009. Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta is also having several other properties at Rajendra Palace from where Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta is carrying out the business of respondent firm.
Thus, firstly the petitioners have satisfactorily explained that the various portions of the suit property are being used by different family members of petitioners. Secondly, it is purely the choice of the petitioners to choose as to which of the available properties is suitable for their need and they cannot be dictated in this regard by the tenant. The choice and suitability of the property, as pleaded by the petitioners, has to be believed and respected. Reliance can be placed on "Veeran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai", 2010 (2) RCR (Rent) 571, "Asiya Jamil Vs. Canara RC ARC 15-21 18 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control 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, wherein, it is held that the landlord has choice to choose place of business 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. Thus, the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for petitioners are found more convincible than the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for respondent. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioners have malafidely filed present petition only to get evict the respondent and to get additional property or that the petitioners will sale or further hand over the suit property to someone else on enhanced rent.4.
The respondent is a partnership firm and not a Proprietorship Concern RC ARC 15-21 19 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control
22. It is contended on behalf of respondent that the respondent is a partnership firm and not a Proprietorship Concern. It is also contended that Sh. Manish Gupta & Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta are its partners. In support of that, the respondent has filed copy of Partnership Deed with leave to defend application.
Ld. Counsel for petitioners has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions stating that the respondent was a Proprietorship Concern since beginning. He has relied upon some rent receipts.
Though, the respondent has taken aforesaid plea but it is its admitted case that the respondent is tenant in the suit premises. Firstly, the fact that the respondent is a Partnership Firm or a Proprietorship Concern does not make any difference as the respondent will be treated as tenant only. There are limitations on the right of unregistered Partnership Firm, as per Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act but it is settled law that registered or unregistered Partnership Firm can be sued by other parties. Further, the respondent has been sued allegedly through its proprietor Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta. Though, not admitted by the petitioners that respondent is a partnership firm but even then if it is presumed that the respondent is a Partnership Firm then also the respondent has been sued in its own capacity as well as through its partner Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta. It is settled RC ARC 15-21 20 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control law that the Partnership Firm is a legal entity and it can be sued in its own name and through its partner. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no legal infirmity in suing the respondent.
Moreover, as per record, the respondent has not filed any application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC to implead the Partnership Firm as a party to the petition. The present leave to defend application has been signed and filed by Sh. Manish Gupta i.e. the alleged partner of respondent but not by Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta i.e. the partner through whom the respondent has been sued. Thus, legally the leave to defend application is neither filed by the Partnership Firm nor by the Partner Sh. Brij Mohan Gupta. This fact has not been challenged by the petitioners, therefore no opinion is being given regarding the validity of leave to defend application but it is hereby held that the leave to defend application has failed to put forth any triable issues on the basis of which it could be allowed. Hence, the leave to defend application is found merit-less.
Conclusion
23. The petitioners have categorically taken the plea that they do not have any other suitable premises for the business of their daughter-in-law. In RC ARC 15-21 21 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control "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."
Further, in "Vidhya Dhari Bhagat Vs M/s Allahbad 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 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 RC ARC 15-21 22 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control 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 petitioners cannot be forced to remain out of their own premises even when they have genuine need of the same for starting business of their family members who are dependent on them In view of aforesaid considerations, facts and circumstances, the petitioners have succeeded in proving that they are landlords and the respondent is their tenant in respect of the suit property i.e. F - 14/9, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi- 110009 specifically shown in red colour in the Site Plan. They have further proved the landlord-tenant relationship between them and the respondent. They have also proved that the suit property is required for the bonafide requirement of their daughter-in-law namely Smt. Aditi Gupta, as alleged by them in the petition. They have also proved that their daughter-in-law is dependent upon them and there is no other suitable property to fulfill the requirements of petitioners / their daughter-in-law.
On the other hand, the respondent has failed to put forth any triable issues so that he / they is / are entitled to leave to defend application, therefore the application under Section 25 B (4) i.e. the Leave to RC ARC 15-21 23 of 24 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control Defend Application of respondent is hereby dismissed and the petition of the petitioners is allowed.
24. In consequence of the same the respondent is directed to vacate the rented premises i.e the shop situated at property no. F - 14/9, Model Town, Part-II, Delhi- 110009 specifically shown in red colour in the Site Plan. It is hereby clarified that the Landlord / Petitioners 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.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record-Room after compliance of order.
Announced in the open Court On this 15th day of February, 2023 (VIRENDER SINGH) SCJ-CUM-RC NORTH DISTRICT ROHINI COURT, DELHI It is certified that this judgment contains 24 pages and every page is signed by me.
(VIRENDER SINGH)
SCJ-CUM-RC
NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURT, DELHI
RC ARC 15-21 24 of 24
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s Electro Control