Delhi District Court
Mohd. Ismail vs M/S Ruby Engineering Works on 7 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E77276/16
In the matter of :
Mohd. Ismail
S/o Late Mr. Nasiruddin
R/o 4369, Shah Ganj,
Ajmeri Gate,
Delhi110006. .....Petitioner/ Landlord
Versus
M/s Ruby Engineering Works
at 4294, Kutcha Pandit, Lal Kuan,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi110006.
Through its Proprietor Mr. Firozzuddin .....Respondent/ Tenant
Date of Institution : 20.07.2012
Date of order when reserved : 28.01.2020
Date of order when announced : 07.02.2020
J U D G M E N T:
1. Vide this judgment, the undersigned shall dispose off the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent/ tenant U/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), in respect of the property/shop No.4294, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi 110006 (herein after referred to as ("tenanted premises"). The site plan showing the tenanted portion in red colour is annexed with the petition.
2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the petition by the petitioner is that he is the owner & landlord of the 'tenanted premises', which E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 1/18 were let out to the respondent vide written agreement for commercial purposes on a monthly rent of Rs.400/ excluding the water & electricity charges. He is having five sons, who all are dependent upon him for commercial accommodation. One of his sons namely Mr. Mohd. Imran is occupying a shop on rent in premises No.319698, situated at Lal Kuan, Delhi at the rate of Rs.62.50/ and its landlord namely Mr. Sayeed has asked to vacate the shop and served a demand note of Rs.24126/, as arrears of rent. His son namely Mr. Mohd. Imran is doing the business of selling Kabad in the aforesaid premises and he wants to settle his son Mohd. Imran by giving him the shop bearing No.4294, Lal Kuan, Delhi, which is presently occupied by the respondent. No other suitable reasonable alternative commercial accommodation is available with the petitioner for settling his son except the "tenanted premises', hence, the same are required bonafidely by him for getting his son Mohd. Imran settled and this eviction petition has been filed with the same prayer.
3. Notice was served upon the respondent and vide order dated 20.05.2015, an application filed by the respondent under order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the petition stating that petitioner has made M/s Ruby Engineering Company as the respondent, which is neither a Private Limited Company nor a Partnership Firm and cannot be made a party, being a proprietorship concern having no legal entity of its own, has been dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor ordering that proprietorship concern can be sued through its proprietor.
4. Further, vide order dated 15.10.2015 application filed on behalf of the petitioner under order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC has been E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 2/18 allowed by the Ld. Predecessor to the extent of amendment to be made for incorporating the name of proprietor so that the respondent's firm is sued through its proprietor namely Mr. Firozuddin and correction of number of tenanted premises, as 4294, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi06, which was wrongly mentioned due to typographical error in the petition, as shop No.4295, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi06.
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.04.2016, the leave to defend application of the respondent was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, as triable issue was raised with respect to the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner in other premises in his possession.
6. Written statement was filed by the respondent, wherein the allegations levelled by the petitioner are denied in general. It has been stated in the written statement that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts from the Court by not disclosing that the respondent herein was inducted as a tenant by Mst. Mohd. Nisa W/o Mr. Nasiruddin R/o 4369, Mohalla Shah Ganj, Delhi, who has filed a civil suit against the petitioner before the court of the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi. The said fact was concealed by the petitioner, hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that filing of the present petition is only the mere wish & desire of the petitioner, as he has not filed any evidence nor any other document to prove the fact that he is in need of the 'tenanted premises' for the bonafide use for himself as well as for his son. It has been mentioned in the written statement that sons of the petitioner are running their own shops and they are not financially dependent upon the petitioner rather the petitioner is dependent upon his sons. The E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 3/18 present petition filed u/s. 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is not maintainable in its present form, as the tenanted premises was never let out by the petitioner to the respondent for running the commercial activities in the same and moreover, the petition is liable to be dismissed, as the same has been filed on false & frivolous grounds which are well within the knowledge of the petitioner. The present petition has been filed just to pressurize the respondent in order to increase the rent, as the prices in the locality have gone very high and when the present petitioner failed to get any response from the respondent, he has filed the present false and frivolous case.
It has been further stated in the written statement that neither the copy of the site plan has been supplied nor the measurement of the shop has been mentioned in the petition. It is stated that the respondent was inducted as a tenant by one Shafiuddin and family in the year 1956, while as per the allegations, the petitioner has allegedly become the landlord in the year 1982 but despite repeated requests made by the respondent, the petitioner did not supply the documents on the basis of which, he is claiming himself as the owner of the premises. Further, due to the threats given by the petitioner, the respondent has increased the rent from Rs.150/ to Rs.400/ per month and when the respondent failed to increase the same from Rs.400/ to Rs.1,000/ per month, the present frivolous case has been filed. It is further submitted that petitioner is the owner and in possession of 7 shops on the second floor of the property bearing No.4292, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi06 and the said shops are lying vacant. The petitioner is also owner and in possession of 8 shops on first floor of the property bearing No.4292, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi06. Besides the aforesaid, the petitioner is also the owner & in possession of one plot measuring about 700 sq. yards at Sunder Nagar, Mathura Road, Delhi. He is also owner of property known as E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 4/18 Chamaro ki Haweli. The petitioner is also owner of property bearing No.37343736, Gali Masjid Wali, Shah Ganj Chowk, Kucha Pandit, Delhi
06. Further, the sons of the petitioner are doing their own business in the premises bearing No.3196, 3197 and 3198, situated at Lal Kuan, Delhi. Therefore, the petitioner has several alternate accommodations and has concealed the said fact from the Court, hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner is not in bonafide need of the 'tenanted premises'. It has also been contended that procedure in filing the present petition has not been followed by the petitioner and petitioner has been constantly increasing the rent of the 'tenanted premises', being in contravention of provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act.
7. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.05.2018, the application under order 32 rule 15 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner was allowed and one of his son Mr. Mohd. Subhan was appointed as his next friend. However, on 15.08.2018, the petitioner expired and vide application under order 22 Rule 3 CPC, his LRs were brought on record on 01.09.2018. The amended memo of parties was filed on record and the LRs of deceased petitioner namely Mrs. Shakila Begum, Mohd. Israil, Mohd. Imran, Mohd. Shubhan, Mohd. Salman, Mohd. Khaleel, Mrs. Zarina and Mrs. Zamela were impleaded as petitioner No.1 to 7 respectively.
8. In order to substantiate the case, LRs of the deceased petitioner namely Mr. Mohd. Subhan was examined as PW1 and Mr. Mohd. Imran as PW2.
PW1 Mr. Mohd. Subhan tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon documents i.e. the site plan of E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 5/18 the suit property, as Ex.PW1/1, copy of the rent note reduced in writing between the petitioner & the respondent in Urdu & its Hindi translation, collectively, as Ex.PW1/2 (OS &R), copy of Sale Deed of suit property bearing No.42924296 dated 20.09.1995, as Ex.PW1/3 (OS & R), copy of rent receipts, as Ex.PW1/4 (OS&R collectively)(running into four pages) and certified copy of judgment dated 02.01.2018, as Ex.PW1/5.
He reiterated the averments made in the petition and also stated in the affidavit that the ground floor of the suit property consists of four shops. Out of four shops, one shop is under the tenancy of the respondent, second shop is under the tenancy of one Sh. Pramod Kumar, third shop is under the tenancy of tenant ASS Mechanical and fourth shop is under the tenancy of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor. The second floor of the suit property consists of eight small shops, out of which, four shops are under the tenancy of Sh. Jaidev Goel, Sh. Dilshad, Mr. Moujjam Rizvi, Mr. Sajid Qasim and Mr. Firozzudin respectively and the counterfoil of rent receipts is proved as Ex.PW1/4. All the shops on the ground floor and second floor are occupied and no other commercial accommodation is available in the aforesaid property. The second floor of the property No.429296 ward No.VII, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi06 is purely residential. In addition to the above said property, the petitioner is in possession of residential property No.4369, Shah Ganj, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi6, which is a double storey DDA Flat, being used by the petitioner and his family members for residential purpose. It has been further stated that the petitioner was the owner of one plot measuring 135 sq. yards bearing No.373436, Shah Ganj, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi06, however, it got constructed by the petitioner in colloboration agreement upto fifth floor and now, the petitioner is the owner of only ground floor, half maznine floor, third, fourth & fifth floor but the same are residential and E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 6/18 used for residential purposes only by the family members of the petitioner. The remaining floor is owned by the builder and the petitioner & his family members have no right, title and interest in the remaining floor. Further, the petitioner had taken four shops on rent in property bearing No.319698, ground floor, Kucha Pandit, Hamdard Marg from Landlord Mr. Saeeduddin to run the general store and bakery. In the said shop, two sons namely Mohd. Salman and Mohd. Khalil of the petitioner are running commercial activities to earn their livelihood by fair means. The said landlord Mr. Saeeduddin filed an eviction petition against the petitioner and vide judgment dated 02.01.2018 in eviction petition No.77279/2016, the eviction orders have been passed against the present petitioner. The certified copy of the same is proved as Ex.PW1/5.
During his crossexamination, he stated that his father had filed eviction petition against four tenants of property bearing no. 429296, which is one property from ground to top floor and four shops are in possession of tenants namely Sh. Jai Dev Goel, Mr. Farozuddin (proprietor of respondent), Mr. Dilshad, Mr. Rizvi and Mr. Sajid Kasim.
He admitted that Mst. Nisha was her grand mother and was the owner of the tenanted premises, but he does not know whether she has filed any suit against his father. He failed to remember that the respondent was inducted as a tenant by his grand mother Mst. Nisha. He also failed to remember whether the rent has been increased from time to time without serving any legal notice U/s. 6A of the Delhi Rent Control Act upon the respondent. He admitted that the property bearing no. 4292 is having four shops on the ground floor and seven shops at the first floor, however, he denied the suggestion that the said shops are lying vacant.
E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 7/18
9. PW2, Mr. Mohd. Imran tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW2/A, wherein, he reiterated the contents of the petition and deposed on the same lines of PW1 Mohd. Subhan, being son of the deceased petitioner and coowner of the 'tenanted premises'. He has also stated that beside the suit property, neither the petitioners nor their family members are having ownership or possession of any other commercial/ residential property in NCT of Delhi or elsewhere. The 'tenanted premises' are suitable for him for running commercial activity to earn their livelihood, as he does not have any other reasonably suitable commercial accommodation.
During his crossexamination, he stated that before filing the present petition, his father was running a general stores in four shops situated at 3198, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi6. The building bearing NO.4369, Shahganj Chowk, Hauz Khazi, Delhi06 is a residential property. There was a dispute between his father and grand mother qua the property in question, however, the same was resolved. He admitted that there are shops on the ground floor in the house adjoining property no.4369, however, they are in possession of first floor & upward in the said property and have nothing to do with the shops on the ground floor. He further admitted that Mr. Jay Dev Goel is the tenant qua four shops in property No. 42924296 on first floor. He denied the suggestion that at the time of filing of the present petition, seven shops on second floor in property No, 42924296 and eight shops on the first floor in property No. 42924296 were lying vacant. He further denied the suggestion that his father was the owner of commercial plot of 700 sq. yards at Sunder Nagar or that his father had many other commercial properties which have not been mentioned in the present petition.
E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 8/18
10. No other witness has been examined on behalf of the LRs of the deceased petitioner and petitioner's evidence was closed vide order dated 13.05.2019.
11 . In rebuttal, proprietor of respondent namely Mr. Firozuddin examined himself as RW1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit proved as Ex.RW1/A and deposed almost on the same lines, as averred in the written statement.
During his crossexamination, he admitted that he has deposited the rent upto 31.03.2018 in respect of Shop No.4294 U/s. 27 of DRC in the Court in the name of landlord Mr. Mohd. Ismail . He further admitted that besides the disputed shop/ 'tenanted premises', he is the tenant of one more shop situated at first floor of the property No. 4292 to 4296. He further deposed that the terms and conditions were reduced in writing between Mohd. Ismail and his younger brother at the time of creation of the tenancy. Further, Mst. Nisha was the mother of Mohd. Ismail. He admitted that four shops on the first floor are under the tenancy of Sh. Jai Dev Goyal, Sh. Dilshad, Mr. Muazzam Rizvi and himself. He admitted that the petitioner had expired after leaving behind his five sons, two daughters & his widow. He is the tenant since 1956 in the property bearing No.4292 to 4294 and the said property is measuring about 100 sq. yards approximately. The petitioners are living in corporation property bearing No.4369, Shah Ganj, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. He further admitted that the property bearing No.4292 to 4296 consisting of ground floor, first floor & second floor, out of which, the ground floor & first floor are commercial one. He further admitted that Mohd. Feroz is living alongwith his family members at second floor. He admitted that the property No.37343736, E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 9/18 Masjid Wali Gali, Shah Ganj, Delhi was got constructed during the pendency of the present petition in colloboration upto five floors and first floor, second floor and half maznine floor are given to the builder in lieu of construction. He failed to tell the specification of property, stated to be owned by the petitioner in Sunder Nagar. He also failed to tell the specification of property known as Chamaro Wali Haweli and stated that he has not seen the ownership documents.
He further admitted that the petitioners are running their commercial activities in the tenanted premises bearing no. 31963198, ground floor, Kucha Pandit, Delhi under the landlordship of Mr. Saiduddin. Further, he has not received any written notice from the petitioner qua enhancement of rent from Rs.440/ to Rs.1000/ p.m. He further admitted that site plan, proved as, Ex. PW1/1 is correct and the tenanted premises has been show in red colour in the Ex. PW1/1. He admitted that besides this eviction petition, no other case or petition has been filed by the petitioners against him.
12. No other witness has been examined on behalf of the respondents and respondents' evidence was closed vide order dated 09.08.2019.
13. Written final arguments have been filed on record on behalf of both the parties.
The undersigned has also heard the oral arguments adduced on behalf of the parties, during which it has been argued on behalf of the LRs of the petitioner that tenanted shop is required for settling the son of the deceased petitioner namely Mohd. Imran. It is further contended by the petitioner that there is no other suitable reasonable alternative commercial E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 10/18 accommodation available except the tenanted premises, as Mohd. Imran is doing the business of Kabad from a shop on rent under the tenancy of Sayeed, who has got eviction order of the same. Per contra, it is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that petitioner has mentioned wrong property number in the initial petition, hence, his petition is liable to be dismissed. Further, there are alternate suitable accommodations available to them, being owner of various properties.
14. The entire case file has been perused carefully including the written arguments. The first and foremost contention on behalf of the respondent has been that wrong property/ address of 'tenanted premises' has been mentioned in the petition, however, as already stated that the same has been rectified by way of amendment.
15 Now, before appreciating the present facts of the case, lets discuss the basic law on the point. The essential ingredients which a landlord/ petitioner is required to prove for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide need are (i) the petitioner is the owner/ landlord of the suit premises (ii) the suit premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself or any of his family members dependent upon him (iii) the landlord or such other family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
16. Lets discuss the first ingredient in detail :
(i) Ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship : In the present eviction petition, the respondent initially disputed E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 11/18 the ownership of the petitioner over the suit premises/ tenanted premises stating that the petitioner has not filed any document to prove his ownership over the suit premises. He has also contended that the tenancy was created by Mst Nisha and denied the petitioner as his landlord.
The petitioner proved on record sale deed of suit premises in his favour, as Ex.PW1/3. The respondent during his crossexamination admitted that he has deposited rent upto 31.03.2018 in respect of 'tenanted premises' u/s. 27 of DRC Act in the Court in the name of the petitioner, which is a clear admission of tenancy under the petitioner. He also admitted that the terms & conditions of tenancy were reduced into writing between the petitioner and his younger brother. Further that Mst. Nisha was the mother of the petitioner. Therefore, from the admissions made by RW1 during his testimony, it is clearly established that Mohd. Ismail/ Petitioner was the owner of the suit premises. However, during the pendency of the present eviction petition, petitioner Mohd. Ismal has expired leaving behind his LRs, who are substituted on record in place of the petitioner Mohd. Ismail. Therefore, all the LRs/ children of the owner/ landlord Mohd. Ismail stepped into his shoes after his demise and became the landlords of the "tenanted premises" as per section 2 (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Further, reliance is also placed by this Court upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex court in Shanti Sharma Vs. Ved Prabha AIR, 1987, SC 2028, where it has been held that, "ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant".
Reliance is also placed upon judgment delivered by our Hon'ble High Court in Rajendra Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs. Leelawati & Ors 155 (2008) DLT 383 wherein it has been held that, "landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 12/18 required to show only that he is more than a tenant".
17. Coming to the second ingredient that the landlord requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for himself or any member of his family depended upon him.
The contention of the petitioner was that his son of the deceased namely Mohd. Imran was doing his business from the rented shop in property No. 319698, ground floor, Kucha Pandit, Hamdaard Marg under tenancy of Mr. Saeeduddin to run the general store and bakery, however, the said landlord Mr. Saeeduddin filed an eviction petition and vide judgment dated 02.01.2018, eviction orders have been passed, the certified copy of the order is exhibited as Ex. PW1/5. The said fact was admitted by RW1 during his crossexamination that the petitioners are running their commercial activities in the tenanted premises bearing No.31963198, Ground floor,Kucha Pandit, Delhi under the landlordship of Mr. Saeeduddin. The eviction order passed by the concerned Court in respect of property bearing No.31963198, Ground Floor, Kucha Pandit, Delhi has been proved on record. Therefore, there remains no iota of doubt that the 'tenanted premises' are required by the petitioner for his sons for running their business, as they have been evicted from the premises from where they were earlier carrying on their business and no prudent person is expected to get another premises on rent when he is already the owner of property having shops used for commercial activities. Hence, there seems no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner seeking possession of the tenanted premises and their bonafide need appears to be genuine.
Reliance is placed by this Court upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows : E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 13/18
(i) In Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 167 (2010) DLT 80 = 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, VIII (2005) 12 SCC 778, have been quoted as under : "...It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant, unless his need is bonafide no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the Court his requirements shall be presumed to be genuine and bonafide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1 held that the phrase "reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord" is not to be tested on par with "dire need" of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need.
(iii) Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 14/18 Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other hand.
18. Now coming to last ingredient i.e. Nonavailability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.
The respondent has averred in his written statement that petitioners are the owners of the property bearing No. 3734, 3735 & 3736 situated at Gali Masjidwali measuring about 150 Sq. Yards, which is five storey building and is lying vacant, hence, the petitioners have suitable alternate accommodation available to them. However, during his cross examination as RW1, he admitted that the property No.3734 to 3736, Masjid Wali Gali, Shah Ganj, Delhi was got constructed during pendency of the present petition in collaboration and two floors alongwith half maznine floor have been given to the builder for construction. The petitioner's witnesses have testified on oath that the aforesaid property is residential in nature and respondent has not brought anything on record to the contrary.
It is also averred by the respondent that the petitioners are the owner of property bearing No.4294, 4295 & 4296 and the same have been let out to various tenants. Further, the shops in the aforesaid premises on ground floor, first floor and second floor are lying vacant. However, during his crossexamination as RW1, he admitted that only ground floor & first floor of the aforesaid property are commercial in nature and at the second floor, Mohd. Firoz is living with his family. It is testified by PWs that the E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 15/18 aforesaid property is actually one, which has not been rebutted by the respondent and he has admitted the site plan of the property and 'tenanted premises' shown in red colour in the same, proved as Ex.PW1/1. He has further admitted that the four shops on the first floor are under the tenancy of different tenants and the said property is only measuring 83100 sq. yards. Further, he is tenant of one more shop at first floor of the suit premises besides the disputed shop in question.
Further, the contention of the respondent about the availability of accommodation in the shop, situated at property bearing No.31963198, Lal Kuan, Delhi has already been dealt, as eviction order qua the same against the present petitioners has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/5.
Regarding the contention of respondent of availability of other property owned by the petitioner in Sunder Nagar and property known as Chamaro Wali Gali falls flat, as he has not given specification or number of those properties and admittedly, has not seen their ownership documents.
It has been admitted by the respondent that the initial petitioner Mr. Mohd. Ismail has expired leaving behind his five sons, two daughters and his widow. Further, he has not received any written notice from the petitioner for enhancement of rent, hence, his averment of filing this petition in order to pressurize him for enhancement of rent remains bald allegation.
It has been the contention of the petitioner that he requires the 'tenanted premises' for settling his son Mohd. Imran, who does not have any other suitable alternate accommodation for running his business and the 'tenanted premises' is most suitable for running his business of retail.
Reliance being placed upon judgment delivered in a case titled as Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 405, it has been clearly held that "a tenant who alleges that landlord has at his disposal other E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 16/18 accommodation has to place before the Controller, some material to show that the landlord has a specific alternative accommodation at his disposal". Mere bald allegation with respect to availability of additional accommodation with the petitioner does not hold any basis and cannot be a basis to deny the petitioner of his right to vacate the tenanted premises for his bonafide requirement".
Further, it is settled law that the landlord is master of his choice and tenant or the court cannot compel a landlord to choose a particular place against his choice. Reliance is also placed upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Company", AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter (reliance placed upon "Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353).
With this background, it seems that the petitioner No.3 namely Mohd. Imran does not have any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for running business except the 'tenanted premises'.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner(s) have proved all the necessary ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the property/shop No.4294, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi110006 (herein after referred to as ("tenanted premises"). The site plan showing the tenanted portion in red colour is annexed with the petition. This order shall not be executable E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 17/18 before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI BARNALA
BARNALA TANDON
Date: 2020.02.07 23:27:44
TANDON +0530
Announced in the open court (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON)
on 07.02.2020 Administrative Civil Judge cum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/07.02.2020
(This judgment contains 18 pages in total)
E77276/16 Mohd. Ismail Vs. M/s Ruby Engineering Works 18/18