Delhi District Court
Mrs. Kishni Devi vs Mr. Sachin on 8 June, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL, ARC-1, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. E-253/13
New No.77211/16
Mrs. Kishni Devi
W/o Sh. Lal Ji Ram,
R/o 16/678-E,
Ganesh Gali, Tank Road,
Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Sachin
2. Mr. Sidharth
both r/o House No. 30/7,
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Ms. Bindu Kohli
r/o House No. 29/20,
Ground Floor, Old Rajender Nagar,
New Delhi. ...Respondents
Date of Institution of Petition : 10.10.2013
Date on which order was reserved : 28.05.2018
Date of decision : 08.06.2018
Decision : Application seeking leave to defend
filed on behalf of the respondents
is allowed.
Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 1 of 28
2
ORDER
1. This is a petition for eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This order shall dispose off the application seeking leave to defend filed by respondents.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and landlord of shop on the ground floor in premises bearing no. 16/678-E, Ganesh Gali, Tank Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 measuring 15' x 6.9', as shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises'). It is pleaded that the respondents are occupying this property as a tenants and the monthly rate of rent is Rs.1,950/- besides other charges.
3. It is stated in the petition that the aforesaid property has a basement, ground floor and is built upto 4 th floor. It is stated that the petitioner has two sons, namely, Jaswant and Nand Kishore, who are both married and have been blessed with children. It is pleaded that the basement of the property has been rented to a tenant named Deepak Dhameja who is using it as a godown. It is stated that this premises is shown in green color in the site plan. Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 2 of 28 3
4. It is submitted that on the ground floor, besides the tenanted premises, there are two more shops which have been let out to a tenant named Devinder. It is stated that the shop shown in yellow color in the site plan is being run by the tenant Devinder under the name & style of M/s Bhagwati Traders and the other shop as shown in blue color is being used by him as a godown.
5. It is stated that the first floor of the property and one store on the top floor are being used by the petitioner and her husband. It is submitted that the second floor is used for the residence of the son Jaswant and his family. It is pleaded that the third floor is used as residence for the son Nand Kishore and his family.
6. It is stated that the respondents are running a shop in the tenanted premises under the name & style of "Spider Jeenas Manufacturing and Wholeseller".
7. It is submitted that the son of the petitioner Mr. Jaswant is unemployed. It is averred that he has a large family to take care of. It is stated that he has Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 3 of 28 4 5-6 years experience in the business of the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner urgently needs the tenanted premises for her son Jaswant. It is averred that the petitioner does not have any other alternative accommodation available with her for starting business except the tenanted premises. The petitioner has prayed that eviction order may be passed in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
8. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondents. The respondents filed an application seeking leave to defend. The respondents have not denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, the respondents have disputed the claim of the petitioner that she requires the tenanted premises bonafidely and that she does not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation.
9. It is stated in the application for leave to defend that none of the family members of the son Nand Kishore are living in any of the floors of the property of which the tenanted premises is a part. It is pleaded that Mr. Nand Kishore and his family are residing in Rajasthan.
10. It is averred that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 4 of 28 5 her son Mr. Jaswant is dependent upon her for his need of commercial accommodation or that he is unemployed. It is stated that Mr. Jaswant is working with ICICI Bank as Relationship Manager. Copy of visiting card of Mr. Jaswant and a print out of the facebook account of Mr. Jaswant are filed alongwith the application of leave to defend, to substantiate that he is working with ICICI Bank. It is pleaded that Mr. Jaswant is living separately from the petitioner, has separate kitchen and is employed with the ICICI Bank which shows that Mr. Jaswant is not dependent upon the petitioner for his need for commercial accommodation.
11. It is pleaded that Mr. Jaswant is married and has grown up children. It is stated that nothing has been disclosed in the petition about his job or business which he was carrying on till date. It is stated that nothing has been mentioned about what was his source of income till now and how and when he became unemployed.
12. It is stated that in the recent past, the petitioner has let out other commercial space to other tenants at a very high rate of rent. It is stated that the shops have been rented out to Mr. Devinder only three months back. It is Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 5 of 28 6 averred that the rent of one shop is about Rs.45,000/- per month and that of the other shop is Rs.15,000/-. It is stated that the conversion charges of this premises have been deposited by Mr. Jaswant. Copy of the form deposited by Mr. Jaswant with the Market Association has been filed alongwith the application for leave to defend.
13. It is further stated that the petitioner also owns commercial properties at Bapa Nagar and Nihal Vihar and Mr. Jaswant can use these properties for his requirement.
14. It is stated that the basement of property no. 16/678-E, Ganesh Gali has been let out by the petitioner only a few months back at a monthly rent of about Rs.25,000/-.
15. It is submitted that besides the tenanted premises, remaining portions of the building are in possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that at the time of creation of tenancy of the tenanted premises, the respondents had paid a security amount of Rs.2,14,000/- to the petitioner on the condition that tenancy will not be terminated. It is submitted that the present case has been Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 6 of 28 7 filed to increase the rent of the tenanted premises.
16. It is submitted that the son of the petitioner proposes to carry on the trade of the respondents from the tenanted premises. It is stated that it was due to hard work and long standing in the business that the respondents have earned goodwill and reputation and now the petitioner wants to oust the respondents from the premises and want to give it on rent to some business rival of the respondents.
17. The respondents have pleaded that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is fake and malafide and has prayed that leave to defend the petition may be granted to the respondents as the application/affidavit of the respondents/tenants discloses such facts as would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises under section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.
18. The petitioner filed reply to the application seeking leave to defend. The petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of her eviction petition. She denied that Mr. Nand Kishore and his family are residing in Rajasthan. She Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 7 of 28 8 further denied that third floor of the building has been given on rent by the petitioner. She reiterated that Mr. Nand Kishore is employed as a government teacher in District Alwar, Rajasthan, but his family are residing on third floor of building in which tenanted premises is situated.
19. The petitioner stated that it was 5-6 years back that Mr. Jaswant was working with ICICI Bank on temporary basis as per tender. It is averred that since then, Mr. Jaswant is unemployed.
20. The petitioner denied that premises were given on rent to Mr. Devinder just three months back and that the monthly rate of rent of one premises is Rs.45,000/-. It is denied that petitioner owns commercial property at Bapa Nagar and Nihal Vihar. It is further denied that the basement has been rented out just a few months back at monthly rent of Rs.25,000/-.
21. It is further denied that a security of Rs.2,14,000/- was paid to the petitioner when the tenanted premises was given on rent to the respondents.
22. The respondents filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner and denied Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 8 of 28 9 the averments made in the reply of the petitioner and simultaneously reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the application. In particular it is stated that the averments of the petitioner are contradictory since on one hand she has admitted that her son Mr. Nand Kishore is a government teacher and is posted in District Alwar, and on the other hand, she alleges that Mr. Nand Kishore is residing on the third floor of the tenanted premises. It is stated that the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof in this regard which raises suspicion.
23. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to place on record any document to substantiate that her son left the job from ICICI Bank.
24. It is pleaded that the shop adjacent to the tenanted premises belongs to Mr. Jaswant who has again recently entered into a rent agreement with the tenant after filing of the present petition.
25. It is further stated that the petitioner has failed to file any document in support of the plea that Mr. Deepak Dhamija and Mr. Devinder are old tenants of the petitioner.
Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 9 of 28 10
26. I have heard arguments and carefully gone through the record. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
i. She is owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. She requires the premises bonafide for herself or for any member of his family dependent upon her.
iii. She and such person dependent upon her have no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
27. The present eviction petition has been filed on the ground that the tenanted premises is required by the petitioner for her unemployed son Mr. Jaswant to do a business. It is stated in the eviction petition that the petitioner does not have any other alternative commercial accommodation except the tenanted premises. However, there is no mention about Mr. Jaswant also not having any other reasonably suitable accommodation for him to do business. This is a necessary ingredient that ought to have been pleaded in the eviction petition as it is a fact that would have constituted the cause of action to file the petition u/s 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dr. N. D. Khanna vs M/s Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 10 of 28 11 Hindustan Industrial Corporation AIR 1981 Delhi 305, a triable issue has arisen as to whether the eviction petition discloses a cause of action and if it is maintainable.
28. The respondents have not disputed the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises and relationship of landlord-tenant between petitioner and respondents.
29. However, the respondents have alleged that the petitioner does not bonafide need the tenanted premises for her son Mr. Jaswant to do business. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and does not require the tenanted premises bonafide. It is averred that the petitioner has concealed various material facts.
30. To substantiate that Mr. Jaswant is employed, the respondents have placed on record the visiting card of Mr. Jaswant in which he is stated to be 'Relationship Manager' with ICICI Bank. Even the printout of his Facebook profile shows that he has worked with ICICI Merchant Services. Despite the respondents taking an objection in this regard, the petitioner has not filed any Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 11 of 28 12 document to substantiate that Mr. Jaswant is no longer working with ICICI Bank and that he was working there on a temporary basis as per tender.
31. While determining whether a member of a family is dependent upon the landlord, it needs to be ascertained whether such family member is already employed or not. Moreover, it is the petitioner's case that her son is unemployed and since this has been denied by the respondent by placing on record documentary evidence, the petitioner must also establish by placing on record material and documents like Income Tax Return of Mr. Jaswant to substantiate that her claim of Mr. Jaswant being unemployed is true. In case her averments are not found to be true, her requirement cannot be held to be honest and bonafide.
32. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Davinder Kumar Chadha Vs Pushpa Rani Sahani RC. Rev. 133/2012 decided on 11.02.2015 in which the following was held:
"Indubitably in an eviction petition, the landlord need not disclose all its immovable assets however, it has to disclose those facts which are essential for the Court to ascertain that Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 12 of 28 13 neither the landlord nor the dependant for whom he is seeking eviction of the tenanted premises has any other suitable accommodation".
33. For the court to determine whether the alleged need of the petitioner is bonafide, the petitioner ought to have disclosed better details of her requirement. In the case of Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand (1983) 1 SCC 301, it was held that in a case for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, the burden is on the landlord to prove his requirement and his assertion is required to be tested. In the case of S.R. Dutta vs Chunni Lal Bhatia 1981 (2) DRJ 43, the following was held:
"TA, claim eviction the landlord has to plead facts in support of his alleged requirement. He has to prove those facts if denied by the tenant. The landlord has to plead the members of his family and their requirement together with status and other facts on the basis of which he claims eviction. He has to allege the existing accommodation preferably supported by the plan of premises available to him for residence. In the present case, the respondent only pleaded that he required the premises for his daughter for whose benefit he was folding the premises. He did not plead that he required the premises for his daughter as a member of his family or as a dependent on him. He did not Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 13 of 28 14 plead that he required the premises for his grand daughter or son- in-law. He did not plead that the daughter or granddaughter were residing with him. He did not plead that the daughter and/or son-in-law were required to stay in the house to look after him and his wife in old age. Evidence recorded on these facts, not pleaded, cannot be looked into."
34. Even in the case of Davinder Kumar Chadha & Anr. Vs. Pushpa Rani Sahni, RC Rev. No. 133/2012 dated 11.02.2015, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the landlord has to disclose those facts which are essential for the Court to ascertain his bonafide. On plain reading of the case of the petitioner, there are certain questions that will come to any reasonable person's mind of which there is no answer in either the eviction petition or even in the reply to the application for leave to defend. It was incumbent for the petitioner to disclose the circumstances, preferably by placing material on record because even the respondents have filed documents in support of their contention that Mr. Jaswant is employed.
35. Mr. Jaswant is stated to have two sons and one daughter. It is the case of the petitioner that Mr. Jaswant is unemployed since 5-6 years. It has not been disclosed as to what Mr. Jaswant has been doing during these 5-6 Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 14 of 28 15 years for supporting his family financially and what has been his source of income before and after his employment with the ICICI Bank. Mr. Jaswant is evidently a grown up man having a family. It has been held in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. Inder Saran & Ors., 1979 (1) RCR (Rent) 602 that the Court needs to assess the case of the petitioner with the objective criteria of a reasonable person subject to the prevalent socio-economic conditions.On plain reading of the eviction petition, the question will arise in one's mind as to how Mr. Jaswant has been maintaining his family. This question remains unanswered by the petitioner despite the respondents taking an objection in this regard.
36. The petitioner would have filed the Income Tax Returns of Mr. Jaswant and documents pertaining to his stint with ICICI Bank, if her case was bonafide and her claim of Mr. Jaswant facing financial hardship were true.
37. There is no document on record to show that Mr. Jaswant is facing any financial difficulties and is unemployed. There is no reason to disbelieve the respondent who has placed documents on record regarding employment of Mr. Jaswant. He is admittedly not residing with the petitioner and resides on Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 15 of 28 16 the second floor of the building with his wife and children. Therefore, in view of the decision in the case of Jagdish Lal Khorana Vs Hemant Arora 2013 I AD (Delhi) 404, Mr. Jaswant is not dependent upon the petitioner. In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court doubted the dependence of the sons over their landlord father since they were settled in business and were not living with their father.
38. Which member of the family of the landlord is dependent on him depends on the facts of the case. The concept of family is not rigid and one cannot say that a son is always dependent upon his family. It depends on the circumstances of the family. In the case of J.K. Saxena vs Shri Madan Lal Khurana 1998 RLR 640, the following was held:
"However, the concept of "family" is not that rigid as to always exclude such relations from the family in as much as there can be genuine cases where people in that category also require help in their old age...This Court in the judgment reported as R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Smt. Sushila Bhargava and another clearly defined the concept of the "family". Operative portion of paragraph 8 of the judgment reads as follows:Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 16 of 28 17
"It is now well settled that the expression "family" has to be interpreted reasonably and fairly giving due regard to the social, religious and economic conditions of life in our country as also peculiar circumstances of each case. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Dass Vs. Kuldip Singh, an extended meaning is to be given to the word "family".
Observed the Division Bench:
"The word "family" has not been defined in the Act and we feel advisedly so. The concept of what constitutes family when a number of persons are related or are living together is not something static or capable of concise definition. What constitutes a family in a given set of circumstances or in a particular society depends upon the habits and ideas of persons constituting that society and the religious and socio-religious customs of the community to which such persons may belong.""Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 17 of 28 18
39. It is general practice that when a child starts working and is not facing any financial difficulty and is living separately, he ceases to be dependent upon his parents. Only when he faces any financial problems that he may seek financial help from his parents. In the present case, it is in doubt whether Mr. Jaswant is indeed unemployed and is facing difficulty financially.
40. It is the case of the petitioner that her son Mr. Jaswant have experience of 5-6 years in the business of respondent. It has not been disclosed as to when and how Mr. Jaswant got such experience in the business of manufacturing and wholesale of jeans. His other employment disclosed by the respondent which is/was in a bank is quite different from the business of manufacturing and selling jeans.
41. In the case of Ajit Singh Vs. Inder Saran & Ors., 1979 (1) RCR (Rent) 602, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the expression 'required' in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act appears to signify more than a mere whim, a wish or a desire. It was held that the expression 'bonafide' implies an element of honesty or, to put it differently, the absence of any ulterior motivation. It was held that the words therefore signify an honestly Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 18 of 28 19 felt need of an owner. It was further held that the Court is duty bound to ensure that the claim of the owner is confined within a broad reasonable limit. It was held that the need of owner has to be determined on the basis of an objective criteria of the need of a reasonable person subject to the prevalent socio-economic conditions.
42. In the case of Shiv Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 AIR (SC) 2507, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Chambers 20 th Century Dictionary defines 'bonafide' to mean 'in good faith: genuine'. The word 'genuine' means 'natural: not spurious : real ; pure : sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. It was held that bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. It was observed that a requirement in a sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. It was held that the judge of facts should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord, the need to occupy the premises can be said to Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 19 of 28 20 be natural, real, sincere, honest.
43. It is stated in the application for leave to defend that it was only a few months back that remaining portion of the ground floor of the building where the tenanted premises is situated and its basement were rented out by the petitioner to the tenants Devinder and Deepak at high rates of rent. Even though the petitioner has denied these assertions, she has not disclosed as to when tenancy was created in these parts of property, if not just a few months back.
44. It is stated in the application for leave to defend that the rate of rent of premises shown in yellow color in the site plan with the tenant Mr. Devinder is about Rs.45,000/- per month. It is further stated that the premises shown in blue color which is also with the tenant Mr. Devinder has been given at monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-. It is averred that the rate of rent of the basement is about Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner has also denied these assertions of the respondents but has not disclosed as to what is the rate of rent in these parts of property.
Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 20 of 28 21
45. These denials of the petitioner are evasive denials in view of Order 8 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure. In view of this provision of law, the petitioner ought to have disclosed in the reply to the application for leave to defend the time when tenancy in these parts of property were created and what is its rate of rent. Since the petitioner has concealed these material facts, an adverse inference can be drawn against her. In view of the concealment by the petitioner, it appears that the claim of the respondents that the other parts of the ground floor and the basement of the building have been rented out only recently is correct. This creates a doubt on the bonafide need for the tenanted premises for Mr. Jaswant to do a business. If he indeed wanted to do a business, he would have used the shop adjacent to the tenanted premises which is shown in yellow color in the site plan, instead of renting it to Mr. Devinder.
46. In the case of Manchukonda Sriniwasam Vs. Vempolu Brahmananda Rao, CRP No. 3292 of 2000 dated 10.02.2013, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held the following:
"No reasons are forth coming from the petitioner/landlord for his not occupying the shop vacated by G. Sanyasirao. On thorough Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 21 of 28 22 reading evidence of PW-1 I am in no doubt to conclude that the requirement of the premises in occupation of the respondent/tenant by the petitioner/landlord is not bonafide".
47. The petitioner has not filed any document including rent agreement and rent receipts of the premises rented out to Mr. Devinder and Mr. Deepak to substantiate that these are old tenancies and have not been rented out to them only a few months prior to filing the present eviction petition. Such evidence could have only been produced by the petitioner and not by the respondents. The fact that such material has not been placed on record indicates that the claim of the respondent that it was just a few months prior to filing eviction petition that property was rented out to Mr. Devinder and Mr. Deepak. No reason has been furnished for Mr. Jaswant not occupying the shops which have been rented out to Mr. Devinder and Mr. Deepak. Therefore, the requirement of the petitioner cannot be said to be bonafide.
48. The respondents have filed copy of the no objection certificate given by Mr. Jaswant for Mr. Devinder to start business from the premises given to him on rent. In this document, Mr. Jaswant has stated that he is the owner of the said premises. If Mr. Jaswant indeed wanted to start a business, he would Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 22 of 28 23 have used the premises himself instead it giving on rent to Mr. Devinder.
49. This court is of the view that the landlord being the best judge of his requirement is not an absolute principle of law. The court is required to check the bonafide of the alleged requirement of petitioner for seeking possession of the tenanted premises. In this context, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Khem Chand & Ors. vs Arjun Jain & Ors. Rev. No.442/2012 dated 13 September, 2013. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the following in this case:
"39. It is true that there are other cases where in the appropriate facts the courts have held that the landlord is the best judge to decide his convenience. The said are the line of the cases where the landlord is put to the extreme hardship by tenant's insistence that he should adjust to inconvenient premises by squeezing his needs. The facts of the present case are entirely different where the landlord is enjoying the property with in the same location though as a tenant coupled with another property lying vacant within the same location though on the different floor owned by the landlord himself where the business can be carried out as per the market conditions and thereafter the Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 23 of 28 24 landlord is seeking to vacate the third property in the same location on the basis of bonafide need and non availability of the alternative accommodation which raises the doubt on the need of the landlord as not felt need but fanciful desire. ... It is not the thumb rule that in every case the landlord always is the best judge and the court is helpless by not scrutinizing the stand of the tenant while testing the reasonableness and suitability of the alternative accommodation. Actually it depends upon the case to case basis. The courts have otherwise also held consistently that even though the landlord is the best judge to decide his needs and he cannot be compelled by the tenant to accommodate at the place which is lesser in any way than the place which is sought to be evicted, still the court would examine the reasonableness and suitability of the existing accommodation by weighing what is available with the landlord vis-à-vis the plea of the tenant.
...42. The Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar lal, AIR 1981 SC 1113 which is a three bench decision passed by the court speaking through Hon'ble Desai, J. (as His Lordship then was) has categorically flawed this approach of mechanically stating that the landlord is the best judge without applying a judicious approach in the matter."Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 24 of 28 25
50. The very purpose of creation of machinery of Rent Controllers and Additional Rent Controllers, is that the plea of the landlord is to be tested on the anvil of bonafide. The ground on which the landlord is seeking eviction of tenant has thus been put to test and this itself implies that the grounds urged have to be carefully scrutinized rather than being accepted on face value. It cannot be held that it is entirely a choice of the petitioner to have chosen the tenanted premises for Mr. Jaswant and not the premises that have been rented out to Mr. Devinder and Mr. Deepak.
51. The aforesaid decisions makes it incumbent for the court to analyse the alleged requirement of the landlord and assess if it is natural, real, sincere and honest. The petitioner has admitted that her son Mr. Nand Kishore is employed in District Alwar which is in Rajasthan. Yet she claims that he and his family are residing on third floor of the building. Mr. Nand Kishore is admittedly working as a teacher in a government school. It is unlikely that he travels to Alwar everyday from his residence in Delhi. Therefore, the correctness of the assertion of the petitioner that Mr. Nand Kishore and his family are occupying the third floor is doubtful.
Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 25 of 28 26
52. The court can infer dishonesty and concealment on the part of the petitioner. If the petitioner had nothing to hide and her case was bonafide, she should have come out and disclosed all material facts.
53. In the case of Liaq Ahmed and Ors. Vs Habeeb-Ur-Rehman (2000) 5 SCC 708, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rent control legislations seek to strike a balance between the rights of the landlord and requirements of the tenant. It was held that the purpose of the legislation should not be nullified by giving hyper technical or liberal construction to the language of the statute which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in its frustration. It was observed that Rent Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection to the tenants and with paramount object of essentially safeguarding their interest and their benefit. It was held that a rational approach should be followed in interpreting the law relating to control of tenants.
54. The prime question to be answered is that whether the tenanted premises is required bonafide by the landlord for use of her son Mr. Jaswant who is allegedly dependent upon her. As has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 26 of 28 27 High Court in the aforesaid case of Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. Arjun Jain & Ors., the court has to assess the case of the landlord from common man's perspective and prudence. In the present case, if view from a common man's prospective, it remains doubtful if Mr. Jaswant is indeed unemployed and is dependent upon the petitioner for accommodation for running a business.
55. If on such vague pleas as is taken in the present eviction petition, tenant protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act is allowed to be evicted, it would frustrate the very purpose of the enactment of the beneficial legislation, since every landlord can take such a plea that he wants his property for business or residence without giving any further details and this plea would, if the case of the petitioner's contention is accepted, would be judicially inscrutable.
56. Since the petitioner has failed to place on record any document which controverts the allegation that Mr. Jaswant is employed, a doubt has been created on whether he is indeed unemployed and dependent upon the petitioner. Thus a triable issue has arisen in this regard and also on whether Mr. Jaswant indeed wishes to start a business.
Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 27 of 28 28
57. Triable issues have been raised by the respondents and there are sufficient grounds which entitle the respondents to have leave to defend and contest the present eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act of the petitioner.
58. Accordingly, the application of the respondents seeking leave to defend is allowed. Let the written statement be filed within 30 days from today after supplying advance copy to the petitioner. Replication be filed within 30 days from receiving copy of the written statement after supplying advance copy to the respondents.
59. To come up for petitioners' evidence on 28.08.2018. Advance copy of evidence by way of affidavit be supplied to the respondent at least 7 days prior to the next date of hearing. Digitally signed by SHIRISH SHIRISH AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2018.06.08 18:28:35 +0530 SHIRISH AGGARWAL ARC-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court on 8th June, 2018) Eviction petition No. 253/13 Kishni Devi Vs Satpal Sachdeva & Anr. Page 28 of 28