Delhi District Court
Chhanna Mal vs Mata Prasad on 17 August, 2020
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN GOEL, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGECUMCCJCUMARC (NORTH WEST),
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
E. No. : 37/18
Chhanna Mal
S/o. Late Sh. Jagan Nath,
R/o. House No. 1135/74,
Deva Ram Park,
Tri Nagar,
Delhi110 035. ...Petitioner
Versus
Mata Prasad
S/o. Sh. Ram Din,
C/o. Private Shop No. 1 & 2
in property no. 1135/74,
Deva Ram Park,
Tri Nagar,
Delhi110 035.
...Respondent
Date of Institution : 03.07.2018
Date of Arguments : 30.07.2020
Date of Decision : 17.08.2020
E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 1
2
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1) (e) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application for grant of leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent.
2. The brief facts are that Smt. Sukh Devi/grand mother of the petitioner and Sh. Jagan Ram/father of the petitioner were the joint owners of the property bearing No. 1135, Gali No. 74, Deva Ram Park, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035 which was purchased by them through registered sale deed dt. 24.02.1956. Sh. Jagan Nath had expired on 29.11.1978 and Smt. Sukh Devi had expired on 04.11.1980. Sh. Jagan Nath was the only son of Smt. Sukh Devi and Sugan Chand/grand father of the petitioner. Sh. Jagan Nath had expired on 03.04.1974 leaving behind six sons and six daughters namely petitioner/Chhanna Mal, Govind Ram, Kedar Nath, Trilok Chand, Madan Gopal, Braham Prakash. Smt. Vimla Devi, Smt. Mahendri Kumar, Smt. Prakasho Devi, Smt. Gomti Devi, Smt. Radha Rani and Smt. Krishna Devi. It is further stated that Sh. Madan Gopal, Smt. Krishna Devi, Smt. Vimla Devi and Smt. Meenu executed a relinquishment deed dt. 09.08.2016 E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 2 3 regarding their respective shares in favour of the petitioner and Sh. Trilok Chand registered on 10.08.2016. Smt. Prakasho Devi and Smt. Gomti Devi executed relinquishment deed dt. 21.09.2016 in favour of the petitioner and his brother Trilok Chand. Smt. Radha Rani also executed relinquished her share vide relinquishment deed dt. 17.07.2017 in favour of the petitioner and his brother Sh. Trilok Chand, therefore, the petitioner and his brothers namely Trilok Chand and Govind Ram became cosharers in the suit property.
3. It is further stated that Sh. Madan Gopal also executed relinquishment deed in favour of the petition and his brother regarding the suit property. The suit property was constructed upto the second floor wherein Sh. Govind Ram, Sh. Trilok Chand and the petitioner are residing. The suit property consisting of two shops at the ground floor out of which one shop is shown in green colour in the site plan was let out to Smt. Kiran Devi against whom eviction order has been passed. The said shop has been handed over back to the petitioner where the petitioner is doing the business of selling vegetables. The shop shown in red colour in the site plan is in possession of the respondent (herein after referred as 'tenanted premises'). The said shop was converted in one shop by joining two shops by the respondent. The petitioner had filed the petition under Section 14 (c) & (j) of the DRC Act E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 3 4 against the respondent which was dismissed by the court of Ld. ARC. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Ld. RCT. The said judgment has attained finality and consolidated rent of Rs. 586/ p.m. is being deposited by the respondent in the account of the petitioner. It is further stated that his family consist of himself/petitioner, his wife namely Kanchan Devi, four major sons namely Tej Singh, Bharat Bhushan, Ganga Singh and Pankaj and one married daughter namely Jaimala.
4. It is further stated that petitioner and his four sons are doing the business of selling vegetables. The petitioner along with his younger son Pankaj is running business of selling vegetables from the ground floor shop vacated by Smt. Kiran Devi while three sons of the petitioner namely Tej Singh, Ganga Singh and Bharat Bhushan are selling vegetables at the footpath near Talab Road (beind Vardhman Vatika), Tri Nagar, Delhi. They are continuously facing problem in running their business on account of prohibition by the civic authorities. They have not been able to carry out their business properly. Their vegetable are getting destroyed by rain as well as sun light. It is further stated that Bharat Bhushan/son of the petitioner is aged about 34 years and petitioner wants to get him married. He does not have continuous source of income. Hence, the petitioner requires the tenanted premises, for his three sons namely Tej Singh, Ganga Singh and E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 4 5 Bharat Bhushan who want to run business of selling fruits and grocery items from the tenanted premises, under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act for bonafide requirement of his sons. Hence the present petition.
5. After service of the summons of the eviction petition, the leave to defend/contest was filed by the respondent. In the leave to defend application, the ownership of the petitioner and relationship of landlord tenant has not been disputed by the respondent, however, he has raised dispute about bonafide requirement as well as availability of the alternative shop with the petitioner.
The respondent has submitted that there were two separate tenancy in respective shops no. 1 & 2 and as such a single petition has been filed by the petitioner in respect of two shops, which is not maintainable. The respondent further stated that an eviction petition was filed by the petitioner against Smt. Kiran Devi on the ground that he wants to run business of selling vegetable. The petition was allowed and the requirement of the petitioner for having a shop for running business of vegetables stands satisfied. It is further stated that the earlier eviction petition against Smt. Kiran Devi was filed for running of vegetable shop, however, petitioner is selling milk in the said vacated shop. The respondent has also argued that he has paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/ to the petitioner at the time of commencing E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 5 6 of tenancy and the petitioner is liable to return the same. The respondent has further alleged that son of the petitioner are doing business of selling vegetables from permanent site of vegetables market of Tri Nagar. It is further submitted that the Tehbazari from where petitioner's son are running vegetables are protected by the association of vegetables vendors hence, the arguments of the petitioner that they are being harassed by civic authorities is not tenable. It is prayed by the respondent that his leave to defend application be allowed and also opportunity to lead evidence be given to him.
6. Reply to the leave to defend application has been filed on behalf of petitioner wherein he has reasserted the fact as stated in his petition and denied the contents of leave to defend filed by the respondent.
7. Rejoinder was also filed on behalf of respondent wherein he has reiterated the facts as alleged in his leave to defend application.
8. I have heard Sh. S.D.Dixit, adv. for the petitioner and Sh. V.P.Katiyar, adv. for the respondent perused the record carefully.
E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 6 79. The petition under Section 14 (1) (e) and leave to defend filed under Section 25 (B) of DRC Act has to be decided on the following parameters :
i) The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the landlord being the owner of the premises
ii) Bonafide requirement of the landlord for the tenanted premises and
iii) No other alternative accommodation being available with the landlord so as to satisfy his/her requirement RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT
10. In the present case, petitioner has claimed that he is a landlord of the tenanted premises and the same has been let out to the respondent at monthly rent of Rs. 560/ p.m. The respondent has not denied the ownership of the petitioner as well as relationship of landlordtenant between the parties. He has admitted the petitioner to be his landlord as well as owner of the tenanted premises. The petitioner has also filed on record the copies of sale deed regarding the suit property which was executed in favour of Sh. Jagan Nath and Smt. Sukh Devi. He has also filed relinquishment deed wherein the other legal heirs relinquished their share with regard to the suit property in favour of the petitioner and his brother. In that case the petitioner E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 7 8 has been able to satisfy his ownership qua the suit property as far as the DRC Act is concerned.
Another legal objection was also raised by the respondent stating that the petitioner has filed the single eviction petition regarding two shops as such a single petition regarding two shops is not maintainable. It is stated that the petitioner is having two shops for tenancy and the petitioner by filing this petition is claiming the eviction of both the shops.
11. The petitioner, on the other hand, has stated that he has previously filed the separate eviction petition on the ground of misuse under Section 14 (1 ) (c) & (j) of the DRC Act and the same was dismissed. In the said petition, the petitioner has claimed that partition wall between two shops was removed by the respondent and two shops were merged into single shop. He has sought vacation on the said account. The petition was dismissed. The appeal against the same was also dismissed. The same fact has not been denied by the respondent. Infact it will be useful to have paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit along with leave to defend with us. The paragraph no.8 of the affidavit filed along with the leave to defend application is reproduced as under :
"8. The the deponent was having only one shop in the premises. Through a writing dated 21.08.1989, the E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 8 9 petitioner agreed to let out the second shop on receiving the premium(pagri) of Rs. 60,000/ and Rs. 5,000/ was paid on 21.08.1989 and remaining Rs. 55,000/ was paid on 17.09.1989. After paying Rs. 60,000/ to the petitioner, the deponent has removed the middle wall and converted two shop in one shop by using two Garters of 17 feet length costing Rs. 12,000/, two garters of 9 feet length costing Rs. 8000/. The wooden doors were taken by the petitioner and shatters were installed having the cost of Rs. 15,000/ and Rs. 20,000/ was paid to the mason and in purchasing the raw material, total Rs. 55,000/ was spent. This fact of premium and converting two shops into one shop was confirmed by the court of Sh. Tarun Sherawat, ARC, Delhi in his judgment dated 22.4.2009 while dismissing the petition of the petitioner. This fact was also confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal in Appeal filed by the petitioner vide RCT NO. 30396/2016. The appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal vide Judgment dated 20.01.2018, thereby confirming the dismissal order passed by the Ld. ARC. The petitioner has filed the certified copies of the judgment yet the respondent is also filed the photo copies of receipts dated 21.08.1989 and 17.09.1989 issued by the petitioner and also filing the certified copies of the judgment dated 20.4.2009 passed by Sh. Tarun Sherawat, ARC (North), Delhi and the certified copy of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Rent Controller on 20.01.2018. It is respectfully submitted that before seeking the eviction, the petitioner is liable to pay/return Rs. 60,000/ + Rs. 50,000/, total Rs. 1,10,000/ with interest @ 24% per annum w.e.f. 17.09.1989. Certified E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 9 10 copies of judgment dated 22.4.2009 and 20.01.2018 are annexed herewith. '' Perusal of the above stated paragraph reveals that the respondent himself is admitting that two shops were converted into one shop and the same was confirmed by Ld. ARC as well as Ld. Appellate Court. In that case, the objection raised by the respondent that the petitioner is claiming eviction of two shops is not tenable. The separate tenancy of two shops stands merged into a single tenancy of one big shop. Hence, the eviction petition is maintainable.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT OF THE LANDLORD
12. The issue of the bonafide requirement of the landlord and grounds of leave to defend has to be decided on the basis of principles as laydown by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in landmark case titled as Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand 1983 1 SCC 301. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced herein :
"The genesis of our procedural laws is to be traced to principles of natural justice, the principal amongst them being that no one shall suffer civil or evil or pecuniary consequence at his back without giving him an adequate and effective opportunity to participate to E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 10 11 disprove the case against him and provide his own case. Summary procedure does not clothe an authority with power to enjoy summary dismissal. Undoubtedly wholly frivolous defence may not entitle a person leave to defend. But equally a triable issue raised, enjoins a duty to grant leave. May be in the end the defence may fail. It is necessary to bear in mind that when leave to defend is refused the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments of the opposite party by crossexamination and rival affidavits may not furnish reliable evidence for concluding the point one way or the other. It is not for a moment suggested that leave to defend must be granted on mere asking but it is equally improper to refused to grant leave though triable issues are raised and the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through crossexamination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits......"
13. Petitioner has claimed the tenanted premises is bonafidely required for his three sons namely Tej Singh, Bharat Bhushan, Ganga Singh who are running their business from footpath and they intend to run business of vegetables from the tenanted premises.
During arguments, it was claimed on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has failed to show that there is any bonafide requirement of suit property. It was stated that there is no specific mention that the son of the petitioner are dependent upon the petitioner. It is E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 11 12 also contented by respondent that there is no bonafide requirement since the claim of the petitioner is based only on desire rather than need. It is contented eviction can be granted only on ground need not desire.
14. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to discuss the relevant part of the petition filed before us wherein the petitioner has mentioned all the facts regarding requirement of his sons with regard to the suit property. The relevant paragraph of the petition are reproduced as under :
"12. That the petitioner's said three sons, namely, Sh. Tej Singh, Sh. Ganga Singh and Sh. Bharat Bhushan have been continuously facing problem in running their business (on account of prohibition by the civic authorities of occupying the patri for selling vegetables), therefore, they have been finding it difficult to earn their livelihood. The said three sons of the petitioner have not been able to carry out their business continuously because M.C.D./police officials stop them from doing so. As it is open, the said three sons of the petitioner cannot carry out their business activity during rain/scorching heat of summers also. Whenever it rains, the vegetables get destroyed or are flown away in the dirty water. Similarly in the summers, the vegetables get destroyed in the open sun. Even MCD and police officials sometimes take away the weighing scale etc. of the petitioner's son and further issue a E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 12 13 challan to them. The circumstances in which the said three sons of the petitioner are working are beyond description. By running their business of selling vegetables from the shop, the petitioner's sons can avoid the said problems.
13. That Sh. Bharat Bhushan, the son of the petitioner is 34 years. The petitioner intends to get him married but due to lack of continuous source of income, the petitioner and other family member have not been able to find a suitable match for him. Sh. Bharat Bhushan is also selling vegetables on the patri/footpath and facing the wrath of the police/civic authorities who are always trying to stop him from carrying out his business on the road/patri. The petitioner has been requesting the respondent to vacate the tenanted shop, but the respondent has failed to do so. The petitioner requires the tenanted shop bonafidely for his said three sons, namely, Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Sh. Ganga Singh and Tej Singh who want to run their business of selling vegetables, fruits and/or grocery items in the tenanted shop, if the same is made available to them.
14. That the tenanted shop is suitable for carrying out the business of selling vegetables, fruits and/or grocery items by the said three sons of the petitioner as the same opens on the main road and is measuring 15'4" X 8'7". It is important to mention here that Sh. Ganga Singh and Sh. Tej Singh are married. Sh. Tej Singh is having the responsibility of maintaining their wives and children (Sh Tej Singh has two minor E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 13 14 school going sons). The said three sons of the petitioner have not been able to earn sufficient income by selling vegetables on the patri/footpath but they can become the responsible citizens by carrying out their business activities of selling fruits, vegetables and/or grocery items etc. from the tenanted shop. "
15. It is well settled law that the petition has to be read in whole. The facts averred in the petition clearly shows that the petition has been filed for the bona fide requirement of the sons of the petitioner. It is specifically stated that the son of petitioner are facing difficulty in running the business of vegetable from footpath. There vegetables are getting spoiled due to vagaries of weather and they are being harassed by civic authorities. They are not having continuous source of income. One of the son of petitioner wants to get married and settle in life by establishing business in the tenanted premises. These facts clearly establishes that the petition is based on need rather that desire.
16. It was also contended that the petitioner has not mentioned that sons of the petitioner are not dependent upon the petitioner. An eviction can only be allowed if the same is required for family member who are dependent upon the petitioner. It was also averred that the son of the petitioner are independent and earning handsome amount. However, the E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 14 15 respondent has filed on record any document or bank statement to show the earning of the son of the petitioner. The law regarding eviction on ground of requirement of family member has been discussed in the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Harminder Singh Vs. Afsar Khan Rc. Rev.69/2017 decided on: 10.032017 wherein it was held that :
"7. Similarly, this court in the case of Puran Chand Aggarwal vs. Lekh Raj, 210(2014) DLT 131 held as follows: "36. It is also settled principle of law that the landlord is entitled to seek eviction of tenanted premises not only for himself/herself, but for other dependant family members. There is no dispute that the parents are under moral obligation to help establish their sons in business and can seek eviction of the tenanted premises for them. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, IV (2002) SLT 27= (2002) 5 SCC 397, where the Supreme Court held that:
The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfill the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use......... Keeping in view the social or socioreligious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 15 16 particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be the obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord.
Some of the other judgments which deal with the similar issue are:
i) Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons. vs. Krishna Luthra, 2010 (172) DLT 551, wherein it was observed that the requirement of the landlord to settle down her two sons separately and independently was found to be genuine and bonafide.
ii) In Labhu Lal vs. Sandhya Gupta, 2010 (173) DLT 318, it was observed that the landlord's son and daughter in law are dependent for accommodation on respondent the requirement of the landlord's son and daughter in law for expanding clinic being run in premises in question is genuine.
iii) In Sh. Ravinder Singh v. Sh. Deepesh Khorana (RC. Rev. No. 3/2011, Date of decision: 10th December, 2012), it was observed that the son of the respondent is unemployed and is dependent on respondent for his livelihood. It is nothing but bona fide for the respondent to require the suit shop to set up a computer business for his son and to help him find a source of income and subsequently settle down in life.E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 16 17
iv) In Brij Mohan vs. Shri Pal Jain, 49 (1993) DLT 543, it was observed that it is settled law that grown up children require separate rooms to live in a manner he or she likes.
v) In Ram Babu Aggarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, 2009 (2) RCR 455, the court recognized the right of the landlord for possession of his property for setting up a business for his son."
8. This Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. Deepika Verma, 224 (2015) DLT 473 elaborated the concept of dependent as stated in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and noted as follows: "12. Customarily or in common parlance a dependent would be defined as any person who is reliant on another either for financial or physical support for sustenance of life. It is pertinent to note that the word dependent or as to what constitutes a family has nowhere been defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act. Rather, the legislators consciously and deliberately have used the words "any member of family dependent on the landlord" instead of defining a clear degree of relations so as to construe a wider meaning to the aforesaid words as man is a social creature and part of a complex societal system involving myriad of relations from which he cannot be isolated. It is significant to understand that the dependency is not restricted to financial or physical but will also include emotional reliance on another person. Reliance in this regard is placed on the findings of this court in M/S. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. B.K. Soni; AIR E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 17 18 1994 Delhi 167, wherein the court observed that the social set up of our society is such where a married daughter continues to enjoy a place of pride in her maternal home and therefore while considering the requirement of the landlord her married daughter and her expected visits cannot be lost sight of. Similarly in Sain Dass v. Madan Lal; 1972 Ren CJ (SN) 8 (Delhi), this Court has acknowledged that the word "himself" has to be construed to mean "himself" as cohabiting with his family members with whom he is normally accustomed to live. Therefore, contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner financial or physical incapacitation cannot be the sole premises for determining dependency on another.
13. The Honorable Supreme Court in Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. The Nagpur Handloom Cloth Market Co. Ltd., AIR (1963) SC 1192 while interpreting the word "Family" observed as under :
"But the expression 'family' has according to the contest in which it occurs, a variable connotation. It does not in the setting of the rules postulate the existence of relationship either of blood or by marriage between the persons residing in the tenement Even a single person may be regarded as a family, and a master and servant would also be so regarded."
14. As it crystallizes from the aforesaid the word dependent cannot be constructed in a narrow and literal manner. The same have to be interpreted judiciously keeping in mind the E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 18 19 intent of the legislators. As discussed above the words used under S.14 (1) (e), are "any member of family dependent on him" which would include the daughter in law who in the instant matter is dependent on her mother in law/landlady (respondent herein) and on account of sharing of residence both the daughter in law and the respondent are physically, emotionally and financially interdependent."
9. Hence, the phrase "any member of the family dependent upon him" could include the „son‟. It is clear that a father is under a moral obligation to establish his son in a business and can seek eviction of the tenanted premises for him. The finding recorded by the ARC, namely, that a person holding a degree in engineering cannot be said to be dependent upon his father is an observation which is contrary to the settled legal position......"
Reliance is also placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as M/s. Khem Chand Ramesh Kumar Vs. Vijay Mehra & Ors. 347/2014 decided on 30.10.2014 wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has discussed about financial independence of the family members. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under :
"The next argument which is urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the sons of the respondent no.1 are financially independent and therefore respondent no.1 cannot claim any accommodation for her sons.E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 19 20
(ii) This argument in my opinion need not detain me because now in a catena of judgments it has been held by the Supreme Court that merely because the children are financially independent, will not mean that they are not family members, and that it is settled law that a landlord/landlady even with respect to needs of their children who are financially independent can surely require accommodation for their family members. After all, when persons live in a society, surely it is most incongruous to hold that merely because children become financial independent, parents would not like to provide them with accommodation if and once the parents do have accommodation for the needs and requirements of their family members. This argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is also therefore rejected."
17. Perusal of the above judgment clearly reveals that financial dependency of family member is not a required to be proved by the petitioner. The requirement of son of the petitioner to establish the business clearly falls within the bonafide requirement as laid down under the DRC Act. Herein the petitioner is claiming the requirement of the tenanted premises for his sons who want to establish business of selling vegetables who are running their business from the footpath. This fact stand also proved from the photographs filed by respondent which shows that son of the petitioner are running business from footpath. It is also stated in the petition E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 20 21 that one of the sons of the petitioner is unmarried and is unable to have continuous sources of income. This clearly proves that they are dependent upon the petitioner for satisfying their requirement of suit property to establish their business. Reliance is also placed on judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Rajiv Sindhwani Vs. Kishan Chand Saini cited as 2012 (190) DLT 756 wherein Hon'ble High Court has observed as under : " In the present case, no such triable issue has arisen. It has come on record that the petitioner is carrying on his business from a small pavement the fact that there is only one shop on the ground floor is evident from the site plan. The second son of the landlord Shashi Kant is also unemployed and the divorcee daughter of the landlord also wishes to start her beauty parlour; in this background, the prima facie need of the landlord of the aforenoted premises has been established as a bonafide need; no triable issue has arisen on this Court".
18. Respondent has also contented in the previous eviction petition filed against tenant Smt. Kiran Devi, the ground for eviction was to set up vegetable business. However after eviction the petitioner started the business of milk. Hence present petition is not maintainable. This contention is not tenable. The landlord is not bound to set up the same business on the basis E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 21 22 of which eviction is sought. It is his discretion to use the premises best suited to his needs.
Reliance is a also placed on the judgment pass by Hon'ble Delhi High court in case titled as Batuk Prasad Jaitly Vs. Rajesh Chugh and Anr. cited as 240 (2017) DTL 695 wherein Hon'ble High Court has observed as under : "15. The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Khaitan & Ors. vs. Bib Zubaida Khatun & Anr. (1997) 11 SCC 411 dealing with an eviction petition where no specific pleadings were made regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord, held as follows: "4. It is clear from the averments made in the above quoted paragraphs that the plaintiffs asserted that there was no other means of livelihood with them and as such they wanted to set up their own business in the premises in dispute. The High Court, however, came to the conclusion that apart from above quoted pleadings it was necessary to plead the nature of the business which the appellants plaintiffs wanted to start in the premises. We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error. It was not necessary for the appellants landlords to indicate the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of business would have been indicated nobody could bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated."
E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 22 2316. Hence, the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for the landlord to indicate the precise nature of the business which he intends to start from the premises. Even if he has not stated the nature of the business, nobody can bind the landlord to start the same business in the premises after it is vacated."
19. It is also contended that in previous eviction petition, the eviction was sought on ground that shop is required for the petitioner as well as for his four sons. Now he has claimed the suit properly again for his three sons. However, there requirement stand satisfied with vacation of shop by Kirna Devi.
The petitioner has claimed that his family consists of five male members who want to run their business and he along with his son Pankaj is already running their business from the vacated shop. In that case, if three remaining sons want to independently run their business and become self dependent then the requirement for the shop cannot be denied. The sons of the petitioner has every right to extend their business and establish themselves independently from their father. Moreover, a single shop would not generate enough income to support five person each having a separate family. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Desh Raj Sharma Vs. Mohd. Sabir and Ors. cited E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 23 24 as RC/REV/600/2016 decided on 16.03.2018 wherein Hon'ble High Court has observed as under : "6. In the opinion of this Court, the revision petition is devoid of substance. It is not disputed that the family of the respondents (landlords) is a large one including 23 children out of which 9 have come of age, they being keen to establish themselves in some business to earn their livelihood. The contention of the respondents that fourth respondent is running a business from rented premises in Saidullajab area of Delhi has not been disputed.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that another tenant named Har Bhagwan Das who was in occupation of an adjoining shop had vacated and such premises was available as the suitable alternative accommodation. The Additional Rent Controller has examined this issue in the light of material on record. He has observed that the adjoining shop vacated by the other tenant Har Bhagwan Das is a very small premises. The need of the respondents is to establish their nine adult sons in business. All of them cannot be accommodated in just one small shop of that nature. This is why the respondents have explained that they intend joining the shop vacated by Har Bhagwan Das with the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner as it would then provide a suitable working space for the business of carpentry and furniture which is intended to be set up."
E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 24 2520. The respondent has also claimed that at the time of letting out of the tenanted premises , petitioner had received Rs.1,10,000/ as Pagri amount and he has no title right in the suit shop. This contention of the respondent is not tenable in view of Section 13 of DRC Act. Section 13 provides the remedy to the respondent for recovery of such amount.
21. The respondent has further claimed that the petitioner wants to evict him from the tenanted premises for purpose of reletting it at higher rent. In case the petitioner relets the property sufficient safeguard is provided under DRC Act to the respondent.
22. In view of the above stated discussion the petitioner has been able to satisfy the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises . Thus, the requirement which has been pleaded by the petitioner of suit shop for use of his son to open business cannot be termed as malafide or his desire only.
ALTERNATIVE ACCOMODATION
23. The last point which has to be considered is that no other reasonable alternative accommodation being available with the petitioner for satisfying his requirement.
E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 25 2624. The respondent has stated that alternate accommodation is available with the son of the petitioner as they have permanent site with tehbazari rights from which they are selling their vegetables. However, no document is produced to show such rights. The documents could have been easily procured from civic authority. Hence this contention is not tenable
25. Further, the other grounds which have been raised by the respondent in his leave to defend are not supported by any material on record but are mere bald assertions only. In this regard the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Krishan Kumar Gupta vs. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta 2008 152 DLT 556 is relevant. The relevant paragraph is reproduced herein under for the sake of convenience :
"All sorts of objections are generally raised whenever an eviction petition is filed by the landlord. Even the ownership of the landlord, the relationship of the landlordtenant, the purpose of letting and bonafide requirement are denied by the tenant and fake allegations are made that the landlord has other properties. Many allegations are raised only for the sake of raising. Unless, the learned ARC scrutinizes each of the objections raised by the tenant with the help of documents and the material placed on record, the entire purpose of providing summary proceedings in respect of the eviction proceedings fails. Thus, it is incumbent upon the ARC to scrutinize all objections E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 26 27 carefully in the light of law laid down and in the light of the material placed on record. It cannot be argued that the learned ARC was not required to go into the details of the objections and come to a conclusion on the basis of affidavits and once objections are raised leave to defend must be granted. Leave to defend can be granted only in those cases where the tenant is able to show by material on record that the petition was filed by the landlord malafidely. The facts stated by him about his age, family accommodation were false."
Thus, the said ground raised by the respondent also does not raise any triable issue and this contention that the petitioner is having alternative accommodation is not tenable.
26. Hence, this contention raised by the respondent does not arise any triable issue. In view of the above said, the respondent has failed to do any triable issue on which leave to defend can be granted in his favour. Hence, leave to defend application is dismissed. The petition of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is allowed. The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. shops no.1 & 2 measuring 15.4'' X 8.7' in property bearing No. 1135, Gali No. 74, Deva Ram Park, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035 as shown in red colour in the site plan. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 27 28 recovery of possession of the suit shop before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ARUN Digitally signed
by ARUN GOEL
Date: 2020.08.17
GOEL 14:23:07 +0530
Announced in the open court (ARUN GOEL)
on 17.08.2020 ACJCUMARC NORTHWEST
ROHINI COURTS/ DELHI.
(This judgment contains twenty eight pages and each page bears my signature.) E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 28 29 E. No. : 37/18 Chhanna Mal Vs. Mata Prasad 17.08.2020 Present: None Arguments on leave to defend application have already been heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, the petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the petitioner is allowed. The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e shops no.1 & 2 measuring 15.4'' X 8.7' in property bearing No. 1135, Gali No. 74, Deva Ram Park, Tri Nagar, Delhi110035 as shown in red colour in the site plan.
The order of eviction shall not be executable for the period of six months from today in terms of Section 14 (7) DRC Act.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(ARUN GOEL) ACJcumARC (North West) Rohini Courts, Delhi/17.08.2020 E. No. 37/18 Channa Mal vs. Mata Prasad 29