Delhi District Court
Manmeet Kaur vs Honey Daljeet Bsdi on 20 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SOUTH
DISTRICT COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, DELHI
- Presided by: PARAS DALAL, D.J.S.
RC ARC No. 3/2020
CNR No. DLST03-000302-2020
1. Manmeet Kaur D/o Late Sh. Onkar Singh
W/o Amarjeet Singh Lamba
R/o B-60, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi
2. Smt. Jaswant Kaur S/o Late Sh. Onkar Singh
R/o 1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi
........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Honey Daljit Bedi
S/o Late Sh. Daljit Singh Bedi
2 Sh. Joy Daljit Bedi
S/o Late Sh. Daljit Singh Bedi
R/o G-18, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi
.........Respondents
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 14(1)(e) READWITH SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
1. Date of Institution of Petition : 24.02.2020
2. Date of Order reserved : 06.04.2024
3. Date of Order : 20.04.2024 ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. Vide this order, the undersigned shall dispose of the leave to defend filed by the respondent against the petitioner U/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 read with Section 25-B of DRC Act (hereinafter referred RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 1 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
to as 'Act'), in respect of premises i.e. part of property no.1, Arjun Nagar, Kamal Cinema Road, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises).
2. The averments as mentioned in the petition are that originally tenancy was created by erstwhile owners Onkar Singh and Balbir Kaur and after their demise both petitioners being children/ class I heir obtained letter of administration qua the properties and hence the petitioners became owners and landlords of tenancy premises. The petitioners also alleged that the tenancy was attorned in favour of the petitioners, as petitioner no.2 used to collect rent from the respondents. Petitioner alleged that original tenant was Sh. Daljit Singh Bedi and after his demise his two sons/ respondents inherited the tenancy. The petitioner however alleged that on their visit, the tenancy was occupied by one Smt. Ramvati.
3. The petitioners however, have filed the present suit for the bonafide requirement of son of petitioner to expand/ set up his own business of catering, wherein he is working with his father Sh. Harbans at his catering business at 30/1, Double storey building, Ashok Nagar, Behind Tilak Nagar Metro Station, Gate no.3, New Delhi. The petitioners have alleged that the said catering business is being run on rented accommodation which is Rs.32,000/- per month and now the petitioner's son wants to expand his own business of catering in the area/ locality of tenanted premises.
4. The bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises is thus for own commercial purposes of the petitioner's son Sh. Japmeet Singh, aged about RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 2 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
26 years and he states that there is no reasonably suitable accommodation available with the petitioner for the bonafide requirement. Petitioner also submits that respondent are not occupying the tenanted premises themselves and have let it to one Smt. Ramwati.
5. The summons of the petition were served upon the respondents and respondents has filed application for leave to defend on 23.10.2020 however, the affidavit of only respondent no.2 was filed. The leave to defend application although mentions for respondents, however no affidavit of respondent no.1 is on record, nor any Vakalatnama is on record. The respondent no.2 has also not filed any authorisation or attorney on behalf of respondent no.1.
6. Respondent no.2 in his application for leave to defend has stated that the eviction petition is filed by the petitioner with the malafide intention and the requirement vis-a-vis the tenanted premises sought for in the petition is neither genuine nor proper and the circumstances is not bonafide and the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that the eviction petition is without any cause of action and not maintainable. It is alleged that after demise of Sh. Onkar Singh, the petitioner no.2 apprised respondent that he was sole owner and he would receive the rent qua the tenanted premises and as such petitioner no.1 neither appeared nor sought any rent and thus petitioner no.1 is complete stranger to the respondents and there existed no landlord-tenant relationship with petitioner no.1. The respondents further averred that the petitioners concealed the fact that they are owners of entire property bearing no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi and they have already constructed other portions and after seeking eviction they want to re-construct the property, otherwise RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 3 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
the petitioners can continue their business, if any from the other shops which are closed. The respondent side also argues that the petitioner no.1's son being 26 years of age is no longer dependent on the petitioner no.1 as per Income Tax Act and further stated that expansion of business cannot be bonafide requirement and petitioners be put to strict proof of the same.
7. The respondent side further states that the respondent has only office i.e. tenanted premises, from where he is operating his transport business and same is the only source of livelihood of the respondents. Respondents also aver that petitioners want to reconstruct the property into shops and apartments for capital gains. The respondents have also challenged the business of catering at property i.e. 30/1, Double storey building, Ashok Nagar, Behind Tilak Nagar Metro Station, Gate no.3, New Delhi being run by husband of petitioner no.1. It is averred that on physical visit no such business was found running at the premises and there were other shops. The respondents also admitted that Smt. Ramwati is residing in the premises who is an employee of respondent working as peon/chowkidaar and respondents gave this job to her on compassionate ground as her husband Late Sh. Roop Lal, used to work with the respondents. The respondent side also contended that the premises can't be even used for catering business, having no basic amenities like bathroom, water supply, etc and petitioners have failed to maintain the same in good habitable condition.
8. To the aforesaid leave to defend, petitioner filed the reply and has stated that the leave to contest filed by respondent is liable to be dismissed since the demise premises is locked for several years wherein the respondent has relocated to some other location. The petitioner in reply to the above RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 4 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
application filed food/ catering license in the name of Kitchen365 in the name of Sh. Amarjeet Singh who is husband of petitioner no.1 and father of Japmeet Singh running his catering business from property I.e. 30/1, Double storey building, Ashok Nagar, Behind Tilak Nagar Metro Station, Gate no.3, New Delhi. It is replied as seen from the photographs of respondents, the property 30/1 is large, double storey and there are other shops/ business alongwith catering business of catering run by Amarjeet Singh. It is further countered that the catering business is of husband of petitioner no.1 and her son can very well expand the said business in new areas and petitioner being best judge of his bonafide requirements can't be dictated by the respondents. The petitioner side further argues that the tenanted premises requires extensive repairs and additions to make it suitable for the business and the entire portion of the tenanted premises with other areas would be required. The petitioner side states that once the possession is handed over, only than the petitioners can plan the repairs and renovations which would be required.
9. The respondent side in support of their arguments has relied on the judgment of Attar Singh v. Tahoora Khwaja RC Rev. 51/2007 to argue that in deciding leave to defend application, the test is of triable issue and not final success of the claim.
10. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
11. The essential ingredients which a landlord/ petitioner is required to prove for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are:-
RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 5 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
(i) the petitioner is owner/ landlord of the suit premises;
(ii) the suit premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or any of his family members dependent upon him; and
(iii) the landlord or such other family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
12. Thus the foremost condition which the landlord has to prove is his bonafide requirement. Further he has to prove that there is no other alternate accommodation available. Thus there are twin requirements which are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of the Section 14(1)(e) of the Act i.e the bonafide requirement coupled with the reasonably suitable accommodation, which means that both are to be satisfied together and collectively. While deciding the question of grant of leave, the court has to consider whether the tenant has raised any triable point / issue, the decision of which may disentitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises.
13. In Precision Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518 the Hon'ble Supreme Court having discussed the relevant provisions of Act 59 of 1958 held as follows:-
"The Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under sub-sec. (4) and the reply if any. On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by landlord the Controller has to pose to himself the only question, `Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in cl. (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?' The Controller is not to RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 6 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits. That is not the jurisdiction conferred on the Controller by sub-sec. (5) because the Controller while examining the question whether there is a proper case for granting leave to contest the application has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant disclosing such facts as would prima facie and not on contest disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. At the stage when affidavit is filed under sub-sec.(4) by the tenant and the same is being examined for the purpose of sub-sec.(5) the Controller has to confine himself only to the averments in the affidavit and the reply if any and that become manifestly clear from the language of sub-sec. (5) that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession etc. The jurisdiction to grant leave to contest or refuse the same is to be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant. That alone at that stage is the relevant document and one must confine to the averments in the affidavit. If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown."
RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 7 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
14. In Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash, 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as follows:
"...However, merely because the tenant so disputes and controverts the pleas of the landlord does not imply that the provisions of summary procedure introduced in the Act with respect to ground of eviction on the ground of requirement is to be set at naught. The Controller is required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the tenant has given any facts/particulars which require to be established by evidence and which if established would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine the impact thereof."
15. Thus while deciding the question of leave, the controller is not required to conduct a full fledged trial but only to see from the affidavit of the tenant, as to whether any triable point / issue the decision of which may disentitle the landlord from recovering the possession of the premises is disclosed. The Controller is not required to seek the proof of the defence of the tenant but only to see whether any triable issue is raised by the tenant or not.
As regard landlord and tenant relationship
16. As regards the question of petitioners being the owner / landlord and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, it is stated by the respondent that the petitioner no.2 conveyed himself to be the RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 8 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
only owner and collected rent qua the property and since petitioner no.1 never approached the tenant nor informed that property devolved on both the petitioner, there exists no landlord-tenant relationship. Petitioner no.1 admits in her pleading that petitioner no.2 was collecting rent, however she states that rent was collected by petitioner no.2 on behalf of himself and petitioner no.1. The respondent no.2 however stated that petitioner no.2 stated himself to be the only owner. Respondent no.2 is specific with his averment that he never attorned the landlord tenant relationship in favour of petitioner no.1 and thus she was not the landlord.
17. Section 2(e) of the Act clearly states that it is immaterial if the landlord is actually receiving the rent, if the landlord was entitled to receive the same, he is landlord for the purposes of the Act. Thus it is immaterial if petitioner no.2 received entire rent or shared the rent in half with the petitioner no.1. As long as both petitioners prove to be the legal heirs of original landlord Onkar Singh, both petitioners have inherited equal shares in the property and are co-owners as well as co-landlord. The tenancy was created by parents of petitioners in favour of father of tenant and tenant does not dispute that his father was tenant of petitioner no.2's father. No where in the application the respondent no.2 deny that petitioner no.1 is not legal heir of erstwhile owner, infact in the affidavit, the respondent no.2 states that both petitioners have other portions of the property i.e. 1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. So, in his affidavit itself the respondent admits that both petitioners were owners of the property no. 1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi and at the other averment, the respondent wants to deny the landlord-tenant relationship with petitioner no.1.
RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 9 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
18. The petitioners pleaded that after the demise of their parents, both obtained letter of administration, however they failed to produce the same as was not traceable. But since the respondent admits that petitioners are owners of other portions of the property no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi, now petitioner no.1 need not prove the devolution of property to her. The respondent has not even denied vide clear averments that both petitioners are not class I heir and as per Section 2(e) of the Act, both petitioners are co-owners and co-landlord. The petitioner no.1 thus being landlord can claim bonafide requirement of her son Japmeet Singh.
19. The respondent merely for the sake of opposition, cannot deny the landlord tenant relationship. The leave to defend must raise clear and triable issue and mere peace-meal reasons cannot be allowed. The respondents' father was the original tenant in the demised property and even the petitioners' father was living in the said property. Even after death of Onkar Singh, the petitioner no.2 still resides in the said property no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. In such a scenario it is hard to believe that respondents had no knowledge that Onkar Singh was survived by two children i.e. petitioners.
20. As regards the relationship, thus, the respondent having not denied petitioners being Class I heir and original landlord tenant relationship between Onkar Singh and Daljit Singh Bedi being admitted, there is no triable issue qua landlord tenant relationship wherein both respondents being sons of original tenant Daljit Singh Bedi are still tenant of petitioners (being children of original landlord Onkar Singh).
RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 10 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr. As regards bonafide requirement of the landlord and suitable alternate accommodation
21. Now coming to the other aspect as to whether the premises is bonafide required by the petitioner and as to whether he has any other suitable alternate accommodation. These are twin requirements which are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1) (e) of the Act i.e the bonafide requirement coupled with the reasonably suitable accommodation, are to be satisfied together and collectively.
22. The petition is filed by both petitioners and bonafide requirement of petitioner no.1's son Japmeet Singh has been pleaded. Japmeet Singh is 26 years of age on the date of filing of this petition and is stated to be working with his father in catering business at property in Ashok Nagar. The petitioners in their reply filed license qua the catering business and also rent agreement wherein Amarjeet Singh is stated to have taken on rent the property in Ashok Nagar for commercial purpose. Although the rent agreement does not state that commercial purpose is catering business, however the license issued by appropriate authority is in the name of Sh. Amarjeet Singh for catering business and property is same of Ashok Nagar. Thus the petitioners claim is that her son Japmeet Singh is working with his father in catering business which is being run from tenanted property in Ashok Nagar.
23. The respondent rejected the landlord-tenant relationship with petitioner no.1. However, has also challenged the bonafide requirement of Japmeet Singh. The respondents argue that Japmeet Singh is 26 years of age and hence cannot be said to be dependent on his parents Manmeet (his mother) or Sh. Amarjeet Singh (his father). It is further argued that catering business RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 11 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
is already setup in Ashok Nagar and thus to setup a new business in a new locality cannot be said to be bonafide need and besides mere business expansion cannot be bonafide requirement.
24. This Court does not find any merits in the above submissions. Doing any business is enshrined as a fundamental right of any citizen of this Country in the Constitution itself and same can also be accepted for business expansion. The argument lacks dearth that having setup a business in Ashok Nagar, New Delhi, petitioners cannot expand the same in South Delhi. In fact business growth in the modern age has not been limited to local market, but has grown to global scales. Any business when setup deserves to be spread beyond its local limits. The petitioner no.1's son thus if he wishes to expand the same business of his father in South Delhi, can be held to be bonafide requirement. There is also no substance in the argument of the respondents that Japmeet Singh being 26 years of age at the time filing of the petition cannot be dependent on his parents. The respondents have not claimed that petitioner no.1's son Japmeet Singh is gainfully employed in any job or business. The Income Tax Act defines dependency for the purposes of the Act and not lays down general rule of dependency. The same meaning cannot be borrowed for the purposes of deciding eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The literature on Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act is settled as to dependency that bonafide requirement of the landlord as well as his legal heirs is accepted as long as they are not gainfully employed elsewhere. The consequences of this submission of respondents ought to be considered in light of their own defence. It is admitted that original tenant i.e. Daljit Singh Bedi took the tenant premises for commercial purpose and died long back, whereafter the respondents inherited the property and they continue to claim tenancy RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 12 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
through devolution even after many years past their 26 years of age. If respondents averment is to be accepted, then the respondents ought to have not been dependent on their father in his commercial tenanted premises after 26 years of age and on demise of their father should have vacated the premises.
25. The respondents who seek benefits of the provisions of devolution of interest/ title as per the DRC Act, ought to allow the petitioners to be applied the same benefits. The respondents ought not to borrow definition of dependency from IT Act, when the DRC Act is self sufficient.
26. Sh. Japmeet Singh being son of Manmeet Kaur (landlord) thus can seek eviction on ground of his bonafide requirement. Also business and its expansion can be considered as bonafide requirement. The petitioners have also showed license of Amarjeet Singh and even rent agreement in the name of Amarjeet Singh, thus petitioner no.1's son Japmeet Singh has no other business/ work of his own. Japmeet Singh cannot thus be said to be gainfully employed. The requirement of Japmeet Singh to start catering business in the suit property is thus bonafide and thus there is nothing on record to grant leave to defend to the respondent qua bonafide requirement.
27. Before discussing the third requirement i.e. availability of alternate accommodation, certain averments and arguments made in the present case ought to be discussed. The petitioner alleged that demised property is being possessed by Smt. Ramwati and there being business run by the respondents at the tenanted premises. The respondents in their pleadings admitted that tenanted premises was being possessed by Smt. Ramwati RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 13 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
which they gave since she was employed as peon/chowkidar with the respondents who is given the property on compassionate grounds. The respondents have not placed on record any service proof/ appointment letter/ salary slip to show that Ramwati is employed. The respondents even contended that the petitioners have not maintained the demised premises in good habitable condition and even challenged the use of said property for purpose sought by the petitioners since there is no bathroom, water amenities, etc. The respondents even contended that respondents are running transport business from the said tenanted premises and said property is only place for earning their livelihood.
28. Here again the respondents are caught making inconsistent pleadings. The respondents contend that property has no bathroom, water amenities, etc., however respondents never filed any application or petition seeking permission for necessary repairs/ renovation nor the respondents sought direction for the same to petitioners though Rent Controller. The respondents have also made averments without any foundation. There is no license or proof of transport business being run from the tenanted premises. There is also no proof that the tenanted premises has been given to Ramwati on compassionate ground being employed with respondents. No salary slip/ appointment letter/ service proof has been placed on record. The respondents have even filed photographs of and around the demised property, however it cannot be seen to be used for business purpose of transport, nor any board or advertisement is placed on the demised property.
29. Moreover, the respondents have inherited the property from their father Daljit Singh Bedi and property was tenanted for commercial purpose.
RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 14 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
There is no covenant that the respondent can give the property for residence to any third person, even if she/ he may be their employee. The respondent having failed to show that they are running any business or since it is admitted that property is in possession of Ramwati, there is clear admission on part of respondents that they have sub-let the demised property. The respondents have inherited the demised property being class I heir of original tenant Daljit Singh, could continue in the tenancy being dependent on their father Daljit Singh. In the present case, the respondent no.1 has not entered into appearance himself or through any advocate. The application for leave to defend although mentions both respondents, however affidavit of respondent no.1 is not filed and there is no authorisation that respondent no.2 is representing respondent no.1. The respondent no.2 has contended that Ramwati is their employee, however in absence of any proof and also no proof that any business is being run from the tenanted premises, it is clear that the respondent no.2 has created sub- tenancy in the property and Smt. Ramwati being sub-tenant. There is no permission by respondent no.2 from the any of the petitioners. The petitioner has not claimed any relief on the ground of sub-tenancy and same is only discussed as was being argued by both the sides and finds mention in the pleadings of both the sides.
30. Now the third requirement of alternate accommodation is to be discussed.
The respondent no.2 submits that the property no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi has other vacant shop, area and same can be used by the landlord to set up their catering business. The petitioner has been categorical that once the present demised property is vacated, he shall consider the nature, extent of work and renovation would be carried out accordingly. The petitioner RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 15 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
side also contends that they require the entire portion of the demised property alongwith other areas to start the catering business.
31. The respondent merely stated that petitioners can use the other shop, portion to start the business, he however neither disputes the site plan, nor he gives what alternate shop and area is sufficient for the petitioner to run his business. The respondent has already contended that there is no bathroom, water amenities, etc. The property is even admitted to be old and same would require considerable overhaul. Since catering business is of sophisticated and delicate nature, the old construction cannot be safe or may pose hygiene issues. The petitioner thus would require considerable planning, renovation and meticulous execution to engage in catering business. It is common knowledge that catering business would require highest hygiene standards and based on the business already run by Amarjeet Singh (husband of petitioner no.1 and father of Japmeet Singh), it would be safe to say that petitioner would require entire portion of property no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent cannot merely deny that the demised property is not appropriate for the bonafide requirement of the landlord and there are alternate accommodation available. The petitioner is categorical that whole of the portion of property no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi is required for catering business. Thus by mere denial the respondents cannot be considered to have raised triable issued. The respondents are duty bound to dispute the site plan, or atleast show that the portion available in the alternative is sufficient for the landlord.
32. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999 (6) SCC 222 it has been observed that:
RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 16 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
"The judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair 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 be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord is merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord"
33. In Smt. Kamla Soni V Rup Lal Mehra, 1969, RLR 1017 it has been held that:
"a mere assertion that the landlord requires the premises occupied by the tenant for his personal occupation is not decisive. It is for the court to determine the truth of the claim, and also to determine whether the claim is bonafide. In determining whether the claim is bonafide, the Court is entitled and indeed bound to consider whether it is reasonable. A claim founded on abnormal predilections of the landlord may not be regarded as bonafide"
34. In Deena Nath V. Pooran Lal, V (2001) SLT 195 (2001) 5 SCC 705, it has been held that:
"the statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or fanciful desire by him; further such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid a mere whim or desire. The bonafide RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 17 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.
requirement must be in present and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire."
35. On weighing the pleading and arguments and considering the law developed qua the Act, in the present case the leave to defend application is therefore rejected. It is directed that the respondents be evicted, and the petitioner Manmeet Kaur be put in possession of premises part of property no.1, Arjun Nagar, Kamal Cinema Road, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed along with the petition.
36. It is clarified that in view of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, this order shall not be enforceable for a period of six months from today.
37. After completion of necessary formalities, this file be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
signed by
PARAS PARAS DALAL
Date:
DALAL 2024.04.22
15:05:47
+0530
Announced in the open court (PARAS DALAL)
on 20.04.2023 ACJ/CCJ/ARC/South
Saket Courts/Delhi
RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 18 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.