Delhi District Court
Anita Mehta vs Jatinder Singh on 3 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ALKA SINGH,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
DLWT030020032019
ARC No. 76/2019
Smt. Anita Mehta
W/o Late Sh. Ashok Mehta
At present residing at:-
Block 15, Simei Street 4,
#09-02 Simei Green,
Singapore-529868,
Through SPA, Mr. Rohit Bohra,
R/o E-356, Third Floor,
Greater Kailash Part-II,
New Delhi-110048. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Jatinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Joginder Singh,
R/o N-63, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015. ...Respondent
Date of filing : 18.07.2019 Date of order : 03.05.2025 ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. Present petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") has been filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises i.e. Shop on the ground ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 1 of 16 floor of the property bearing Municipal No. N-63, Kirti Nagar, Delhi-110015, comprising of a room with a thala duly shown in green colour and bounded in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises') in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that late Sh. Mohan Lal Mehta, the father-in- law of the petitioner had purchased the property in question from the Rehabilitation Housing Corporation Ltd. vide sale deed dated 09.01.1969 registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. Thereafter, Sh. Mohan Lal had constructed a building on the said property. That Late Sh. Mohan Lal Mehta had rented out a portion comprising of a room with a thala on the ground floor of the property to the grandfather of the respondent/ tenant, Late Pritam Singh around the year 1960 at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. That Sh. Mohan Lal Mehta died intestate on 24.05.1990 leaving behind his wife, three sons and three daughters. That after the demise of Late Mohan Lal Mehta, his daughters relinquished their shares with all their rights, title and interest qua the aforementioned property in favour of their brothers i.e. Col. R.L. Mehta, Sh. Ashok Mehta and Sh. Harish Mehta vide release deed dated 24.01.1996 and thus, they became the joint owners in respect of the property bearing No. N-63, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. Thereafter on 31.07.1996, the abovementioned joint owners mutually decided to execute a partition deed to partition the said premises by metes and bounds amongst themselves. That the tenanted premises came into the share of Sh. Ashok Mehta and being the exclusive owner of the abovementioned share, he raised construction over and above the first floor of his property. That Sh. Ashok Mehta had unfortunately expired on 17.04.2004 and thereafter his estate devolved upon his first Class-I legal heirs i.e his wife (petitioner), son and daughter. Subsequently, the petitioner's son and daughter relinquished their right qua the said premises in favour of the petitioner vide ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 2 of 16 Relinquishment Deed dated 14.10.2009. Thus, the petitioner became the exclusive owner in respect of parts of the property bearing No. N-63, Kirti Nagar, Delhi-110015. It is also averred that after the demise of the original tenant, by operation of law the tenancy devolved upon his legal heirs. That ever since the demise of Sh. Pritam Singh, the respondent has been in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises, none of his other legal heirs have come forward to assert any tenancy right and/or discharge of obligations as tenants. That no person ever tendered rent in respect of the shop in question to the petitioner.
3. It is also asserted by the petitioner that the petitioner being an unemployed lady with no source of income had shifted to Singapore in December, 2010 and she is being supported by her children and is currently residing with her children at Singapore. That the petitioner herein wishes to return to India and intends to start a boutique store for ladies clothes, with place to display outfits and employ tailors to assist in the business, but has been unable to do so due to paucity of space. That the petitioner wants to use the shop on the ground floor as a showroom for her custom-tailored clothing line. It is also averred that the second floor which has been currently let out for a short duration of 11 months to a friend of the petitioners, whose house is under renovation/construction in Kirti Nagar itself and the same would be available with the petitioner as soon as the renovation in her friend's house are over. Hence, the location of the shop is more suitable to her as there is no travel time to the shop and she can manage the day to day affairs to her business. That the petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted premises to start her own business as she does not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for the aforesaid requirement.
ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 3 of 164. Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the respondents in the prescribed format which was duly served on the respondent. In response to which the respondent/tenant filed leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit raising various pleas.
5. In his leave to defend, it is submitted by the respondent that all the averments made by the petitioner are false and she has concealed the material facts. It is asserted that earlier the predecessor of the petitioner namely Sh. Ashok Mehta filed two eviction petitions U/Sec. 14(1)(a) &(j) and U/Sec. 14(1)
(b) of D.R.C. Act against the predecessor of the respondent, Sh. Pritam Singh, which were dismissed. It is also contended by the respondent that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property. That Sh. Pritam Singh expired on 08.09.2000 and after his death, all his legal heirs have become tenant in common and petitioner has filed the present petition only against the respondent and even the predecessor of the petitioner moved an application U/o 22 Rule 4 in the petition U/sec. 14(1)(b) of D.R.C. Act for impleading all the LRs of Sh. Pritam Singh. That neither the respondent nor his predecessor had ever paid rent to the petitioner as the petitioner never became their landlord and after the death of Sh. Mohan Lal Mehta, predecessor of respondent or the respondent has paid rent to Col. R.L. Mehta as he had been receiving the rent from the respondent or their predecessor as the owner/landlord.
6. It is also contended by the respondent that there are two separate tenancies in the name of Sh. Pritam Singh; the one tenancy is with regard to room admeasuring 11 1/8 X 12 1/3 with front open and uncovered thala admeasuring 5 3/4 X 12 1/2 at the monthly rent of Rs. 180/- and the second tenancy was with regard to the open and uncovered thala admeasuring 5 3/4 X 9 3/4 (corner of 30'/50' road) at the monthly rent of Rs. 20/- and the petitioner has deliberately ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 4 of 16 shown it to be one tenancy.
7. Respondent has further stated that for the sake of arguments if the alleged partition deed is taken to be correct then why the rent was collected by Col. R.L. Mehta from the predecessor of the respondent and later on from the legal heirs of Sh. Pritam Singh till the death of Col. R.L. Mehta. That the petitioner has deliberately not shown the remaining portions of the suit property and the commercial portions/shops in possession/disposal of the petitioner and the petitioner has made bald assertions in the petition with malafide intention to show paucity of accommodation. It has also been asserted that the petitioner also is in vacant physical possession of one shop on the ground floor measuring 6'X11' of the property in question, which was earlier let out by the predecessor, but the same is now lying vacant and this fact has not been deliberately disclosed by the petitioner nor the said shop has been displayed in the site plan. That the petitioner is also in possession of one shop on the first floor and one shop on the second floor of the suit property and both of them are lying vacant, however, the petitioner has not disclosed the aforesaid fact intentionally and deliberately. That the petitioner is the owner of property bearing No. BL-126, First Floor, Anand Vihar, L-Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and the said property is also lying vacant. That the entire second floor of the property bearing No. N-63, Kirti Nagar is in possession of the petitioner and the said property has also been given to one Mr. Dua at the license fee of Rs. 27,000/-. That all the property bearing no. N-63, Kirti Nagar has already been sold by the LRs of Sh.Mohan Lal Mehta. That the petitioner has no intention to start any business as alleged by her.
8. Reply/counter affidavit to leave to defend filed by the petitioner inter-alia contending that the affidavit of the respondent does not disclose any defence or ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 5 of 16 triable issue which entitles the respondent to contest the eviction petition and disentitles the petitioner for obtaining an order for eviction. It is also contended that the defence taken by the respondent is moon shine and bogus which requires no trial in the matter.
9. Perusal of the record reveals that on 20.12.2021, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent stating therein that a subsequent event has taken place and the respondent has come to know that the second floor of the property bearing No. N-63, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi which was let out by the petitioner to one Mr. Dua at the license fee of Rs. 27,000/- has been vacated by Sh. Dua and the petitioner has again let out the said second floor to Sh. Pavneet Singh Mehta on 18.09.2020 at the monthly rent of Rs. 25,000/- for the period of two years.
THE LAW:
10. It is expedient to discuss certain guidelines in respect of leave to defend before dealing with the present case which is as under:-
11. It is well settled that burden placed on a tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) are good enough to grant leave to defend.
12. It is further well settled that at a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima-facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. Unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 6 of 16 leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25 B(5). A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act, leave to defend cannot be refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant. Refusing to grant leave in such a case leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great hardship to him and his family members, if any, although he could establish if only leave is granted that a landlord would be disentitled for an order of eviction.
13. It is also well settled at the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of the rival contentions. Assertions and counter assertions made in affidavits may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an affirmative conclusion one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend were either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable. It is also well settled that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire.
14. I have carefully and minutely gone through the petition, leave to defend application accompanied by affidavits, reply, documents, written synopsis filed by the petitioner, material on record and case laws relied upon.
15. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction-
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 7 of 16 contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
16. The Court has also heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the petition, leave to defend application accompanied by affidavits, reply, documents, written synopsis filed by the petitioner, material on record and case laws relied upon. However, each case has its own factual matrix and will thus, be decided in such background.
The first requirement for establishing a case U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act is :-
-that the petitioner should be the landlord/owner of the property;
-that he/ she should require the property for bonafide need; and thirdly that he/she should not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 8 of 16
(i). LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP:-
17. In the present case the relationship of landlord and tenant has been disputed by the respondent on the ground that he is not the tenant of the petitioner and that the original tenant was Sh. Pritam Singh, who expired on 08.09.2000, after which all his legal heirs became tenants in common, however, all of the said heirs/tenants have not been substituted by the petitioner. Thus, neither the respondent nor his predecessor had ever paid rent to the petitioner and therefore, she never became their landlord as after the death of Sh. Mohan Lal Mehta, predecessor of respondent and the respondent had paid rent to Col. R.L. Mehta as the owner/landlord. Respondent has also challenged the partition deed of the family members of the petitioner and has claimed that petitioner is not the owner of the property.
18. The law in this regard is very clear that the tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord or his successor-in-interest i.e. he/she is estopped from challenging the ownership or denying the title of the landlord. The principle is very clear that once a tenant is always a tenant and in the present case it has not been disputed that the predecessor of the respondent has come into the premises as a tenant and therefore, it is not open for her/him to challenge the title or the ownership of landlord or his successor-in-interest. Further, the petitioner herein has a better title than that of the respondent. In this context the reliance is placed on Sh. Bharat Bhushan Vs. Aarti Teckchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247; wherein it was laid down:-
"The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 9 of 16 come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after the death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/ burden of proving the ownership under the Act."
19. Furthermore, to quote the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Leela Wati 155 (2008) DLT 383;
".... it is settled law that for the purpose of Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant."
20. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention another settled position of law i.e. even one co-owner can file a petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 10 of 16 and there is no requirement of impleading all the co-owners. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalawati Bai & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC. Similarly, so far as regards all the legal heirs of Sh. Pritam Singh i.e. the original tenant not having been impleaded in the present case is concerned, it has already been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain Civil Appeal No. 3996 of 2018 that "we are of the view that in light of the H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherited the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller..... thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail."
21. Hence, so far the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent is concerned, the same is held to be established in view of the above discussions and pronouncement and respondent has failed to substantiate anything contrary.
(ii). BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT :-
22. The other requirement is that the premises should be required for the bonafide need of the landlord/petitioner and it is the case of the petitioner that ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 11 of 16 she requires the shop in question bonafidely for herself for setting up a boutique and ladies clothing line. In this regard, it is the contention of the respondent that the premises are not required bonafidely by the petitioner because already has mutual funds of more than 1 Cr., for which Income Tax Department had issued a lookout notice against her for evading income tax and she wants to sell the property to M/s Blueblood Ventures Ltd., whose one of the promoter is the SPA of the present case.
23. Qua this aspect firstly, no documents have been placed on record and mere averments are of no relevance and how much is the saving of the petitioner at current should be of no concern to the respondent/tenant. Moreover, Sec. 19 of the D.R.C. Act already covers such a situation where the petitioner does not uses the premises for which eviction was granted and, therefore, respondent can very well present an application for restoration of possession to him in the event of such contingency as envisaged under Sec. 19 of D.R.C. Act.
24. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 has held that "whenever a landlord seeks eviction of a tenant for bonafide need the Controller shall presume the leave as genuine and bonafide. Additionally, the burden to refute the said presumption squarely lies on the tenant and mere assertion on the part of the tenant is insufficient". As such, record manifestly shows that these are not triable issue which could dis-entitle the petitioner to obtain the order of eviction against the respondent.
(iii). REASONABLY SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION:
25. Now, in this regard it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 12 of 16 already has more than sufficient space available with her in the suit property and she has one room measuring 6'X11' on the ground floor itself apart from one shop at the first floor and one shop at the second floor. It is further contented that the said shop measuring 6'X11' on the ground floor is depicted in purple colour in the site plan of the respondent, however, there is no such purple colour portion to indicate such room on the ground floor rather the one which has been depicted on the ground floor as another shop, is the one in green colour, the measurement of which is 6' 0". Thus, the contention that this shop admeasuring 6'X11' has been concealed by the petitioner in their site plan and revealed by the respondent in their site plan is inherently misconstrued as the respondent himself has failed to show any such shop of the said measurement on the ground floor. In addition to the same, the counsel for the petitioner has already clarified the shop which the respondent has mentioned to be existing on the ground floor has already been mentioned by them in the petition and the same is shown in green colour adjacent to the staircase and for which they have already specified in their replication that the same are not suitable for their purpose. From the bare perusal also it is clear that the room which the respondent is referring to be in vacant possession of petitioner is 6'0" room which is much shorter in comparison to the tenanted premises.
26. Here, it would be relevant to quote Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679; wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. "
Further, in this regard the support is also derived from MM Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma (1981) 3 SCC 36 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the landlord does not have an unfettered right to choose the premises but merely showing that the landlord have some other vacant premises in his ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 13 of 16 possession may not be sufficient to negative the landlord's claim if the vacant premises were not suitable for the purpose for which he required the premises."
27. It is also the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is the owner of another property bearing No. BL-126, First Floor, Anand Vihar, L-Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, which is lying vacant in addition to the entire second floor of the property bearing No. N-63, Kirti Nagar. However, it has already been explained by the petitioner by way of filing subsequent document i.e. the property tax receipt, that the said property belongs to the brother-in-law of the petitioner and he is the owner and the petitioner does not have any right, title or interest in the property and more so, the said property is residential in nature.
28. To answer the other contention of the respondent regarding the petitioner having first and second floor and not having used it or having rented it out or sold it out, the law has already been settled down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Uday Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503", wherein it was held that " it is not for the Courts to say that the landlord should shift to the first floor or any higher floor as it is well known that shops and businesses are usually conducted on the ground floor, because the customers can reach there easily." Thus, it is well known fact that the ground floor premises is more suitable for commercial purposes than the first floor premises as it has more footfall of the customers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendera Kumar Tandon 72 (1998) DLT 629", opined that the landlord is not dis-entitled from seeking recovery of the possession of a ground floor merely on the plea that he also is in possession of first floor and second floor so long as the Court is satisfied with respect to the bonafide requirement of the landlord for the tenanted premises . Hence, just because the petitioner has some rooms available on the second floor of the ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 14 of 16 premises, it cannot be held that the requirement of tenanted premises situated at the ground floor is not bonafide for the commercial needs of her son and herself.
29. Thus, the law in this regard is very clear and has been well established by various judicial pronouncements that it is out of the purview of the tenant to dictate as to how much space is adequate for the landlord to run his/her shop/business or how best to use the tenanted premises or even to adjust in some other premises. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Praveen and Anr. Vs. Mulakh Raj & Ors. RC Rev. 417/2016 wherein it was held that "the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and is the best person to decide which property is to be utilized in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilize his property. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. (Residential or commercial use) ". Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in Balwant Singh Vs. Sudershan Kumar (2021) 15 SCC 75; has held that "it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate."
30. Lastly, it is also averred by the respondent that there were two tenancy regarding the shop in question alongwith uncovered thala and another with respect to open an uncovered thala admeasuring 5 3/4 X 9 3/4, however, it is submitted by the counsel that this entire portion is being used in a composite fashion. Be that as it may, it is clear that even if there are two tenancies it does not overshadow the bonafide requirement of the petitioner in as much the ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 15 of 16 petitioner is seeking the entire place under the tenancy of the respondent comprising the room and the uncovered thala, accordingly, the Court does not find any substance in this plea of the respondent.
CONCLUSION:
31. In view of the above discussion, the Court finds no triable issue in the leave to defend application of the respondent which could dis-entitle the petitioner/landlady to obtain an eviction order in her favour. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus, dismissed.
32. Hence, as a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act in favour of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop on the ground floor of the property bearing Municipal No. N-63, Kirti Nagar, Delhi-110015, comprising of a room with a thala duly shown in green colour and bounded in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition which is marked as Mark- P1 (Put by the court for the purpose of identification).
33. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
34. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court, on this day of 3rd May, 2025.
This Order consists of 16 signed pages.
Digitally signedALKA by ALKA SINGH Date: SINGH 2025.05.07 16:26:29 +0530 (ALKA SINGH) Additional Rent Controller West District Courts, Delhi. ARC No. 76/2019 Anita Mehta Vs. Jatinder Singh Page 16 of 16