Delhi District Court
Sh. Parmanand vs Sh. Sri Ram on 3 December, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH :
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E12/2012
Unique ID No : 02401C0058312012
In the matter of:
Sh. Parmanand,
S/o Late Sh. Dunger Singh,
R/o 3018/38, Hardhyan Singh Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Sri Ram, S/o Sh. Khem Chand
2. Sh. Charanjit Lal, S/o Sh. Sri Ram Khurana
Both R/o House No.315, Pocket3, 315/3,
Paschim Puri, New Delhi.
Also at:
Shop Address: 3018/38, Beaden Pura,
Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005. .....Respondents
O R D E R:
Vide this order, I shall decide an application for leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondents under Section 25B (4) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act, 1958) seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition.
2. The present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Sh. Parmanand against the respondents namely Sh. Sri Ram and Sh. Charanjit Lal E12/2012 Page 1/23 under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, 1958.
3. The version of the petitioner is that the respondents are tenant in respect of one shop bearing no.3018/38, Beaden Pura, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, measuring 8' X 10', situated on the ground floor as shown in red colour in the siteplan attached with the petition. The rent is Rs. 225/ per month exclusive of all other charges vide agreement dated 18.01.1981. The premises are nonresidential and are being used by the respondents for carrying on a business under the name and style M/s Ram Chander & Co.
4. It is further the version of the petitioners that after the death of Sh. Dunger Singh, his two sons namely Narain Dutt and Sh. Parmanand became the owner of the suit property on the basis of Will dated 09.07.1983 executed by Sh. Dunger Singh in favour of his aforesaid two sons and thereafter, mutation was also effected in the names of aforesaid two sons in the concerned department. Photocopies of WILL dated 09.07.1983, JAMBANDI issued by DDA on 24.04.1984 and mutation issued by MCD has been filed by the petitioner. Sh. Narain Dutt has expired on 02.03.2011 leaving behind his legal heirs i.e. his wife Smt. Vidya Devi, daughtersSmt. Sunita, Smt. Lalita and Ms. Anuradha and son Mr. Deepansh who have succeeded the estate of Late Narain Dutt and as such they are coowners/colandlords of the tenanted shop. Being the coowners/colandlords, the said Smt. Vidya Devi and her son Mr. Deepansh have also filed another petition for their bonafide need in respect of another tenanted shop under the tenancy of Sh. Chander Mohan who is carrying E12/2012 Page 2/23 on a business under the name and style i.e. Chander Electrics which is adjacent to the tenanted shop.
5. It is the further version of the petitioner that family of the petitioner comprises of himself, his wife, two married daughters namely Smt. Anju, Smt. Renu, one unmarried daughter Ms. Ruby and son namely Amit Atal. The petitioner's one daughter namely Smt. Renu is a widow and her husband expired on 13.03.2001 leaving behind one son namely Master Rohan who is about 12 years of age. The petitioner's aforesaid son namely Mr. Amit Atal who is at age of 24 years and he is unemployed and both the totally dependent upon the petitioner. Even, the petitioner has to spend so much money in maintenance of his aforesaid widow daughter and her child. The petitioner is a senior citizen of 62 years of age. He is also unemployed as he has retired from Govt. of India at the age of 60 years. After the retirement, the petitioner has no source of income and he is totally dependent upon his pension. At the same time, he is having burden of four children. Out of them, one is widow. The petitioner is also having the burden of one unmarried daughter namely Ms. Ruby who is at marriageable age of 29 years. It is an emergent need of the petitioner and his unemployed son as to have the tenanted shop vacated so that the petitioner and his son can start fresh business. Since, the petitioner is a retired person he can devote his full time for carrying on a business of his choice with the assistance of his son in effective manner and as such, the son of the petitioner can be settled in the remaining life of the petitioner and there may be good matrimonial match for his son as relative asked numerous questions regarding his employment.
E12/2012 Page 3/23
6. It is further the version of the petitioner that the tenanted premises having been situated on the ground floor (front portion) of the premises in question is most suitable and ideal for carrying out commercial activity/business. The respondents are carrying on a business in the tenanted shop which is located in the commercial hub of Karol Bagh Market which is just opposite to the very famous market i.e. Gaffar Market. Many business are being run around the tenanted shop like mobile, leather, shoe, Band Business, general store, electronic business, handloom business etc. and as such, petitioner no.1 and her son can do any business of their own choice. The petitioner has filed photographs showing the location around the tenanted shop.
7. It is further the version of the petitioner that he and his son is not having sufficient and alternate accommodation which will cater to their need for commercial space. The requirement of the petitioner is bonafide. The respondents are having alternate accommodation i.e. shops/commercial property in which they can carry on their business in Delhi. Sh. Sri Ram i.e. respondent no.1 is carrying on a business of wholesale of lace, bukram, cushion, sheeting, black cloth, dori, maida, araroat and fevicol etc. from the property no. 315, Pocket3, Paschim Puri, New Delhi, under name and style i.e. M/s Khurana Wholesale Shop. The respondent no.2 namely Sh. Charanjit Lal is also carrying on a business of NonWoven, cotton & carry Bags etc. under the name and style of Modern Bag Company from the property no.3599, first floor, Singara Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi110006.
E12/2012 Page 4/23
8. It is prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one shop bearing no. 3018/38, Beaden Pura, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, measuring 8' X 10', situated on the ground floor as shown in red colour in the siteplan attached with the petition.
9. Summons in the prescribed form under Schedule III of DRC Act, 1958 were served upon the respondents and thereafter, respondents have filed application for leave to defend along with affidavit within the stipulated period from the date of service of summons.
10. The version of the respondents is that after the death of Late Dungar Singh, the suit property was inherited by his two sons namely Sh. Parmanand and Sh. Narain Dutt. Sh. Narain Dutt died on 02.03.2011 leaving behind his widow Smt. Vidya Devi, his son Sh. Deepansh Atal and three daughters. There has never been any partition amongst Sh. Parmanand and Sh. Narain Dutt and after death of Narain Dutt between Sh. Parmanand and legal heirs of Late Narain Dutt and as such, all legal heirs of Late Narain Dutt are also necessary and proper parties and without their impleadment, the present eviction petition cannot proceed. After death of Late Dungar Singh, the rent was being paid to Sh. Parmanand and Late Narain Dutt jointly. The respondents have already paid the rent upto September, 2010 by money order dated 03.09.2010 in the sum of Rs. 3600/ @ Rs. 225/ per month for the period 01.06.2009 to 30.09.2010 which was duly accepted and acknowledged. Since Narain Dutt had expired and the petitioner had shifted his residence without disclosing his E12/2012 Page 5/23 new address as such no rent was further sent to the landlords.
11. It is further the version of the respondents that site plan filed by the petitioner shows that the huge space of 520 sq. ft. having open front of 12 ft. is lying vacant on the ground floor of the property itself which can very well be used not only by the petitioner and his son, but also by the legal heirs of Late Narain Dutt. The respondents have filed a photocopy of site plan and the portion lying vacant has been marked in green colour. Property no. 3018/38, Hardhyan Singh Road, Baden Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, is on Hardhyan Singh Road which has been declared as a commercial one and the vacant portion of the property can be used for commercial purposes by the petitioner, his son as well as by the legal heirs of Late Narain Dutt.
12. It is further the version of the respondent that the petitioner has alleged bonafide requirement on the ground that his is a senior citizen and unemployed, having no source of income and is totally dependent upon his pension but the petitioner has not disclosed amount of pension. His daughters are not dependent upon the petitioner. The petitioner and his son are gainfully employed as they are Estate Agent and are doing the business of sale, purchase and renting of properties and their earning are not less than Rs. 50,000/ per month. The shop in possession of the respondents is not at all required either by the petitioner or his son. The petitioner alongwith his coowners intend to demolish the present structure of the building and want to reconstruct the same as multistory building and as such, the petitioner somehow wants to get the suit shop vacated. It is prayed that respondents may be allowed to contest the E12/2012 Page 6/23 present eviction petition.
13. In reply to the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner, the allegations leveled by the respondents have been controverted and rebutted and the averments made in the petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed. It is submitted that present eviction petition is maintainable in the present form and other coowners were agreed to file the present petition and that is why there is no clash of interest between the coowners i.e. LR's of Late Sh. Narain Dutt and that is why they were not made party in the present petition. The daughters of Late Narain Dutt namely Smt. Sunita and Smt. Lalita are married and settled in their matrimonial homes and Ms. Anuradha (unmarried daughter) is residing with Smt. Vidya Devi and Deepansh in the suit property. Smt. Vidya Devi and Mr. Deepansh i.e. other coowner has filed a petition for their bonafide need against the other tenant in respect of the adjacent tenanted shop with the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner has denied that he has shifted his residence without disclosing new address. The petitioner has denied that a huge space of about 520 sq. ft. having open front of 12 feet is lying vacant on the ground floor of the property itself. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that the remaining portion is not lying vacant and same is occupied by the petitioner, Smt. Vidya Devi (widow of Late Narain Dutt), her son and her unmarried daughter Ms. Anuradha alongwith for residential purpose. The tenanted shops is situated in front portion occupying about 70% of front portion and there is an entrance gate, bathroom and toilet adjacent to the said shops and behind the shops there are rooms of the house and there is a narrow street behind the shops i.e. back side of the property while there is a wide busy E12/2012 Page 7/23 commercial road in front of the tenanted shops. Petitioner has filed photographs to show the exact location of the shops. It is submitted by the petitioner that the tenanted shop is situated on the front portion of the suit property and that is more suitable for carrying on any kind of business. The petitioner wants the present tenanted shop for his business and that is more suitable for him as he is residing behind the shop. Moreover, the petitioner is an old retired Govt. servant and if the shop in question is vacated, he can comfortably carry and control the business alongwith his unemployed son.
14. Respondents have filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the petitioner have been controverted and rebutted and the averments made in the application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed.
15. Additional affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents to the effect that petitioner alongwith his family has shifted his residence at 4/28, Second Floor, W.E.A, Karol Bagh, New Delhi alongwith his family from the property bearing no. 3018/38, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and only the family of Late Narain Dutt is residing at first floor of the property no. 3018/38, Beaden Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
16. In reply to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, the allegations leveled by the respondents have been denied on the ground that the respondents have sent court notice to the petitioner for deposit of rent in the Court of Sh. Pritam Singh, Ld. ARC (Central) at the address of suit property and the same was duly received by the petitioner which alone is suffice to prove E12/2012 Page 8/23 that the petitioner is residing in the suit property. The petitioner has also filed copy of court notice and copy of D.R. Petition.
17. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
18. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon "Sanjay Mehra & Ors. Vs. Sunil Malhotra & Anr.", 170 (2010) Delhi Law Times 797 Delhi High Court, "Tagore Education Society Regd. Vs. Kamla Tandon & Anr.", 161 (2009) Delhi Law Times 232 Delhi High Court, "Radha Devi Vs. Deep Naryan Mandal & Ors.", (2003) 11 SCC 759, "Navneet Lal Vs. Deepak Sawhney", 2010 (2) RCR Delhi High Court, page no. 582, "Satnam Anand & Anr. Vs. Gurbachan Singh", Ex F.A. 7/2011 decided on 17.02.2011 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, "Smt. Munni Devi Vs. Manmohan Verma, (2007) 1 RCR Delhi High Court, "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi", 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 450 Delhi High Court, "Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors.", 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 Delhi High Court, "S.S. Gokul Krishnan & Ors. Vs. State The Food Inspector, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi", 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 456 Delhi High Court, "Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta", SC 80 (1999) Delhi Law Times 731 (SC), "Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. Vs. Parbha Khanna & Anr., 153 (2008) Delhi Law Times 652 Delhi High Court, "Shri Natha Singh Vs. Shri H.V. Nayar", All India Rent Control Journal 1983 (1), page no. 158, "Mohd. Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed", 154 (2008) Delhi Law Times 342 Delhi High E12/2012 Page 9/23 Court, "Viran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar", 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times 328 Delhi High Court, "Bhagwat Prasad Sharma Vs. Pinky Aggarwal & Anr.", 2009 (107) DRJ 517 Delhi High Court, "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta", 173 (2010) Delhi Law Times 318 Delhi High Court, "Surinder Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh", 172 (2010) Delhi Law Times 611 Delhi High Court, "Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Krishna Luthra", 172 (2010) Delhi Law Times 551 Delhi High Court, and "Sunil Kapoor Vs. Himmat Singh & Ors." CM (M) No. 1215/2007 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 26.01.2010.
19. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon "Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta", AIR 1999 SC 2507, (1983) 1 SCC P.301, "Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh", (2001) 1 SCC 706 and "Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath & Ors.", (1976) 4 SCC 184.
20. While deciding the question whether leave to defend should be granted or refused, the Court is to address itself on following issues :
(a) That the petitioner is owner of the suit premises;
(b) Purpose of letting;
(c) That the premises is required bonafide by the petitioner; and
(d) That the petitioner has no other alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi.
21. In Precision Metal & Engg. Works Vs. Prema Deva, Niranjan E12/2012 Page 10/23 Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has been held that "while deciding the application for leave to contest, the controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub Section (4) and the reply if any. On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by the 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 clause of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". The controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits."
The gist of the various decisions is that if any triable issue is raised in the application which can not be decided unless the parties lead evidence, leave to contest should be granted. In all other cases, the leave has to be refused.
22. In (2002) 7 SCC 614 titled as Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "If the Court is satisfied that though in the pleadings an issue is raised but that is not a triable issue then the Court is justified in refusing the leave to defend. A defence, which is practically moonshine, sham or illusory can not be held to be raising a triable issue. Else the whole purpose behind enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a contest unless leave was granted, would stand defeated."
Ownership E12/2012 Page 11/23
23. The contention of the respondents that the eviction petition is bad for nonjoinder of LRs of Late Narain Dutt as there has been no partition amongst the petitioner and LR's of Late Narain Dutt. In AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2572, titled as "Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalawatibai & Ors.", it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "It is well settled by atleast three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath & Ors. (1976) 4 SCC 184, Kanta Goel Vs B.P. Pathan and Ors. (1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh v Sunder Singh (dead) by LRs. and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 444 that one of the coowners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of tenant and it is no defence open to tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that other coowners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming subject matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every coowner owns every part and every bit of the joint property alongwith others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned.. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of tenant without joining the other coowners if such other coowners do not object".
24. In the present petition, the coowner namely Smt. Vidya Devi and Mr. Deepansh Atal have also filed a eviction petition no. 11/2012 in respect of another portion (shop) in the same premises. Therefore, being guided by aforesaid authorities, the aforesaid contention of the respondents that without impleading other coowners, the present eviction petition is not maintainable is not acceptable and is rejected accordingly.
E12/2012 Page 12/23
25. The respondents have admitted that the suit property initially belonged to Late Dungar Singh and after his death same was inherited by the petitioner and Sh. Narain Dutt. In Rajender Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. Leelawati & Others 155 (2008) DLT 383, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "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 tenant." Therefore, aspect of ownership goes in favour of the petitioner.
Purpose of Letting
26. Purpose of letting has become redundant as in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 705 Supreme Court, it has been held that the premises let out either for residential or for commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for bonafide requirements.
Availability or NonAvailability of alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi
27. The respondents have contended that the petitioner is having huge space of 520 sq. ft. having open front of 12 ft. which is lying vacant on the ground floor of the property which can very well be used by the petitioner as shown in green colour as per site plan filed by the respondents. Property No. 3018/38 is situated on Hardhyan Singh Road which has been declared as commercial one and the vacant portion of the property can be used for commercial purposes by the petitioner. Only the family of Late Narain Dutt is E12/2012 Page 13/23 residing at the first floor portion of property no. 3018/38, Beaden Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The version of the petitioner in this regard is that space of about 520 sq. ft. having open front of 12 ft. is not lying vacant on the ground floor of the property as the same is occupied by the petitioner, Smt. Vidya Devi (widow of Late Narain Dutt), her son and her unmarried daughter Ms. Anuradha for residential purposes. The tenanted shop is situated in front portion occupying about 70% of front portion and there is an entrance gate, bathroom and toilet adjacent to the tenanted shop. Behind the shop there are rooms of the house and there is narrow street behind the shop i.e. back side of the property whereas there is a wide busy commercial road in front of the tenanted shop.
28. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that from the photographs filed by the petitioner it is quite clear that the contention of the respondents that 12 ft. space on the front side adjacent to the tenanted shop is lying vacant, is wrong and the remaining portions of the property is on the back side and even if, it is assumed that there is vacant space behind the property, the same is not suitable for the petitioner for the purposes of carrying on a business.
29. I have perused the photographs filed by the petitioner and from the photographs it is quite clear that there is an entrance gate, bathroom and toilet adjacent to the tenanted shop on the front portion of the suit property and behind the shops there are rooms of the house and there is a narrow street behind the shops i.e. back side of the property.
E12/2012 Page 14/23
30. In 173 (2010) DLT 379, Delhi High Court, it has been observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide para no. 25 that "If a landlord wants to start his own business in the premises owned by him, then by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the requirement of the landlord for premises in question is neither bonafide nor genuine."
31. In "Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Company", AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed by Hon'be Supreme Court that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter (reliance placed upon "Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353).
32. In AIR 2003 SC 156, it was observed that it is for the landlord to choose which one would be preferable to him or her and a tenant cannot question such preference.
33. In "Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. Naveen Maheswari", 2010 (1) RCR 554, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that: "It is well known that shops and business are usually (though not invariably) conducted on the ground floor, because the customers can reach there easily. The court cannot dictate to the landlord which floor he should use for his business; that is for the landlord himself to decide." E12/2012 Page 15/23
34. In RC. Rev. 285/2012 & C.M. 11263/2012, titled as "Sh. Gurcharan Lal Kumar Vs. Smt. Satyawati & Ors.", decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 24.04.2013 wherein vide para no.8 it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that: "Admittedly, all these properties fall on the back portion of the disputed plot. The shop in question is on the front side facing the main road, viability and commercial success of a business being carried out from a property facing the main road cannot be equated with a proposed business to be carried out from the back portion. This is also an admitted proposition and neither party has any quarrel on this proposition."
35. Let us consider the aspect of availability or nonavailability reasonably suitable accommodation with the petitioners in the light of aforesaid judgments. Keeping in view the photographs and site plan filed by the petitioner and the respondents, it is quite clear that the tenanted premises is situated on the main road. The 12 ft. front portion as alleged by the respondents is not lying vacant as there is an entrance gate, bathroom and toilet adjacent to the tenanted shop on the front portion of the suit property. Remaining portions which are alleged as vacant are situated on the back side of the property and therefore, not suitable for the purposes of carrying on a business. In view of aforesaid judgments it can be safely said that the suitability for commercial space is to be seen on the basis of convenience of landlord and the tenant cannot dictate that the landlord that the landlord should use the portion for commercial purposes which is situated on the back side of the tenanted property. The contention of the respondents by way of additional affidavit that E12/2012 Page 16/23 the petitioner has shifted his residence at 4/28, Second Floor, W.E.A, Karol Bagh, New Delhi alongwith his family from the property bearing no. 3018/38, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and only the family of Late Narain Dutt is residing at first floor of the suit property is immaterial as the need of the petitioner is for commercial space and first floor of the property if for the sake of argument is lying vacant is not suitable for commercial need i.e. for the purposes of starting a business. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner has been able to show that he is not having any other reasonably suitable accommodation for his business purposes and the respondents have not been able to raise any triable issue on this aspect.
Bonafide Requirement
36. The stand of the petitioner is that he requires the tenanted premises bonafidely to start a business alongwith his son who is aged 24 years and is still unemployed. He is having responsibility of maintaining his widow daughter Smt. Renu and her son. The petitioner is also having the burden of marriage of one daughter namely Ms. Ruby who is at the marriageable of 29 years.
37. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner and his son are gainfully employed and earning not less than Rs. 50,000/ per month and the petitioner has not disclosed the amount of pension.
38. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta VI (1999) SLT 163 = (1999) 6 SCC 222 wherein, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : E12/2012 Page 17/23 "12. A perusal of Section 14 of the Act shows that the law has imposed restrictions on the recovery of possession, of any premises by landlord from a tenant notwithstanding any law or contract to the contrary. However, an order for recovery of possession is permissible on one or more of the specified ground. One such ground is the premises let for residential purposes being required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. What is a bonafide requirement is not defined in the Act. The words 'need' and 'require' both denote a certain degree of want with a thrust within demanding fulfilment. 'Need' or 'requirement' qualified by word 'bonafide' or 'genuine' preceding as an adjectiveis an expression often used in Rent Control Laws. 'Bonafide or genuine need' of the landlord or that the landlord 'genuinely requires' or "requires bonafide" an accommodation for occupation by or use for himself is an accepted ground for eviction and such expression is often employed by Rent Control legislation draftsman. The two expressions are interchangeable in practice and carry the same meaning."
13. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean "in good faith: genuine". The word 'genuine' means 'natural; not spurious; real" pure: sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley defines bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of E12/2012 Page 18/23 intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bona fides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. 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 the positive, the need is bona fide. The failure on the part of the 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 was 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. Once the court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective E12/2012 Page 19/23 standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against."
39. In "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta", 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 231 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one. If the respondent wished to settle her sons and grandsons, and she required accommodation for the same, it could not be said to be malafide on her part.
40. The right of landlord for possession of his/her property for setting up a business for his son has also been recognized by the Apex Court in "Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das", 2009 (2) RCR 455.
41. The moral duty of a parent to help, establish his/her son has also E12/2012 Page 20/23 been recognized by the Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal", AIR 2002 SC 2256 in the following words:
"24.... Keeping in view the social or socioreligious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be a 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 landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the court shall with circumspection inquire: (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close interrelation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
42. In 2008. Rajdhani Law Reporter. 75 (SC) titled as Yadvendra Arya Vs. Mukesh Gupta, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "If owner's son is sitting idle and he is able and needs tenanted premises, then it is a bonafide need. When Court is satisfied by objective assessment, it must leave the matter to subjective assessment of owner. Another vacant shop if unsuitable is irrelevant. Landlord is the best judge of his needs. Rent Act does not confer E12/2012 Page 21/23 undeserved benefits on tenants. Court must not make short sighted parochial approach. Tenant should not be given undeserved benefits and preferences to avoid unconstitutional invalidity of Rent Act. When Rent Act allows eviction on some ground, Court must not stretch or strain language to deny relief to landlord. Law is heavily loaded in favour of tenants. As landlords are also weak, feeble and humble, Courts should not hesitate to lean in their favour. When landlord seek eviction, he looses rental income and Court must not hasten to imagine it to be a ruse. Protection to tenant stands lifted as landlord really needed premises."
43. Let us see the bonafide requirement of the petitioner, keeping in view the aforesaid authorities. The respondents have not disputed that daughter of the petitioner Ms. Ruby is still unmarried. It is the moral duty of the petitioner to get her married and for this purpose, a considerable amount of money is required. It is also the moral duty of the petitioner to settle his son. The contention of the respondents that petitioner has not disclosed the amount of pension is immaterial in today's context keeping in view price escalation and devaluation of rupee and, therefore, requirement of the petitioner to do a business for getting additional income cannot be doubted. On the same lines, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner and his son are earning Rs. 50,000/ per month which has been denied by the petitioner, but assuming for the sake of arguments that the son of the petitioner is so employed that itself will be no ground to doubt the bonafide requirement of the petitioner (Reliance placed upon RCR No. 306/2012, titled as "Rattan Studio Vs. Ms. Raju Rani Jain" decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.08.2012, para no.7). E12/2012 Page 22/23
44. Therefore, the wish of the petitioner to a start a business from the tenanted premises for getting additional income apart from the pension and also to settle his son cannot be said to be mere wish or desire. Rather, the requirement of the petitioner is bonafide and genuine.
45. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the respondents have failed to put forth any triable issue which requires investigation or requires recording of evidence. In other words, primafacie there is nothing on record which would disentitle the petitioner of the right of immediate possession of the tenanted premises.
46. With these observations, application of the respondents under Section 25B (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one shop bearing no.3018/38, Beaden Pura, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, measuring 8' X 10', situated on the ground floor as shown in red colour in the siteplan attached with the petition. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH )
on 03.12.2013 Administrative Civil JudgeCum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi
E12/2012 Page 23/23
E12/2012
03.12.2013
Pr: None.
Vide separate order, application of the respondents for leave to defend is dismissed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one shop bearing no. 3018/38, Beaden Pura, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, measuring 8' X 10', situated on the ground floor as shown in red colour in the siteplan attached with the petition. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sanjeev Kumar Singh) ACJ/ARC (Central)/Delhi 03.12.2013 E12/2012 Page 24/23