Delhi District Court
Bhavana Mahendru And Ors vs Smt. Darshan Rode on 1 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No: 81-23
CNR No. DLWT-03-002845-2023
1. Ms. Bhavna Mahendru
D/o Late Shri H.K. Mehta
J-422, Third Floor, Shankar Road, New Delhi-110 060.
2. Smt. Rama Mehta
W/o Late Shri H.K. Mehta
13/1, West Patel Nagar New Delhi 110008.
3. Ms. Seema Neb
D/o Late Shri H.K. Mehta
E-107A, IIIrd floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065.
All permanent residents of 13/1,
West Patel Nagar New Delhi-110 008. ......Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Darshan Rode
Widow of Late Shri Jia Lal Rode
R/o 52/3, 3rd Floor, Ashok Nagar,
Near Tilak Nagar New Delhi-110018.
2. Shri Rajiv Kumar Roday alias Rajiv Kumar Rode
S/o Late Shri Jia Lal Rode
First Address
M/s. Art Jewellers,
Privately numbered Shop No. 6, Ground Floor,
13/1, West Patel Nagar New Delhi-110008.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.1 of 38
Second Address :
52/3, 3rd Floor, Ashok Nagar,
Near Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110 018. ....Respondents
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. The Petitioners filed the present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying for passing an order for eviction in favour of the Petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the One Shop on the South Western Corner of the building bearing No. 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 110008, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises" or premises in question).
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN THE PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioners, that the Petitioners have inherited the property from Late Sh. H.K. Mehta i.e. property bearing number 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110008, of which the Subject Premises are a part, which was originally belonging to Sh. J. C. Mehta, the grandfather of Petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 and father-in-law of Petitioner No. 2.
3. It has been been further averred, that the subject premises was tenanted to the husband of Respondent No. 1 and father of the Respondent No.2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.2 of 38 by Late Sh. J.C. Mehta. It has been averred, that upon the death of Sh. J.C. Mehta on 11.06.1992, the entire property devolved onto the legal heirs of Sh. J. C. Mehta, including the father of Petitioner No. 1 & 3 and husband of Petitioner No. 2, Sh. H.K. Mehta. It has been averred, that consequent to the death of Sh. H.K. Mehta on 24.10.2011, the other legal heirs of Late J.C. Mehta relinquished their share in the property no. 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110008, vide registered relinquishment deeds in favour of Petitioners No. 1-3, who are now the Owners/ Landladies of the entire property. It has been averred, that the status of petitioner Nos. 1-3 is that of the Owners/ landladies of the tenanted Premises, from where respondents are carrying on their business of jewelery under the name & style of M/s Art Jewellers, which has not been disputed by the Respondents.
4. It has been further averred, that the respondent has lastly paid rentals in respect of the Subject Premises to the petitioners in June 2023 for six (6) months till December 2023 and Ms. Bhavna Mahendru, Petitioner no. 1 had realized the aforesaid rentals from the respondents for and on behalf of all the petitioners. It has been averred, that in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, since the tenant namely Sh. Jia Lal Rode passed away leaving behind the Respondent No. 1 (his spouse) who continues to be in possession of the premises, she alone is entitled to be clothed with the status of the Tenant. However, Respondent No. 2 filed two Petitions, viz. D.R. Petition Nos. 320/2018 and 605/2018 under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 both titled as "Rajiv Kumar Roday Vs. Smt. Rama Mehta & Ors", wherein he described himself as a Tenant and the said Petitions ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.3 of 38 were disposed of vide Orders dated 07.12.2018 and 10.01.2019 respectively.
5. It has been further averred, that the father of Petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 and husband of Petitioner No. 2, Sh. H.K. Mehta had previously filed an Eviction petition against the Respondent no. 1 herein being Eviction Petition No. E-177/09/05 titled 'Sh. H.K. Mehta vs. Smt. Darshan Rodey. However, the same was later withdrawn on 28.05.2011. In the said Eviction Petition, a rough sketch of a site plan based on estimations and approximations was also filed. It has been been further averred, that the tenanted premises were let out to Late Sh. Jia Lal Rode, husband of Respondent no. 1 and father of Respondent no. 2 in August 1991 and the terms of the tenancy were reduced into writing on 16.08.1991.
6. It has been further averred, that the tenanted premises are bonafidely required by the Petitioners for their own use and occupation. It has been been further averred, that Ms. Bhavna Mahendru, Petitioner No. 1, is a Trained Graduate Teacher and has two children, a daughter and a son aged 24 years and 18 years respectively. It has been averred, that Petitioner No. 1 had taken a break from her teaching career in or about 2014 on account of the young and adolescent ages of her then growing children, but now both of whom are grown-ups and mature, petitioner no. 1 is now able to devote her quality time and professional qualification and is keen to resume her teaching career. It has been averred, that restarting her teaching career would not only be a source ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.4 of 38 of financial augmentation to Petitioner No.1's family, but it will also greatly advance a social cause of quality education to young children.
7. It has been further averred, that tenanted premises admeasuring approximately 292 sq. ft. together with another about 54 sq. ft. would be minimally ideal to be used as a small study centre for supplementing conventional school curriculum which is the demand of the day. It has been averred, that tenanted Premises under the tenancy of the Respondent is an L-shaped layout that includes provision for a toilet and there is another tenant, namely, M/s Arora Hosiery and General Store, who occupies a contiguous space admeasuring about 54 sq. ft. and the aggregate space of the aforesaid two tenancies comes to approximately 346 sq. ft. This aggregate layout with an advantage of opening on the main street, facility of a provision for a washroom within is ideally suitable for the intended activity of a small study center which would house a classroom, reception area, server room, pantry etc. The Petitioner has also sought the aid of a professional who has made a suggested architectural layout which demonstrates the requirements and ideal locations of the above facilities.
8. It has been further averred, that the tenanted area is 292 sq. ft., and whereas the Petitioner needs about 350 sq. ft. for a meaningful fulfillment of her bonafide needs as set out in this petition. The petitioners have also filed an eviction petition against M/s Arora Hosiery & General Store, since the bonafide, legitimate, meaningful and reasonable need of the Petitioner No. 1 is met with approximately 350 sq. ft. and not by the tenancy area alone.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.5 of 38
9. It has been further averred, that the Petitioner No. 2, who is a senior citizen aged about 74 years old and she is also suffering from certain diseases of old age, would vastly get benefit from having her daughter ie. Petitioner No.1 in close vicinity to monitor her health and take greater care of her and Petitioner No. 2 does not have a full time help and petitioner No.1's close proximity would be of extreme advantage to Petitioner No. 2. Lastly, it is prayed, that the eviction order in respect of the tenanted premises may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
PLEAS TAKEN IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
10. In the leave to defend application, respondent no. 2 has inter-alia stated, that the respondents received the summons of the application along with copy of petition U/s 14(1)(e) D.R.C. Act and the present application for leave to defend was filed within the statutory period. The respondents have vehemently denied each and every statement, averment and submissions made therein as the same are false, frivolous and misconceived and are totally baseless except for which is admitted or a matter of judicial record.
11. It has been further stated, that the present eviction petition is not maintainable and the respondent has several grounds to contest the Eviction Petition which constitutes triable issues. It has been contended, that the petitioners have not pleaded the entire ingredients U/s 14 (i) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.6 of 38
12. It has been contended, that respondent No. 2 had been in control of the tenanted premises and conducting exclusive business activity since the last more than 3 decades under the name and style of M/s Art Jewelers. It has been contended, that the Petitioners had earlier instituted an eviction petition being E. No. 26286 of 2016 titled as, " Smt. Rama Mehta vs. Sh. Sushil Kumar" in respect one private shop (Corner shop) measuring 12ft x 10ft on the ground floor of the property no: 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and the petitioners had stated in the said petition that the said tenanted shop was required for the use and occupation of the Petitioner no. 3 being a member of the family and accordingly an order of eviction was passed. It has been contended, that the said premises is lying vacant, although the signboard of the petitioner no. 3 has been put up to mislead and to give it as a colour that the said tenanted premises is being used by the Petitioner no. 3 and the electricity connection that was being used by the earlier tenant in the said tenanted premises from then independent Electricity Meter has also been disconnected by the concerned authorities. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners have deliberately not disclosed the facts that were required to be disclosed by them for seeking the relief against the Respondent.
13. It has been submitted, that the said activity is now prohibited by the rules promulgated by the central government of India for running coaching center in terms of the rules and regulations. As per the rules announced by the central government on 18th January, 2024, "No Private coaching institute of any state in the country will be able to get ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.7 of 38 admission to children below 16 years old". Thus the petitioners cannot seek to evict the respondent from the tenanted premises on the intended use of the premises for a purpose which has been prohibited by coaching center rules and regulations. The courts will not come to the aid of the petitioner's achieve their purpose if the said purpose is unlawful, illegal and prohibited by the rules promulgated by the Government of India.
14. It has been further submitted, that the demised premises is one of the Six shops constructed on the ground floor of a plot of land wherein the first floor and second is constructed in the possession of the Petitioner no. 2. All the six shops were let out to tenants since several decades by the original Allottee/owner of the plot of land. It has been contended by the respondent, that before approaching this court for eviction of the respondent no.2, the petitioner ought to have obtained :-
i) Permission to Demolish Internal/Partition Walls so as to amalgamate the two shops &
ii) Seek Permission of Appropriate Authority for running a Coaching Study Centre.
15. It has been contended, that the so called bonafide requirement of the petitioner is not a real possibility but a fanciful idea i.e. more in the nature of dream than a reality. Such imaginative planning without lawful approval is not executable. The applicant verily believes that the MCD would not grant permission for demolition of internal walls especially of a property which was constructed many decades ago back so as to create a large room and therefore the subject petition is ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.8 of 38 premature at the least.
16. It has been contended, that the area behind the rear portion of the tenanted premises is much more than the need for the area sought to be projected to be needed by the Petitioners. It has been contended, that the petitioners have deliberately not filed the complete site plan of the complete property i.e. 1st floor and the 2nd floor of the suit property. It has been contended, that the petitioners have submitted that the Petitioner no. 2 does not have a full-time help and the proximity of the Petitioner no.1 would be of extreme advantage to the Petitioner no. 2 and such an assertion is again an attempt on the part of the petitioner is to mislead this Court. The same stand was taken by the petitioners for seeking an eviction order against the tenant in eviction petition no. 26286 of 2016.
17. It is Submitted, that the terminology that is now being sought to be used and the grounds now sought to be agitated for the eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises are primarily on similar lines as was used by them while seeking the eviction of Mr. Sushil Kumar who was running the business of sale of sweets under the name and style of M/s Bikaner Sweets and the said shop is lying vacant.
REPLY & COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS TO LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2
18. It has been stated, that the application seeking Leave to Defend is a vexatious, baseless and time-wasting activity carried out by the Respondent as the same is nothing but a counterblast to the genuine and bonafide need of the "suit premises" by the Petitioners and the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.9 of 38 contents of the application for Leave to Defend has been denied in totality unless admitted specifically. It has been further stated, that the Respondent has raised no triable issue and has merely asserted, that the 'tenanted premises' is not bonafidely required by the Petitioners without providing any cogent proof and/or completely deviating from the normal course of nature.
19. It has been contended, that the petitioners have admitted to the extent of the filing of the eviction petition no. 26286 of 2016 and that an eviction order was passed and the possession of the said shop under the tenancy of M/s Bikaner Sweets was handed over to petitioner no. 3 by the bailiff appointed by the court somewhere in late 2020. It has been contended, that there are three co-owners of property no. 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, namely the Petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3. The corner shop admeasuring approx. 12x10 ft. is under possession and use of the petitioner no. 3 for professional use as her office as a practicing lawyer. It has been averred, that the office address of the petitioner in the identity card issued by the Bar Council of Delhi also contains the same address.
20. It has been contended, that the site map filed along with the eviction petition clearly marks the vacated shop in question as 'Own premises'. It has been contended, that the tenanted premises are required bonafidely for use and occupation by the Petitioner no. 1 and not by petitioner no. 3 and even otherwise, the already vacated premises / shop is 12x10 ft., which is insufficient and of no use for the Petitioner no. 1.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.10 of 38
21. It has been contended that the terms 'Coaching', 'Coaching Centre', Institution' and 'Tutor' are defined in Guideline 4 of the 'Guidelines for Registration and Regulation of Coaching Centre, 2024 as under:
'coaching' means tuition, instructions or guidance in any branch of learning imparted to more than 50 students but does not include counseling, sports, dance, theater and other creative activities:
'coaching center' includes a center, established, run, or administered by any person to provide coaching for any study programme or competitive examinations or academic support to students at school, college, and university level, for more than 50 students 'institution' means school or any other educational institution recognized or controlled by, or affiliated to a Board, or controlled or recognized by State / UT Government, an affiliated college, and associated college, a constituted college, a university or educational institution established under the act of central government or State / UT government;
'tutor' means a person who guides or trains students in any coaching center and includes tutor giving specialized tuition.
22. It has been contended that the guideline 5 provides for Registration of a Coaching Centre and Guideline 6 deals with conditions of such Registration as the activity proposed by the Petitioner is in no way ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.11 of 38 covered by the provisions of 'Guidelines for Registration and Regulation of Coaching Centre, 2024' and reliance is placed on S. Kesar Singh vs. S. Paramjeet Singh & Anr. (RC. REV 427/2017) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
23. No application for leave to defend has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 within the stipulated period.
24. Written synopsis have been filed on behalf of both the parties.
25. The petitioner has relied upon the judgments viz.,
1. Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd, 1998, 8 SCC 119,
2. Raj Kumar Khaitan and Ors. Vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatun and Anr.
(1997) 11 SCC 411,
3. S. Kesar Singh Vs. S. Paramjeet Singh & Anr., RC Rev. 427/17,
4. Harmeet Singh Vs. Dalip Kumar & Anr., 2020 (1) RCR (Rent) 158,
5. Raj Kumar Kashyap and Ors. Vs. Pushpender & Ors., 2021 (1) RCR (Rent) 120,
6. M/s. Marketing Combine Vs. Anjali, 2021 (1) RCR (Rent) 33,
7. Manmohan Singh Vs. Arjun Uppal & Anr., RC Rev. 117/2016 &
8. Sushil Kumar Vs. Rama Mehta & Ors., RC Rev. No. 285/2018 / 2019 Lawpack (Del) 76859.
26. The respondents have relied upon the judgments viz.,
1. Rampat Vs. Ganga Devi, MANU/DE/0234/2015 & ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.12 of 38
2. Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. Arjun Jain & Ors., MANU/DE/3114/2013
27. I have heard at length the rival contentions advanced by Learned counsels for the parties and have further gone through the record carefully. My findings are as under :-
ANAYLYSIS AND FINDINGS
28. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary 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."
29. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.13 of 38 attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
30. These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
31. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
32. It is a settled proposition of law, that burden placed on a tenant is limited and light, provided the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining the order for recovery of possession of premises on the ground specified in clause
(e) being good enough to grant leave to defend.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.14 of 38
33. 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 not suit the landlord, 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 on mere asking all in a routine manner as the same would defeat the very purpose and objective of special provisions entailed under Chapter III A of the Act.
34. It is further settled, that at the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of rival contentions. Assertions and counter-assertions made in affidavit may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at a affirmative conclusion in 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.
35. It is further settled, that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a land lord has to establish his need which is genuine and real and not merely his desire.
36. In short and substance, wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend, but a triable issue is raised, a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by Statute itself to grant leave. When a tenant is denied leave to defend, although he had fair chance to ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.15 of 38 prove his defence, he will suffer great hardship. Therefore, a balance view is to be taken having regards to the settled propositions of law and competing claims of the rival parties.
37. The satisfaction of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus:-
"The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in sub-section
(e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non-residential ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.16 of 38 accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
38. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean "in good faith and genuine i.e. without fraud or deceit". Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of 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 the 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 mere pretense 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 the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.17 of 38 Court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.
OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
39. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant is always a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
40. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.18 of 38 property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
41. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
42.Now, in light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case in hand.
43. It is the case of the petitioners, that the petitioners have inherited the property bearing number 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110008 from Late Sh. H.K. Mehta, which originally belonged to Sh. J. C. Mehta, the grandfather of Petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 and father-in-law of Petitioner No. 2 and upon the death of Sh. J.C. Mehta on 11.06.1992, the entire property devolved onto the legal heirs of Sh. J. C. Mehta, including the father of Petitioner No. 1 & 3 and husband of Petitioner No. 2, Sh. H.K. Mehta. Thereafter, consequent to the death of Sh. H.K. Mehta on 24.10.2011, the other legal heirs of Late J.C. Mehta relinquished their share vide registered relinquishment deed in favour of Petitioner No. 1 to 3 / owners / landladies of the entire property.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.19 of 38
44. It has been been further submitted, that the tenanted premises were let out to Late Sh. Jia Lal Rode, husband of Respondent no. 1 and father of Respondent no. 2 in August 1991 and the terms of the tenancy were reduced into writing on 16.08.1991. Petitioners have also placed on record the said rent deed. It has been further submitted, that after the demise of Sh. Jia Lal Rode, the Respondent No. 1 (his spouse) continues to be in possession of the tenanted premises in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and she alone is entitled to be clothed with the status of the Tenant. It has been further submitted, that the respondent has lastly paid rentals in respect of the Subject Premises to the petitioners in June 2023 for six (6) months till December 2023 and Ms. Bhavna Mahendru, Petitioner no. 1 had realized the rentals from the respondent.
45.Per contra, the respondent no. 2 has nowhere disputed the ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondents and respondent no. 2, vide his leave to defend application, has only raised the issue, that the petitioners have not taken the permission from the concerned department to demolish internal/partition walls in order to amalgamate the two shops and the permission from the concerned authority to run a coaching centre.
Further, the respondent no. 1 i.e. the wife of Sh. Jia Lal Rode, the erstwhile / original tenant, neither appeared nor filed the leave to defend application in the Court.
46.It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.20 of 38 required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondent herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title between than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
47. It is further not out of place to mention, that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as A. K. Nayyar Vs. Mahesh Prasad (decided on 05.09.2008) has categorically held in para no. 6 as under :-
"it is settled law that under DRC Act, a landlord seeking eviction of premises for his bonafide requirement is not required to show his absolute ownership over the property. The word "owner" has not been defined in the Act and the concept of ownership for the purpose of DRC Act has to be understood in proper context. If a person has let out a premises as an attorney of some other person for the benefit of some other ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.21 of 38 person and he is only collecting rent and passing it on to the person for whose benefit the premises is let out, then such person cannot be considered as an owner unless he is able to show that for whom he is acting, has relinquished his rights in his favour and after letting it out as attorney, he subsequently becomes the owner. This Court on number of occasions, held that the concept of ownership under DRC Act is different from the concept of ownership under TPA and the ownership under DRC Act, it is not an absolute ownership."
48. Further, it is a settled law that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.22 of 38 sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
49.In this regard, reliance is further placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Ashok Bimal Ghosh Vs. Beant Kaur, Civil Appeal No. 1522 of 2000 decided on 09.04.2002, whereby it has been held in para no. 6, as .....
"no tenant of any property shall, during the continuance of tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the lesser of such property. The rule of estoppel contained in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act continues to operate so long as the tenant has not surrendered possession of the tenancy premises to his lesser or unless evicted by holder of title paramount, which is not the case here."
50.Therefore, at the cost of brevity, it is reiterated, that it is a settled law ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.23 of 38 that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord, neither is the landlord require to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondents herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioner. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title between than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
51.Therefore, in lieu of the above, the simplicitor denial of the respondent to the ownership and land-lordship of the petitioner does not suffice. As a sequel to the above detailed discussion, the ownership in favour of the petitioner and the relationship of landlord - tenant stands duly proved for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONERS IS BONAFIDE?
52.Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord, this Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term "bonafide" and the law settled in this regard.
53. The word "genuine" means "natural: not spurious: real: pure: sincere ".
In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.24 of 38 "good faith, without fraud or deceit". Thus the term bonafide refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much 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 contra- distinction with a mere pretense 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. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
54. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on re- cord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer were in positive the need is bonafide.
55. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v. Nandram Deviram that:-
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is distinction between the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.25 of 38 two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Section 4 (g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was un- reliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."
56. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has in-inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely "illusory or whittled down". The words "reasonable requirement"
undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.26 of 38 opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a land- lord/owner cannot be equated with bonafide need.
57. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words " required bonafide by the landlord" signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective. The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic conditions obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
58.It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.27 of 38 "..... the crux of ground envisaged in clause
(e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a primafacie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by the courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself..."
59.On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in hands, it is the case of the petitioner, that Ms. Bhavna Mahendru, Petitioner No. 1, is a Trained Graduate Teacher and has two children and that she had taken a break from her teaching career in or about 2014 on account of the young and adolescent ages of her then growing children. It has been further submitted, that since the children of petitioner no. 1 are grown-ups and mature and thus she wants to devote her quality time and professional qualification and is keen to resume her teaching career.
It has been submitted, that the tenanted premises admeasuring approximately 292 sq. ft. together with another shop measuring about ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.28 of 38 54 sq. ft. under the tenancy of Arora Hosiery, qua which the separate petition for eviction has been filed, would be required to start a study centre. Further, the said petition filed against Sh. Paras Ram Arora / tenant has been settled and the respondents have handed over the keys of the shop in question to the petitioners.
Additionally, it has been further submitted, that the Petitioner No. 2, who is a senior citizen aged about 76 years old and she is suffering from various old age diseases, would get benefit from having her daughter I.e. Petitioner No.1 in close vicinity to monitor her health and take care of her.
60.Per contra, it is stand of the respondent no. 2, that before filing the petition for eviction, the petitioners have not obtained the permission to demolish internal/partition walls so as to amalgamate the two shops & permission of concerned authority for running a Coaching Study Centre at the subject premises.
It has been contended, that the requirement of the petitioners is not bonafide but a fanciful idea without lawful approvals.
Also, respondent no. 2 has raised objection, that the opening of coaching center is prohibited by the rules promulgated by the central government of India for running coaching center in terms of the rules and regulations.
61.In lieu of the rival contentions, this Court deems it fit to state, that in ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.29 of 38 their support, the petitioners have filed the educational document of the petitioner no. 1 i.e. the degree pertaining to Bachelor of Education with English and Social Studies and certificate issued by G. D. Salwan Public School dated 28.03.2014 with respect to the services done by the petitioner no.1 with the said school w.e.f. 02.07.2001 to 31.03.2014. Thus, from the primafacie perusal of these documents, it stands deduced, that petitioner no. 1 does possess sufficient educational qualification for the purpose of starting a coaching centre.
Additionally, the guidelines 5 and 6 under the Guidelines for Registration and Regulation of Coaching Centre, 2024 for Registration of a Coaching Centre deals with the condition of such registration, however the activity intended to be proposed by the petitioner in the premises in question does not stand covered by the provisions of Guidelines for Registration and Regulation of Coaching Centre, 2024. In the judgment of S. Kesar Singh vs. S. Paramjeet Singh & Anr. (RC. REV 427/2017) decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held in Para 19 as under :-
"Till a business is commenced, the intending businessman is always entitled to change his plans from time to time. I have in fact enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, whether not in Law College, most of the students desire to practice corporate law and join Law Firms and thereafter change their mind and even shift to litigation or to other arenas requiring acumen in law. The counsel for the petitioner ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.30 of 38 is unable to rebut the same."
62.Further, from the perusal of the architectural layout plan of the tenanted premises proposed by the petitioner, it stands reflected, that the study area shown in the same would accommodate the sitting of 15 children at a time apart from the teacher's desk and this further takes the intended activity outside the purview of the Guidelines for Registration and Regulation of Coaching Centre, 2024, as the term 'coaching' means tuition, instructions or guidance in any branch of learning imparted to more than 50 students but does not include counseling, sports, dance, theater and other creative activities.
It is further pellucid to note, that the fact that the petitioner had hired the services of an architect for working out the entire constructural layout plan for their proposed project, is further reflective of the bonafide of the petitioner.
Another vital aspect which can neither be eschewed nor can be given a blind look is the fact, that the petitioner no. 2 being the mother of the petitioners no. 1 and 3 is in the twilight zone of her life and if at this stage, it is intended by the parents to have their children around them or within their close vicinity, then the same very much false within the domain of their genuine need and will most certainly not be covered within the ambit of a wishful desire. The fact that the tenanted premises is also sought for by the petitioner no. 1 to remain in the close vicinity of her mother, so that she can monitor her health and take care of her in the dawn of her life is a facet of bonafide need. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.31 of 38 Thus, in the light of the above discussion, the genuineness of the petitioner is embodied in her two-fold need as under :-
firstly, that by starting the intended coaching centre activity, she would be able to sub-plant her income as she possesses requisite academic expertise and knowledge for the same and secondly, she would be able to take care of her mother in the old age and further be able to provide her with immediate medical attendance as and when required.
Moving ahead, another leg of argument harped upon by the respondent is with regard to non-grant of permission by the MCD for the purpose of demolition of internal walls on account of property being old, is on the face of it vague and frivolous as that is a circumstance which would be adjudged and evalued subsequently, if the need for demolition of the complete structure so arises and if at all the said demolition is not permitted or objected to by the MCD. The respondent is pre-mediating and adjudging for itself that the said would be the objection that would be taken by the MCD without any paraphernalia / circumstances to support the said averment. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said averment is premature and does not hold waters. It goes without saying, that whatever activity is intended to be carried by the petitioners in the premises in question would nevertheless be carried out within the parameters and framework of law.
63.Therefore, in the teeth of above analysis qua this aspect of bonafide need as well, it can be deduced that there is no triable issue that stands ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.32 of 38 established by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioners.
WHETHER THE SUITABLE ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATE IS AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS OR NOT?
64.The respondent no.2 has averred in his leave to defend qua this aspect, that an eviction order was passed in eviction petition no. 26286 of 2016 and the possession of the tenanted shop in the said petition under the tenancy of M/s Bikaner Sweets was handed over to petitioner no. 3 by the bailiff appointed by the court somewhere in late 2020 and the same is lying vacant.
65.Per contra, it has been contended by the petitioners, that there are three co-owners of property no. 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, namely the Petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 3. It has been contended, that the corner shop admeasuring approx. 12x10 ft. is under the possession and use of the petitioner no. 3 for her professional use as her office as a practicing lawyer. It has been averred, that the office address of the petitioner in in the identity card issued by the Bar Council of Delhi also contains the same address.
Thus, vide this contention, the respondents are harping on the fact, that the petitioners have an alternative accommodation available with them in the form of the corner shop, that stands vacated vide the order passed in another eviction petition no. 26286/2016.
66.Now, before delving into this aspect of suitability of premises in question for running a coaching centre and the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner, if any, this Court deems it fit to ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.33 of 38 discuss the law laid down vide plethora of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court in determining that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is at complete liberty to take this call. Law is well settled that it is the landlord who has to decide as to how and in what manner, he should live and that he is the best judge of his requirement.
In the case of Om Prakash Singhal Vs. Shri Roshan Lal, 1969 RCR 391, it has been held that as a broad workable rule, the landlord must left to assess his requirement in the background of his possession, circumstance, status and life and social and other responsibilities, and other relevant factors.
In Parvati Devi Vs. P. V. Krishna, JT 1987 (1) SC 764 , it has been held as under :-
"The landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live and prescribe for him a standard of their own. There is no law that deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.
In Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja, MANU / SC / 0435 / 2014 : (2014) 15 SCC 610, it has been held as under :-
"It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property AIR 1999 SC 100 (1996) 5 SCC 353 (2014) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.34 of 38 15 SCC 610, Neutral Citation Number : 2023 : DHC : 3199 belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business."
In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC / 0087 / 2021, it has been held as under :-
"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."
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) MANU / SC / 0432 / 1999: (1999) 6 SCC 222, it has been held as under :-
"Once the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the premises by applying objective 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."
67.On the basis of the law reproduced on this aspect, coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is the case of the petitioners, that the tenanted premises along with the another shop which was earlier in the possession of another tenant namely Paras Ram Arora are suitable for bonafide requirement of the petitioners and they have no other suitable alternate accommodation lying vacant in their favour.
68.The argument of the respondent with respect to the other shop that is ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.35 of 38 the corner shop cited as an alternative accommodation does not cut much ice with the Court as petitioner no. 3 has been using the same for her office purpose and in support of this averment of hers, she has also placed on record the true copy of the certificate of enrollment as Advocate bearing no. 030460, true copy of the identity card issued by the Bar Council of Delhi and true copy of the identity card issued by the Delhi High Court Bar Association. Perusal of these documents reveal, that the petitioner no. 3 is a practicing advocate and perusal of the photograph placed on record by the petitioners reflect, that the signboard of petitioner no. 3 has been affixed outside the said shop. Therefore, these parameters are sufficient to establish that the premises that the corner shop admeasuring approximately 12 X 10 ft is under the possession and occupation of petitioner no. 3 and is being used by her for her professional practice as an advocate.
Thus, the plea of the respondent qua the availability of an alternative suitable accommodation with the petitioners apart from the premises in question does not give rise to any triable issue which may disentitle the petitioner from obtaining the eviction order in their favour.
69. Additionally, the property in question has entrance from the main road and the same is most conducive for effecting the ingress and egress of the children to the institute that the petitioner intends to open. Further, in light of the detailed law discussed as above, it is being averred at the cost of brevity, that neither the tenant nor the Court can dictate the landlord / petitioner as to how he should be using her property or premise. The entire genesis behind enacting the DRC Act would stand ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.36 of 38 punctured, if the landlord is deprived of the beneficial use of his property in accordance with the dictum of the tenant.
70.In the considered view of this Court, undoubtedly, in case the eviction order is passed against the tenant, it would cause the hardship to the respondent but the requirement of the petitioners has more importance than the hardship to the respondent as being the owner of the tenanted premises, landlord can not be left suffering merely to save the tenancy of the respondent. Although, this Court has sympathy with the respondent. Moreover, it is well settled law that a Rent Controller is not supposed to weigh such plea of the tenant while deciding the petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
Conclusion
71.Therefore, in the teeth of the above exhausted discussion and settled proposition of law, in the considered opinion of this Court, the undisputed conclusion is, that the respondents have failed to raise any triable issue, which requires evidence to be proved. The petitioners, on the other hand, have clearly established their bonafide requirement regarding tenanted premises. The application for leave to defend filed by respondent no. 2 is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, eviction order is liable to be passed against both the respondents under Section 25 B (4) of the Act. In view of above, petitioners are held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e. " One Shop on the South Western Corner of the building bearing No. 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 110008, as shown in red colour in the site plan " as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.37 of 38 However, the petitioners would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances, no order as to costs.
72. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
Announced in the open Court SHARMA Date:
2025.04.01
on 01.04.2025 Richa Sharma 16:26:16
+0530
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC / Delhi / 01.04.2025
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.38 of 38 RC ARC 81/23 BHAVANA MAHENDRU AND ORS. Vs. SMT.
DARSHAN RODE 01.04.2025 Present : Sh. Karan Gaur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner through VC.
Petitioner no. 3 through VC.
None for the respondent.
Vide separate detailed order of the even date announced in the open Court today, the application for leave to defend filed by respondent no. 2 is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, eviction order is passed against both the respondents under Section 25 B (4) of the Act and the petitioners are held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e. " One Shop on the South Western Corner of the building bearing No. 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 110008, as shown in red colour in the site plan" as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioners would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances, no order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.04.01
(Richa Sharma)
16:26:24 +0530
Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC
THC / Delhi / 01.04.2025
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.81/23 Bhavna Mahendru & Ors.Vs. Darshan Rode & Ors. Page No.39 of 38