Delhi District Court
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Taneja vs Sh. Ajay Kumar Garg on 19 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR, SCJ-CUM-RC,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Eviction Petition No.59/2014 (New No.642/16)
Unique Case ID/CNR no.DLET03-000561-2014
1. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Taneja
S/o Late Sh. Krishan Lal Taneja
R/o V-20, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-32
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ajay Kumar Garg
S/o Late Sh. S.N. Garg
2. Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg
S/o Late Sh. S.N. Garg
Both residents of N.G. Kids Wear
Shop No.2 (self Marked)
In property bearing no.9/7079,
At ground floor, Gurunanak Street,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031
......Respondents
Date of Institution of Petition : 05.06.2014
Date on judgment reserved : 13.04.2023
Date of Judgment pronounced : 19.04.2023
Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 1 of 22
1. This judgment shall decide eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the bonafide requirement of the petitioner for expanding his existing business and also settling independent business of his son. Petitioner's case
2. It is stated in the plaint that petitioner is the owner and landlord of the shop bearing no.3, (self marked) in property bearing no.9/7079, Ground floor, Gurunanak Street, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 and respondents are the tenants of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs.726/- per month, which was let out for commercial purposes and the same is being used by the respondents under the name and style of M/s. N.G. Kids Wears.
3. It is stated that initially the mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Krishna Wanti W/o Sh. Krishan Lal Taneja was the sole owner of the property in question vide sale deed registered as document no.14035 dated 19.10.1966. Smt. Krishna Wanti died intestate on 16.08.1966 leaving behind seven legal heirs. It is further stated that all the sons and daughters of the deceased Krishna Wanti relinquished their rights in favour of their father Sh. Krishan Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 2 of 22 Lal Taneja, husband of the deceased vide registered relinquishment deed registered at document no.2541 dated 18.10.1999.
4. It is stated that petitioner became the sole owner of the property in question i.e. 9/7079, Ground floor, Gurunanak street, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 110031 after purchasing the property from his father Sh. Krishan Lal Taneja vide registered irrevocable GPA, Will, agreement for sale of property, receipt for full and final payment and possession letter dated 21.04.2005. The shop no.3 is under the tenancy of Sh. Mohan Kumar Garg who is running his business under the name & style of M/s. Tiny King Knit Wear whereas shop no.1 is being used by petitioner himself to earn his livelihood and is running the business under the name & style of M/s. Taneja Garments and against the other tenant mentioned herein. The shop no.2 is under the tenancy of respondent Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg and Ajay Kumar Garg. The respondents were inducted as a tenants in the tenanted premises by the mother of the petitioner and they attorned in her favour and paid the rent to her. Thereafter, when the petitioner came into the sole ownership of the property in question, he duly informed the same to the respondents and they attorned in favour of the petitioner and started paying the rent to the petitioner. Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 3 of 22
5. It is stated that petitioner is running a Homeopathic clinic at 1/9739, Behl Gali, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 which is a shop at ground floor situated in a residential premises. The petitioner opens the said clinic just for 2 hours in even at 8 pm to 10 pm every day except Sunday and on Monday by appointment to help the need people. It is further stated that two children namely Surbhi Taneja and Sh. Gaurav Taneja are dependent upon the petitioner for commercial premises and the petitioner is duty bound to provide adequate help to settle them for a bright future. The son of the petitioner Gaurav Taneja has completed his schooling in the year 2013 and he is not much interested in pursuing his studies further and from last one year, he is sitting idle at home and therefore, he is willing to start his own independent business. The petitioner also wants to expand his business after getting the shop vacated from the respondents as front of the shop no.1 from where the petitioner is carrying out his business opens in a narrow street which is unable to fetch customers, whereas tenanted premises opens towards the wide road and is most ideal for carrying out any business. It is further stated that petitioner or any of his family member do not own or possess any commercial/suitable premises to do any sort of business independently except the tenanted premises. So, petitioner requires the tenanted premises for Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 4 of 22 himself for expanding his existing business and also settling independent business for his son Gaurav Taneja.
Respondent's case
6. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondents was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2015.
7. Accordingly, the written statement was filed by the respondent. In the written statement, it is stated that the petitioner is not the legal and lawful owner of the property no.9/7079, Ground Floor, Gurunanak Street, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. It is submitted that the petitioner has not filed the registered sale deed in the name of Smt. Krishna Wanti showing that she was the registered owner of the property no.9/7079, Ground Floor, Gurunanak Street, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. The alleged documents filed by the petitioner do not show that the petitioner is the legal and lawful owner of suit property. It is further stated that son of the petitioner named Gaurav Taneja is not dependent upon the petitioner for any purpose. The petitioner has not filed the Registered Sale Deed in the name of Smt. Krishna Wanti showing that she was the registered owner of the property no. 9/7079, Ground Floor, Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 5 of 22 Gurunanak Street, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31. It is further stated that petitioner is in actual, vacant and physical possession of the 1 st and 2nd floor of the property bearing no.1/9739, Behl Gali, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara Delhi. The petitioner, purposely and deliberately, did not file the site Plan of the said property on record with a malafide intention to conceal the exact construction in existence on the ground floor, first floor and the second floor. The respondents have already filed the photographs of the said property on record showing that there exists ground floor, first floor and second floor in the property bearing no. 1/9739, Behl Gali, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara Delhi. Hence, it is clear that the Ground floor of the said property is in actual and physical possession of the petitioner where he is running his Homeopathic Clinic. The first and the second floor are lying vacant and the same are also in the actual and physical possession of the petitioner. It is further stated that petitioner is also in actual and physical possession of the property bearing no. W-22, Navin Shahdara, Delhi-32. The petitioner has not filed the complete site plan of the property No. W-22, Navin Shahdara, Delhi-32 on record. Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 6 of 22 Petitioner's case as per Replication
8. Petitioner filed the rejoinder/replication wherein the averments of the eviction petition were reiterated and reaffirmed and those of the written statement were denied as false and incorrect. In particular, it is stated that admittedly petitioner is running his Homeopathic clinic at ground floor of property bearing no.1/9739, behl Gali, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi and the building consists of ground and first floor only, but the same is residential in nature and even otherwise, 1st floor of a residential premises cannot be in any terms compared with a commercial accommodation that too situated in a famous market. It is denied that petitioner is the owner or in possession of the property bearing no.W-22, Naven Shahdara. Petitioner has already placed on record the copy of the sale deed of the property bearing no.W-22, Naveen Shahdara which clearly reveals that said property belongs to one Smt. Pratibha Khosla since 2005. It is denied that petitioner is the owner or in possession of property bearing no.1/9509, West Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. It is specifically mentioned that property bearing no.V-20, 2 nd floor,Naveen shahdara, Delhi-32 is the residence of petitioner, hence, there is no concealment on the part of the petitioner.
Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 7 of 22 Evidence led by the parties
9. In order to prove the case, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Taneja was examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A & B. He relied upon the documents i.e. original site plan Ex.PW1/A, mark A is the copy of sale deed dated 17.10.1966 (colly) (Ex.PW1/B is de-exhibited and the same is mark-A, Ex.PW1/C (colly)(OSR) is the copy of relinquishment deed dated 05.10.1999, Ex.PW1/D (colly)(OSR) is the copy of Irrevocable GPA dated 15.04.2005, agreement to sell, Will, receipt and possession letter, Ex.PW1/E (colly 3 pages) is the copy of legal notice dated 15.03.2014 (Ex.PW1/F is de-exhibited and the same is mark-B, Ex.PW1/G(OSR) is copy of one page of my bank passbook of PW1, Ex.PW1/H (colly 9 pages) (OSR) is the copy of Irrevocable GPA dated 15.04.2005, Ex.PW1/I (COLLY 21 pages)(OSR) is the copy of sale deed dated 12.07.2013, Ex.PW1/J (OSR) is the copy CBSE 12 th certificate of his son Sh. Gaurav Taneja, Mark-C is the copy of electricity bill in his name (Ex.PW1/K is de-exhibited and the same is mark-C), Ex.PW1/L (COLLY 2 PAGES)(OSR) is the copy of assessment order and MCD house tax receipt, Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 8 of 22 mark-D (colly 11 pages) which is the copy of sale deed dated 02.02.2012 and mark-E (colly 11 pages) which is copy of sale deed dated 09.12.2005).
10. Sh. Nishikant Sharma, Delhi Civil Defence, Office of Sub- Registrar-IV-A Shahdara was examined as PW2. He brought the original register bearing volume no.1545 which contains the office copy of the sale deed dated 12.07.2013 executed by Smt. Surinder Kaur Kohli in favour of Smt. Suita Taneja already exhibited as Ex.PW1/I (colly 21 pages), same is Ex.PW2/1 (colly) 21 pages) (OSR). He also proved the original register bearing volume no.36 which contains the office copy of sale deed dated 09.12.2005 executed by Sh. M.M. Taneja in favour of Smt. Pratibha Khosla which is already mark-E (colly 11 pages), same is now Ex.PW2/2 (colly 13 pages). He also proved the copy of sale deed dated 02.02.2012 in respect of property bearing no.1/9509, Plot No.39, West Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 as is available in the register, same is Ex.PW2/3 (COLLY 15 pages) (OSR).
11. Sh. Gopal Dutt, Record Keeper was examined as PW3. He proved the office copy of irrevocable GPA dated 15.04.2005 registered on 21.04.2005 executed by Smt. Usha Aggarwal in favour of Sh. Rakesh Taneja Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 9 of 22 which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/H (colly) 9 pages), same is Ex.PW3/1 (colly 9 pages) (OSR).
12. Petitioner's evidence was closed on 27.07.2019.
13. Sh. Vijay Kumar Garg was examined as RW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A which bears his signature at point A & B. I also relied upon documents i.e. mark-X which is the coyp of electricity bill dated 27.06.2014 in the name of Sh. Rakesh Taneja, Ex.RW1/1 nad Ex.RW1/2 which are the two photographs of the property bearing no.1/9739, Behal Gali West Gorakh Park, shahdara, Delhi, Ex.RW1/3, Ex.RW1/4 and Ex.RW1/5 which are three photographs of the property bearing no.IX/7079, Ground Floor, Gurunanak Street, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He also relied upon the photograph already Ex.PW1/R1, mark-Y which is the photocopy of DD dated 04.03.2014, Ex.RW1/6 which is the copy of the facebook account of the son of the petitioner, Ex.RW1/B which is the affidavit under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and which bears his signatures at point C.
14. Sh. Babu Shankar Yadav, Assistant Personal Officer from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. He brought the summoned record pertaining to Electricity Bill/CA No. 101292332 in the name of Sh. Rakesh Taneja at Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 10 of 22 1/9739, ground floor, Behl Gali, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi. The attested photocopy of the said bill is exhibited as Ex.RW2/1.
15. Respondent's evidence was closed on 07.07.2022.
16. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgment/decision of Superior Courts :-
(i) "Mohammed Sadiq Vs. Deepak Manglani" CA No.8082 of 2022 SCC.
(ii) "Vinod Arora Vs. Deepak Aggarwal" RCR no.52/2010 HC.
(iii) "Ragavendra Kuamr Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co." SCC 200 (1) SCR 77.
(iv) "Surinder Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh "HC RCR No.95/2010
(v) "Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta" AIR 1999 SC 2507 17 In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
i. He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself for expanding his existing business and also settling independent business of his son.
iii. He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 11 of 22 Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord-tenant between petitioner and respondents :
18. Petitioner claimed himself to be the owner of the entire ground floor portion of property bearing no.9/7079, Ground floor, Gurunanak Street, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. It is contended by the petitioner that his mother Smt. Krishna Wanti W/o Krishan Lal Taneja was the sold owner of the property vide registered sale deed dated 19.10.1966. It is contended that Smt. Krishna Wanti died intestate on 16.08.1999 leaving behind seven legal heirs.
After her death, all legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Krishna Wanti relinquished their rights in favour of their father namely Krishan Lal Teneja vide registered relinquishment deed dated 18.10.1999. It is further contended that petitioner purchased the property from his father Krishna Lal Taneja vide registered irrevocable GPA, Will, agreement to sell, receipt and possession letter dated 21.04.2005.
19. Respondents contended that petitioner is not the legal and lawful owner of the property bearing no.9/7079, Ground floor, Gurunanak Street, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 as he has not filed registered sale deed in the name of Krishna Wanti.
Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 12 of 22
20. The contentions of the respondents regarding ownership of the petitioner qua suit property are not tenable as respondents in their WS contended that petitioner accepted the rent of the tenanted premises upto March, 2017. In reply to the para no.4 of the petition, respondents stated that premises in question was let out to them for commercial purposes and since then, the premise in question is being used for commercial purposes. Moreover, RW1 in his cross-examination admitted that Krishna Wanti was the landlady of the suit premises. He also admitted that after the death of Krishna Wanti, he used to pay rent to her son Rakesh Kumar Taneja, who is the petitioner in the present case. He specifically admitted that he is the tenant in the tenanted portion since January, 1984. He also admitted that he had taken the tenanted premises on rent from Krishna Wanti @ approximately Rs.200/- per month. He specifically deposed that he is just the tenant of shop no.2 on the ground floor.
21. Petitioner has proved the relinquishment deed dated 18.10.1999 which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/C. Vide said relinquishment deed dated 18.10.1999, the LRs of deceased Krishna Wanti relinquished their share of the suit property in favour of Krishan Lal Taneja. Petitioner has also proved the irrevocable GPA, agreement to sell, Will, receipt and possession letter Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 13 of 22 executed by Krishan Lal Taneja in his favour.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi" 2008 (2) RCR (Rent) 567 and The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Allahrakha & Anr.
Vs. Allahwala & Anr." 2014 (2) RCR 279 held that "neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of India Evidence Act creates estoppal against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the tenant premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly.".
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs. Leela Wati" 155 (2008) DLT 383. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the above stated decision held "for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 14 of 22 required under the Transfer of Property Act and all that he is required to show is he is more than a tenant."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "M/s. Boorugu Mahadev & Sons & Anr Vs. Sirigiri Narasing Rao & Ors" (2016) 3 SCC 343 held "It is also now a settled principle of law that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation governed by Rent Control laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the content in which it is used.
In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for & on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself what may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit."
22. Thus, in view of the specific admission on behalf of the respondents in their WS and in cross-examination of respondent no.2 and settled law, I am satisfied that petitioner is the owner of the suit property and Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 15 of 22 there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Bonafide requirement of the petitioner for expanding his existing business and also settling independent business of his son and non- availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
23. Petitioner in his petition contended that his son Gaurav Taneja has completed his schooling in the year 2013 and he is not much interested in pursuing his studies further and from last one year, he is sitting idle at home and therefore, he is willing to start his own independent business.
24. In cross-examination of PW1, he deposed that his son Gaurav Taneja joined Nehru Homeopathic Medical college and hospital, Defense Colony, New Delhi in the year 2014. He further deposed that after a period of four and a half years since his joining, he is receiving around Rs.15,000/- as stipend from the said college. Petitioner specifically deposed that after completing his schooling in the year 2013, his son joined the said college in the year 2014. He also admitted that his son was not sitting idle.
25. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his petition that his son had joined Nehru Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital in the year 2014. He also admitted that even at the time of filing of affidavit Ex.PW1/1, Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 16 of 22 he did not mention that his son joined the Nehru Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital in the year 2014.
26. Interestingly, the son of the petitioner namely Gaurav Taneja was not produced as a witness in the present case. Thus, bare perusal of the testimony of PW1 in the context of the petition shows that son of the petitioner pursued further studies and was not sitting idle as contended in the petition. Petitioner has not disclosed the exact nature of the business which his son wants to start from the property in question. However, exact nature of business which the son of the petitioner wants to start does not require to be disclosed, but, the fact that son of the petitioner continued his studies and became a Homeopathic doctor after filing of the present petition cannot be ignored. So, when the testimony of PW1 qua the son of the petitioner is read in the light of Ex.RW1/6, then it shows that son of the petitioner became a qualified Homeopathic doctor. So, it raises serious doubt regarding the bonafide requirement of the son of the petitioner.
27. As far as the bonafide requirement of the petitioner for expanding his business is concerned, petitioner nowhere in his petition disclosed as to how and to what extent, he wants to expand his business. In his cross-examination, petitioner stated that he does not have purchase ledger, Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 17 of 22 stock register, sales invoices, sales register and account register of the manufacturing of the goods i.e. trousers, shirts, bawa suits, jeans and jackets. He further deposed that he does not have the record of VAT number & sales tax number and the same is not found on record. Petitioner failed to prove on record that his shop opens in a narrow street whereas the tenanted premises opens towards the wide road. Ex.PW1/A does not specifically prove that shop of the petitioner opens in a narrow road. On the other hand, it is the admitted case of the parties that the entire property exists in the main market. Not a single document showing business of the petitioner require expansion filed on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner disclosed in his petition that he is a homeopathic doctor and running a homeopathic clinic at 1/9739, Behl Gali, West Gorakh Park, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Though, petitioner claimed that its a charitable hospital and he opens the clinic for two hours in the evening at 08:00 pm to 10:00 pm. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not kept any record to show that he is doing the said profession for charity. He admitted that he does not keep any record of money which is put by the patients in the drop box.
28. Thus, petitioner failed to prove that his business require expansion. It came on record that petitioner is running a Homeopathic clinic Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 18 of 22 and the same is not a Charitable clinic. Petitioner failed to prove that his shop is at a disadvantageous place in comparison to the tenanted shop. Petitioner further failed to prove as to how tenanted shop be used for expansion of his business.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 held that "The phrase "bonafide requirement" or "bonafide need" or "required reasonably in good faith" or "required", occurs in almost all Rent Control Acts with the underlying legislative intent which has been considered and demonstrated innumerable times by various High Courts as also by this Court, some of which we would like to refer to. In Ram Dass Vs. Ishwar Chander (1988) 3 SCC 131, It is said that the bonafide need should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith. It was also indicated that the landlord's desire for possession, however, honest it might otherwise be, has inevitably a subjective element in it, and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need, which can be decided only by taking all the relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 19 of 22 to a tenant is not rendered illusory or whittled down."
In "Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta"
(1999) 6 SCC 222, the Court while dealing with the aspect of bonafide requirement has said that 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, refers to a state of mind prevailing with the landlord. The only way of peeping into the mind of the landlord is an exercise undertaken by the judge of facts by placing himself in the armchair of the landlord and then posing a 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 and honest."
29. Thus, in view of the above stated discussion and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it seems that requirement of the petitioner for himself and his son is not bonafide and sincere. The requirement seems to be a mere pretext just to evict the respondents from the tenanted shop. If the petition of the petitioner qua bonafide requirement is taken as gospel truth, then the protection afforded to a tenant under the DRC Act Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 20 of 22 become illusory and redundant. So, I am satisfied that requirement of the petitioner for himself and his son is not bonafide.
30. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Mohammed Sadiq Vs. Deepak Manglani" CA No.8082 of 2022 SCC pertains to Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control act, 1960. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Ragavendra Kuamr Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co." SCC 200 (1) SCR 77 pertains to M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Vinod Arora Vs. Deepak Aggarwal" RCR no.52/2010 HC, "Surinder Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh" HC RCR No.95/2010 and M/s. Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Smt. Krishna Luthra" RC Rev No.113/2010 pertains to revisional jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under Section 25-(B) of DRC Act. The present case is being decided on merits after leading evidence. Thus, above stated judgments of the superior Courts are distinguished either they pertain to different legislation or different factual matrix or not on merits. So, the above stated decisions relied by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 21 of 22
31. When it is already held that requirement of petitioner and his son is not bonafide and sincere and just a ploy to evict the respondents, so, there is no point in discussing the availability of other reasonable suitable accommodation to the petitioner and his son.
In view of the findings recorded above, the present petition is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
MANOJ
MANOJ KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2023.04.19
(MANOJ KUMAR)
17:19:31
+0530
SCJ-cum-RC, East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
(Announced in open court
on 19th of April, 2023)
Petition No.642/16 Rakesh Kumar Taneja Vs. Ajay Kumar Garg & Ors. Page 22 of 22