Delhi District Court
Ajay Kohli Ors vs Rs Sharma on 17 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK VATS:
ACJ/CCJ/ARC/SOUTH EAST:
SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16
Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma
1. Ajay Kohli
S/o Sh. Vishwa Mittar Kohli
R/o 19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110015,
2. Vinayak Kohli
S/o Sh. P. K. Kohli
R/o 19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110015,
3 Abhay Kohli
S/o Sh. Vishwa Mittar Kohli
R/o 19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110015,
4. Keshav Kohli
S/o Sh. P. K. Kohli
R/o 19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi110015 .....Petitioners
Versus
(i) Mr. R. S. Sharma (deceased)
Through his son, Ramesh Sharma,
J58, Lajpat Nagar III, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi ...Impleaded as LR of Deceased Respondent
(ii) Mr. Anuj Sharma - Germany(Proceeded Exparte)
(iii) Mrs. Suman Sharma - Canada(Proceeded Exparte)
(iv) Mrs. Saroj Gaur (Proceeded Exparte)
R6/182, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad201001 ....respondent
Digitally signed
DEEPAK by DEEPAK
VATS
VATS Date: 2023.11.17
16:24:30 +0530
_____________________________________________________________________________________
RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16
Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 1 of 24
Petition under section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi
Control Act
Date of Institution : 17.08.2015
Date of judgment : 17.11.2023
J U D G M E N T:
1. This is an eviction petition moved under section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act').
2. The brief facts of the present case as per the petition are that Late Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli (grandfather of the petitioners) was the owner of the property no. J-58, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi measuring 297.9 Sq. Yards (hereinafter referred to as entire property). The entire property was built upto 2 floors i.e. Ground Floor and the First Floor in March 1978. The first floor of the entire property comprises of 4 bedroom, kitchen, drawing room and three bathroom/toilets as shown in site plan.
3. Out of the first floor of the entire property, the back portion comprising of two rooms, a store, a bathroom and a lavatory (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises") was let out by Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli to the respondent vide rent agreement dated 01.09.1979.
4. Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli expired on 24.01.2010 and Digitally bequeathed the entire property in favour of the petitioners vide signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
registered Will dated 24.09.1986. After the death of Sh. Narinder Nath 2023.11.17 16:24:44 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 2 of 24 Kohli, the petitioners became the owners of the entire property and a conveyance deed dated 27.01.2011 was executed in their favour by the L&DO.
5. It is averred that after the death of Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli, his elder son Sh. Vishwa Mittal Kohli (father of petitioner no.1 &2 and paternal uncle of petitioner no.3 & 4) collected rent of the tenanted premises and distributed the same among the petitioners.
6. Thereafter, the petitioners wrote a letter dated 02.04.2015 to the respondent for tendering rent to petitioner no. 1 and the respondent issued cheque no. 94089 dated 09.05.2015 for the rent for the period May and June 2015 in favour of petitioner no. 1 and a rent receipt was also executed. Again rent was paid for the month of July by way of cheque by the respondent.
7. It is averred that as on date the petitioner no. 1 to 3 are residing at 19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi which property is jointly owned by Mr. V.M. Kohli (father of petitioner no.1 and 2) and Mr. Parveen Kohil (father of the petitioner no.3 & 4). As the family size has grown, it is the wish of the petitioners as well as the parents that the petitioners move out of the property bearing no. 19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and stay in their own house. The petitioner no. 4 is a Chartered Accountant and is employed in a Company having its office in Gurgaon and is staying in Gurgaon; in a property jointly owned by his wife and him. Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.11.17 16:24:53 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 3 of 24
8. It is averred that the petitioner no.1 has two grown up children aged 21 years and 17 years and thus requires one room for self and wife, one room for his daughter and one room for his son. As such, the petitioner no.1 requires at least 4 bedrooms alongwith bathrooms, kitchen and drawing dining rooms. Similarly, the family members of other petitioners have been indicated in the petition. Immediate family of each petitioner comprises of 4 persons including the respective petitioners. The petitioner no.1 and 2 have a married sister, who stays in Gurgaon and requires at least one room for her, to accommodate her stay with her husband child, on their visits. Similarly, petitioner no. 3 and 4 also have a married sister who stays in Gurgaon and a room is required for her as well. It is averred that each of the petitioners require 4 bedrooms including one room for his married sister. The petitioners among themselves, require 16 bedrooms, with attached bathrooms and 4 separate kitchens and drawing dining rooms. The present accommodation available in the property is just three rooms with two toilets on the first floor, which are insufficient to meet the requirement of the petitioners.
9. It is averred that the building on the plot no. J58, Lajpat NagarIII, New Delhi was constructed in the year 1978 and thus as on date the same is in dilapidated condition and requires major renovation to make the same inhabitable. The petitioners intend to carry out the necessary renovation/repairs/ construction to make the entire property inhabitable and suitable according to their requirement, which can be Digitally done only after the premises are vacated by the Respondent. DEEPAK signed by DEEPAK VATS Date:
VATS 2023.11.17
16:25:01
_____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530
RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16
Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 4 of 24
10. Apart from the property no. J58, Lajpat NagarIII, New Delhi, the petitioners have no other alternate reasonable/suitable accommodation available to them for their residence, in Delhi. On these pleadings, the present petition u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act has been filed seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
WS of The Respondent
11. The respondent applied for leave to defend which was granted vide order dated 19.07.2016 and opportunity was granted to the respondent to file WS. In the WS the respondent has stated that the petition filed by the petitioners is self contradictory and does not disclose the true and correct facts. Also that the petitioners have deliberately and intentionally omitted to state the complete details of the residential properties available with them in order to obtain the eviction decree.
12. It is submitted that Late Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli was owner of 3 properties, the details of which are as follows: a. J58, Lajpat NagarIII, New Delhi24 (suit property) b. 19, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
c. 46/4771, Hardhian Singh Road, Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi05.
13. All the abovesaid properties were self acquired properties of Late Sh.Narinder Nath Kohli and after his death his two sons V.M. Kohli and P.K. Kohli have inherited the same. The petitioners are not Digitally signed by owners of the property in question. Hence the petition is bad for want DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.11.17 proper parties to the petition. It is averred that as per own averments 16:25:14 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 5 of 24 and documents relied upon by the petitioner, the petitioner no.1 has only been given authority to collect the rent on behalf of owners and thus, the petitioners are neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted premises.
14. It is further stated that , later on Sh. V.M. Kohli approached and requested the Respondent to issue cheques towards rent in the name of Sh. Ajay Kohli (petitioner no.1). It is submitted that all the legal heirs of late Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli have been on good terms with the Respondent. Upon being approached by Sh. V.M. Kohli for payment of rent in the name of petitioner no.1, the respondent keeping in view the cordial relations he had maintained with them and without any hitch started to issue cheques towards rent in the name of petitioner no 1. It is alleged that the petitioners have taken undue advantage of old age and simplicity of the respondent and tricked him to pay the rent in the name of petitioner no. 1 and prepare a ground for the eviction of the respondent.
15. The respondent has disputed the site plan as not correct. It is submitted that late Sh. Nariender Nath Kohli had constructed entire property in two phases. This property is comprising of a total land of about 297, sq, yards and is having curve at the back side. Late Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli constructed a house only on an area 200 sq. yards out of 297 sq. yards in the year 197374 and the balance 97 sq. yards on the back side was kept open. The entry to this portion of the property is from the front side. Later on late Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.11.17 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 16:25:22 +0530 RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 6 of 24 decided to build another residential unit in the left over portion of his property i.e. 97 sq. yards of land. The construction later on so made on this vacant part of the property, is having entry from the back side and is independent of the portion built on the front side. Both the front and back portions have separate entries and these two portions are not at all interconnected with each other. Hence, it is averred that the petitioners are at liberty to use and utilize the front portion for the satisfaction of their alleged need, if any, and the portion under the tenancy of respondent would not in any manner come in the way of enjoyment of the property by the petitioners.
16. It is also averred that Late Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli and or his family members have never resided in any part of the entire property. The same always remained under the occupation of tenants. The front portion built on 200 sq. yards of land was earlier occupied by a tenant in the year 2003 and thereafter the entire front portion has been lying vacant. It is averred that sufficient space is available with the petitioners to make any such construction or repairs etc. in the front portion of the property and use and utilize the said place for their alleged need. The back portion available with the respondent would not in any manner come in the way of enjoyment of the property in the front portion. It is further alleged that the petitioners do not require the entire property for their alleged need as they have sufficient residential properties available with them for the purpose of residence for Digitally themselves and their family members. signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS Date:
VATS 2023.11.17
16:25:30
+0530
_____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 7 of 24
17. It is submitted that the present petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity is based on a false, frivolous and cooked up story. Further that the petitioners have deliberately and with malafide intention, in order to obtain an eviction order against the respondent, concealed that Late Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli was also the owner of property no. 46/4771, Hardhian Singh Road, Rehgarpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi05 and this property is also available with them for the purposes of residence.
18. The aforesaid property at Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi 05 comprises of three floors i.e. Ground. First and Second floors. On the ground floor there are two shops and on the 1st and 2nd floors there are 4 residential units which are also available to the petitioners for the purposes of residence. The said property at Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi has an area of about 300 sq. yards. The said property has been given a private number as 46/4771A and 46/4771B by the petitioners. In property no. 46/4771A petitioner no.1 and 2 are carrying on their business under the name and style of 'Kohli Trading Company'. In property no, 46/4771B the petitioner no.3 is carrying on his business under the name and style of 'Kohli Leather Store' and both the said businesses are separate from each other.
19. It is averred that admittedly petitioner no.4 is a Chartered Accountant working in Gurgaon and also owns a residential unit in Gurgaon. He is admittedly residing in his own house at Gurgaon therefore his need for a residential unit in property no. J58, Lajpat DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.11.17 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 16:25:39 +0530 RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 8 of 24 NagarIII. New Delhi, cannot be termed as bonafide in any manner. Further that, even the need of the petitioners 1 & 3 is also not bonafide in view of the fact that 4 residential units are available with them and further built up property comprising of 2 floors i.e. Ground Floor and First Floor is also available to the petitioners for the purposes of residence at I9. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
20. It is averred that the stand of the petitioners that their respective fathers want their sons to vacate the property I9, Kirti Nagar, Delhi is also a cooked up story. Further, the story by the petitioners that they desire to vacate the property I9, Kirti Nagar, Delhi and live jointly with each other at J58, Lajpat NagarIII, New Delhi is also false. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
Replication to the WS
21. The petitioners filed their replication disputing the grounds raised in the WS and reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the petition. It is further stated that the property in Karol Bagh is small property having two parts admeasuring 100 Sq. Yards and 50 Sq. Yards each owned by Mrs. Urvashi Kohli and Mrs. Lalita who are mothers of petitioner no. 1 and 2 and petitioner no. 3 and 4 respectively. It is averred that, the said property has been put to commercial use. The share of Mrs. Urvashi Kohli has now devolved upon petitioner no. 1 and 2. It is contended that the petition be allowed and the respondent be directed to vacate the tenanted premises.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS
VATS Date:
2023.11.17
16:25:47 +0530
_____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 9 of 24
22. During the course of trial, the respondent expired on 20/21.12.2019. Vide order dated 15.12.2021, LRs of the respondent namely Saroj Devi, Anuj Sharma and Suman Sharma were proceeded exparte and Sh. Ramesh Sharma was impleaded as LR of the respondent.
Petitioner's Evidence
23. In support of his case, petitioner no.1 Sh. Ajay Kohli examined himself as PW1. The witness reiterated and reaffirmed the facts mentioned in the plaint on oath. Certain documents were also exhibited which are as under: Ex.PW1/1 (Sale Deed dated 07.09.1961), Ex.PW 1/2 (Site Plan), Ex.PW1/3 (Death certificate of Mr. Narinder Nath Kohli), Ex.PW1/4 (Certified copy of the Will dated 24.09.1986), Ex.PW1/5 (Death certificate of Smt. Inder Wati Kohli) Ex.PW1/6 (certified copy of the Conveyance Deed dated 27.01.2011), Ex.PW1/7 (Bank Statement of Sh. Vishwa Mittar), Ex.PW1/8 (colly) (Income Tax Returns of petitioner no.1), Ex.PW1/9 (colly) (Income Tax Returns of petitioner no.2), Ex.PW1/10 (colly) (Income Tax Returns of petitioner no.3), Ex.PW1/11 (colly) (Income Tax Returns of petitioner no.4), MarkA (copy of letter dated 02.04.2015), MarkB (copy of cheque dated 09.05.2015), Ex.PW1/12 (rent receipt dated 29.05.2015), Mark C (copy of the cheque dated 07.09.2015).
The witness was duly crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.11.17 16:25:58 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 10 of 24
24. Petitioner no.4 Sh. Abhay Kohli examined himself as PW2. The witness deposed on the lines of PW1 and relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/21 which were already exhibited by PW1.
The witness was duly crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the LR Ramesh Sharma.
25. Thereafter, PE was closed and matter was listed for RE.
26. Vide order dated 13.07.2023, due to nonappearance of respondent on many dates of hearing, R.E. was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
27. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsels for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the record.
Discussion and Decision
28. Before proceeding to discuss the facts of the present case, it is apposite to discuss the provision of law which provides for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement i.e. Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Section 14(1)(e) reads as follows:
"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 and court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may on Digitally signed by an application made to him in the prescribed manner, DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
make an order for the recovery of possession of the 2023.11.17 16:26:37 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 11 of 24 premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: XXXXX
(e) that the premises let for residential purpose are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence 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 the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation."
29. The essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, which a landlord is required to prove are, that;
(i) The petitioner is the landlord/owner of the tenanted premises.
(ii)The tenanted premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or any of his family members dependent upon him.
(iii)The landlord or such other family members has no other reasonably suitable accommodation [Naresh Kumar Vs. Surender Kumar Gulati 2017 (2) RCR (Rent) 278 Delhi].
30. Let us now see whether the petitioners have proved all the aforesaid ingredients.
Petitioners Being Owner/Landlord of The Tenanted Premises
31. To prove their ownership, the petitioners have placed on record Will Ex.PW1/4 executed by original owner Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli and Conveyance Deed Ex.PW1/6. The Will Ex.PW1/4 states that in the event of the wife of Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli predeceasing Digitally him, the tenanted premises would devolve upon the petitioners. The signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
fact of wife of Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli expiring before him is not 2023.11.17 16:26:48 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 12 of 24 disputed. Thus, the Will clearly shows that the petitioners have become the owner of tenanted premises after the death of Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli. Moreover, the Conveyance Deed Ex.PW1/6 in favour of petitioners also amply proves that the petitioners are the owner of the tenanted premises. Though the respondent (LR) has disputed the Will and the Conveyance deed, no evidence is led by him to this effect. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners are the owners of the tenanted premises.
32. So far as the landlordtenant relationship between the parties is concerned, the respondent has admitted that he was inducted as tenant by Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli in the tenanted premises. Since after the death of Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli, the tenanted premises has devolved upon the petitioners, it can safely be stated that the petitioners have entered the shoes of their late grand father and have acquired all his rights and liabilities qua the tenanted premises and thus, they can be treated as landlord of the same. Moreover, the respondent has admitted payment of rent to petitioner no.1. This also proves that there is a landlordtenant relationship between the parties.
33. The respondent has disputed the landlordtenant relationship between the parties and has claimed that it is the parents of the petitioners who are the landlords after the death of Sh. Narinder Nath Kohli. There is no merit in this claim of the respondent. The Will and the Conveyance deed clearly prove that the petitioners are the owners of the tenanted premises. The creation of tenancy in favour of DEEPAK Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.11.17 16:26:59 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 13 of 24 the respondent by their predecessorininterest has already been admitted by the respondent. Thus, the respondent would have to necessarily attorn to the petitioners as their landlords.
34. Moreover, payment of rent has also been admitted by the respondent to petitioner no.1. It is settled law that a tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord. Section 116 Evidence Act, 1872 provides: "116. Estoppel of tenant: and of licensee of person in possession. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given".
35. In view of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, once payment of rent to petitioner no.1 has been admitted, the respondent cannot now dispute the landlordtenant relationship between the parties or that the petitioners are not the owners of the tenanted premises. It bears mention that though the respondent has claimed that the petitioner no.1 induced him by fraud to pay rent, no DE has been led to prove the alleged fraud. Accordingly, the only conclusion that may be drawn is that the petitioners are the owners of the tenanted premises and there is a landlordtenant relationship between the parties.
Digitally signedDEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.11.17 16:27:07 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 14 of 24 Bonafide Need
36. It is the case of petitioners that they all, being member of an extended family want to reside together in the entire property comprising the tenanted premises and they require 16 bed rooms (4 bed rooms each) to cater to their need. It is not disputed that all the petitioners are currently not residing together and one of the petitioners is residing in Gurgaon. The fact of petitioner no.1 and 3 being siblings and cousins of petitioner nos.2 and 4 (who are also brothers) is also not disputed. All the petitioners have two children and one married sister each. In my opinion, a person who has a wife, two children and a married sister, who frequently/occasionally visits him may require 4 bed rooms and thus, the need pleaded by the petitioners of requirement of 16 bed rooms for their accommodation appears to be bonafide and genuine and is not a mere wish or desire. It is settled law that if the petitioners have shown a prima facie case of bonafide requirement, a presumption has to be raised in their favour that they need the premises and it is for the tenant/respondent to prove otherwise.
37. In the case of Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, Hon'ble Apex Court held:
"14. the crux of the ground envisaged in clause
(e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Digitally Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that signed by DEEPAK the requirement is not bona fide. When other DEEPAK VATS VATS Date:
2023.11.17 conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the 16:27:15 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 15 of 24 landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by 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 bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
38. In view of the above observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the present is a fit case to draw a presumption in favour of the petitioners that their need is bonafide and that they need the tenanted premises. Thus, the petitioner can be said to have discharged the onus lay upon them and the onus now shifts to the respondent to prove otherwise. The respondent has not led any evidence despite given the opportunity and thus, the respondent has failed to prove that the need pleaded by the petitioners is not genuine/bonafide. Accordingly, it is held that the premises is required bonafidely by the petitioners.
Nonavailability of Alternate Accommodation
39. The petitioners have categorically stated that they do not have any other alternate accommodation. The respondent has alleged that the petitioners have two other properties namely (i) I9, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (where petitioner nos.1,2 and 3 are currently residing and (ii) 46/4771, Hardhian Singh Road, Rehgar Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi05 where the petitioner can reside. It is further claimed on Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.11.17 16:27:24 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 16 of 24 behalf of the respondent that the front portion measuring 200 Sq. Yards of the entire property comprising tenanted premises and the ground floor of rear portion of the said entire property are available with the petitioners which can satisfy their need.
40. So far as the property at Kirti Nagar is concerned, the petitioners have clearly stated that the same does not belong to them but their fathers and their fathers do not intend the petitioners to stay at the said property. Further, it is categorically stated by the petitioners that the space available at Kirti Nagar, New Delhi house is not sufficient to accommodate all the 4 petitioners alongwith their family. The fact that the fathers of the petitioners are the owner of Kirti Nagar property has not been denied by the respondent. Since, the petitioners are admittedly not the owners of said house, they cannot be expected to reside there against the wishes of real owners.
41. Moreover, the petitioners have categorically stated that the space at Kirti Nagar house is not enough to accommodate all the petitioners with their families. The respondent has not brought anything on record to the contrary. This fact is also evident from the fact that one of the petitioners is currently residing in Gurugram. As the petitioners have clearly averred that the property at Kirti Nagar does not have sufficient space and the same does not even belong to them, the same cannot be termed as suitable alternate accommodation.
42. So far as the property at Karol Bagh is concerned, it is DEEPAK VATS already on record (i) that the petitioners are not the owners of the said Digitally signed by DEEPAK VATS Date: 2023.11.17 16:27:30 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 17 of 24 property, (ii) that the property at Karol Bagh lies in a market place, (iii) that the ground floor of the said property is used as shops by the petitioners and that the upper floors are used to store the goods and (iv) that the plot's size of Karol Bagh property is less than that of the entire property. The title documents filed by the petitioners clearly show that the property at Karol Bagh (in two parts) is not owned by the petitioners. Since the petitioners are not the owners, the property at Karol Bagh cannot be termed as alternate accommodation. Secondly, the said property is not vacant and is used for commercial purposes by the petitioners. The respondent have no right to claim that the petitioners should not use the property for commercial purposes and use the same for their residence.
43. It is settled law that a tenant cannot dictate terms to a landlord. In the case of Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014 SCC On Line Del 3855, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as follows : "11 (c)....This Court is in agreement with the reasoning and finding of the learned ARC. Moreover, it is well settled that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement. It is neither open for the Court or for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord. Furthermore, the contention of the tenant that the son in the past never intended to start such a business and that too from a small bye lane situated in old Delhi which has no potential for such business is without any merit. A tenant cannot be permitted to dictate terms to the landlord as to the suitability of the premises for purposes under which the eviction is sought. Therefore, Digitally signed the finding of the learned ARC does not warrant any DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS Date:
VATS 2023.11.17 16:27:38 _____________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 18 of 24 interference by this Court."
44. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the property at Karol Bagh is not a reasonably suitable accommodation for the petitioners as they are admittedly running their business from the same and they are not even the owners of the same.
45. Another defence taken by the respondent is that front portion of the entire property comprising the tenanted premises and the ground floor of the rear portion are available with the petitioners and they can reside there. This argument of the respondent also does not hold much water. As discuss earlier, it is not for the tenant/respondent to dictate terms to the petitioners. If the petitioners say that they need the entire 290 Sq. Yards of the property comprising the tenanted premises to renovate/reconstruct the house, the respondent cannot claim that the petitioners should use the available vacant area for the aforesaid need and not the tenanted premises. Moreover, in my opinion, keeping in view the need of the petitioners, the entire 290 Sq.
Yards of the said property is required and it cannot be said that their need can be satisfied without eviction of the respondent. Apart from the properties which have already been discussed, the respondent has not placed on record details of any other properties. In view of the above discussion, the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioners do not have any other alternate suitable accommodation.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS
VATS Date:
2023.11.17
16:27:46 +0530
_____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 19 of 24 Other grounds taken by the respondent
46. The petitioners have proved all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, however, the respondent has taken certain other grounds which need to be discussed here.
47. First of all, it has been stressed by the respondent that the tenanted premises is a separate unit from the front 200 Sq. Yard portion of the entire property and dispute has been raised regarding the site plan filed by the petitioners wherein both the aforesaid front and rear portions are shown as only one. On the contrary, the petitioners have contended that though the two portions are separated with walls and they have separate entry and exit gate, they can easily be combined by removing the internal walls and thus, it is claimed that there are not two but only one portion of the property comprising the tenanted premises.
48. In my opinion, the question whether the tenanted premises is separate from the front portion or not is not of much significance. All the petitioners were required to prove was that they have a bona fide requirement for their accommodation and they need the tenanted premises for the same. The petitioners have been successful in proving the same. Thus, merely because there is a separate entry and exit gate for the rear portion or that there is no connection of the front portion with the rear one is immaterial. Moreover, the contention of the petitioners that they shall remove the Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK VATS internal walls to connect both the portions appears to be plausible and VATS Date:
2023.11.17 16:27:54 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 20 of 24 intune with their need. Accordingly, this is no ground for dismissal of the present petition.
49. Secondly, it is further argued on behalf of the respondent that they shall face great hardship if they are directed to vacate the tenanted premises as they are senior citizens and do not have sufficient means to fend for themselves.
50. It has already come on record that the original respondent Sh. R.S. Sharma and his wife have already expired and that his only LR who is contesting the present petition i.e. Sh. Ramesh Sharma (rest of the LRs have already been proceeded exparte vide order dated 15.12.2021) has been ordinarily residing in USA. Thus, the hardship of the deceased respondent becomes irrelevant.
51. Further, it is settled law that u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act, the hardship of a tenant is immaterial. In the case of Bosco Joseph Vs. Raj Kumar RC Re.259/2016 decided on 11.07.2022, hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as follows: "15. Unlike a few of the Rent Control statutes where comparative hardship is one of the tests that a Rent Controller applies, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, there is no test of comparative requirement. Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 all that has to be shown is that the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the landlord or by any member of the family who is dependent on the landlord for the said premises or that other member of the family for whose Digitally benefit the premises is sought for is dependent on him DEEPAK signed by DEEPAK VATS and no other reasonably suitable accommodation is VATS Date:
2023.11.17 16:28:04 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 21 of 24 available. There is no test of comparative hardship in the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958...."
52. In view of the above observation of Hon'ble High Court, it is crystal clear that a Rent Controller is required to see whether the need of the landlord is bonafide, the comparative hardship of a tenant is not required to be looked into u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act and thus, the petition cannot be dismissed on this ground.
53. Thirdly, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners intend to sell the tenanted premises and they do not have any intention to reside there. The requirement of the petitioners has already been found to be genuine. Moreover, Section 19 of the DRC Act provides protection to the respondent in case the tenanted premises is not put to use as pleaded in the present petition. Thus, this defence of the respondent is also liable to be rejected.
54. Lastly, it is contended on behalf of respondent that the petitioners have not clearly specified in the petition as to whether they have to renovate or reconstruct the tenanted premises for their need.
This defence of the respondent does not appear to be very strong. Since, the respondent is currently in possession of the tenanted premises, at this stage, it would be too much to expect from the petitioners to explain as to whether they would do a major renovation or reconstruct the whole property. The bonafide need of petitioners that they need the entire property including the tenanted premises for their residence is clear from the file. The question whether the Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK VATS VATS Date: 2023.11.17 16:28:11 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 22 of 24 petitioners would do a major renovation or reconstruct the tenanted premises to address their need can, in my opinion, be answered only when the possession of the tenanted premises is restored to the petitioners. Hence, the petition cannot be faulted on this count either.
55. The above discussion clearly shows that the petitioners have been able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act. The respondent has not led any evidence and has not been able to disprove the case of petitioners and thus is liable to vacate the tenanted premises.
56. Before parting with order, I deem it appropriate to discuss the conduct of LR of the respondent. It has come on record that the LR of respondent Sh. Ramesh Sharma has been residing in USA. He did not even appear for recording of his evidence despite given various opportunities. Even after the death of the original tenant Sh. R.S. Sharma and his wife, the said LR has not vacated the tenanted premises despite not residing in the tenanted premises. The said LR has made all the efforts to deprive the petitioners from enjoying their property. Further he made all the efforts to delay the outcome of the present case by successively seeking adjournments which requests were rejected. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is certainly not meant to protect such tenants. Accordingly, a cost of Rs.3000/ to be deposited with DLSA (SouthEast) is imposed on the respondent u/s 35A CPC.
DEEPAK
57. In the light of above discussion, the present petition U/s 14 VATS Digitally signed by (1) (e) r/w Section 25B on behalf of petitioners is allowed. The DEEPAK VATS Date: 2023.11.17 16:28:19 +0530 _____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 23 of 24 respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. J58, First Floor (Back Portion), Lajpat NagarIII, New Delhi. The petitioners shall not file the execution petition for eviction of the tenanted premises before the expiry of period of six months from today.
58. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
DEEPAK Digitally signed
by DEEPAK VATS
VATS Date: 2023.11.17
16:28:24 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Deepak Vats)
on 17th November, 2023 ACJ/CCJ/ARC/South East
Saket Courts/New Delhi
_____________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC 31/2015 5117/16 Ajay Kohli & Ors. Vs. R S Sharma Page no. 24 of 24