Delhi District Court
Acj-Cum-Ccj-Cum-Arc vs Sh. Rajkumar Ahuja on 26 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No : 531/16
Smt. Vijay Sharma
through LRs
1 Sh. Rajbir Singh Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Ram Rich Pal Sharma
2 Sh.Manish Sharma
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh Sharma
3 Sh. Atul Sharma
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh Sharma
4 Sh. Abishek Sharma
S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh Sharma
5 Smt. Kusum
D/o Sh. Rajbir Singh Sharma
All residing at
H. No. D 1-641, Loni Road, Ram Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-32
6 Smt. Manisha
W/o Sh. Ravi Kumar
R/o X/1099-A, Chand Mohalla,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi ........ Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Rajkumar Ahuja
S/o Sh. Gopal Dass
R/o 2743-A5, Jawala Nagar, Delhi ....... Respondent
PETITION U/S 14(1)(e) r/w SECTION 25-B OF
Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 1 of 20
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT 1958, FOR
EVICTION OF TENANT
Date of institution : 02.09.2013
Date of final arguments : 19.02.2020
Date of order : 26.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. The present case has originated from an application/petition (henceforth 'petition') filed under Section 14(1)(e) r/w section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (henceforth 'DRC Act') by Smt. Vijay Sharma (henceforth 'petitioner') against Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja (henceforth 'respondent') seeking eviction of the respondent from one shop with tin shed in property bearing no. 806/4, West Rohtash Nagar, near Rehman building, opposite DTC Bus stand, Shahdara, Delhi-32, as per the site plan filed along with the petition (henceforth 'tenanted premises').
2. In the petition, it is inter-alia pleaded that the petitioner is the landlord/owner of the property bearing no. 806/4, measuring 175 square yards out of khasra no. 67/68/71 min, West Rohtash Nagar, near Rehman Building, opposite DTC Bus stand, Shahdara, Delhi-32; that the petitioner purchased the said property from Smt. Shakuntala Devi, attorney of Smt. Attarkali w/o late Sh. Jharia vide sale deed dated 24.04.1992; that father of respondent was tenant in respect of property in question under Sh. Jharia, who expired on 01.12.1972 and after his death, the property was inherited by his wife Smt. Attarkali, who transferred property in question in the name of Smt. Shakuntala; that at the time of purchase of property, father of respondent was the Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 2 of 20 tenant of Sh. Jharia; that earlier, petitioner filed a suit for recovery of mesne profit/damages where respondent admitted in his cross- examination that Shakuntala Devi sold out the property in question to Smt. Vijay Sharma @ Kamla and also admitted that Sh. Gopal Dass was tenant in respect of shop in question; that after the purchase of property by the petitioner, the tenancy of Sh. Gopal Dass automatically transferred under the petitioner at the time of execution of sale deed; that original owner also transferred and assigned the right to recover rent/damages of the premises due from 12.05.86 till the date of execution of sale deed; that now respondent is tenant in respect of property in question at the rent of Rs.600/- per month excluding of other charges which respondent had not paid since the day of purchase by the petitioner; that family of petitioner comprises of herself, who was seriously ill; that her husband is a newspaper vendor, who sells newspaper on railway road, Shahdara; that son of the petitioner namely Manish was running a shop of electronic goods in which eviction order had already been passed; that her another son Atul Kumar is a property dealer and third son namely Abhishek is unemployed and tenanted premises is required bonafide for the occupation for her husband and her sons to start their business and petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for her husband, aged about 72 years and her sons to start their business and therefore premises in question is required bonafide by the petitioner for the above said purpose and the respondent is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises.
3. During the pendency of eviction proceedings, petitioner expired and she was substituted by her husband, sons and daughters.
Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 3 of 20 The eviction proceedings however continued because the projected need in the eviction petition was not only for the petitioner but also for her family members including her husband and three sons.
4. In the written statement of the respondent qua the aforesaid petition, it is inter-alia stated that Sh. Jharia Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioner, has let out one tin shed measuring 25' x 20' 6'' along with open space bearing municipal no. 806/4, situated at West Rohtash Nagar, near Rehman Building, Shahdara, as shown in the red colour in site plan filed by the respondent, to late Sh. Gopal Dass, father of respondent and his elder brother Sh. Hari Ram during the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.80/-; that the said Jharia Singh had no saleable title in respect of the property bearing no. 806/4 covering an area of 175 square yards and therefore petitioner cannot claim to be the owner(s) of said area of 175 square yards; that adjacent portion bearing municipal no. 806/5 comprising of one tin shed measuring 20' x 15' along with open space had been let out by one Ram Lubhaya jointly to late Sh. Gopal Dass (father of respondent) and his brother-in-law Sh. Harnam Dass during the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.40/-; that the alleged bonafide need of the late petitioner, who is now represented by her LRs is absolutely false and imaginary; that in addition to the flat bearing no. 1/1086, first floor, Harsaran Niwas, Railway Road, Shahdara in which LRs of petitioners were residing since long, they also own and possess built up property bearing municipal No. 641-D/2, covering an area of about 1000 square yards at Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi which is adjacent to Bank of Baroda; that in the said built up property, petitioners have 8 shops with one tin shed and ample vacant open Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 4 of 20 space; that petitioners are successfully carrying the work of wooden `Ara' machine under the name of 'Rama Ara Machine' in one of the said shops and tin shed; that said accommodation is more than sufficient to meet the bonafide need of the petitioners; that during the pendency of present petition, Sh. Rajbir Singh, husband of late petitioner had sold out part of the aforesaid property vide sale deed dated 25.07.2014 to one Sh. Shubham Jain for consideration of Rs.1 crore 37 lakhs; that the said transaction by the husband/LR of late petitioner militates against the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner including her LRs for whose benefit, eviction of respondent has been sought through present petition and eviction petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. In the replication, contents of the written statement has been denied, while re-affirming the contents of the petition. It is also stated that sale deed of property no. 641-D/2, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi was executed by Sh. Rajbir Singh, husband of deceased petitioner in his individual capacity and sons of deceased petitioner did not have any right of occupation or ownership with respect thereto.
6. During trial, LR/husband of petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 in support of the case of the petitioner, and tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents viz. site plan Ex.PW1/1, copy of sale deed in favour of petitioner is Ex. PW1/2, certified copy of statement of respondent in another suit no. 916/2007 is Ex.PW1/3, copy of house tax assessment Ex.PW1/4. He was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. However, his testimony is not being discussed at this Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 5 of 20 stage of this judgment, for the sake of brevity.
7. PW-2 is Mr. Nishikant Sharma, DEO, Sub-Registrar Office IV-A, Nand Nagri, Shahdara, Delhi who produced summoned record and stated that the sale deed Ex.PW1/A dated 25.07.2014 was registered on 30.07.2014 vide registration no. 3076, book no. 1, Volume no. 1765 at page 15-24 with his office record. He also deposed that relinquishment deed dated 30.08.2010 Ex.PW2/A is registered in his office vide registration no. 4015, book 1, Volume no. 841 on pages 76-81 on 30.08.2010.
8. In respondent evidence, respondent got himself examined as RW-1, who tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A and relied upon the documents viz. copy of site plan Ex.RW1/1, certified copy of survey report is Ex.RW1/2 and copy of another survey report is mark A. He was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. However, his testimony is not being discussed at this stage of this judgment, for the sake of brevity.
9. I have heard the final arguments addressed by ld. Counsel for petitioner as well as for respondent and carefully perused the record.
10. In order to prove his case qua eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958, the petitioner is required to prove the following facts:-
(a) Ownership in respect of tenanted premises;
Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 6 of 20
(b) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(c) Petitioner requires the tenanted premises for his bonafide need and necessity or necessity of his family members;
(d) Petitioner does not have any other alternative accommodation with him/her.
(a)&(b): OWNERSHIP IN RESPECT OF TENANTED PREMISES AND LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES:-
11. The original eviction petition was filed by Smt. Vijay Sharma for her own requirement and for the requirement of her husband and her three sons. During the pendency of eviction proceedings, petitioner expired and she was substituted by her husband, sons and daughters. The eviction proceedings however continued because the projected need in the eviction petition was not only for the petitioner but also for her family members including her husband and three sons.
12. Whereas, as per the case of the petitioner, she is the owner of the property bearing no. 806/4, measuring 175 square yards, West Rohtash Nagar, near Rehman Building, opposite DTC Bus stand, Shahdara, Delhi-32 which consists of tenanted premises and which has been purchased by her from Smt. Shakuntala Devi, attorney of Smt. Attarkali w/o late Sh. Jharia, vide sale deed dated 24.04.1992. In order to substantiate her claim, petitioner also filed and relied upon the aforesaid sale deed dated 24.04.1992. PW-2 Mr. Nishi Kant Sharma, an official from Sub-Registrar office, Nand Nagri also confirmed the Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 7 of 20 registration of the said sale deed vide registration no. 3076, book no. 1, Volume no. 1765 at page 15-24 with the Sub-Registrar office, Nand Nagri, Shahdara, Delhi.
13. Per contra, it has been contended by the respondent that the petitioner is not the owner of the aforesaid premises in question; that Sh. Jharia Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, has let out one tin shed measuring 25' x 20' 6'' along with open space bearing municipal no. 806/4, situated at West Rohtash Nagar, near Rehman Building, Shahdara to late Sh. Gopal Dass, father of respondent and his elder brother Sh. Hari Ram during the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.80/-; that the said Sh. Jharia Singh had no saleable title in respect of the property bearing no. 806/4 covering an area of 175 square yards and therefore petitioners cannot claim themselves to be the owner of said area of 175 square yards.
14. For the purpose of eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, it is well settled that the petitioner is not required to prove and establish absolute ownership. Case under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act are not title cases involving adjudication regarding title of the property and ownership is not required to be proved in absolute terms. It has to be kept in mind that this is a petition of eviction and not a suit for declaration of ownership and the Rent Controller is required to see only, that the petitioner is 'more than a tenant'. The petitioner is required to show that he is more than a tenant.
15. In the present case, PW-1 has relied upon the sale deed Ex. PW1/2 in favour of petitioner qua the aforesaid property, which Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 8 of 20 consist of tenanted premises. Though, the respondent has denied the title of the petitioner in the said property but he has nowhere stated as to who else is the owner/landlord in respect of the said property, if not the petitioner. In his cross examination, respondent/RW-1 stated that there is no owner of the suit property presently and he did not remember in whose favour, the earlier arrears of rent were deposited pertaining to suit property. The respondent in his written statement has disputed the ownership/saleable title in respect of said property in favour of its erstwhile owner Sh. Jharia Singh, under whose tenancy, admittedly, the father of respondent was a tenant. However, this is not permissible under the law. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant.
16. In his cross examination, PW-1 Rajbir Singh Sharma admitted to the suggestion that Jharia was the original owner of property bearing no. 806/4 and Gopal Dass, father of respondent was the tenant under Sh. Jharia Singh on a monthly rent of Rs.80/- in respect of property no. 806/4. Meaning thereby, that even as per the respondent, Sh. Jharia was the original owner of the said property i.e 806/4 and father of respondent was his tenant in respect of the said property in question. However, contradictorily, respondent has stated in his affidavit in evidence that Sh. Jharia Singh, predecessor in interest of the petitioner, had no saleable title in respect of the said property and therefore, petitioners cannot claim themselves to be the owner of the same. In his cross examination, respondent/RW-1 admitted that late Smt. Vijay Sharma had filed a suit against him for recovery of damages for use and occupation pertaining to suit property and rate of rent of suit property is Rs.80/- per month. He denied that Smt. Vijay Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 9 of 20 Sharma was the owner of suit property w.e.f. 24.04.1992. RW-2 further stated that Smt. Vijay Sharma filed a case in Tis Hazari Court and in that case, they had deposited rent in her name in the said petition. He stated that he had paid rent to respective persons whose names have been reflected in the survey report till their lifetime. He again said that his father had made the payment. He stated that he deposited rent in Court with respect to premises in question in another proceedings in favour of Smt. Vijay Sharma(petitioner). He admitted that none else other than late Smt. Vijay Sharma ever demanded rent from him. Hence, respondent admitted deposit of rent in favour of petitioner in respect of premises in question and that no one else had claimed rent from him except petitioner. Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which codifies the common law rule of estoppel between landlord and tenant, provides that 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. Hence, respondent, who is admittedly depositing the rent in respect of premises in question in favour of petitioner, cannot deny that the petitioner had title to the premises in question at the commencement of the tenancy.
17. Respondent filed and relied upon a site plan Ex. RW1/1 and also contended that site plan filed by the petitioner includes the adjoining property bearing municipal number 806/5. In his cross examination, RW-1 denied that site plan Ex.RW1/1 is not correct as per site or that site plan of petitioner Ex.PW1/1 is correct. He stated that he got prepared site plan Ex.RW1/1 from draughtsman Mr. Ajay Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 10 of 20 Saxena but he cannot tell the date, month and year when the same was got prepared or how much amount was paid to said draughtsman. Hence, in these circumstances, such a site plan as filed by the respondent is not reliable, when he himself is not aware as to when (date, month and year) it was got prepared. Moreover, as the aforesaid properties are identifiable from their distinctive municipal number(s), the contention of the respondent that site plan filed by the petitioner includes the adjoining property bearing municipal number 806/5, does not hold any water.
18. In "Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450", it was held that :-
"It is settled preposition of law that In order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises can not stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act, 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 the Indian Evidence Act creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the 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......".
19. Further, in "Dr. Jain Clinic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sudesh Kumar Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 11 of 20 Jassal in RCR No. 136/2012", it was held that "It is settled law that in the context of Delhi Rent Control Act what appears to be the meaning of the term "owner" is that vis-a-vis the tenant, the owner should be something more than the tenant. The position in law is that the "ownership" of the landlord for the purpose of maintaining a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is not required to be an absolute ownership of the property, and that it is sufficient if the landlord is a person who is collecting the rent on his own behalf. The imperfectness of the title of the premises can neither stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act, nor can a tenant 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 the rent to the landlord."
20. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "J.C. Mehra Vs. Smt. Kusum Gupta, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 31", that if a person acquires property by way of sale through Power of Attorney, the powers of the owner get vested in person in whose favour the Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney is executed and the purchaser through Power of Attorney become entitled to evict the tenant and attornment by the tenant is not essential in this regard.
21. Similarly, in Rajender Kr. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383, it was held that for the purpose of Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act, the landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant.
22. In "Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 12 of 20 SCC 375", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"12. ...Section 116 of the Evidence Act embodies therein a rule of estoppel. 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. This estoppel so long as it binds the tenant excludes the tenant from raising a plea disputing the title of his landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. It flows as a corollary therefrom that the proof of landlord-tenant relationship tantamount during the continuance of tenancy to proof of ownership of landlord over the tenancy premises at the beginning of the tenancy so far as the tenant is concerned."
23. Thus, whereas, respondent, at one hand, denied the saleable title/ownership of Sh. Jharia( previous owner), in respect of the said property in question, on the other hand, by giving suggestion to the PW-1 in his cross examination that Jharia was the original owner of the said property no. 806/04 and father of respondent was tenant under Jharia Singh at monthly rent of Rs.80/- in respect of said property, which was admitted by PW-1, respondent acknowledged the ownership of erstwhile owner Jharia and also the tenancy of his father under Sh. Jharia Singh in respect of the said property. PW-1 placed reliance on the sale deed of property in question in her favour, which is Ex. PW1/2 to show ownership of petitioner. Respondent admittedly deposited rent in the Court in respect to the premises in question in favour of petitioner, and thereby, he is estopped from questioning the title of the petitioner/landlord. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion and material on record, it leads to the conclusion that petitioner is the owner of tenanted premises qua the respondent and there exist Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 13 of 20 relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties.
(C)&(D): PETITIONER REQUIRES THE TENANTED PREMISES FOR BONAFIDE NEED AND THE PETITIONER DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION WITH HIM:-
24. After the death of petitioner, she was substituted by her husband, sons and daughters and present petition survived as bonafide need for husband and sons of petitioner qua the tenanted premises was also projected through present petition. PW-1 Rajbir Singh, husband of deceased petitioner, deposed that he is a newspaper vendor, sales the newspaper on railway road, Shahdara and he has no commercial shop or property available with him. He also stated that shop run by Manish, son of the petitioner was got vacated by its owner, who is now unemployed; that Atul Kumar, second son of the petitioner is a property dealer, who used to sit at the shops of others'; that Abhishek, third son of petitioner, is unemployed and all the three sons of petitioner have no commercial space available with them either in their name or in the name of their family members. He also stated that premises in question is required bonafide need for commercial purpose for himself and the sons of the deceased petitioner to start their business and they do not have any other commercial property available in Delhi with them either in their name or in the name of their family members. PW-1 in his affidavit stated that respondent has falsely alleged that there were 8 shops and tin shed; the portion of property no. 641-D/2, which was sold by him was residential portion of joint Hindu Family and for which, he was empowered by way of relinquishment deed to sell out the same and Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 14 of 20 distribute the sale proceeds in all the legal heirs of late Sh. Netram and sh. Ram Richpal, which was purely a residential property.
25. Per contra, it is contended by the respondent that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is absolutely false, imaginary and malafide; that petitioner own and possess built up property covering an area of about 1000 Sq. yards at Loni road, Shahdara, Delhi; that the petitioners have 8 shops with one tin shed alongwith ample open space; that petitioners are carrying on work of wooden `Ara' machine in one of the said shops, which has been concealed by the petitioners; that during the pendency of present petition, husband of petitioner had sold part of the aforesaid property measuring 344 Sq. meters bearing no. 641-D/2, Loni road, Shahdara, Delhi to one Mr. Shubam Jain, which militates against the alleged bonafide need of the petitioners, as claimed in the eviction petition.
26. It has been held in a catena of judgments that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements and a tenant cannot dictate the terms on which the landlord should live. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Adarsh Electricals & Ors. vs. Dinesh Dayal 173 (2010) DLT 518", has explained the expression 'reasonably suitable'. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below for ready reference: -
"The concept of alternate accommodation means that accommodation which is "reasonable suitable" for the landlord, which in this case is not, as that particular accommodation is a support of income to the family of the respondent. As to alternative accommodation disentitling the landlord to the relief of possession, it has been held time and again that it must be reasonably equivalent as regards suitability in respect to the accommodation he was claiming. The court Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 15 of 20 would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. It is to be observed that it would be incorrect to suggest that the question of accommodation, actually in possession of the landlord, being 'reasonably suitable' is to be judged solely in the context of physical sufficiency of the accommodation and that the Court may hold that accommodation is insufficient having regard to various circumstances, such as, the social status of the family or traditions and customs observed by it. As long as the landlord is able to establish that he in good faith and genuinely wishes to occupy the premises in possession of the tenant and that good faith or genuineness is of a reasonable man, it would not be open to the Controller to weigh the claim of the landlord in a fine scale and that the viability of the other accommodation will have also to be considered from the stand-point of a reasonable landlord. It is further to be observed that the law does not require the landlord to sacrifice his own comforts and requirements merely on the ground that the premises is with a tenant and for deciding whether or not the alternative accommodation available to the landlord is suitable or not, the social customs, conventions and habits, usage and practices of the society cannot be completely ruled out and termed as irrelevant...."
27. In case titled "Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507", it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean 'in good faith: genuine'. The word 'genuine' Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 16 of 20 means 'natural': not spurious: real: pure: sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself- whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the Court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional 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. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 17 of 20 accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against."
28. Coming back to facts of the present case, in order to counter the alleged bonafide need of the husband and sons of petitioners qua the tenanted premises, the respondent has pleaded that petitioners have eight shops with one tin sheds in the property bearing no. 641-D/2, Loni road, Shahdara, Delhi at their disposal and they are carrying on work of wooden `Ara' machine in one of the said shops, which had been concealed by them. PW-1 has denied the availability of 8 shops and tin shed at their disposal. Sale deed Ex. PW1/R1, relied upon by the respondent, with respect to the sale of 400 Sq. yards of aforesaid property no. 641-D/2 clearly shows that the said property is a 'residential property' and not a 'commercial property', whereas, the tenanted premises is required by the husband and sons of petitioner for commercial purpose to start their business.
29. Moreover, respondent has not placed on record any photographs or any other documentary or substantial evidence to show that husband or sons of petitioner have in their possession the said eight shops with one tin sheds in the property bearing no. 641-D/2, Loni road, Shahdara, Delhi or that they are carrying on work of wooden Ara machine in one of the said shops, as alleged by the respondent. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the stand of respondent is just a Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 18 of 20 bald statement without any supporting material.
30. In his cross examination, respondent/RW-1 stated that he did not know whether the petitioner Rajbir Singh Sharma is a newspaper seller at railway road, Shahdara; that he was not aware whether Mr. Manish son of Smt. Vijay Sharma was having electric shop which was got vacated by its owner on 12.09.2013; that he did not know if the another son Mr. Atul Kumar is a property dealer or doing his work from others' shop and that he has no commercial space to run his business; that he did not know about her another son Abhishek and that he is also unemployed and has no space for his business. Hence, in his cross examination, respondent/RW-1 has not disputed the above facts and rather showed his unawareness about the same. It certainly goes in favour of petitioner qua the bonafide requirement set up for the tenanted premises, as by not disputing the abovesaid facts of the unemployment/ unavailability of commercial space, as asked from the respondent in his cross examination, it only fortifies the case of petitioner for the bonafide requirement qua the tenanted premises. Thus, in the present eviction petition, the LRs of petitioner have been able to establish bonafide requirement in respect of the tenanted premises.
31. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussion and material on record view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that all the ingredients of section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act have been proved. Therefore, present petition u/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of LRs of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of tenanted premises i.e. one shop with tin Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 19 of 20 shed in property bearing no. 806/4, West Rohtash Nagar, near Rehman building, opposite DTC bus stand, Shahdara, Delhi-32, as per the site plan filed along with the petition. This order shall not become operative before the expiration of a period of six months from today. File be consigned to the Record Room, after due compliance.Digitally signed by SACHIN SACHIN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2020.02.27 15:20:15 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Sachin Gupta) on 26.02.2020 ACJ/CCJ/ARC/Shahdara Karkardooma Courts/Delhi Smt. Vijay Sharma through LRs Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar Ahuja ARC No. 531/16 Page No. 20 of 20