Delhi District Court
Sh. Aslam Saeed vs Sh. Iqbal Thakur on 29 April, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF MR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL, ARC-1, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. E-08/15 (New No.79506/16)
Unique Case ID/CNR No.DLCT03-002444-2015
Sh. Aslam Saeed
S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Saeed
R/o 1011, Gali Khidki Wali
Haveli Hissamuddin Haider,
Ballimaran, Delhi-110006. ...Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Iqbal Thakur
S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh Thakur
Proprietor of:-
M/s. The Thakur Optical
At-Shop at Ground Floor
In property No. 2395 to 2402
Ward No. 6, Chashma Building,
Ballimaran, Delhi-110006. ...Respondent
Date of Institution of Petition : 01.04.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 29.04.2019
Date of decision : 29.04.2019
Decision : Application seeking leave to defend
filed on behalf of the respondent
is allowed.
ORDER
1. This is a petition for eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 1 of 23 2 Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This order shall dispose off the application seeking leave to defend filed by respondent.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and landlord of a shop on the ground floor in property no. 2395 to 2402, Ward No.6, Chashma Building, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises'). It is pleaded that the respondent is occupying this property as a tenant and the monthly rate of rent is Rs.181/- excluding electricity and other charges.
3. It is stated that the Mr. Haji Mumtazuddin was the owner of property no. 2395 to 2402, Ward No.6, Chashma Building, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006. A suit for partition of his estate was filed. A decree was passed by which Mst. Mariam Bi was declared to be owner of ½ share, Mst. Zohra Bi was declared to be owner of 1/4th share and Mst. Nazma Khatoon was declared to be owner of ¼th share of the property. It is averred that Mst. Mariam Bi gifted her half share to her son Mr. Mohd. Saeed and daughter Mst. Kifayatun Nisha, equally. She executed a release deed dated 07.11.1969 in this regard. As such, Mr. Mohd. Saeed became owner of 1/4th share in the property and after Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 2 of 23 3 his demise, his legal heirs including the petitioner herein became joint owners of the property.
4. It is pleaded that as per the amicable settlement arrived amongst the owners of property no. 2395 to 2402, Ward No.6, Chashma Building, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006, the tenanted premises fell in the share of the legal heirs of late Mr. Mohd. Saeed including the petitioner herein. It is stated that co-owners of the tenanted premises have no objection if possession of the tenanted premises is given to the petitioner.
5. It is stated that the petitioner is in the business of assembling table watches from a tenanted shop bearing no. 1834, Lal Darwaja Sikri Walan, Delhi-110006, despite having own shop which is in possession of the respondent. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises.
6. It is averred that the petitioner does not have any other accommodation available, except the tenanted premises for his requirement. Petitioner has prayed that eviction order may be passed in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 3 of 23 4
7. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend. It is admitted by the respondent that he is a tenant in the premises. However, the respondent denied that the petitioner is its owner. It is averred that Mst. Mariam Bi had executed a Will dated 16.02.1998 by which she bequeathed her share in property 2395 to 2402, Ward No.6, Chashma Building, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006 to Mst. Nazma Khatoon, but authorized the petitioner and other legal heirs of late Mr. Mohd. Saeed to collect rent from the respondent. It is pleaded that petitioner has filed the present case in connivance with the actual owner Mr. Sumer son of late Mst. Nazma Khatoon as Mr. Sumer had no grounds available for seeking eviction of the tenant.
8. It is stated that no document has been filed by the petitioner which establishes that Mr. Haji Mumtazuddin was owner of the property.
9. It is stated that one Mohd. Naeem had received a legal notice dated 10.07.1991 from an advocate of Mst. Nazma Khatoon who claimed that Mst. Nazma Khatoon was 75% owner of the entire property. Alongwith a notice, copy of Will of Mst. Mariam Bi dated 15.02.1968 was annexed. Copy of the notice and the Will have been filed by the respondent. It is further stated that Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 4 of 23 5 the respondent no.2 has received a notice dated 10.09.2014 from an advocate of Mr. Mohd. Sajid who claimed that he is owner of the suit property by virtue of a Will dated 14.05.1991 of Mst. Nazma Khatoon. It is pleaded that there is inter-se dispute between the legal heirs of Mst. Mariam Bi and Mr. Haji Mumtazuddin.
10. It is stated that the amicable settlement referred to by the petitioner is a vague assertion, details of which have not been disclosed.
11. It is stated that the petitioner has not disclosed that he is in possession of the adjacent godown measuring more than 150 sq. yds. in the same property bearing no. 2395 to 2402. It is stated that this property is a big hall and was earlier under the tenancy of Laxmi Commercial Bank and was subsequently taken over by Canra Bank. It is pleaded that an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed and was allowed. It is stated that possession of the premises was taken over from Canra Bank. It is averred that the petitioner has not yet utilized the vacant godown for starting any other business. It is submitted that the godown can be utilized for the alleged requirement of the petitioner.
Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 5 of 23 6
12. It is stated that the petitioner has also not disclosed that a school was running from the first, second and third floors of property no. 2395 to 2402, Ward No.6, Chashma Building, Ballimaran, Delhi-110006. However, with a collusion of the petitioner, an eviction order was passed against the school.
13. It is stated that the petitioner has concealed that he is owner of the commercial property bearing no. 146A, Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi, from which he is running business under the name of "Style of Life".
14. It is stated that Mst. Kifayatun Nisha was the owner of property no. 1655-1659, Gali Imli Wali, Mohalla Rodgaran, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi which consists of ground, first and second floors, which also is in possession of the petitioner. It is stated that the requirement of the petitioner is for additional accommodation.
15. It is stated that the petitioner is running a manufacturing unit from a very large space and the tenanted premises is a very small shop.
16. The respondent has pleaded that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is fake and malafide and has prayed that leave to defend the petition may be granted to the respondent as the application/affidavit of the Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 6 of 23 7 respondent/tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises under section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
17. The petitioner filed reply to the application seeking leave to defend. The petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of his eviction petition. It is pleaded that Mst. Zora Bi, who was 1/4th owner of the property bearing no. 2395-2402, Ward No. 6, Chashma Building, Bali Maran, Delhi-110006, died on 14.12.1982. As such, her legal heirs inherited the 1/4th share. However, the said legal representatives gifted their share in the property to Mst. Kifayatun Nisha. They also executed a lease deed dated 14.12.1989 affirming the oral gift in favour of Mst. Kifayatun Nisha. An award was also passed in this regard which was made rule of the Court by passing of a decree in suit no. 1097/1990.
18. It is averred that Mst. Nazma Khatoon executed a power of attorney and Will in favour of her son Mr. Sumairuddin Ahmad in respect of her share in the above property. It is submitted that Mst. Nazma Khatoon died on 04.05.2014. It is stated that in this manner, the LRs of Mr. Mohd. Saeed are owners of 1/4th share, Mr. Sumairuddin Ahmad, son of Mst. Kifayatun Nisha is Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 7 of 23 8 owner of ½ share and LRs of Mst. Nazma Khatoon are owners of 1/4th share, in property bearing no. 2395-2402, Ward No. 6, Chashma Building, Bali Maran, Delhi-110006. It is averred that as per the amicable settlement arrived at between all these legal representatives, the tenanted premises fell in the share of the legal representatives of Late Mr. Mohd. Saeed including the petitioner. It is pleaded that the legal representatives of Mr. Mohd. Saeed have no objection if the possession of the tenanted premises is handed over to Mr. Aslam Saeed, son of Late Mr. Mohd. Saeed.
19. It is stated that respondent has not been paying rent to the petitioner. However, with ulterior motives, rent was deposited in the Court. It is submitted that by filing the petition under Section 27, the respondent has admitted that the petitioner is co-owner of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that even by issuing the rent receipts to the petitioner, the respondent has admitted the ownership of the petitioner.
20. It is averred that the petitioner, his brothers and sisters are owners of the tenanted premises in view of an amicable settlement arrived at between them. It is stated that this settlement was an oral settlement.
21. It is denied that one Mr. Mohd. Naeem received a legal notice from Mst. Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 8 of 23 9 Nazma Khatoon in which it was stated that Mst. Nazma Khatoon has 75% share in the aforementioned property. It is stated that the Will referred to by the respondent is a forged document. It is denied that in terms of the Will, the share of Mst. Mariam Bi went to Mst. Nazma Khatoon and Mr. Mohd. Saeed and Mst. Kifayatun Nisha were only entitled to collect rent of the property.
22. It is stated that the petitioner has no concern with the adjacent godown measuring more than 150 sq. yards in property no. 2395-2402, as alleged. It is submitted that eviction order qua this property was passed in favour of Mr. Mohd. Yunus and it is being used by him.
23. with respect to the premises from which a school was running on the first, second and third floor of property no. 2395-2402, it is stated that the eviction order was passed in favour of Mohd. Shamim, Parveen Rehman and Nazma Khatoon. It is pleaded that the tenants have filed a revision petition which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
24. It is denied that the petitioner owns shop no. 146A, Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi from which he is running a business. It is stated that the petitioner has no concern with this property.
Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 9 of 23 10
25. It is stated that the property no. 1655-1659, Glai Imliwali, Mohalla Rodgaran, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi is a residential property and petitioner does not have any concern with it.
26. The respondent filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner and denied the averments made in the reply of the petitioner and simultaneously reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the application. It is stated that the petitioner does not have any bonafide requirement which is evident from the fact that he had let out a bigger shop in the same building to one Mr. Mohd. Safi Raja at the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- per month in January, 2015. It is pleaded that the petitioner also let out another shop in the same building to Mr. Mohd. Faizal and Mr. Mohd. Khalid at the monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- per month, in the month of October, 2014.
27. I have heard arguments and carefully gone through the record. It is not in dispute that Mst. Marium Bi had ½ share in the property no. 2395-2402, Ward No. 6, Chashma Building, Balimaran, Delhi-110006. It is the case of the petitioner that Mst. Marium Bi had executed a gift deed and a release deed dated 07.11.1969 by which she gave her share in the property to her son Mr. Mohd. Saeed and her daughter Mst. Kifayatun Nisha. The petitioner claims to Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 10 of 23 11 have become owner of the tenanted premises by virtue of being son of Late Mr. Mohd. Saeed.
28. This assertion of the petitioner has been denied by the respondent. Per contra, it is stated that Mst. Marium Bi had executed a Will dated 15.02.1968 by which she had given her share in the property to Mst. Nazma Khatoon and only gave right of collecting rent to Mr. Mohd. Saeed and Mst. Kifayatun Nisha. Copy of the Will has been filed by the respondent. Copy of a legal notice dated 10.07.1991 has also been filed which makes reference to the Will. The authenticity of these documents of the respondent has been denied by the petitioner. He has stated that the Will is forged.
29. For the petitioner to have locus to file the present case, he has to establish that he is owner of the property. A doubt on the ownership of the petitioner over the property has been created by the respondent by relying upon certain documents. Whether the documents are genuine or not can be decided only after parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence on this aspect. Filing of petition under Section 27 by the respondent and by making payment of rent to the petitioner, is not an unequivocal admission of the respondent that petitioner is owner of the property. The respondent has Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 11 of 23 12 explained why rent was paid to the petitioner and why petitioner was made a respondent in the petition under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The explanation given is by virtue of the Will of Mst. Marium Bi, Mr. Mohd. Saeed and thus the petitioner herein were given a right to collect rent. Merely because in the Will of Mst. Nazma Khatoon, it is stated that she is owner of only 1/4th share of the property, it is not a conclusive proof of the same. The will of Mst. Nazma Khatoon is of the year 2013 and is a recent document. The possibility of it being executed for the purpose of this case for establishing the ownership of the petitioner herein, cannot be ruled out. There is an allegation made by the respondent in this regard that the present case has been filed in collusion with Mr. Sumairuddin son of Mst. Nazma Khatoon.
30. A triable issue has thus been raised on whether Mst. Marium Bi had given her share in the property to her children Mr. Mohd. Saeed and Mst. Kifayatun Nisha or to Mst. Nazma Khatoon.
31. It is the case of the respondent that Mst. Nazma Khatoon owned 75% of the property no. 2395-2402, Ward No. 6, Chashma Building, Balimaran, Delhi-110006. It is the case of the petitioner that Mst. Nazma Khatoon owned only 25% of this property. Therefore, it is not in dispute that Mst. Nazma Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 12 of 23 13 Khatoon and after demise of her son Mr. Sumairuddin Ahmad had some share in the property. It is the allegation of the respondent that the actual owner of the tenanted premises is Mr. Sumairuddin Ahmad and since he had no ground available for filing of eviction petition, the petitioner is being shown as the owner of the property. It is not in dispute that the suit for partition instituted in the year 1966 ended with a decision on the share of various persons over the estate of Mr. Haji Mumtazuddin. No partition by metes and bounds has taken place. There is no document on record which shows as to which part of the property bearing no. 2395-2402, Ward No. 6, Chashma Building, Balimaran, Delhi-110006 including the tenanted premises herein fell in whose share. There is only a self serving ipse dixit averment of the petitioner that an oral amicable settlement was arrived at between the owners of the property no. 2395-2402, Ward No. 6, Chashma Building, Balimaran, Delhi-110006, as per which the tenanted premises fell in the share of the legal representatives of Mr. Mohd. Saeed. No details of the alleged settlement have been disclosed by the petitioner. It has not been disclosed as to on which date and between which parties the settlement had arrived at. Even if the Court presumes that the contention of the petitioner that Late Mst. Marium Bi had given her share in the property to Late Mr. Mohd. Saeed and Mst. Kifayatun Nisha and that an Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 13 of 23 14 amicable settlement was indeed arrived at between the owners of the property, is correct, the question arises as to what part of the property when to which legal heir. As per the respondent, the tenanted premises fell in the share of Mr. Sumairuddin and since he did not have any ground for filing eviction petition, it has been falsely stated that the premises fell in the share of the petitioner herein. This contention of the respondent cannot be rejected outrightly without even giving an opportunity to him to lead evidence to prove his contention. A reasonable triable issue in this regard has been disclosed by the respondent.
32. Since no partition by metes and bounds has been effected between the legal heirs of Late Mr. Haji Mumtazuddin and since there is only a bald and vague oral averment that a settlement has been arrived at between the owners of property no. 2395-2402, Ward No. 6, Chashma Building, Balimaran, Delhi-110006, it cannot be established without leading of evidence if the adjacent hall measuring 150 sq. yards is a property under the joint ownership of the all legal heirs of Late Mr. Haji Mumtazuddin or under the exclusive ownership of the petitioner herein or of Mr. Mohd. Yunus, cousin of the petitioner. In case the allegation of the respondent that the said property is lying vacant and has not been utilized by Mohd. Yunus is correct and if no Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 14 of 23 15 partition by metes and bounds has taken place, this adjacent hall may be available with the petitioner for his alleged requirement. Therefore, a triable issue has been raised on the availability of a reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.
33. At this stage, when the application for leave to defend is to be decided, the Court is not required to check proof of the defence raised by the tenant. In this context the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Precision Steel & Engineering Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal 1982 AIR 1518, is relevant, the following was held in this case:-
"The language of sub-section 5 of Section 25-B casts a statutory duty on the Controller to give to the tenant leave to contest the application, the only pre-condition for exercise of jurisdiction being that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground mentioned in section 14(1)(e). Upon a true construction of proviso (e) to section 14(1) it would unmistakably appear that the burden is on the landlord to satisfy the Controller that the premises of which possession is sought is: (i) let for residential purposes : and (ii) possession of the premises is required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family etc. and (iii) that the landlord or the person for whose benefit possession is sought has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. This burden, landlord is required to discharge before the Controller gets jurisdiction to make an order for eviction.Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 15 of 23 16
This necessarily transpires from the language of Section 14(1) which precludes the Controller from making any order or decree for recovery of possession unless the landlord proves to his satisfaction the condition in the enabling provision enacted as proviso under which possession is sought. Initial burden is thus on the landlord.
...On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by landlord the Controller has to pose to himself the only question: Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1). The Controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against other set of affidavits. That is not the jurisdiction conferred on the Controller by sub-sec. 5 because the Controller while examining the question whether there is a proper case for granting leave to contest the application has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant disclosing such facts as would prima facie and not on contest disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. At the stage when affidavit is filed under sub-section (4) by the tenant and the same is being examined for the purposes of sub-section (5) the Controller has to confine himself only to the averments in the affidavit and the reply if any and that becomes manifestly clear from the language of sub-section (5) that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession etc. The jurisdiction to grant leave to contest or refuse the same is to be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant. That alone at stage is the relevant document and one must confine to the averments in the affidavit.Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 16 of 23 17
If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence raise by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown."
34. Reliance is also placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Santosh Kumar Vs. Bhai Mool Singh 1958 AIR 321, Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand (1983) 1 SCC 301 and Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh I (2001) SLT 1.
35. In view of the aforementioned decisions, the Court cannot at this stage decide whether the petitioner indeed owns shop no. 146A, Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi or not. For the same reason, the Court cannot outrightly reject the contention that the petitioner also has ground, first and second floors of property no. 1655-1659, Gali Imliwali, Mohalla Rodgaran, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi. This court is of the view that the landlord being the best judge of his requirement is not an absolute principle of law. The court is required to check the bonafide of the alleged requirement of petitioner for seeking possession of Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 17 of 23 18 the tenanted premises. In this context, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Khem Chand & Ors. vs Arjun Jain & Ors. Rev. No.442/2012 dated 13 September, 2013. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the following in this case:
"39. It is true that there are other cases where in the appropriate facts the courts have held that the landlord is the best judge to decide his convenience. The said are the line of the cases where the landlord is put to the extreme hardship by tenant's insistence that he should adjust to inconvenient premises by squeezing his needs. The facts of the present case are entirely different where the landlord is enjoying the property with in the same location though as a tenant coupled with another property lying vacant within the same location though on the different floor owned by the landlord himself where the business can be carried out as per the market conditions and thereafter the landlord is seeking to vacate the third property in the same location on the basis of bonafide need and non availability of the alternative accommodation which raises the doubt on the need of the landlord as not felt need but fanciful desire. ... It is not the thumb rule that in every case the landlord always is the best judge and the court is helpless by not scrutinizing the stand of the tenant while testing the reasonableness and suitability of the alternative accommodation. Actually it depends upon the case to case basis. The courts have otherwise also held consistently that even though the landlord is the best judge to decide his needs and he cannot be compelled by the tenant to accommodate at the place which is lesser in any way than the place which is sought to be evicted, still the court would examine the reasonableness and suitability of the existing Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 18 of 23 19 accommodation by weighing what is available with the landlord vis-à-vis the plea of the tenant.
...42. The Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar lal, AIR 1981 SC 1113 which is a three bench decision passed by the court speaking through Hon'ble Desai, J. (as His Lordship then was) has categorically flawed this approach of mechanically stating that the landlord is the best judge without applying a judicious approach in the matter."
36. In the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. 1981 AIR 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following:-
"It would, however, be a bald statement unsupported by the Rent Act to say that the landlord has an unfettered right to choose whatever premises he wants and that too irrespective of the fact that he has some vacant premises in possession which he would not occupy and try to seek to remove the tenant. This approach would put a premium on the landlord's greed to throw out tenants paying lower rent in the name of personal occupation and rent out the premises in his possession at the market rate."
37. The very purpose of creation of machinery of Rent Controllers and Additional Rent Controllers, is that the plea of the landlord is to be tested on the anvil of bonafide. The ground on which the landlord is seeking eviction of tenant has thus been put to test and this itself implies that the grounds urged have to be carefully scrutinized rather than being accepted on face value. In Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 19 of 23 20 case the petitioner has indeed recently let out shops to Mr. Mohd. Safi Raja, Mr. Mohd. Faizal and Mr. Mohd. Khalid, it creates a doubt on whether the petitioner indeed bonafide requires the tenanted premises.
38. The aforesaid decisions makes it incumbent for the court to analyse the alleged requirement of the landlord and assess if it is natural, real, sincere and honest. It has already been explained hereinabove that there are doubts on the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises and availability of alternative suitable accommodations.
39. In the case of Liaq Ahmed and Ors. Vs Habeeb-Ur-Rehman (2000) 5 SCC 708, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rent control legislations seek to strike a balance between the rights of the landlord and requirements of the tenant. It was held that the purpose of the legislation should not be nullified by giving hyper technical or liberal construction to the language of the statute which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in its frustration. It was observed that Rent Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection to the tenants and with paramount object of essentially safeguarding their interest and their benefit. It was held that a rational approach should be followed in interpreting the law relating to control of Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 20 of 23 21 tenants.
40. The respondent has alleged that the tenanted premises is a very small shop and the premises from which the petitioner is running his business is a very big space. It is pleaded that the premises from which the petitioner is running his business is five times bigger than the tenanted premises. These assertions of the respondent have been denied by the petitioner. However, the respondent has not disclosed the size/area of the two premises. Therefore, the denial of the petitioner to the assertions of the respondent are bald denials. There is no gainsaying the fact that the landlord has a right to seek eviction of a tenant for the purpose of shifting his business which he is running from the tenanted premises. In the present case, the petitioner has expressed his wish to move out from the tenanted premises and operate his business from a premises allegedly owned by him. It is not his case that he is facing any threat of eviction from the premises from which he is currently operating. The respondent has filed copy of a legal notice dated 04.08.2010 sent by the petitioner to his another tenant in which the petitioner has claimed that the property no. 2395-2402, Chashma Building is in a bad condition as it was constructed in 1950s. The petitioner also stated that there is a possibility of the building collapsing. If this property is in such a dangerous condition and Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 21 of 23 22 the petitioner does not have any threat of eviction from the premises from which he is currently doing his business, it is strange that the petitioner still wishes to shift his business to the tenanted premises herein, that too when the premises from which he is currently operating is much larger than the tenanted premises. In view of this discussion, a doubt has been created on whether the petitioner indeed bonafide requires the tenanted premises.
41. The prime question to be answered is that whether the tenanted premises is required bonafide by the landlord for his use and whether he has no alternative suitable accommodation for his requirement. If on such vague pleas as is taken in the present eviction petition, tenant protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act is allowed to be evicted, it would frustrate the very purpose of the enactment of the beneficial legislation, since every landlord can take such a plea that he wants his property for business or residence without giving any further details and this plea would, if the case of the petitioner's contention is accepted, would be judicially inscrutable.
42. Triable issues have been raised by the respondent and there are sufficient grounds which entitle the respondent to have leave to defend and contest the present eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act of the Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 22 of 23 23 petitioner.
43. Accordingly, the application of the respondent seeking leave to defend is allowed. Let the written statement be filed within 30 days from today after supplying advance copy to the petitioner. Replication be filed within 30 days from receiving copy of the written statement after supplying advance copy to the respondent.
44. To come up for petitioner's evidence on 13.08.2019. Advance copy of evidence by way of affidavit be supplied to the respondents at least 15 days Digitally signed prior to the next date of hearing. Shirish by Shirish Aggarwal Aggarwal Date:
2019.04.30 13:23:26 +0530 SHIRISH AGGARWAL ARC-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court on 29th April, 2019) Eviction petition No.08/15 (New No. 79506/16) Page 23 of 23