Delhi District Court
Courts vs Sh. Laxmi Narain on 2 April, 2011
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
E240/09
02.04.2011
Sh. Subhash Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Mangat Ram
R/o 839/6, Katra Mahesh Dass
Nai Sarak, Delhi110006.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Laxmi Narain
S/o Late Sh. Manak Chand Surana
839/2, Katra Mahesh Dass
Nai Sarak, Delhi110006.
Respondent
Petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case : 28.07.2008
2. Date of Judgment Reserved : 23.03.2011
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 02.04.2011
JUDGMENT
By this order I shall dispose of an application under section 25 B (4) of DRC Act filed on behalf of the respondent. The brief facts are that the present petition was filed by the petitioner under section 14(1) (e) r/w section 25 B of the DRC Act on the ground of bonafide requirements. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the shop bearing //2// no. 839/2, ground floor, Katra Mahesh Dass, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006 and the same was let out to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/ exclusive of electricity charges. The shop no. 839/2 is the demised shop. Premises no. 839/4 which consists of stair case, second floor and top floor has been let out to one Sh. Ramesh Chand Goel, who is tenant in the aforesaid shop. The petitioner has already initiated eviction proceedings against Sh. Ramesh Chand Goel on the ground of subletting, which is at present pending before the court of Sh. Amit Kumar, ARC, Delhi.
2. It is further stated that the petitioner, at present is in occupation of shop no. 839/1, 839/3, 839/5 & 839/6 on ground floor, Katra Mahesh Dass, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006. Shop no. 839/5 & 839/6 are small in size. The petitioner alongwith his son is doing the business of manufacturing of wholesale business of ladies suits and dress material by the name of M/s Mangat Ram Anshul Gupta, the sole proprietor of which is his son Anshul Gupta. The petitioner stores the goods in shop no. 839/5 and 839/6 and carries on his business from shop no 839/1 and 839/3. However, shops no. 839/1 and 839/3 are also very small in size and space available to the petitioner is highly insufficient for running this kind of business, in as much as the storage space is highly insufficient. Apart from the paucity of storage space the customers of the petitioner find it very difficult to sit in the shop //3// in a congested space which can accommodate only 34 persons at a time. Thus the business of the petitioner is suffering to a great extent due to paucity of space. The petitioner is also doing business of Real Estate Agent from these shops. Petitioner has very reputed clients who visit him regularly. The petitioner also arranges meetings between his clients and that also requires a decent space where 810 persons can be accommodated and they can talk in a peaceful atmosphere. The petitioner had no alternative but to take on rent another shop bearing no. 838, Katra Mahesh Dass, Nai Sarak Delhi110006, which is close to his shop. The petitioner at present is paying a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/ to his landlord. This shop has been taken on lease for a period of three years w.e.f 01.12.2005 vide registered deed dated 09.12.2005 and the lease of the shop has expired on 30.11.2008. Landlady of this shop has clearly expressed her desire not to renew the lease any further and she has been pressing hard on the petitioner to vacate the shop on or before 30.11.2008.
3. It is further stated that the petitioner is suffering from various diseases like diabetes, hypertension and arthritis and has been hospitalized many times in the last few months. Keeping in view his health the petitioner is unable to freely travel and climb the stairs and has also been advised by the doctors to restrict his movements. The petitioner is owner and landlord //4// of the demised shop and he requires bonafide the said shop for his use and for the use of his family members for running his business as he has no other accommodation/suitable accommodation.
4. Leave to defend application u/s 25B (4) of DRC Act alongwith affidavit filed by the respondent wherein he stated that the shop no. 839/2, Katra Mahesh Dass, Nai Sarak, Delhi remained in occupation as tenant of Manakchand Laxmi Narain and rent receipts were issued in favour of Manakchand Laxmi Narain for the shop in question by the predecessors in title of the petitioner and also by the petitioner himself. The eviction petition is, thus, not maintainable on account of nonjoinder and non impleadment of Manakchand Laxmi Narain. The premises in occupation of the petitioner is not used for selling clothes by the petitioner. Anshul Gupta, son of petitioner, is only doing business as the petitioner seldom comes to the shop and practically lives a luxuries life at his Palatial residence at A7/3, Rana Pratapbagh, Delhi. The site plan of the suit shop filed by the petitioner is wholly incorrect and not according to the site and the previous site plans filed in slum courts etc. is a correct site plan of the suit property. The respondent is tenant at the rate of Rs. 100/ per month but Manakchand Laxmi Narain was a tenant giving Rs. 28.12/ per month as rent which fact is evident from the sale deed filed by the petitioner himself. It is further //5// stated that the petitioner is not the sole owner of the suit property. Sh. Babu Ram Gupta, Mrs. Seema Gupta @ Ashok Rani and Smt. Bala Singhania @ Munan Bala are also the joint owners of the suit property. The sale deed dated 18.08.1982 allegedly executed by Smt. Usha Rani Bhardwaj was in favour of Mangat Ram in the capacity of Karta Badridan Mangat Ram, HUF, in which the suit shop was shown under the tenancy of Manakchand Laxmi Narain @ Rs. 28.12/ per month and Sh. Laxmi Narain was not shown to be a tenant of the suit shop in the sale deed. The first floor of the property, was shown, in the sale deed, under the tenancy of Anil Kumar and Chander Bhan who vacated long ago and the said entire first floor is in possession and use of the petitioner.
5. It is further stated that the petitioner is not in occupation of shop no. 839/1, 839/3, 839/5 and 839/6 for want of knowledge. If it is so, the petitioner has enough accommodation with him and the size of the shops are not small. The respondent is carrying on his business in the suit shop and he is not aware as to whether Ansul Gupta is doing business with the petitioner of manufacturing ladies suit and dress material under the name of M/s Mangat Ram Ansul Gupta. Petitioner is not the proprietor of Mangat Ram Ansul Gupta. The petitioner is not carrying any business of Real Estate.
//6//
6. Reply to the application of leave to defend alongwith counter affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner wherein it is admitted by the petitioner that Manakchand Laxmi Narain was the tenant of the demised premises. However, since it is the sole proprietorship concern it is not a legal entity, it cannot be impleaded in its own name. It is further stated that Sh. Laxmi Narain i.e respondent is the sole proprietor of Manakchand Laxmi Narain. The respondent has filed deposit of rent petition previously in his own name without impleading Sh. Manakchand Laxmi Narain as a tenant. It is further stated that at present eight employees are working with the petitioner in both the business. It is stated that the site plan filed by the respondent matches with the site plan filed by the petitioner. It is further stated that it is clear from the arbitral award dated 03.11.1997 that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit property and no other person has any concern with the same. It is stated that the first floor had already been sold by the petitioner about 10 years back to Sh. Kishan Gopalika.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered.
8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following rulings :
(i) Inderjit Vs. Mahesh Gupta, 2007 (1) RCR 414.
(ii) Dr. J.S.Sodhi Vs. Mela Ram, 2001 (2) RCR 396 (P & H) //7//
(iii) Ghulam Hussain (died) & Ors. Vs. D.Raj Kumar, 1997 (2) RCR 111 (APHC).
(iv) P.Sundaram Vs. R.Gangadharan, 2002 (1) RCR 62 (MAD.HC).
(v) Trilokchand Shantilal Badjate Vs. Surendralal Ramanlal Patni, 2007 (1) RCR 533 (BOM HC).
9. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1 ) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove
(i) Ownership of the suit premises ; (ii) Purpose of letting; (iii) Alternative accommodation; and (iv) bonafide requirement;. Let the same be discussed in detail.
Ownership and Purpose of Letting
10. The respondent contended that petitioner is not sole owner of the suit premises and some other members are also joint owners of the suit premises. The sale deed was executed in favour of Mangat Ram in the capacity of Karta and the tenant is Manakchand Laxmi Narayan and not the respondent Sh. Laxmi Narayan. On the other hand, the petitioner stated that from the arbitral award dated 03.11.97 the petitioner is the absolute owner of the suit premises and no other person has any concern with it. It is admitted that rent receipts were issued in the name of Manakchand Laxmi //8// Narayan but, Manakchand Laxmi Narayan is a proprietorship concern and the respondent is its sole proprietor. Not only this the respondent has deposited the rent in his name as tenant and the petitioner has been shown has landlord. It is well settled law that in the proceedings for eviction under the provisions of DRC Act, a landlord is not required to prove his absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. The landlord has to show that he is more than a tenant. The respondent himself stated in his affidavit that he is tenant @ Rs. 100/ per month and not only this the respondent has deposited the rent in the court u/s 27 of DRC Act stating himself as tenant and the petitioner as a landlord. From these facts the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is proved and the respondent is estopped to challenged the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises. It has been held in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 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 cannot stand in the way of //9// an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC 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 Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a 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".
11. So far the purpose of letting is concerned after the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 287, it is well settled that an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is also maintainable in respect of tenanted premises which were let out for commercial purposes.
Alternative accommodation and bonafide requirement
12. The respondent further contended that he has no knowledge whether the petitioner is in occupation of Shop no. 839/1, 839/3, 839/5 and 839/6 and if it is so the petitioner has enough accommodation with him and the size of the shops are not small. It is denied that the petitioner is carrying business of Real Estates. It is further contended that the first floor of the //10// property in question was under the tenancy of Anil Kumar and Chander Bhan who vacated the first floor premises and now the entire first floor is in possession and use of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner stated that the four shops from where he is carrying on his business of clothes alongwith his son and of Real Estate are small in size and insufficient for running his business and it very difficult to sit in the shop in a congested space which can accommodate only 34 persons at a time. Petitioner further stated that due to paucity of space he has taken a shop on rent @ Rs. 10,000/ per month which he has to vacate as his landlady is not going to renew the lease of the tenanted shop. It is further stated that first floor of the suit property was sold by the petitioner ten years back.
13. The respondent is not aware whether the petitioner is in occupation of four shops or not. The respondent also does not know whether the petitioner is doing the business of manufacturing lady suits and dress material alongwith with his son. The question arise if, the respondent is not aware whether the petitioner is in occupation of four shops or doing the business alongwith his son then how he can say that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation with him. The respondent contended that the petitioner is having entire first floor with him but, the said first floor already sold by the petitioner ten years back.
//11//
14. The respondent has also not denied that the petitioner has taken a shop on rent @ Rs. 10,000/ per month for running his business. The petitioner is paying Rs. 10,000/ per month as rent for a shop whereas, he is getting only Rs. 100/ per month as rent from the respondent. This itself shows that the petitioner is in bonafide need to get the shop in question for running smoothly his business. From these facts it is established that the petitioner is not having suitable alternate accommodation with him to run smoothly his business. It is well settled proposition of law that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and cannot be dictated by the tenant as to where he should reside or run his business. It was held in Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Kumars & Ors (supra) that a tenant cannot create a clog on the extension of business of landlord. Sufficiency or insufficiency of the business already in occupation of the landlord is a question which cannot be judged from the view point of the tenant.
15. In view of the above discussions, the respondents have failed to raise any triable issue. On the other hand, the petitioner has successfully established that he has no other alternative suitable accommodation for running and expanding to his business and the petitioner bonafidely requires the suit shop for himself and his son to run their business smoothly.
//12//
16. Accordingly, the application of the respondent seeking leave to defend is dismissed and the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order and therefore an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of D.R.C. Act is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the shop bearing no. 839/2, ground floor, Katra Mahesh Dass, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006, more specifically shown in red colour in site plan EX. C1 (exhibited today while passing the order). However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry of six months running from today. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court (Pritam Singh) on 02.04.2011) ARC(Central)/Delhi