Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 22, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Mrs. Savitri Devi (Through Lrs) vs Mrs. Santosh Bhutiani on 26 February, 2020

       IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
     ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE­ CUM­ ADDITIONAL RENT
               CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI

E­78924/16

In the matter of :­

     Mrs. Savitri Devi (through LRs)
     All R/o 352, Katra Sheikh Ranja
     Delhi­110006.                                     .....Petitioner/ Landlord
                                    Versus

 1.Mrs. Santosh Bhutiani
 2.Ms. Kalpana
  Both D/o Late Sh.Ramji Lal &
  R/o 4932/7, Phatak Namak,
  Hauz Qazi, Delhi­11006.
                                                      .....Respondents/ Tenants

Date of Institution          : 01.12.2011
Date of order when reserved : 12.02.2020
Date of order when announced : 26.02.2020

J U D G M E N T:

1. Vide this judgment, the undersigned shall dispose off the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents/ tenants U/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), in respect of one shop forming part of property bearing No.201, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi­110006 (herein after referred to as 'tenanted premises'). The site plan showing the tenanted portion in red colour is annexed with the petition.

2. The brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the initial petition by the petitioner is that she is the owner/ landlady of the property bearing E­78924/16 1/20 No.200­201, consisting of two shops at ground­floor and two rooms alongwith latrine at first floor with staircase, situated in Ward No.8, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi admeasuring 12' X 30', having purchased the same from its erstwhile owner Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta for lawful sale consideration vide registered sale deed dated 02.11.1987. At that time, the deceased predecessor in interest of the respondents i.e. Smt. Vidyavanti was already a tenant in the said premises at monthly rent of Rs.30/­ excluding other charges. After purchase of the said property, Smt. Vidyavanti became the tenant in respect of 'tenanted premises' under the petitioner and she was informed about the purchase of the property by the petitioner. Smt. Vidyavanti expired on 27.11.2010 and the respondents stepped into her shoes being in possession of the 'tenanted premises', thereby becoming the statutory tenants of the petitioner, being LRs/ daughters of Smt. Vidyavanti.

The family of the petitioner presently consist of three sons and one daughter. Her two sons namely Sh. Kulbhushan & Sh. Naresh Kumar are running their business in adjoining shops bearing No.192 & 200, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, however, her third son namely Sh. Sushil Kumar is unemployed and dependent upon the petitioner. The 'tenanted premises' are lying closed since long and is required bonafidely by the petitioner for starting a business for her son namely Sh. Sushil Kumar, being unemployed since long and dependent upon her. The petitioner does not have any other alternate suitable accommodation for starting the business of her son. Hence, this eviction petition has been filed with the same prayer.

3. Notice was served upon the respondents and vide order dated, the leave to defend application of the respondent was allowed vide order dated E­78924/16 2/20 21.02.2015 by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court on the ground of alternate accommodation available to the petitioner for her son namely Sh. Sushil Kumar, who is also stated to be already running a business from premises bearing No.216, Gali Lohran, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and property bearing No.160/308.

4. Thereafter, written statement was filed by the respondent No.1 only, wherein the allegations levelled by the petitioner are denied in general.

(a) The first & foremost contention of the respondent is that the petition is barred by law, as the petitioner has not taken requisite permission from the Competent Authority, though the property in question comes under the purview of Slum J.J. Act.
(b) The second contention is that the ground of bonafide requirement can be taken only in residential accommodation as per provisions of the DRC Act and the plea of bonafide requirement cannot be taken with regard to a commercial property, which is the 'tenanted premises'. Further, the petitioner was required to give at­least three months' notice as per Transfer of Property Act, as the 'tenanted premises' are being commercial in nature.
(c) It has also been contended that the petition has been filed for bonafide requirement for starting business of her son, who is stated to be unemployed, however, due to unfortunate demise of one of her son, the plea of the petitioner does not survive now. The petitioner is having more than 10 shops in the same locality in different names of the members of the family and the property bearing No.193, 200, 201, 350 & 352 having six shops are under tenancy of different persons and four shops in the property bearing No.344 are occupied by the family members of the petitioner. Some of the shops in property bearing No.200 are lying vacant and petitioner is E­78924/16 3/20 seeking new tenants for the same, however, they can be used by her. Hence, there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner qua the 'tenanted premises', as there is alternate accommodation available to her.

(d) Lastly, it is contended that the son of the petitioner namely Sh. Sushil Kumar, for whose bonafide requirement the petition has been filed, is already running a business from two shops bearing No.216 & 160/308 and the respondent stated to have filed documentary evidence showing the same.

Further, the respondent is solely dependent upon the 'tenanted premises' for earning her livelihood, whereas the petitioner has numerous properties under her possession.

5. In rebuttal, replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein it is stated that no permission under the Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act is required in a petition filed u/s. 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Further, as per the settled law, the premises let out for commercial purpose can also be vacated/ evicted on the ground of bonafide requirement. It has been denied that the petitioner is having numerous shops in locality and that the son of the petitioner namely Sh. Sushil is already working in two shops bearing No.216 & 160/308. The shops, as alleged bearing No.216 & 160/308 does not belong to the petitioner or any of her family member. Further, the shop No.200 is not available to the petitioner for her son Sh. Sushil Kumar, as the same was in occupation of other son Sh. Kulbhushan and after his death, the daughter of the petitioner with the help of Sh. Naresh Kumar is doing business there. Hence, the requirement of petitioner is bonafide and she does not have any other alternate suitable accommodation for her son Sh. Sushi Kumar, who is unemployed & dependent upon her.

E­78924/16 4/20

6. That after filing of the written statement, the original petitioner namely Smt. Savitri Devi expired on 27.09.2015 and vide order dated 16.11.2015, the application for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased petitioner was allowed. Accordingly, two sons and one daughter namely Naresh Kumar, Sushil Kumar and Kapila were brought on record. However, Ms. Kapila also expired subsequently on 16.09.2017 and the eviction petition was allowed to be amended vide order dated 01.10.2018. In the amended eviction petition, it has been pleaded that the 'tenanted premises' are required bonafidely for petitioner No.2 for starting his own business which would be assisted by petitioner No.1. No written statement to the amended petition has been filed on behalf of respondents.

7. In order to substantiate the case, the petitioner examined four witnesses in total.

(i) However, there is no petitioner's witness which has been examined as PW­1 and inadvertently, the first witness examined was numbered as PW­2.

(ii) PW­2 Sh. S.K.Jha (Zonal Inspector) brought the summoned record from Property Tax Department with respect to property bearing No.150­160/VIII, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and deposed that as per their record, the aforesaid property stands in the name of Smt. Sunita & Ms. Madhu. He proved the assessment order dated 07.02.2001, as Ex.PW2/1 and the list of occupants in the property as submitted by the assesses, as Ex.PW2/2.

(iii) PW­3 Sh. Jag Prasad Tiwari, Proprietor of M/s J.P. Tools Supply Agency at 216, Gali Lohran, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi has deposed that he is the owner of and working from the aforesaid property since 18.12.1987. The telephone connection in the said premises was taken in the name of E­78924/16 5/20 Mr. Sushil Kumar, as during the time when he purchased the property there was a problem in getting the telephone connections, so on his request Mr. Sushil Kumar got connection in his name. However, he got the said telephone connection transferred in his name in March, 2015. He proved the certificate issued by him, as Ex.PW3/1. He also deposed that Mr. Sushil Kumar has no connection with the business carried by him.

During his cross­examination, he deposed that he is the owner of the aforesaid premises vide registered Sale Deed. He also deposed that payment of telephone bill was paid by cheque/ cash from account of his proprietorship firm and he proved the bank certificate regarding his proprietorship concerned, as Ex.PW3/2.

(iv) PW­4 Sh. Pradeep Goyal was examined through Local Commissioner by order of the Court, who deposed that he is running a business under name & style of M/s Chinta Mani Industrial Agencies from shop No.160/308, Shyam Shanti Market, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. He is the proprietor of the firm dealing in business of hardware goods and he is tenant in the said shop since 1995 under the tenancy of landladies Smt. Sunita & Smt. Madhu. He obtained the telephone connection in name of Sh. Sushil Kumar in 1995, as during that period, there was a big problem in getting connections from MTNL and as Sh. Sushil Kumar had one telephone connection in surplus, he requested him to give the connection to him. However, he got the same transferred in his name in the year 2014. Mr. Sushil Kumar has no connection with the shop under his tenancy or with the business, being run by him.

During his cross­examination, he proved certificate typed on his Firm's letter­pad, filed on record by Sh. Naresh Kumar, as Ex.PW4/R1 and certificate of registration of his firm, as Ex.PW4/R2. He also stated that he had been paying the telephone bills since beginning i.e. from year 1995 from E­78924/16 6/20 his firm's account.

(v) PW­5 Sh. Naresh Kumar/ Petitioner No.1 was also examined through Local Commissioner and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex.P5 and relied upon documents i.e. copy of Sale Deed dated 02.11.1987 (OS& R) as Ex.PW5/1; site plan as Ex.PW5/2; certificate dated 07.02.2012, as Ex.PW5/3 (though already exhibited as Ex.PW2/1) and certificate dated 08.02.2012, as Ex.PW5/4 (though already exhibited as Ex.PW4/R1). He re­iterated the averments made in the petition and also stated in the affidavit that his mother (petitioner) was the owner and landlady of the 'tenanted premises', who filed the present petition during her lifetime on the ground of bonafide requirement for enabling her son Sh. Sushil Kumar to start his business from the said shop/ 'tenanted premises', who is unemployed since long and had been dependent upon her mother. He further deposed that apart from property bearing No.200­201, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, his mother was also co­owner of the property bearing No.192­193, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, however, he is running his business from shop No.192 & shop No.193 is under tenancy of Sh. Rajeshwar Kalra, who is running a business under the name & style of Ganpati Fastners from there since last seven years. Further that, the shop No.200 was in possession of his brother Sh. Kul Bhushan, who was running business from there and after his death, the business is run by his sister. Shop No.201 is under tenancy of the respondents.

He also deposed that five shops forming part of property bearing No.352, Katra Sheikh Ranjha, Hauz Qazi, Delhi was sold by his mother in the year 2002 and one shop in the said property is under tenancy of Sh. Gur Dev Prasad Maini for last twelve years. He also deposed that his brother Sh. Sushil Kumar is unemployed and requires the shop/ 'tenanted premises' E­78924/16 7/20 for his bonafide need in order to start his business, as neither Sh. Sushil Kumar nor any other LR of his mother has any other alternate suitable accommodation for the business of Sh. Sushil Kumar.

Thereafter, he tendered his additional evidence by way of affidavit, as Ex.PW5/A before the Court on 22.02.2019 and relied upon medical documents of Mr. Sushil Kumar.

During his cross­examination, he stated that there are only two persons alive now in their family i.e. his younger brother Sh. Sushil Kumar and he himself. He is running confectionery shop from shop No.200, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi now and he resides at 352, Katra Sheik Ranjha, Delhi­06 owned by him. He has proved bills of his business carried­on from shop No.200, as Ex.PW5/R1 (OS&R).

8. No other witness has been examined on behalf of the petitioner and petitioner's evidence was closed vide order dated 22.12.2019.

9. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 namely Mrs. Santosh Bhutiani examined herself as RW­1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit proved as Ex.RW1/A and deposed almost on the same lines, as averred in the written statement and also stated that she alongwith her sister i.e. respondent No.2 is running business from the 'tenanted premises', which is only source of income for their livelihood.

However, during her cross­examination, she admitted that the GST number in respect of the business, being run from the 'tenanted premises' is in the name of her son Sh. Kapil Bhutiani, as the proprietor. She failed to point out the documents to show that the petitioners are not having any bonafide need and the Municipal numbers of the properties are in the name of the petitioners. She admitted that shop bearing No.193, Gali E­78924/16 8/20 Bandook Wali, Delhi is in possession of M/s Ganpati Fastners, as tenant.

10. RW­2 Sh. Ajay Deep, Junior Assistant, Department of Trade & Taxes, brought the summoned record in respect of dealer's profile of Pinky Superstore, being run at shop No.200, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same, as Ex.RW2/1. He also proved the certified copy of the dealer's profile of Ganpati Fastners, having shop No.114, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, as Ex.RW2/2.

Thereafter, the examination­in­chief was deferred for producing the record pertaining to shop No.193, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and RW­3 Sh. Satya Pal Singh from Trade & Tax Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi was deputed by the Department in place of RW­2 and again proved the certified copies of record pertaining to Pinky Supestore at Shop No.200, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi and Ganpati Fastners at Shop No.114, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, as Ex.RW3/1 (collectively).

11. No other witness has been examined on behalf of the respondents and respondents' evidence was closed vide order dated 24.12.2019.

12. Oral final arguments were heard at length and written submissions have been filed on record on behalf of all the parties. The entire case file has been perused carefully including the written submissions/ arguments.

13. In the written submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner, it has been stated that initially the eviction petition was filed by the then owner/ landlady namely Mrs. Savitri Devi u/s. 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, thereby E­78924/16 9/20 seeking eviction from the respondents from the suit premises/ 'tenanted premises' pleading bonafide need of the 'tenanted premises' for her son namely Sh. Sushil Kumar. Thereafter, leave to defend was granted to the respondents, however, written statement has been filed only on behalf of the respondent No.1, whereby only three defences have been raised. Firstly, that eviction petition is not maintainable for want of prior permission from the Competent Authority of Slum, secondly eviction petition under 14 (1) (e) of the Act can be filed only in respect of residential accommodation and lastly, that petitioner is having 10 shops in same locality and Mr. Sushil Kumar is already working in two shops bearing No.216 & 160/308.

(a) For the first contention, it is stated that no permission is required from Competent Authority before instituting a petition under 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and reliance is placed upon judgments delivered in Ravinder Dutta Sharma and Rattan Lal Bhargava AIR 1984 SCC 967 & Bilkish Vs. Khushnuma 2012 SCC Del 1047.

(b) Qua the second contention, it is stated that the petition is maintainable under 14 (1) (e) of the Act in respect to a commercial property also and reliance is placed upon judgments delivered in cases titled as Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 287, State of Maharastra Vs. Super Max International (P) Ltd. (2009) SCC 772 and Vinod Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar 2019 SCC 965.

(c) It is also stated that no prior notice is required to be served before institution of petition under 14 (1) (e) of the Act and reliance is placed upon judgment delivered in case titled as Mahindra Trivedi Vs. Jai Prakash Verma (2009) 157 DLT 690.

(d) The landlord tenant relationship is not disputed by the tenants, as per reply to para No.18 (a) (i) and (ii). The bonafide need of the landlord/ E­78924/16 10/20 petitioner No.2 is also not disputed in as much as the only plea raised by the respondents is that there are other alternate vacant shops available with the petitioners. The petitioner's witnesses proved the documents substantiating the plea of the petitioner, whereas the respondents only examined two witnesses and RW­1 did not prove any document to show alternate suitable accommodation available to the petitioner, though stated in her written statement. RW­1 even failed to specify the other properties available with the petitioner, but admitted that the shop bearing No.193, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi is in the possession of M/s Ganpati Fastners, as tenant. RW­2 proved that M/s Pinky Superstore was previously operating from shop No.200, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, however, it stands closed, as its registration was cancelled on 30.09.2003. RW­3 proved that Ms/ Ganpati Fastners is running its business from shop No.193, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.

Further, it is submitted that shop No.192 is used by the petitioner No.1 for maintaining a godown for keeping confectionery items, shop No.193 is admittedly under the possession of M/s Ganpati Fastners, as tenant, shop No.200 is used presently by petitioner No.1 for running the confectionery shop, shop No.352/1 is under tenancy of Sh. Gur Dev Prasad Maini and property bearing No.352, Katra Sheikh Ranjha is residential in nature.

Even otherwise, any malafidely taken by the landlord in getting the 'tenanted premises' vacated, contrary to the need pleaded has been taken care by the legislature itself by virtue of section 19 (2) of the DRC Act.

(e) Reliance is also placed upon judgment delivered in W.H.Brady & Co. Ltd. Vs. Sarita Jain, 2018 SCC Online Del 6576, wherein it is held that "the landlord has an absolute choice of the premises with which to E­78924/16 11/20 fulfill his requirement; the landlord instead of fulfilling the requirement from a premises forming bread and butter of the landlord and his family members, fulfill the said requirement from a low rent yielding property."

Reliance is also placed upon judgment delivered in case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1998 (8) SCC 119, wherein it is held that " the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlord's requirement is not bonadie and it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises".

14. In the written arguments filed by respondent No.1, the facts have been reiterated and it is stated that the petition is liable to be dismissed for want of permission from Competent Authority (Slum).

In the written arguments filed by respondent No.2 also the facts have been reiterated and it is stated that the respondent has no other source of income except the business run from the 'tenanted premises'.

15. Now, before appreciating the present facts of the case, lets discuss the basic law on the point.

The first & foremost contention of respondent is that the present petition is barred by law, as no permission from Competent Authority (Slum) is taken by the petitioner before filing the same . On this point, reliance is placed by this Court upon judgment delivered in case titled as Shafait Ali Vs. Shiva Mal (Dead) by LRs AIR 1988 SC 214, wherein reference was made to judgment delivered in Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Rattan Lal Bhargava AIR 1984 SC 967 and it was held that "section 14A, 14 (1) (E), 25A, 25B & 25C of Delhi Rent Control Act are special provisions so far E­78924/16 12/20 as the landlord and tenant are concerned and further in the view of the non obstante clause in the Section, these provisions override the existing law, so far as the new procedure is concerned. In that view of that matter, we are of the opinion that the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have no application in these cases covered by Section 14A and 14 (1) (E) of the Delhi Rent Control Act specially in view of provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976.

........ In view of the procedure in Chapter IIIA of the Rent ACT, the Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency and it is not, therefore, necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority U/s. 19(1) (A) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within Section 14(1) (e) of the Rent Act ." Hence, no permission was required by the petitioner before filing the present petition.

16. The second contention raised by respondent is that 'tenanted premises' is commercial in nature, hence, the eviction petition u/s. 14 (1) (e) of the Act is not maintainable. Qua the same, reliance is placed by this Court, also relied by Ld. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, upon judgment delivered in case titled as Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 3148, wherein it has made clear that petitioner may file petition under 14 (1) (e) DRC Act in respect of 'tenanted premises' let out for commercial purposes.

17. Now coming to the essential ingredients which a landlord/ petitioner is required to prove for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide need are (i) the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the suit E­78924/16 13/20 premises (ii) the suit premises are required bona fide 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 reasonable suitable accommodation.

18. Now discussing the other objection raised by the respondents that no prior notice was given to them before institution of the present petition. In rebuttal, reliance is placed upon the judgment in Mahendra Trivedi (Supra) on behalf of the petitioners. Relying upon the said judgment as well as the law on the point, it is clear that no prior notice is required to be served upon the tenants before filing of eviction petition under 14 (1) (e) of the Act.

19. Lets discuss the ingredients in detail :­

(i) Ownership as well as existence of landlord­tenant relationship :­ The earlier petitioner Smt. Savitri Devi stated to have purchased the suit property from its erstwhile owner Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta vide sale deed dated 02.11.1987. In order to establish the ownership, the copy of the said sale deed has been proved on record alongwith the site plan. It is also stated that the mother of the respondents namely Smt. Vidyawanti was already in tenancy of the suit premises/ 'tenanted premises' at the time of purchase and she was informed about the same. After her demise, the respondents stepped into her shoes, being LRs & in possession of the 'tenanted premises'. The landlord­tenant relationship is otherwise also not disputed by the respondents in their written statement and it has been stated that they were regularly paying the rent. Even they filed an application before the Court for deposition of rent under 15 (1) of DRC Act. Thereafter, E­78924/16 14/20 the petitioner got expired and all the LRs/ children of the owner/ landlord Smt. Savitri Devi stepped into her shoes after her demise and became the landlords of the "tenanted premises" as per section 2 (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. They were brought on record after allowance of application under order 22 Rule 3 vide order dated 16.11.2015.

Further, reliance is also placed by this Court upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex court in Shanti Sharma Vs. Ved Prabha AIR, 1987, SC 2028, where it has been held that, "ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant". Therefore, in view of the documents on record as well as admission by the respondents, the landlord­tenant relationship between the parties stands established.

(ii) The landlord requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for himself or any member of his family depended upon him.

The contention of the petitioners is that the 'tenanted premises' are required by petitioner No.2 for starting his business, as he is unemployed and does not have any other alternate suitable accommodation for the same. It has been contented by the respondents that petitioner No.2 Sh. Sushil Kumar is already running his business from two shops bearing No.216, Gali Lohran, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi & 160/308, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.

However, PW­3 Sh. Jag Prasad Tiwari has deposed on oath that he is the owner of the shop bearing No.216, Gali Lohran, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi vide sale deed and he is running his business/ proprietorship concerned under name & style of M/s J.P.Tools Supply Agency from the aforesaid premises since 18.12.1987. The petitioner No.2 has no connection with his business and only a telephone connection in his name was used at his E­78924/16 15/20 premises till March, 2015. He has proved certificate issued by him on letter head of his firm bearing the same address mentioning the said details, as Ex.PW3/1 and certificate issued by Union Bank of India in this regard, as Ex.PW3/2.

Further, PW­4 Sh. Pradeep Goyal also deposed that he is running his business under name & style of Ms/ Chinta Mani Industrial Agencies from shop No.160/308, Shyam Shanti Market, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi under tenancy of Smt. Sunita and Smt. Madhu, since 1995. Petitioner No.2 has no connection with the said shop or his business and only telephone connection in his name was taken by him, which was got transferred in his own name in the year 2014. He proved on record certificate issued by him in this regard on the letter head of his firm mentioning the said address, as Ex.PW4/R1 and certificate of registration of trade mark for his firm, as Ex.PW4/R2.

Hence, it is clearly established from the testimony of PW­3 & PW­4 as well as documents proved on record that petitioner No.2 Sh. Sushil Kumar is neither in possession of aforesaid shops nor is running business from there. It has not come on record that petitioner No.2 is working or carrying on business from elsewhere, therefore, there seems no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner seeking possession of the 'tenanted premises' and his bonafide need appears to be genuine.

Reliance is placed by this Court upon judgments delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows :­ (1) In Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 167 (2010) DLT 80 = 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, VIII (2005) 12 SCC 778, have been quoted as under :­ "...It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate E­78924/16 16/20 inbuilt strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant, unless his need is bonafide ­ no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the Court his requirements shall be presumed to be genuine and bonafide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."

(2) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1 held that the phrase "reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord" is not to be tested on par with "dire need" of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need. (3) Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other E­78924/16 17/20 hand.

(iii) Now coming to last ingredient i.e. Non­availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation with the petitioner.

It is clearly stated by the petitioners that they have shops under their ownership i.e. Shop No.192­193, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, however, petitioner No.1 is running his business from Shop No.192 whereas Shop No.193 is under tenancy & occupation of Sh. Rajeshwar Kalra, who is running business under name & style of M/s Ganpati Fastners. Respondent No.1 has admitted during her testimony as RW­1 that shop No.193, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi is in possession of M/s Ganpati Fastners, as tenant. It has also not been specifically denied by the respondents that shop NO.192, Gali Bandook Wali, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi is in possession of petitioner NO.1 from where he is running his business.

It has also been stated by the petitioner No.1/ PW­5 that petitioners are co­owners of property/ shop bearing No.200­201, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, however, shop No.200 was in possession of his deceased brother Sh. Kulbhushan earlier from where he was running his confectionery shop, which was later­on taken over by his sister after demise of Sh. Kulbhushan. Further, the shop bearing No.201, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi is the 'tenanted premises' itself. It has been also stated that shop at 352, Katra SheikH Ranjha, Hauz Qazi, Delhi is under tenancy of Sh. Gur Dev Prasad and rest of the premises is used as residence, being non­commercial in nature, which has not been denied specifically by the respondents.

Surprisingly, it has been admitted by respondent No.1/ RW­1 that the GST number in respect of business, being run from the 'tenanted premises' is in name of her son Sh. Kapil Bhutiani, as proprietor. This E­78924/16 18/20 clearly implies that the respondents are not carrying on their business from the 'tenanted premises', though, it is stated in the pleadings that the business run from 'tenanted premises' is the only source of their livelihood.

It is stated in the written arguments by the petitioners that after demise of their sister, now the confectionery business from shop No.200 is carried­on by the petitioner No.1 and shop no.192 is used as godown for storing the confectionery items. Petitioner No.2 is still unemployed. The same has not been rebutted by the respondents.

Reference is made to the following judgments in this regard:

(1) Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 405, it has been clearly held that "a tenant who alleges that landlord has at his disposal other accommodation has to place before the Controller, some material to show that the landlord has a specific alternative accommodation at his disposal. Mere bald allegation with respect to availability of additional accommodation with the petitioner does not hold any basis and cannot be a basis to deny the petitioner of his right to vacate the tenanted premises for his bonafide requirement".

Further, it is settled law that the landlord is master of his choice and tenant or the court cannot compel a landlord to choose a particular place against his choice.

(2) Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Company, AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter (reliance placed upon "Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353).

Reliance is also placed upon the judgments filed on behalf of the E­78924/16 19/20 petitioner in W.H. Brady (Supra) and Sarla Ahuja (Supra).

With this background, it seems that the petitioner No.2 does not have any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for running business except the 'tenanted premises'.

20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner(s) have proved all the necessary ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of one shop forming part of property bearing No.201, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi­110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition. This order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs.

File be consigned to Record Room.



Announced in the open court           (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON)
on 26.02.2020                         Administrative Civil Judge ­cum­
                                   Additional Rent Controller (Central)
                                             Delhi/26.02.2020
(This judgment contains 20 pages in total)




E­78924/16                                                             20/20