Delhi District Court
Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi on 10 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No: 25469/2016
Sh. Bhagwan Dass (Since deceased)
Through his LR's
1. Smt. Pushpa Devi
W/o Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
2. Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma
3. Sh. Arun Kumar Sharma
4. Sh. Namit Kumar
All sons of Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass
All R/o H. No. WZ-55,
Village Posangi Pur,
Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058. ......Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Ghulam Nabi
S/o Mohd. Hussain
R/o A-5A/306, Janta Flats,
Jankpuri, New Delhi-110058.
Also At: M/s Eversmart Tailor
Shop No. 1, WZ-62-J, Posangi Pur
Market, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058. .....Respondent
Date of filing : 22.11.2013 Date of Order : 10.02.2020 ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking eviction of respondent in respect of Shop No.1 on the ground floor, measuring 8' x 8" x 14' x 4"
forming part of House/Premises No. WZ-62-J, Possangipur Market, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as "Tenanted Premises"), Under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act").
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of tenanted premises as it was inherited by him from his father who let out the tenanted premises to respondent in January, 1979 on oral ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 1 /17 agreement @ Rs.150/- p.m. Petitioner further submits that he needs the tenanted premises to settle his son Sh. Namit Kumar aged about 28 years in business to be started from tenanted premises as he is unemployed and fully dependent on the petitioner. It is further averred that petitioner is having no other accommodation to set up the business for his son.
Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
3. Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the respondent in the prescribed format which was duly served on the respondent. In response to which, the respondent filed his leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit.
4. Reply to leave to defend filed by the petitioner refuting the pleas taken by respondent in the leave to defend.
5. I have carefully and minutely gone through the petition, leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit, reply accompanied by counter affidavit, documents, material on record and case law relied upon.
6. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has sought the leave to defend on several grounds which will be discussed exhaustively later on.
7. Reply to leave to defend was also filed by the petitioner which will also be discussed exhaustively later on.
ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 2 /17THE LAW:
It is well settled that burden placed on a tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause
(e) are good enough to grant leave to defend.
It is further well settled that at a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima-facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. Unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25 B(5). A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act, leave to defend cannot be refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant. Refusing to grant leave in such a case leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great hardship to her and her family members, if any, although he could establish if only leave is granted that a landlord would be disentitled for an order of eviction.
It is also well settled at the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of the rival contentions. Assertions and counter assertions made in affidavits may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an affirmative conclusion one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend where either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable.
ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 3 /17It is also well settled that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire.
In short and substance wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend but when a triable issue is raised a duty is placed on the rent controller by the statute itself to grant leave. It would expeditious disposal of eviction petition so that a landlord need not to wait and suffer for long time. On the other hand, when a tenant is denied leave to defend although he had fair chance to prove his defence, will suffer great hardship. In this view a balanced view is to be taken having regard to competing claims.
There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that stage makes out such a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to defend cannot be granted. This approach is wholly improper. When leave to defend is sought for, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action.
8. It is expedient to discuss some relevant relevant case law which is as under:-
In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 4 /17 satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come."ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 5 /17
In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"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, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC
353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
The moral duty of a father/mother to help establish his/her son/daughter was also recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal" [AIR 2002 SC 2256] in the following words:
"24........Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
9. Some of the pleas taken by the respondent are as under:-
That present eviction petition is not maintainable due to non- joinder of necessary parties and the petitioner has not mentioned the capacity in which the present petition has been filed by him. That he has not mentioned whether the other legal heirs have relinquished their rights in favour of present petitioner. That the petitioner has not ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 6 /17 placed any document on record to show that he is owner/co-owner of the tenanted premises. That the tenanted premises belongs to State and several persons have unauhorisedly occupied the land belonging to State and the litigations are pending before the Hon'ble High Court. That after the death of Sh. Ram Kishan, a dispute occured amongst his legal heirs regarding partition.
On the other hand, the petitioner has denied the contentions of respondent and has inter-alia replied that his father died on 07.02.1996 leaving behind the legal heirs and the tenanted premises along with other properties were partitioned actually amongst the brothers and the tenanted premises came into share of the petitioner and the respondent was paying rent of the tenanted premises to the petitioner.
10. Perusal of record shows that in the leave to defend itself, the respondent has admitted the ownership as well as landlordship of erstwhile owner Sh. Ram Kishan, who is father of petitioner. As such, the petitioner is claiming the landlordship of the tenanted premises on the basis of ownership of the tenanted premises which was acquired by him on the basis of inheritance from his father Sh. Ram Kishan.
In the case titled as Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagan Nath & Ors 1976 AIR 2335, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed :-
"the relationship between the parties being that of landlord and tenant,only the landlord could terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord Under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The tenant can not deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 7 /17 the landlord and tenant question of title to the leased property is irrelevant."
Furthermore, in the case titled as Subhash Jain vs. Ravi Sehgal in RC Rev. No. 292/2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under :-
"The other objection of the petitioner is also without any force that the sale deed dated 29th March, 1993 is a sham document. The petitioner cannot object the history of ownership of the suit property in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord as he has not a contender to the suit property."
In the case of Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and Shanti Sharma vs. Ved Prabha, 1987 RLR 526 SC, wherein it was held that it is not the concern of the tenant as to how the landlord acquired the property.
In the case of Bharat Bhushan Vij vs. Arti Techchandani, 2008 (153) DLT 247 in paras 4 and 5 it was held as under :
"4. The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 8 /17 under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner."
11. As such, it is well settled law that the respondent/tenant has no right to challenge the partition, family settlement or Will in favour of petitioner and as far as non-joinder of other legal heirs of Sh. Ram Kishan are concerned, it is the prerogative of the legal heirs to challenge the partition, Will etc. or to raise objections in filing such eviction petition. The respondent/tenant has no right to raise objection in this regard. Nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the plea that the other legal heirs have objected to filing of such eviction petition before the court. It is also well settled that even a co-owner can file the eviction petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act even without impleading the other co-owners and the eviction petition can not be non-maintainable unless and until the objections are filed by the other co-owners in the eviction petition. As such, these pleas of the respondent do not raise a triable issue which could dis-entitle the petitioner to obtain an order of eviction against respondent.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent has no right to dispute the title or ownership of the landlord. Moreover, it is well settled that the petitioner/landlord should be something more than the tenant ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 9 /17 and he is not required to prove his ownership in the absolute terms. It is sufficient for him to show that he is something more than the tenant.
13. Some of the pleas of the respondent are that the petitioner has no bonafide but a malafide and he has suppressed the material facts in respect of unemployment of his younger son Sh. Namit Kumar as he is gainfully employed in a Call Centre and working as an LIC Agent and he has a stake in the business from the rear side of the property. That petitioner and his sons are well settled.
It is further pleaded by the respondent that the petitioner has accommodation available in the same plot of land wherein tenanted premises is situated and the petitioner has allowed to different tenant to occupy and conduct their business. That the adjacent shop is occupied by one M/s Jagdamba Textile. That there are three rooms in the rear portion which are being used as go-down run by M/s Shanti Traders wherein Sh. Namit Kumar is also having stake. That there are two rooms wherein tenant Sh. Ajay Singh is residing. Moreover, there are two other tenants, i.e. Sh. Nitin and Sh. Jhamshed and the petitioner is earning from these tenants. That there is vacant area lying in the plot wherein tenanted premises is situated and such area is about 30 sq. yards but it has not been shown in site plan. That petitioner has another house WZ-55, Possangipur Market, New Delhi having 15 rooms let out to different tenants out of which two rooms are still lying vacant. That the intention of the petitioner is get it vacated as the rental income from the tenanted premises is quite low.
Lastly, it is prayed that leave to defend may be allowed to the respondent.
On the other hand, the petitioner has denied all these ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 10 /17 allegations, contentions and pleas taken by the respondent.
14. It is well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of the property should be available to the petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. The property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be reasonably suitable property. If the petitioner/landlord has filed the eviction petition for commercial bonafide requirement but the property available with the petitioner is residential one, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation.
It is well settled whether the property available with the petitioner is convenient and suitable or not is to be determined from the point of view of the petitioner/landlord and not from the point of view of the tenant/respondent. The respondent/tenant cannot dictate the terms to the petitioner to use the property in the particular manner. The petitioner/landlord is the best judge of his requirement.
15. Perusal of record shows that in the leave to defend itself, the respondent has himself admitted that some shops are in possession of other tenants such as, M/s Jagdamba Textiles, M/s Shanti Traders, tenant Sh. Ajay Singh, Sh. Nitin, Sh. Jamshed. As such, these premises are already in possession of tenants and not in possession of petitioner and this fact is already admitted by the respondent in his leave to defend application itself.
It is well settled that the premises should be available to the petitioner/ landlord for the purposes of satisfying the needs for which petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act has been filed.
16. As far as another House No. WZ-55, Possangipur Market, ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 11 /17 New Delhi is concerned, the respondent himself has stated that 15 rooms have been let out to different tenants. As such, this property is also not available to the petitioner for the purposes of satisfying the bonafide need as projected by him in the present eviction petition. Perusal of petition shows that the present eviction petition has been filed for the commercial bonafide requirement of Sh. Namit Kumar, who is the son of the petitioner/ landlord. Moreover, in the present leave to defend, the respondent has claimed that the property bearing No. WZ-55, Possangipur Market is a house and he has not stated that it is a commercial property and can be used for commercial purposes and it is also not mentioned by the respondent in the leave to defend that the tenants in such property are using these properties for commercial use. As such, this contention of the respondent that two rooms are lying vacant in the said premises is a vague plea. Moreover, he has not stated which rooms are lying vacant in the said premises.
17. As far as his plea in respect of area of vacant land of 30 square yards is concerned, he has not shown that particular area. Moreover, leave to defend itself shows that it is claimed by the respondent that area of vacant land is about 30 square yards and he has not claimed that some accommodation as such is available with the petitioner. It is not the area of the vacant land but the accommodation that matters in considering of availability of accommodation with the petitioner/landlord.
18. As far as, employment of son of petitioner is concerned, it is well settled that a person is not supposed to remain unemployed till the disposal of the eviction petition. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing malafide if the petitioner wants to have ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 12 /17 the tenanted premises for the purpose of settling his son in the business. Rather, the said requirement seems to be bonafide as he wants to settle his son for his livelihood and the tenant cannot stop the landlord/family member of landlord from starting any business for livelihood. The bonafide requirement of a landlord does not become malafide just because the son of petitioner wants to run business for his livelihood from his own property. The consequent hardship to tenant from eviction order could also not convert otherwise bonafide requirement into malafide requirement. In my view, it is a right of every person to excel in his/her life and a person is not supposed to be remained in same position. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the son of the petitioner is already doing some work as alleged by the respondent in a Call Centre or in LIC, in my view, he cannot be expected to remain idle till the disposal of the eviction petition to show his bonafide and the paucity of alternative commercial accommodation. In my considered view, every citizen in the country has not only the right but also the duty to work and to enhance the economic growth of Nation. As such, it is not a triable issue which could dis-entitle the petitioner to obtain the order of eviction against the respondent.
In case titled as "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta" [2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi)], it has been held that the children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one.
In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 wherein it was held that:-
"It will be seen that the trial court and the appellate court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement" to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity". According to them, if the ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 13 /17 plaintiff had not permanently lost his job on account of the lockout or if he had not resigned his job, he could not be treated as a person without any means of livelihood, as contended by him and hence not entitled to an order for possession of the shop. This test, in our view, is not the proper test. A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. The manner in which the courts have gone into the meaning of "lockout" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 appears to us to be nothing but a perverse approach to the problem. One cannot imagine that a landlord who is in service should first resign his job and wait for the unknown and uncertain result of a long-drawn litigation. If he resigned his job, he might indeed end up in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the long-drawn litigation he started some other temporary water business to sustain himself, that would not be an indication that the need for establishing a grocery shop was not a bona fide or a reasonable requirement or that it was motivated or was a mere design to evict the tenant".
In the case titled as Ram Babu Agarwal vs. Jay Kishan Das 2009(2) RCR 455, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also."
In the case titled as Lajpat Rai Vs Raman Jain 2012 Law ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 14 /17 suit (Del) 1439, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"The facts have been disclosed by the petitioners himself in the eviction petition; the petitioners also being a commerce graduate from the Shri Ram College of Commerce seeks an independent business of his own; thus this need to set up a business of his own cannot be in any manner be said to be imaginative or a need which is moonshine; it is a genuine need; the present petitioners having inherited this shop from his grandmother by virtue of the aforenoted Will wishes to set up his own business of rubber and latex which he was earlier carrying on with his father and in which he has gained expertise and knowledge. Thus in no manner can it be said that this need of the landlord is not a bonafide need. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement; it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to him; neither the Court tell him the manner he wishes to set up his business."
19. As such, record manifestly shows that these are not triable issue which could dis-entitle the petitioner to obtain the order of eviction against the respondent.
20. One of the pleas taken by the respondent is that the petitioner wants to get the tenanted premises vacated as the rent being paid by him is a nominal rent.
It is expedient to reproduce Sec. 19 of the D.R.C. Act, which is as under:-
"19. Recovery of possession for occupation and re-entry.
(1) Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 [or under sections 14A, 14B, 14C, 148 and 21], the landlord shall not, except with the permission of the Controller, obtained in the prescribed manner, re-let the whole or any part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining such possession, and in granting such permission, the Controller may direct the landlord to put such evicted tenant in possession of the premises.
(2) Where a landlord recovers possession of any ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 15 /17 premises as aforesaid and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the premises having been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let to any person other than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller under sub-section (1) or the possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the Controller to be bona fide, the Controller may, on an application made on him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit."
21. As such, statute clearly lays down that the petitioner/ landlord has to occupy the vacated tenanted premises within two months and the landlord cannot re-let to any person other than the evicted tenant within three years from the date of obtaining possession and in case he does so, the evicted tenant may approach the Rent Controller seeking direction to the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises. As such, the fear of the respondent is without any substance.
22. Perusal of record shows that some case law have been relied upon by the respondent. I have gone through the case law relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the parties. The case law relied upon the respondent do not assist the respondent in view of the exhaustive discussion as earlier, peculiar facts of the case, settled law and material on record.
23. As such in my considered view, the petitioner is not having the alternative reasonably suitable accommodation with him. Moreover, the respondent has not been able to prove on record that the petitioner is having malafide and alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation.
ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 16 /17CONCLUSION:
24. In view of the above discussion, I find no triable issue in the leave to defend application of the respondent which could dis-entitle the petitioner to obtain an eviction order in his favour. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus, dismissed.
25. Hence, as a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in favour of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No.1 on the ground floor, measuring 8' x 8" x 14' x 4" forming part of House/Premises No. WZ-62-J, Possangipur Market, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition which is marked as Mark- P1 (Put by the court for the purpose of identification).
26. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
27. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
on 10th February, 2020 AJAY by AJAY NAGAR
Date:
(This order contains 17 pages) NAGAR 2020.02.10
16:49:16 +0530
(AJAY NAGAR)
Additional Rent Controller,
West District, THC/Delhi.
ARC No. 25469/16 Sh. Bhagwan Dass Vs Sh. Ghulam Nabi Page 17 /17