Delhi District Court
Kailash Chand vs Rakesh Kumar on 12 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No : 229/2016
Sh. Kailash Chand
S/o Late Sh. Kirorimal
R/o 496/1-B, Char Khamba Road,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
Versus
Sh. Rakesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Leela Dhar
Proprietor of M/s Himalayan Sweets & Co.
Shop in property No. 496/1-B,
Char Khamba Road,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ........Respondent
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14 (1)
(e) r/w SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16.10.2014
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 20.11.2023
DATE OF DECISION : 12.12.2023.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the petition filed by the petitioner under section 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25 (B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement.
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /2/
2. It is the case of the petitioner that his wife had purchased the property bearing no. 496/1-B, Char Khamba Road, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 consisting of two shops, two halls and one room at the ground floor and four bedrooms with attached latrine and bathroom, one drawing room, two kitchens, one open lobby at the first floor (hereinafter referred to as "the property") in May 2009. Reportedly, the respondent was inducted qua tenant by its erstwhile owner in one of the shops admeasuring 10'-9'*25'-0 situated at the ground floor of the property as shown in red color in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises" in short) at a monthly rent of Rs.525/- (Rupees five hundred and twenty five only) excluding electricity and other charges, for commercial purpose. It is alleged by the petitioner that since the property was in a dilapidated condition at the time of its purchase, the respondent requested his wife to carry out the necessary repairs in lieu whereof, the former agreed to pay an enhanced rent from Rs.525/- to Rs.5250/- per month. It is averred that upon completion of renovation, the respondent recanted from his commitment of paying an enhanced rent.
3. It is averred that the wife of the petitioner met her maker on 28.12.2011 and bequeathed the property upon him vide will dated 15.09.2011.
4. Apropos of the reliefs claimed in the instant petition, it is contended that the respondent is running a business in the name of "M/s Himalayan Sweets & Co." at the demised premises which is now required by the petitioner for himself as he wants to run a confectionery-cum-grocery Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /3/ shop from the demised premises in order to earn his livelihood and to meet the day-to-day expenses of his family. It has been pleaded that the elder son of the petitioner is doing a private job however, his income is insufficient to make the ends meet of his family. Moreover, the younger son of the petitioner in spite running a business of corrugated boxes does not make enough money either which could sustain the family.
5. The case of the petitioner in summation is that he does not have any other suitable accommodation available for the abovementioned purpose and that he is now constrained to approach this court as his personal requests made to the respondent seeking vacation of the demised premises fell on deaf ears inasmuch as the latter did not heed to them, much less vacated the demised premises. It is therefore, prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent vis-à-vis the demised premises.
6. The respondent was summoned vide order dated 16.10.2014 and vide order dated 30.05.2015, the leave to defend the present petition under section 25B of DRC Act, sought by the respondent was rejected. The order dated 30.05.2015 was however set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 05.11.2015 whereby, the respondent was granted the leave to defend the present petition.
7. In his written statement, the respondent has questioned the bona fide need of the petitioner on the following grounds:
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /4/
a) Firstly, that the petitioner does not have any bona fide need for the demised premises. Rather, it is only a ploy to get the demised premises vacated, which is apparent from the fact that the petitioner refused to receive rent from the respondent due to which he was compelled to file a petition under section 27 of the DRC Act. In the same breath, it is contended that the petitioner wants to extract an enhanced rent from the demised premises and to achieve that end, has filed the present petition to arm twist him to yield to his demand for exorbitant rent.
(b) Secondly, the petitioner has falsely averred that he does not have any other suitable accommodation available besides the demised premises inasmuch as the petitioner's son, Sh. Ajay Kumar, is carrying out his business from a hall measuring 25 sq. yards situated in the property out of which he is utilizing only 10 sq. yards of space whereas, the remaining space is lying vacant. Moreover, there is another shop admeasuring 10 sq. yards which is under the occupancy of one Alam Barber and another room admeasuring 15 sq. yards which is occupied by one Kapil Dhawan who is using the room for storing goods. Therefore, the petitioner has ample suitable accommodations available at his disposal and does not need the demised premises for the intended purpose.
c) Thirdly, the petitioner has not mentioned the income of his elder son, Sajjan Kumar, or even his younger son, Ajay Kumar, who are purportedly not earning enough money to support their families, including but not limited to the petitioner.
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /5/
d) Lastly, the petitioner is aged about 65 years and is maintaining himself without any financial help from his sons and that it sounds bizarre and preposterous that at this age the petitioner would start a business of confectionery and grocery items.
8. On these counts, it is contended that the present petition is bereft of any merit or bona fide instead, has been filed with a mala fide intention only to get the demised premises vacated.
9. In order to prove his case, the petitioner chose to examine himself as the lone witness as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein, he reiterated the contents of his petition and relied upon documents, namely - copy of legal notice Mark PW1/2, postal receipts, UPC, and AD cards Mark A (Colly), reply of legal notice Mark B, copy of ration card Ex. PW1/4 (OSR), photocopy of ID of grandchildren Mark C, D and original death certificate of Smt. Sharda Devi Ex. PW1/6, copy of will Ex. PW1/7 (Colly.) and his election card Ex. PW1/8.
10. PW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. In his cross examination, PW1 deposed that his wife Smt. Kamlesh Nagpal had purchased the property and at that time there was only one tenant in the property, i.e. the respondent. He conceded that the property was rebuilt after purchase because it was not habitable and the repair as well as maintenance was done by him at his own volition and not at the instance of Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /6/ the respondent. He claimed that he came to know that the monthly rent was Rs. 525/- (rupees five hundred and twenty five only) at the time when he was rebuilding the property and was not aware of the same prior to that. PW1 further deposed that his family consisted of his two sons, two daughters-in- law, their four children. He testified that even though one of his sons was doing the business of printing boxes and the other is in service, however, he has not been working since the death of his wife in the year 2011 and even before his wife's demise, he was doing the business of printing boxes with his son which was established by them together around 20 years back. He deposed that the income from the business of printing boxes was about Rs. 20,000/- per month and his son who is working in the private sector is earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He claimed that he is earning his livelihood from the shop on rent which is situated in the demised premises as he is unemployed. He denied having any other property available besides the demised premises and stated there was no vacant space available at its backside either. He further stated that he was taking money from his daughter to meet his living expenses as his son was not helping him financially. He conceded that the backside portion of the property was occupied by his younger son Ajay Kumar, however, denied the suggestion that the said portion has been let out by his son. PW1 denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
11. The respondent too, examined himself as the only witness as RW1.
12. The respondent was examined as RW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A and relied upon documents, namely - copy of Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /7/ Rent receipt dated 10.05.2008 Mark RW1/1, copy of order dated 22.05.2014 Mark RW1/2 and colored photographs of factory manufacturing business of corrugated boxes Mark RW1/3 (Colly).
13. RW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. In his cross-examination, RW1 deposed that he had taken the demised premises on rent from one Smt. Gangotri Devi around 30/35 years ago at a monthly rent of Rs. 525/- (rupees five hundred and twenty-five only). He testified that several landlords have changed over the years, however, the rate of rent has not increased. He deposed that he was informed about the sale of property to the wife of the petitioner by the petitioner and he started paying rent to the petitioner, however, the petitioner refused to accept the rent, therefore, no rent receipt was issued. He claimed that he deposited the rent for the period May 2008 to 31.12.2010 in court, though admitted that the said fact has not been mentioned in his evidence filed by way of an affidavit. Receipts of deposit of rent in the court have not been filed on record either. RW1 was confronted with the site plan (Ex.RW1/P1) and after perusal of the same, he stated that he could neither admit nor deny it. He conceded that the petitioner did not have any other shop with him for doing any business but pleaded ignorance as to whether the petitioner was running any business currently or not. RW1 conceded that both the sons of the petitioner are residing with him along with their families. RW1 pleaded ignorance as to whether sufficient space was available with the petitioner for the accommodation of his family or not. He denied the suggestions put forth by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, namely:- that the elder son of the petitioner is dependent upon him; or that he Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /8/ filed a wrong affidavit of evidence; or that he has filed a false reply in the present case; or that he was deposing falsely.
14. Arguments were advanced with equal vehemence on behalf of both the parties.
15. Before dwelling into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law applicable in the present case:-
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Section 14 (1) (e)] Protection of tenant against eviction. -
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenat :
(e) That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;
(Section 25B) Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement:-
(1) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /9/ clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A [or under section 14B or under section 14C or under section 14D] shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. (2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every application referred to in sub-section (1), in the form specified in the Third Schedule.
(3) (a) The Controller shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may ,if the circumstances of the case so require, also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain .
(b) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article, the Controller may declare that there has been a valid service of summons.
(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files and affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /10/ (5) 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 obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (c) of the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A.
(6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 37, the Controller shall, while holding and inquiry in a proceeding to which this Chapter applies, follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence.
(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section:
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. (9) Where no application has been made to the High Court on revision, the Controller may exercise the powers of review in accordance with the provisions of Order XLVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(10) Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A, shall be the same as the procedure for the disposal of applications by Controllers.
16. It is a rather entrenched position of law that to bring a case within the contours of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, the following enumerated conditions Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /11/ must be squarely met, to wit;-
a) there exists a landlord - tenant relationship between the parties;
b) that the demised premises was let out for either residential or commercial purpose;
c) that the premises are required by the landlord for his bona fide need or for the need of his dependent family members;
d) that the landlord does not have an alternative suitable accommodation available to cater to his needs.
17. The legislature has carved out a special but summary procedure for addressing such contingencies for the larger interests of the landlords. The thresholds hereinabove are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
18. Guided by the foregoing legal tenets to the fact of the present case, it is profitable to note that the landlord - tenant relationship vis-à-vis demised premises is nowhere in dispute between the parties. The ownership of the petitioner qua demised premises is also not in dispute nor is the fact that the demised preimes was let out by its erstwhile owner to the respondent for commercial use at a monthly rent of Rs 525/- (Rupees five hundred and twenty five only). Therefore, the first ingredient of section 14(1)(e) stands satisfied.
19. The second ingredient required to bring a case within the purview of Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /12/ section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is that the demised premises were let out for residential or commercial purpose. Though the act mentions only the premises let out for residential purpose however the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the celebrated case of " Satyawati Sharma V. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 287 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 677" had obliterated the distinction between premises let out for residential and commercial use for the purpose of invoking provisions of section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. In the present case, the purpose for which the demised premises was let out is not contentious as both the parties are ad idem that the demised premises was let out for commercial use. That said, the applicability of the provisions of section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act to the commercial nature of tenancy in question admits of no objection no more.
20. The third and the most important ingredient which needs to be satisfied before an order of eviction can be passed in favour of the petitioner is the existence of a bona fide need of the demised premises by the petitioner or any other family member who may be dependent upon him. In order to evaluate whether the need of the petitioner is bona fide or not, an analysis of the legislative and judicial connotation of the term, ' bona fide' is essential. In this context, it is germane to recount the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 100, wherein it was 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 Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /13/ Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are 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 is 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 bonafides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself....".
21. It is apparent from the aforementioned observations that whenever a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is scrutinised and the landlord is able to show a prima facie case of such requirement, it is open to the court to draw a presumption that the requirement is bona fide.
22. In the present case, the petitioner has contended that he has proven his case on the scales of balance of probabilities inasmuch as established his bona fide requirement in securing eviction of the respondent from the demised premises. The petitioner has contended that both his sons are living with him along with their respective families and are not earning enough to support their own families as well as the petitioner, therefore the demised premises are required by the petitioner for the purpose of starting a business of grocery as well as confectionery items so that the petitioner could earn his livelihood and meet his daily expenses and does not have to depend upon his children for the same.
23. On the other hand, the respondent has contended that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide but based on mala fide intention Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /14/ of getting the demised premises vacated at any cost. In support of his contention, the respondent has pleaded that the Petitioner is aged 65 years and has himself admitted that he has not been working since the year 2011, i.e., after the death of his wife, so the idea that he intends to start a new business at this age sounds bizarre and preposterous. It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioner has admittedly not been working since the year 2011 and has been maintaining himself without any financial help from his sons. Furthermore, there is no change in circumstances or situation of the petitioner which would give rise to a sudden bona fide need to start his own business and convert the shop into a grocery store.
24. The submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent does not appeal to the judicial mind of this Court inasmuch as law does not countenance that the respondent arrogates to himself the role of an adjudicator of the petitioner's needs who goes on to pontificate whether they should increase or decrease over time. The contention of the respondent that merely because the Petitioner is aged 65 years therefore he would not be in a position to run his own business is rather tenuous for, it is the prerogative of the petitioner to take a call as to whether he wants to work at this age and earn his livelihood and the respondent does not have any locus to question the same. In this regard reliance may be placed on the observations of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi in the matter of Tej Prakash Vs. Idrish & Ors. reported as 2012 (2) RCR (Rent) 536 wherein it was observed that:-
"It is the prerogative of the landlord either to remain employed or to do his own business"
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /15/
25. Reference may also be made in this regard to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex court in the matter of Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das reported as 2009 (2) RCR 55 wherein it was observed that :-
"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."
26. It is apparent from the aforementioned observations that it is the sole prerogative of the landlord as to when and where he wants to start his business and it is not for the tenant to dictate the manner in which the landlord should be leading his life. Insofar as the averment regarding the change in circumstances is concerned, the petitioner in his cross examination has unequivocally stated that he has been relying upon the rent collected by him from the tenanted shops as well as the financial help provided by his daughter for his living expenses, this does not preclude him from earning his livelihood in the manner that he wishes to. And only because he has been living in a certain manner does not mean that he ought to continue living in the same condition throughout the remainder of his life as he has every constitutional right to enhance his standard of living and live his life with respect and dignity without relying upon anyone else for his sustenance, without exception to his children.
27. Another plea taken by the respondent to countenance the bona fide requirement of the petitioner is that both the sons of the petitioner Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /16/ namely, Sh. Sajjan Kumar and Sh. Ajay Kumar are both working and the petitioner has falsely averred that they are not earning properly. It is contented by the respondent that the petitioner has himself admitted that his son Sajjan Kumar is doing a private job and his son Ajay Kumar is running a business of corrugated boxes, therefore he cannot claim that they are not earning properly and are barely able to maintain their family. This contention of the respondent does not hold water as the petitioner in his cross examination has disclosed that his elder son Sajjan Kumar is earning Rs.12,000/- per month whereas, his younger son Ajay Kumar is earning Rs.25,000/- per month, and considering the fact that both of them have families of their own to maintain, it seems plausible that they would not be able to provide sufficient financial assistance to the petitioner. And insofar as the sufficiency of their income is concerned, it is not for the respondent to decide as to what amount would be sufficient for the landlord and/or his family to maintain the standard of living they aspire as well as meet their daily expenses. Furthermore, the petitioner has even claimed that his elder son Sajjan Kumar also intends to help him in running the business of grocery and confectionery items so that he is able to maintain his family properly and the petitioner also wishes to provide financial help to his son Sh. Sajjan Kumar and his family, therefore the requirement is not only limited to the petitioner but has wider implications which would cater to the requirements of his family members at large, whom he is anyhow under a moral obligation to maintain. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kirshan Kumar Gupta Vs. Krishan Shushan Gupta reported as 152 (2008) DLT 556 wherein it was observed that:-
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /17/ "In this country there is no social security system provided by State and the only social security is the security of the family. For gaining this social security of the family by the aged parents, they have to provide their sons and daughters the living accommodation, if available with them. The requirement of the landlord's sons and daughters and their families even if they are not financially dependent on him cannot be said to be unjustified or a mala fide requirement. If a daughter or son is taking care of the aged father/grandfather and his wife, it would be a bonafide necessity of the landlord, if he desires that his daughter or son should continue to live with him so that he continues to take care of him and his wife. Similarly, when it become difficult, due to old age, to move out, a person may desire that his sons and daughters visit him frequently and stay with him and the requirement of the landlord for this purpose cannot be said to be malafide but is a bonafide requirement."
28. The aforesaid observations are rather reinforced in the wake of the fact that it has nowhere been contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has any other source of income available therefore, it does not lie in his mouth to impugn the bona fide requirement of the demised premises by the petitioner for the purpose of earning his livelihood especially when law proscribes the respondent from dictating the manner in which the petitioner should put the demised premises to his use. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gulshera Khanam Vs. Aftab Ahmad decided on 27 September, 2016 spring to mind wherein, it was observed that:
"... The landlord is the sole judge to decide as to how much space is needed for him/her to start or expand any of his/her activity..."
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /18/
29. A fortiori, should the demised premises be not converted to use in the manner contended during trial, it shall always be open to the respondent to seek re-entry in the manner prescribed under the DRC Act itself.
30. Insofar as the fourth ingredient regarding the availability of an alternate suitable accommodation is concerned, the respondent has claimed that the son of the petitioner Sh. Ajay Kumar is carrying on his business from a hall measuring 25 sq. yards situated in the property out of which he is utilizing only 10 sq. yards space while the remaining space is lying vacant. He has also contended that there is another shop admeasuring 10 sq. yards which is under the occupancy of one Alam Barber and a room admeasuring 15 sq. yards occupied by one Kapil Dhawan, who is using it for storing goods. Therefore, the petitioner has other suitable accommodation available at his disposal and does not require the demised premises for the intended purpose. However, in his cross examination, RW1 has himself conceded that the petitioner does not have a shop available at his disposal other than the demised premises for running the business.
31. It is a settled proposition of law that a tenant cannot dictate the manner in which landlord can use his available accommodation as it is the sole prerogative of the landlord to decide as to which accommodation would be most suited for his intended purpose. In this context, reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors reported as (2005) 8 SCC 252 wherein it was held that:
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /19/ "It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business..... "
32. This position of law was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Anil Bajaj & Anr. vs. Vinod Ahuja , reported as (2014) 15 SCC 610 where it was observed that:-
"What the tenant contends is that the landlord has several other shop houses from which he is carrying on different businesses and further that the landlord has other premises from where the business proposed from the tenanted premises can be effectively carried out. It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business. .... "
33. In this regard reference may also made to a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble high court of Delhi in the matter of Manmohan Singh v. Arjun Uppal & Anr. decided on 29.11.2023 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble high Court that:-
" Landlords cannot be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of their property. Further, the Court is not to sit in the arm chair of the landlords to dictate as to how the property should be utilized. It is the sole discretion of the landlords to get all the tenanted premises vacated and use as per their need."
34. Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the record and appreciated the relevant provisions of the law governing the field, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has clearly established his Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016 /20/ bona fide requirement for seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises as all the requisite ingredients therefor have been satisfied in the present case. That said, the respondent Sh. Rakesh Kumar is liable to be evicted from the demised premises, i.e. shop measuring 10'-9'*25'-0 and height 13 feet situated at ground floor of property bearing no. 496/1-B, Char Khamba Road, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, which is shown in red color in the site plan Ex.RW1/P1.
35. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner under section 14 (1)
(e) r/w section 25B of the DRC Act is hereby allowed, subject to provisions u/s 19 of the DRC Act. It is however made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the demised premises before the expiry of six months from today in view of the legislative mandate envisaged in Section 14 (7) of the DRC Act. No order as to costs.
Announced in the open Court (AKRITI MAHENDRU)
on 12.12.2023. ACJ-CCJ-ARC/Shahdara,
KKD/Delhi/12.12.2023
Kailash Chand Vs. Rakesh Kumar RC ARC No. 229/2016