Delhi District Court
Harjit Singh (Senior Citizen) vs Satwant Kaur Thrh. Lrs.Manmohan Singh on 25 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TARUNPREET KAUR
ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
RC ARC 44/19
HARJIT SINGH (SENIOR CITIZEN) Vs. SATWANT KAUR THRH.
LRS.MANMOHAN SINGH
Sh. Harjit Singh
R/o WZ-54, Gali No. 2,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110045
...........petitioner
versus
1. Satwant Kaur (wife)
W/o Late Sh. Manmohan Singh
2. Smt. Gurpreet Kaur (daughter)
D/o Late Sh. Manmohan Singh
3. Harpreet Singh (son)
S/o Late Sh. Manmohan Singh
4. Manpreet Singh (son)
S/o Late Sh. Manmohan Singh
All R/o Shop No. 8-E, Pushpa Market,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024
...........respondents
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1)(b)(e)(j) & (k) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
Date of Institution : 01.06.2019
Decision : Allowed
Date of Decision : 25.03.2025
RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 1 of 28
Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under section 14(1)(b)(e)(j)
(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC") wherein, the petitioner has sought eviction of the respondents, who are the legal heirs/successors-in-interest of the original tenant Late Sh. Manmohan Singh, from property i.e., Portion E of shop no.8 (59.7 sq yards), back portion, Pushpa Market (Central Market), Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted/suit property/premises").
Case of the Petitioner
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and landlord of property no. 8 (measuring 32 sq. yards) and the back portion godown (measuring 59.7 sq. yards), Pushpa Market (Central Market) Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024, which was allotted to his father by Land and Development Office w.e.f. 01.10.1955. The Deed of conveyance was executed in favour of the petitioner by the Govt. of India on 14.04.1981. It has been further averred that the tenanted premises had been let out to the respondent in the year 1967 and the lease deed is dated 04.10.1978.
3. The petitioner is seeking eviction of respondents on the grounds under section 14(1) (b)(e)(j) & (k) DRC and it has been averred that the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed in view of lease deed dated 04.10.1978. It RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 2 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh has been further averred that the petitioner and his family do not have any commercial property available with them in the entire Delhi NCR area except the suit property. It has been further averred that the tenant at suit property in conspiracy with other tenants of the petitioner, has not paid rent to the petitioner for 10 years however, the petitioner has no record of rent payment. Further, the respondent has also sub-let the tenanted shop to unknown person in order to maintain their possession over the tenanted premises. It has been further averred that in third week of September 1978, the respondent demolished the intervening wall between shop no. 8-E and 8-F, Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi during the night-time and trespassed into shop no. 8-F by making the same appear part of shop no. 8-E. Thereby, the respondents, without consent of the petitioner and illegally, has taken over possession of shop no. 8 F and converted the shop 8 E and F into a single shop.
4. It has been further averred that the respondent illegally constructed first and second floor at the tenanted premises and the same is against lease deed as L&DO had sanctioned the aforesaid shop no.8 for the ground floor only and the aforementioned construction was without knowledge and consent of the petitioner. The said construction had been demolished by MCD however, the respondents raised the construction at first and second floor again and they are still in illegal possession of the same. It has been further averred that the entire property is occupied by eight tenants including the respondents herein and the petitioner is taking steps separately RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 3 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh for recovery of possession as the tenants thereat are misusing the property.
5. It has been further averred that the petitioner is a retired govt. servant and is residing at a rented accommodation alongwith his family from last 35 years. The petitioner has no business or accommodation available with him for his residence or commercial purpose. Further, the petitioner has a family consisting of 11 members who are dependent upon him for residence. Hence, the suit property is required by petitioner for his shelter and livelihood of his family so as to carry out business thereat. It has been averred that the suit property is a mixed land and could be used for residential as well as commercial purpose. It has been further averred that on the other hand, the LRs of respondent are well settled, established, having their own place of residence and more than four properties in their name. Thus, they can easily re-locate themselves.
Written Statement
6. The respondents have raised preliminary objection that the site plan is incorrect. It has been contended that there has been no subletting, no substantial damage to the tenanted premises and no encroachment. It has been contended that the petitioner is not the owner of the entire property in question and he has already sold off substantial portion of the same i.e., five out of eight shops. Further, the petitioner had entered into Agreement to Sell dated 05.12.1978 with the original tenant Late Sh. Manmohan Singh with respect to the premises in question and civil litigation with respect to the same is pending. Further, the petitioner had earlier RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 4 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh filed a petition under section 14 (1)(e) DRC, which he had withdrawn eventually. Further, the present petition is not maintainable under section 14 (1)(e) DRC as proper service of summons as specified in third schedule had not been effected upon the respondents. It has been further contended that the need of the petitioner is not genuine in view of the fact that the petitioner has already sold off the shops at the property in question.
7. Thus, in addition to denying the averments raised by the petitioner through the present petition, it has also been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation available with him and his sons are not dependent upon him for residence or commercial purpose. Further, there is no material to prove sub-letting and the petitioner has not given any detail as to what damage has been caused to the tenanted premises.
Petitioner's Evidence
8. In support of his case, petitioner Sh. Harjit Singh got himself examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and reiterated and reaffirmed the averments stated in the present petition on oath. Also, he relied upon certain documents which are as following :-
(i) Copy of Site Plan, Mark PW1/1.
(ii) Copy of lease deed dated 04.10.1978, Mark PW-1/2.
(iii) Copy of Allotment order dated 10.05.1954, copy of Lease
Deed dated 14.04.1981, copy of Conveyance Deed dated 14.04.1981, Mark PW-1/3 (Colly).
RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 5 of 28Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh
(iv) Video recording of sub-letting of Shop No. 8-E and transcript thereof, Mark PW-1/4 and Mark PW-1/5.
(v) Photocopies of pictures, Mark PW-1/6.
9. PW-1 was duly cross examined by the Learned counsel for the respondents. No further witness was examined by the petitioner and accordingly, PE was closed.
Respondent's Evidence
10. In support of their case, LRs of respondent got examined Dr. Harpreet Singh as RW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and he reiterated and reaffirmed the averments mentioned in the Written Statement on oath. Further, he relied upon the following documents :-
(i) Copy of site plan, Mark RW-1/1.
(ii) Copy of judgment dated 27.02.2016, Ex.RW-1/2.
(iii) Copy of Sale Deed dated 26.03.2010 in favour of Pradeep
Arora and Sushma Arora, Ex.RW-1/3.
(iv) Copy of Agreement to Sell dated 20.06.2007 executed by
Satya Devi, Ex.RW-1/4.
11. RW-1 was duly cross examined by the Learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, no further witness was examined by the respondents and accordingly, RE was closed.
Final Arguments
12. Final arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties have been heard at length and the record has been perused. It was submitted by Learned counsel for petitioner that with respect to RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 6 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh other shops at the property in question, eviction order has already been passed. She further submitted that none of the LRs of the original tenant are in possession of the tenanted premises and no livelihood is being earned by them from the same. She further submitted that the respondents also allege themselves to be owners of the tenanted premises on basis of an Agreement to Sell. She further submitted that one of the respondents does not even reside in India while another resides at Jaipur. She further submitted that the wife of original tenant is a 74 year old lady and it has been asserted on behalf of the respondents that she is running business at the tenanted premises, which could not be considered to be true considering her old age and circumstances. She further submitted that the intention of the respondents is to grab the property and that they are running a PG at the tenanted property, under the name and style of "Oxent Home", which has now been changed to "Lay Home". She further submitted that there has been a nexus between all the tenants at the shops situated at the property in question.
13. On the other hand, it was submitted by Learned counsel for the respondents that all the points of arguments put up on behalf of the petitioner are not part of pleadings and that order is to be passed on basis of pleadings only. He further submitted that lease agreement had been executed between the parties and both are relying upon the same. He further submitted that therefore, both the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the said deed. He further submitted that the tenancy in question was permanent and as per the terms of the same, notice should have RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 7 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh been issued by the petitioner to the respondents, which was not done in the present matter. He further submitted that no specific person/family member has been mentioned to be dependent upon the petitioner and that wrong averments have been made in the petition regarding the dependents. He further submitted that earlier such petition had been withdrawn by the petitioner without any liberty to file a fresh petition. He further submitted that the procedure as provided under section 25B DRC was not followed, which is mandatory when petition has been filed under section 14(1)(e) DRC. He further submitted that no replication had been filed by the petitioner to their written statement.
13.1 He further submitted that the sub-lettee has not been made party to the present petition and the petitioner admitted in his application for re-calling of RW-1 as to selling the tenanted premises. He further submitted that the petitioner has made contradictory statements in his evidence by way of affidavit and in his cross examination, therefore his testimony could not be relied upon. He further submitted that land had been given on lease to the petitioner by Govt. of India and it had been given for residential purpose and not for commercial purpose. He added further that the present is not a case of bona fide requirement and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. Final submissions in writing alongwith authorities in support of them, had also been filed on behalf of both the parties and the same have been perused.
RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 8 of 28Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh 14.1 Additional submissions in writing alongwith certain authorities had also been filed on behalf of the respondent and it had been submitted that the prayer clause suffers from defect and petition therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
Issue Under Consideration
15. To put it precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the tenanted premises are required by him and his family members for their own residence and running commercial activity for earning their livelihood. Also, eviction has been sought on the ground that the tenants/respondents have sub-let the tenanted premises, that they trespassed into his another adjoining shop by illegally breaking an intervening wall and that they have raised illegal and impermissible construction at the tenanted premises in violation of terms of lease deed, vide which he had been allotted the tenanted property by the govt. Whereas, the defence taken by the respondents is that the petitioner's need is not bona fide as he has already sold off the other shops of which he had got possession and that the children of petitioner are not dependent upon him. Also, the petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell with the original tenant. Further, it has been contended that there has been no sub-letting and parting with possession, nor has there been any unauthorized construction by the respondents at the tenanted premises.
Relevant Provisions
16. The provisions of DRC relevant with respect to the present matter are being laid down for reference, as under-
RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 9 of 28Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh Section 14 (1) DRC states that- "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 any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;
(e) that the premises let for residential purposes 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 that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, "premises let for residential purposes" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;
(j) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises;
(k) that the tenant has, notwithstanding previous notice, used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 10 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh condition imposed on the landlord by the Government or the Delhi Development Authority or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situate...."
Sub-letting
17. It has been averred by the petitioner that the respondents have sub-let the tenanted premises and that they have parted with the possession of the same. Further, it had been submitted on behalf of the petitioner during the final arguments that the respondents are running a PG thereat, nevertheless, the said submission could not be considered in light of the fact that no such averment has been made in the present petition nor the same is a part of evidence led by the petitioner. Let alone leading any cogent evidence with respect to sub-letting, specific averments have not even been made regarding the same by the petitioner. No name as to whom, nor any time period as to when the tenanted premises had been so sub-let by the tenants/respondents has been stated. The petitioner has relied upon certain video recording and transcript, Mark PW-1/4 and Mark PW1/5, to establish sub-letting. Firstly, there is no expert opinion regarding the same and secondly, the said electronic evidence is not even supported with a certificate under section 65B, Indian Evidence Act. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner/PW-1 failed to tell even the name of the sub-tenant and the date or period when the premises in question had been sub-let, the aforementioned electronic evidence would not hold any relevance. In this manner, the petitioner failed to bring any material on record to establish that the tenants have parted with RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 11 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh the possession of the tenanted premises. Hence, in view of evidence led on behalf of both the parties and material placed on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove sub-letting of tenanted premises by the tenants/respondents.
Substantial Damage to the Premises And Using Premises Contrary to Condition Imposed On Landlord By Government
18. It is further the case of the petitioner that the tenants/ respondents have caused damage to the suit property as the original tenant had broken open the intervening wall between shop no. 8-E and 8-F and had trespassed into shop no. 8-F in September 1978. Besides that, the respondent illegally constructed first and second floor at the tenanted premises whereas L&DO had sanctioned the shop in question for the ground floor only. It has also been averred that the said unauthorized construction raised by respondents had been demolished by MCD however, the respondents raised the construction again.
19. It is pertinent to note that no evidence, documentary or otherwise, has been brought on record by the petitioner to establish their above-stated averments. Moreover, the petitioner/PW-1 duly admitted during his cross examination dated 28.10.2022, that they have not placed any document on record regarding demolition of unauthorized construction carried out by MCD, nor any document is there regarding raising of reconstruction of first and second floor after said demolition. The petitioner/PW-1 merely stated that they had filed contempt case RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 12 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh against the respondent however, no record is there regarding said contempt proceedings either. Further, PW-1 admitted in his cross examination dated 17.10.2022, that it is not mentioned in Ex.PW1/D1 that the original tenant Late Sh. Manmohan Singh, in September 1978, had broken open the intervening wall of shop no. 8 E and 8 F. PW-1 further deposed that he had made a police complaint with respect to the same, nevertheless, admittedly, no such complaint has been relied upon and brought before the court. He further deposed that "I can-not say in which month and year Late Sh. Manmohan Singh raised unauthorized construction on first and second floor as I do not reside at the said place."
20. Hence, the above assessment of cross examination of PW-1 clearly suggests that mere bald allegations have been leveled by the petitioner regarding removing of aforesaid wall at suit property and with respect to the unauthorized construction thereat. Apart from that, the above-stated allegations and averments could not be established by the petitioner by way of cross examination of respondent's witness either. Therefore, the petitioner could not prove that the tenants/respondents have caused substantial damage to the demised premises or that they raised any unauthorized construction thereat and consequently, used the same contrary to condition imposed by govt. upon them vide the Lease Deed concerned.
Bona Fide Requirement
21. The present petition for eviction has also been filed under RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 13 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958, which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India", on 16.04.2008 reads as under :-
14.(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 any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
***
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation 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 that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation :
22. Thus, to establish his case under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients:
(i) That he is the owner of the tenanted shop and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent.
(ii) That tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(iii) That the petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
In light of defence taken by the respondents, it shall now be examined as to whether the petitioner has been successful in establishing the above stated ingredients.
RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 14 of 28Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh
23. One of the preliminary objections taken by the respondents is that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC, which had been withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition. The said objection had been dealt with, dismissed and duly disposed of vide order dated 03.03.2021. It is also pertinent to mention that bona fide requirement gives rise to a fresh cause of action each time. This objection was stressed upon by the Learned counsel for the respondents during final arguments also. It is unfathomable as to what the tenants/respondents are trying to establish by insisting upon the same issue when the same has already been dealt with on merits? It is also to be noted that the aforementioned order dated 03.03.2021 was never challenged by the respondents.
23.1 Further objection raised to the present petition is that the same is not maintainable under section 14 (1)(e) DRC as proper service of summons as specified in third schedule had not been effected and consequently, compliance of section 25B DRC had not been made. A summary procedure has been provided under section 25B DRC for dealing with petitions under section 14 (1)(e) DRC. The said special procedure is for the purpose of speedy disposal of eviction petitions under the aforesaid ground and tenant is required to apply for leave to defend and he is thus, not entitled to present his version of the case as a matter of right. Having stated that, when a petition is filed under section 14 (1)(e) DRC and in addition to that, eviction is sought under other provisions also, the aforesaid special procedure does not RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 15 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh become available to the petitioner and following the ordinary procedure, the tenant is granted with an opportunity to defend without filing any application seeking leave to defend. The same was done in the present matter and the respondents were served with ordinary summons, they were not made to apply for leave to defend and they were granted with an opportunity to present their case rightaway. Thus, no prejudice was ever caused to the tenants and rather the petitioner got deprived of the aforesaid special summary procedure as he preferred to file the present petition under various provisions of section 14(1) DRC. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that no summons as specified in third schedule had been issued to them and for that reason the present petition is not maintainable under section 14 (1)(e) DRC, does not hold any merit or substance.
24. With respect to ownership of petitioner to the tenanted premises, it has been contended by the respondents that the petitioner is not the owner of the entire property in question and he has already sold off substantial portion of the same. Further, it has been averred that the petitioner had entered into Agreement to Sell dated 05.12.1978 with the original tenant Late Sh. Manmohan Singh with respect to the premises in question and civil litigation with respect to the same is pending. The respondents have also pleaded that the petitioner has sold off the shop in question to one Sh. Pradeep Arora and Sushma Arora and therefore, they are the owners of the same. Whereas, the RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 16 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh petitioner is claiming himself to be the owner of tenanted premises on basis of the fact that the same had been allotted to his father by Land and Development Office w.e.f. 01.10.1955 and Deed of conveyance was executed in his favour by the Govt. of India on 14.04.1981. Firstly, the said version of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the petitioner is not the owner of the entire property, of which the tenanted premises are part, and that he has sold off substantial portion of the same, the said contention does not lead to a conclusion that the petitioner is not owner of the tenanted premises. Thirdly, execution of only the Agreement to Sell in favour of the original tenant does not mean that the ownership had been transferred in favour of the original tenant. Also, it is the admitted position that civil litigation regarding the said agreement is pending. Moreover, it is also the admitted situation that the respondents had been paying rent to the petitioner, also by way of depositing the same with court by filing DR petitions, even after execution of the aforesaid Agreement to sell in favour of their father/predecessor in interest. In such a case, question arises as to why the rent was being paid by the respondents if the ownership of the tenanted premises had been transferred to them by virtue of said Agreement to Sell?
24.1 Further, as per the record, the Sale Deed dated 26.03.2010 in favour of said Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora has been challenged by the petitioner and proceedings regarding the same are pending. Also, it becomes questionable as to why the respondents kept paying rent to the petitioner if they RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 17 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh consider Sh. Pradeep Arora and Smt. Sushma Arora as owners of the tenanted property?
24.2 It is also pertinent, at this juncture, to discuss authority as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Sheela & Ors. Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash 2002 (SC) that "In rent matters, the burden of proving ownership on a landlord is not that heavy as it is in a title suit and even a lesser quantum of proof may suffice for holding that the landlord is the owner of the premises in question."
24.3 Further, in the case titled Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : -
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
"It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant."
24.4 Hence, in view of material available on record, evidence led and the above discussion, it has prima facie been established by the petitioner that he is the owner of the tenanted premises.
25. Further ingredient required to be established by the petitioner is that there exists landlord-tenant relationship between RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 18 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh him and the respondents. The same has rather been duly admitted by the respondents and there is no dispute regarding the fact that the predecessor in interest of the respondents i.e., Late Sh. Manmohan Singh had been inducted as tenant at the suit property by the petitioner vide lease deed dated 04.10.1978. In view thereof, it stands duly established that there exits landlord- tenant relationship between the parties.
26. The respondents have disputed the bonafide requirement of the petitioner on the ground that the actual intention of the petitioner is to obtain the possession of tenanted premises and to sell the same. It has also been contended that family members of the petitioner are not dependent upon him for residence or financially and that the petitioner has already sold off the shops situated at the property in question after getting their possession.
26.1 It has specifically been denied by the petitioner that he has sold off the other shops qua which he has procured the eviction orders and, on the other hand, the respondents failed to establish the said contention by way of leading any cogent evidence or through cross examination of PW-1. It has not even been stated on behalf of the respondents as to what all specific shops have been sold, to whom the same have been sold off and as to when the said sale transaction had taken place. Also, RW-1 deposed in his cross examination that he came to know about the alleged selling of shops from tenants at adjoining shops. Mere bald objection has been raised to the bona fide requirement of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has transferred ownership of already vacated other shops and there is no material on record RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 19 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh to substantiate the same.
26.2 Petitioner/PW-1 deposed in his cross examination dated 28.10.2022, that he is living in tenanted premises alongwith his wife and that he does not have any ancestral property. He further deposed that the only property that he owns is the property bearing no. 8, Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar. He further deposed that his eldest son resides in the same area in a different house, his middle son resides in Govindpuri area while his youngest son stays in Mumbai. He further deposed that his eldest son works in a private company and his other sons are presently not doing any job. The aforesaid version of petitioner/PW-1 could not be controverted by the respondents and they could not establish that the sons and grandsons of the petitioner are well-established so as not to be in a situation of requiring support from the petitioner. It must also be noted and appreciated that the family of petitioner consists of 11 members, which includes three sons and 4 grandsons.
26.3 At the same time, the situation and circumstances of the respondents also become necessary to be assessed to see as to if their need to remain at the tenanted premises is higher than that of the petitioner. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the two sons of the original tenant Late Sh. Manmohan Singh are not earning their livelihood from the tenanted premises. Further, RW-1 (who is one of the sons of the aforenamed original tenant) admitted during his cross examination that he keeps travelling to US quite frequently and that his elder brother lives in Jaipur, RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 20 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh however, he added further that his brother keeps coming to Delhi. He further deposed that he has a property in Jasola and he has given one of its floors on rent to a bank and he earns rental income of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the same. He further deposed that his mother Smt. Satwant Kaur runs business of selling ladies garments through her servants, from the tenanted premises. He further deposed that his mother resides with them three siblings i.e., him, his brother and his sister. It is significant to note that no income tax returns, invoices, purchase order or any other document has been placed on record which could establish that mother of RW-1 is running business from the tenanted premises. When a question was put to RW-1 regarding the same during his cross examination, he stated that no such document has been placed on record and that they have submitted General Trade License regarding the said business and that all the transactions are conducted online. It could not be denied that record could have been placed on record regarding the online transactions and also, grant of trade license does not necessarily signify running of business. Further, nothing has been stated as to how many servants have been employed for running the said business and what salary is given to them. It is true that the petitioner could not prove the sub-letting nevertheless, the respondents too, could not establish that they are running any business from the tenanted premises.
27. It is relevant and pertinent at this point to discuss certain authorities regarding the issue under discussion. It is the established position of law that a landlord is the best judge of his RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 21 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh requirement. In the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 it was observed that:-
"24. 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.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
27.2 Also, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507 that "convenience and safety of landlord and his family members would be relevant."
27.3 Further, it was laid down in case titled Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta 2011(1) RCR, (Rent) 231 (Delhi) by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 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."
27.4 It is also the settled law that the petitioner is not required to state the exact business which is proposed to be carried out from the tenanted premises. Further, even if the purpose is stated RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 22 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh in the petition, petitioner is not bound by the same and can later use the premises for some other purpose. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Sunder Singh Talwar Vs. Kamal Chand Dugar, 2018 SCC Online Del 8376.
27.5 Further, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100 that-
"the crux of the ground envisages 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 Bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on presumption that requirement is not bona-fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when landlord shows a prima-facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that requirement of the landlord is bona-fide. It is often said by the 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 requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
28. Thus, the tenant could not dictate as to how the landlord should be using and enjoying his property. If the landlord states that he seeks to use the tenanted premises for a particular purpose, the tenant could not question and put his own RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 23 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh suggestions that the said premises could not reasonably be used for the purpose as sought by the landlord. It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing on rent and that he seeks to use the tenanted premises for his residence and also, the same is required for commercial purpose by his family members. The uncontroverted fact that the petitioner himself is residing on rent by itself leads to conclusion that the need of petitioner is bona fide. Thus, in view of above discussion and assessment and appreciation of evidence that has come on record, there are no reservations in saying that the petitioner has sufficiently established that he requires the tenanted premises for bona fide purpose.
29. The last ingredient which is required to be established by the petitioner is the availability of alternate suitable accommodation. PW-1 deposed that the property in question is the only property in his name and that he does not have any ancestral property. No specific averments have been made on behalf of the respondents regarding availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner. RW-1 deposed about availability of two properties with the petitioner however, he never stated that the said properties are in name of the petitioner or that the petitioner is residing at the said properties. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has already deposed in his cross examination that all three of his sons are residing separately and that he is residing on rent alongwith his wife. Further, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that the tenanted premises are situated at a commercial market in South Delhi, thus, he seeks to use the ground floor for running retail business for his and his family's RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 24 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh livelihood and the first and second floor for residential purpose.
29.1 It must also be appreciated that availability of "alternate accommodation" and "suitable alternate accommodation" are two different concepts. The suitability of the accommodation is to be checked as per the requirement of the landlord. It is true that the respondents have failed to bring any material on record to establish that other properties are available with the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has other property available with him, it must be appreciated that the tenanted property is best suited to the requirement of the petitioner with the backdrop that two of his sons are without job and that the petitioner and his sons seek to run retail business at the tenanted premises being situated at a prime commercial market in South Delhi area.
29.2 It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Metropolitan Book Company Ltd. Vs. Ajay Rastogi that-
"Even assuming other properties available, and which actually they are not as stated below, these other properties situated far from the present residence of the respondent no.1/landlord, and his family members, cannot be considered as alternative suitable accommodation."
29.3 In light of the above discussion, it also stands established that the petitioner does not have any alternate suitable accommodation available with him.
RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 25 of 28Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh Other Arguments/Objections on Behalf of the Respondents
30. It was argued on behalf of the respondents during final arguments that a permanent tenancy had been created between the parties vide lease deed dated 04.10.1978 and that the parties are bound by terms and conditions of the same. It had been further argued that the tenancy could have been terminated only for violation of said terms and also, mandatory notice was required to be issued to the tenants, which was not done by the landlord/petitioner in the present matter. Firstly, the contention regarding permanent tenancy could not be supported and it could not be said that once a tenancy had been created, the same was to continue for an infinite period. Even if any such agreement had been executed between the parties, the same could not be supported and executed by court being against public policy and also, provisions of DRC are not subject to agreement between the parties. Further, the contention that no legal notice had been issued by the landlord to the tenants/respondents in accordance with terms of the said lease deed and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable, is also meritless. Filing of petition under DRC is not dependent upon issuance of notice and it could not be said that such petition would become non-maintainable for the reason that notice had not been issued in terms of agreement between the parties. Also, it is pertinent to add that PW-1 deposed in his cross examination that the terms of lease deed had been formulated by Late Sh. Manmohan Singh only and that he was not aware about the said terms.
RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 26 of 28Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh
31. Through additional submissions in writing, another objection raised to the present petition is that the prayer clause is defective. It is stated that eviction of all the respondents has not been prayed for and therefore, petition deserves to be dismissed. It is pertinent to note that names of two respondents have stated in addition to stating that eviction of LRs of original tenant have been sought. Thus, this objection raised on behalf of the respondents is also not tenable.
Conclusion
32. In view of the above discussion, this court is of considered opinion that the petitioner has proved that he is owner of the tenanted premises, that there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents, that his requirement is bonafide and also, that he does not have any other alternate accommodation available with him. And, at the same time, the respondents could not establish that the requirement of the petitioner is not bona fide or that the petitioner has other accommodation available with him which he could use and utilize for his requirement. Also, when the requirement of the petitioner has been established, he could not be denied eviction on the mere assumption of the tenant that he might later rent out the property to third person or that he would not use the property himself or that he would sell off the same.
33. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to order of eviction in his favour and against the respondents under section 14(1)(e) DRC qua the tenanted premises. Accordingly, the present petition for eviction under section 14(1)(e) DRC filed on behalf RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 27 of 28 Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh of petitioner stands allowed. The respondents are, accordingly, directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., Portion E of shop no.8 (59.7 sq yards), back portion, Pushpa Market (Central Market), Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024, as shown in red colour in the site plan. The petitioner shall not file the execution petition for eviction of the tenanted premises before expiry of period of six months from today.
34. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed by
on 25th of March, 2025
TARUNPREET
TARUNPREET KAUR
KAUR Date: 2025.03.25
16:25:08 +0530
(TARUNPREET KAUR)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (South - East)
Saket Courts, New Delhi/25.03.2025
RC ARC 44/19 Page No. 28 of 28
Harjit Singh Vs. Satwant Kaur Through LRs Manmohan Singh