Delhi District Court
Sh. Ajit Singh vs Sh. Mohender Bansal on 28 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH,
SCJCUMRC(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC/ARC NO. 477458/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Ajit Singh
S/o Late Sh. Atma Singh
R/o House NO.5960,
Gali no.3, Block no.3
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005.
....Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Mohender Bansal
S/o Late Sh. Shadi Ram Bansal,
At 5958, Ground Floor,
Gali No.3, Block No.3,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005 ....Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.06.2014
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 05.05.2022
DATE OF DECISION : 28.07.2022
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF THE TENANT/RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 14 (1) (e) of DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner Sh. Ajit Singh under Section 14 (1) (e) of RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 1 of 39 DRC Act against the respondent Sh. Mohender Bansal seeking his eviction from the tenanted premises i.e. one shop bearing No.5958, Ground Floor, Gali No.3, Block No.3, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 measuring 14.10 x 8.7 with covered verandah of 3 ft. as shown in the red color of the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as tenanted shop) on the ground of bonafide requirement.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows :
i) That the tenanted shop measuring 14 x 17 with covered Verandah was originally let out to Late Sh. Shadi Ram Bansal vide written rent agreement on 25.01.2016 at a monthly rent of Rs.15.62/ per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.17.18/ paise w.e.f. 01.04.1989 by the erstwhile owner namely, Smt. Viswanath Kumari ( as shown in red color in the site plan).
ii) The tenanted shop was later on purchased by Smt. Prem Kaur i.e. the mother of the petitioner in the year 1986 from subsequent purchaser namely, Sh. Dharam Pal Singh, who handed over all the relevant documents of the property including the rent deed dated 25.01.1946. After the death of Smt. Prem Kaur, the tenanted shop has devolved on the petitioner and his two other brothers namely, Sardar Lakhbir Singh and Sardar Jang Singh.
iii) The entire premises which was purchased by Smt. Prem Kaur is having three numbers i.e. 5958, 5959 and 5960, Block No.3, Main Road, Dev Nagar, New Delhi.
iv) The petitioner and his son alongwith his brother Sardar Lakhbir Singh and Lrs of his late brother Sh. Jang Singh were running their RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 2 of 39 separate businesses from shop No.5960 as shown in green colour in the site plan.
v) That between the shop No.5960 and the tenanted premises, there was another shop bearing no.5959 measuring 18 x 15 as also shown in green colour in the site plan. The said shop was let out to some other tenants. However, when the said shop was vacated by the tenants, the same was taken over by Sh. Balbir Singh, s/o Late Sh. Jang Singh and Sardar Lakhbir Singh who divided the same into two parts and one part as shown in yellow colour was occupied by Sardar Balbir Singh and the other part as shown in blue colour in the site plan was occupied by Sardar Lakhbir Singh.
vi) That the petitioner as well as his brother Sardar Lakhbir Singh and LR of Late Sh. Jang Singh i.e. Sardar Balbir Singh are running their separate businesses.
vii) The petitioner is running his business under the name and style of M/s. Ruby Corporation being its proprietor. Sardar Balbir Singh is running his business under the name and style of M/s. Ruby Bus Service and Sardar Lakhbir Singh is running is his business under the name and style of M/s. Ruby Taxi Company. However, Sardar Lakhbir Singh has let out his portion in Shop No.5959 to one M/s. Malhotra Leather Store.
viii) That son of the petitioner namely Sh. Inder Pal Singh is also running his own business under the name and style of M/s. Ruby Delux Bus Company and is operating his business from the same shop No.5960 which is only measuring 10 x 10.7 and also having a three feet staircase. Besides, RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 3 of 39 the petitioner has also put Parchati (mezzanine) on it lowering the floor by three feet approximately.
ix) The petitioner is having air conditioned buses and his son is having delux and ordinary buses. The petitioner and his son are running their business in shop No.5960 which is of very small size with great difficulty and are also not been able to accommodate their drivers, conductors and cleaners due to which they have to sit or stand outside the premises. Further, the petitioner and his son also have no place to put the spare articles of their vehicles in the said shop due to paucity of accommodation. It is stated that petitioner is also having one Almirah towards the street where the work of tire puncture of vehicle is being run adjacent to their shop.
x) It is averred that the petitioner has no other suitable accommodation to adjust his son so that he can run his business in independent accommodation except the tenanted shop which is also most suitable as situated adjacent to his existing shop and as such the petitioner requires the tenanted shop for the bonafide need of his son.
xi) It is also averred that the petitioner will convert the tenanted shop into two portions whereafter one portion of the shop will be used by the son of the petitioner for running his business and in the other portion the petitioner and his son will keep the spare parts as well as spare articles. The petitioner also has to make the sitting arrangements for their drivers, cleaners etc. Hence, the present petition.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 4 of 393. On the receipt of notice of the petition in the form prescribed in the third Schedule of DRC Act, the respondent appeared before the court and applied for leave to defend. The said application was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 24.10.2016 and the respondent was directed to file his WS.
4. In his WS, the respondent while raising preliminary objections to the petition of the petitioner has averred that the petitioner has falsely shown his residential address as 5960, Gali No.3, Block Nagar, 3 Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi whereas at the time of filing of the petition, he was residing at property bearing No.3/594647, Hardhayan Singh Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi and during the pendency of the petition has shifted his residence to J39, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
On merits, the respondent has opposed the petition of the petitioner on the following grounds:
i) It is denied that the petitioners are the owners/landlords of the suit property.
ii) It is averred that Sh. Shadi Ram Bansal was a tenant in respect of the tenanted shop who after his death has left behind his widow, sons and his daughter and they all became tenants in the tenanted shop and the petition filed against only some of the tenants is not maintainable. It is averred that the respondent is running his business under the name and style M/S Bhawana Electricals which was a pertnership firm comprising of respondent , his mother Smt. Kalawati and brothers Sh. Surinder Kumar RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 5 of 39 Bansal , Sh. Devender Kumar Bansal and Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bansal at the time of institution of the petition. However, during the pendency of the petition Smt. Kalawati expired. It is also denied that presently only the respondent is running the business in the tenanted premises
iii) The authenticity of rent note dated 25.01.1946 is denied.
iv) It is denied that the son of the petitioner is running his business under the name and style of M/s. Rubi Delux Bux Company and is operating the said business from shop bearing No.5960. It is also denied that they require any place for accommodating their drivers, cleaners etc.
vi) It is denied that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises to adjust his son so that he can run his business independently. It is also denied that the petitioner has no other alternative suitable accommodation to satisfy his alleged bonafide need.
vii) It is averred that the son of the petitioner is doing the business of providing transportation to Lotus Valley Internationl School, Noida Sector, 126, Expressway, UP where he has provided 60 AC buses and the school has already provided sufficient space for parking of his buses and for the stay of drivers/cleaners in the premises of the school itself. It is averred that even office premises has been provided to the son of the petitioner by the above said school.
viii) It is also averred that the son of the petitioner has similarly provided 30 buses to the branch of above said school at M Block, South City2 Nirwana, Sector 50, Gurugram, Haryana and the said branch has also RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 6 of 39 provided enough space for the parking of the buses and stay of drivers/cleaners etc.
ix) It is further averred that buses are not allowed to be parked in Karol Bagh area and as such the drivers and cleaners of the buses of the son of the petitioner do not come to the office and do not require any space for their sitting/stay.
x) The petitioner has deliberately concealed the alternative accommodation available with him in order to create a false ground of eviction.
xi) It is submitted that initially the property in dispute was a single storey property whereupon the petitioner raised three storey building and the upper floors are in possession of the petitioner and are sufficient and suitable for satisfying his alleged bonafide need.
xii) That the petitioner had been allotted a big accommodation in Sanjay Gandhi, Transport Nagar where the buses are also allowed to be parked and the petitioner with ulterior motive has not disclosed the said accommodation though the same is lying vacant and unutilized.
xiii) It is averred that petitioner has also got one property bearing no.3/594647, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi which is situated just near to the property in dispute and as a matter of fact is situated opposite to the tenanted shop and is just separated by a street bearing Gali No.4.
xiv) It is averred that the above said property no.3/594647 comprising of four floors i.e. basement, ground, first and second floors and RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 7 of 39 at the time of filing of the present petition most of the portion of the said property was in the possession of the petitioner and lying vacant without any use. Thereafter, the petitioner had raised construction of another floor on the said property having an area equivalent to the area of each of other floor and has made it now a five storey building. The said additional construction was also lying vacant and unutilized in the possession of the petitioner after the construction.
xv) The petitioner and his family had been residing in a portion of the said property and most of the portions were lying vacant without any use by the petitioner.
xvi) That the petitioner alongwith his family shifted his residence to J39 Vikaspuri, New Delhi and thereafter the first, second and third floors of the building were let out by the petitioner and the said fact per se establish the malafide of the petitioner and proves that the petitioner does not require any accommodation and the alleged bonafide need is false and concocted. It is stated that the first floor of the property was let to Sh. Y.R.G. Care for its office, the second floor was let out to one Sh. Amarjeet Singh who is using the same for commercial purpose for running his business of footwear and third floor was let to Sh. Harish Chandra Mishra for residentialcumcommercial purpose and they are running their office/premises since 2016.
xvii) The petitioner is in possession of one big shop on the ground floor of the above said property which is still lying vacant and unutilized.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 8 of 39xviii) There are two more shops on the ground floor of the above said property out of which one shop measuring 7 x 24 ft. was let out by the petitioner in 2010. It is averred that had the petitoner actually required any premises, he would not have let out the said shop in 2010. xix) The petitioner is running Ruby Taxi Company at Rajender Palace and DDA has provided office place to the petitioner for running the said Taxi Company.
xx) That after the filing of the written statement by the respondent, the petitioner and his wife Smt. Rajender Kaur has sold the basement of property bearing NO.3/594647, Hardhayan Singh, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to one Sh. Suresh Kumar Jat vide sale deed dated 02.12.2016. The petitioner and his wife were also in possession of the said basement at the time of execution of the sale deed and the said basement was also sufficient and suitable to satisfy the alleged need of the petitioner and its sale also proves that the alleged requirement of the petitioner is malafide and false. xxi) That the son of the petitioner has recently opened an office of Ruby Delux Company at 103, First Floor, Vardhaman Market, JBlock, Vikaspuri New Delhi which shop is owned by the petitioner and his son and the same is also nearby to their place of residence at Vikaspuri. xxii) The petitioner has also stopped carrying on his business from shop NO.5960 and the said shop is now lying vacant and unutilized and as such the alleged false requirement ever otherwise stands satisfied.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 9 of 395. Replication/rejoinder was also filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the averments of the respondent in his WS were denied and averments made in the petition were reiterated.
In his rejoinder replying the averment of the respondent, the following submissions were made by the petitioner:
i) It is denied that the respondent is running any partnership business in the tenanted premises. It is also averred that the fact of partnership was never disclosed either by Late Sh. Shadi Ram Bansal or any of his LRs and that the partnership deed dt. 08.10.1991 and 24.01.2005 are forged and fabricated documents.
ii) Though it is admitted that the son of the petitioner is providing 60 AC buses to Lotus Valley International School, however, it was averred that he is also providing buses to different other schools in Delhi as well.
iii) It is also denied that the said schools have provided sufficient space for parking of the buses and accommodation of the drivers and cleaners etc.
iv) It is also averred that the maximum buses of the petitioner as well as his son are being parked in an open space at the backside of Radha Swami Satsang at T. Sohanlal Marg near Rajender Nagar, New Delhi which is quite near to the office of the petitioner and his son i.e. Shop No.5960.
v) It is averred that the drivers and cleaners used to visit the office premises and the salary etc. of the staff is also being disbursed from the same office situated at shop No.5960.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 10 of 39vi) With respect to the upper floors of the property where the tenanted shop is situated, it is denied that they are in the possession of the petitioner.
vii) Similarly, though the factum of a plot at Sanjay Gandhi Nagar being owned by the petitioner is not disputed, however, the same is stated to be a very far off place from Central Delhi and nonsuitable for the need of the petitioner and his son.
viii) With respect to property No.3/594647, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh Delhi, it is denied that the property is situated opposite to the tenanted shop. On the contrary, it is averred that the said property is situated at much inner side of street No.4 and there is a garbage dumping yard/ house in between apart from the public toilet, which per se makes the property not suitable. Further the said property is also stated to be having only a small area of 50 sq. yds. of land. It is also stated that there is a very narrow entrance to the said property from the street side and towards the lane there is a shop which has already been occupied by old tenant and the basement thereof is also still occupied by another old tenant.
ix) It is further averred that the two shops and basement of the above said property were already let out to different tenants more than 15 years back and they are still in their possession. Further, the upper floors of the property which were being used by the petitioner and other family members for residence, on their shifting to Vikaspuri were let out to different tenants just to enhance their income as otherwise also the business of the petitioner could not have been shifted to the above said upper floors.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 11 of 39It is also denied that the petitioner has raised the construction of another floor on the said property making it a five storey building and it is averred that the property is only upto three floors. Moreover, as the said property is not a suitable accommodation, it cannot be considered for the purpose of running the business by the petitioner and his son.
x) It is also denied that the petitioner is in the possession of the one big shop on the ground floor of property No.3/594647, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh Delhi which is lying vacant and unutilized. It is further denied that there are two more shops on the ground floor of the same property which are in the possession of the petitioner and also lying vacant and unutilized, and one of the shop measuring 7 x 24 was let out by the petitioner in the year 2010. It is also denied that there is one other shop on the ground floor
xi) With respect to the sale of basement at property No.3/5947, it is averred that the petitioner and his wife had to sell out the said property in the year 2016 in order to clear the loan amounts borrowed from Syndicate Bank. It is further averred that prior to the said sale, the vacant possession of the basement never came to the hands of the petitioner as earlier it was some other tenant who was in possession thereof and on its sale had handed over the same to purchaser Sh. Suresh Kumar Jat.
xii) With respect to the office of the son of the petitioner being opened at 103, First Floor, Vardhaman Market, J Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, it is denied that the said shop is owned by the petitioner or his son. It is averred that the above said office is just a branch office for the RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 12 of 39 convenience of the buses plying in Vikaspuri and Dwarka area of Delhi. It is further stated that the petitioner and his son are still running their business from the same premises bearing no.5960 which is the head office of the petitioner's business as well as the head office of the business of his son.
xiii) With respect to the averment that the petitioner has stopped carrying his business from shop NO.5960 and the same is lying vacant and unutilized, it is averred that the same is false and the petitioner and his son are working and running their business as usual from the said premises.
6. During petitioner evidence, petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. However, the crossexamination of the petitioner was deferred on account of his illness and thereafter he never appeared in the Court for his cross examination and the evidence by way of the affidavit of his son/attorney Sh. Inder Pal Singh was filed for the purpose of PE. Accordingly, as PW1 was never crossexamined on account of his nonappearance, his examination in chief shall not be read in evidence against the respondent for the disposal of the present petition.
Sh. Inder Pal Singh, son/attorney of the petitioner tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A. He has also relied upon the following documents exhibited during the examination in chief of PW1:
i) Ex.PW1/1 is the certified copy of judgment passed by the Ld. Appellate Court.
ii) Ex.PW1/2 is the site plan.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 13 of 39
iii) Ex.PW1/2A is the yellow portion as shown in the second site plan in
respect of property no. 3/5947 Hardayan Singh Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh.
iv) Ex.PW1/3 is the four photographs of the tenanted premises.
v) Ex.PW1/4 are the photographs of other shop in possession of Sardar Lakhbir Singh and Sardar Balbir Singh.
v) Ex.PW1/5 is the photographs of other shop in possession of the petitioner.
vi) Ex.PW1/6 is the photograph of an Almirah towards trade no.3 on the outer wall of the shop of the petitioner.
vii) Ex.PW1/7 is the legal notice dated 01.04.2014.
viii) Ex.PW1/8 is the cheque dated 01.04.2014 issued by the respondent.
ix) Ex.PW1/9 is the original registered of AD. x) Mark A is the photocopy of rent note in Urdu. xi) Mark B is the copy of English translation.
Further, an additional evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/B was also filed on behalf of PW2. Similarly, he further placed reliance upon the following other documents:
i) Ex.PW2/X1 is special power of attorney in his favour executed by the petitioner.
ii) Ex.PW2/2 is the photograph of the entire property no. No.5958 to 5960, Gali No.3, Block No.3, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
iii) Ex.PW2/3 is the photograph of the portion of the property in possession of the petitioner (both Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/3 were objected RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 14 of 39 to by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent as to mode of proof being without their negatives or certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
PW2 was also duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
7. During RE, the respondent also appeared in the witness box as RW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A. RW1 was also duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
8. Thereafter, final arguments were heard from both the sides.
9. The present petition is an eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Before proceedings to analyse and discuss the evidence of the parties, it would be apt to go through the bare provision of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. It reads as under; "14. 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 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: ********************* RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 15 of 39
(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;
Explanation. For the purpose of this clause, "premises let for residential purpose" 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;"
10. Thus, in order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a petitioner must establish that:
i. He is owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises. ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii. He has no other reasonable alternate suitable accommodation.
11. Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlordtenant between petitioners and respondent:
12. As already discussed above, in his WS respondent has disputed the factum of ownership as well as the relationship of landlordtenant with the petitioner. However, since during his crossexamination, the respondent RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 16 of 39 himself admitted that the suit property was taken on rent by his father from the erstwhile owner and that he was paying rent of the premises to the petitioner, there is no merit in the claim of the respondent that there is no relationship of landlordtenant between the parties. Further, as except denying the title and ownership of the petitioner, nothing was adduced by the respondent to suggest that the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises, the said plea is otherwise also without any merits.
Moreover, since the respondent himself admitted that he is paying rent to the petitioner as landlord, he is also stopped from challenging his title in view of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act on the basis of principle of estoppel. As such, the ownership of the petitioner and the relationship of landlordtenant stand duly established between the parties.
13. Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioners for themselves or for members of their family dependent upon them and nonavailability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation :
14. In the present case, the eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act on the ground of bonafide requirement that the tenanted shop is required by the petitioner for his own need as well as the need of his son as it is stated that both of them running their individual business of buses/transportation under the name and style of M/s. Ruby Corporation and M/s. Ruby Deluxe Company from shop no. 5960 which is only measuring 10 x 10.7 ft. with also having a 3 ft. staircase inside, with great difficulty. It is stated that due to the nonavailability of any other accommodation, the petitioner and his son have no other RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 17 of 39 place/space to put the spare articles of their vehicle. Further, due to the paucity of accommodation, their driver/conductor and cleaners etc. are also compelled to sit or stand outside the premises. It is further pleaded that the petitioner has no other suitable accommodation to adjust his son except the tenanted shop which is most suitable as it is situated just adjacent to their existing shop.
15. On the other hand, the respondent has opposed the petition of the petitioner, firstly, on the ground that the alleged need of the petitioner is itself not bonafide and, secondly, that he already had a number of alternate suitable accommodations available with him at the time of institution of the petition and presently also is in possession of the same.
16. The bonafides in the need of the petitioner have been questioned by the respondent on the following grounds:
i) The shop no. 5960 is lying vacant unused for past long time as the petitioner is not running any business from the said premises and his son has also already opened his office at 103, First Floor, Vardhaman Market, JBlock, Vikaspuri, New Delhi and the said premises is owned by the petitioner and his son and the same is also nearby to their place of residence at Vikaspuri.
ii) The petitioner and his son do not require the tenanted property as the buses of the petitioner and his son alongwith their staffs i.e. driver/cleaners, are already provided sufficient space of parking and stay by the concerned schools where they have been deployed by the petitioner and his son.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 18 of 39iii) No buses are allowed to be parked in Karol Bagh area and as such there is no question of the drivers and other staffs of the petitioner visiting their shop no.5960 and accordingly the plea that space is also required for their sitting/stay is without any merits.
iv) The petitioner deliberately concealed the accommodation available with him and did not disclose about the properties available with him in his petition i.e. a plot at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and property no.3/594647, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh which is situated just near and opposite to the tenanted shop, which were also lying vacant at the time of the institution of the petition.
v) That prior to the institution of the petition, two shops on the ground floor of property no. 3/594647, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi were let out in the year 2010 which shows that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is selfcreated.
vi) The petitioner is still in possession of one big shop on the ground floor of property No.3/594647, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which is still lying vacant and unutilized.
vii) That after the institution of the petition, the basement of property no.3/594647, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was sold by the petitioner and his wife vide sale deed dated 02.12.2016 and the said basement was in the possession of the petitioner and his wife at the time of the sale as apparent from the contents of sale and had there been any actual need of any premises, the petitioner would not have sold off the said basement.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 19 of 3917. Similarly, making the same averments, the petitioner is also stated to be already in possession of sufficient alternate accommodation. The respondent has given the list of following properties stating to be in possession of or available with the petitioner at the time of institution of the petition as well as presently:
i) Property No. 3/5947, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi i.e. one shop on its ground floor plus basement.
ii) Property No. 3/5946, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
iii) The first and second floors of property No.5958 and 5968, Gali No.3, Block No.3, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005
iv) Big accommodation/plot at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar.
v) Office at 103, First Floor, Vardhaman Market, JBlock, Vikaspuri New Delhi which shop is stated to be owned by the petitioner and his son.
18. Now, the court shall discuss the aspect of bonafide need of the petitioner.
19. During arguments, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the pleadings and evidence led by the petitioner sufficiently proves that the tenanted premises is required by the petitioner and his son for running their business and they have no alternate suitable accommodation. Thus, the fact that the petitioner has the bonafide requirement of the tenanted shop stands sufficiently proved.
20. On the other hand, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is totally false RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 20 of 39 and selfcreated and not only he is guilty of concealing already available suitable alternate accommodation existing on the day of the filing of the petition but the disposal of some of such properties during the pendency of the petition further exposes lies in his claim. It is argued that despite the availability of property no. 3/5946 and 3/5947 comprising of four floors i.e. basement, ground, first and second, most of which were lying vacant and in possession of the petitioner including three shops on the ground floor of the said property out of which one shop was let out in 2010 measuring 7 x 24 ft., the said property was never disclosed by the petitioner in her petition.
Similarly, the availability of the alternate accommodation in the form of upper floors existing at the subject property (property no.5958 5960) were also not deliberately disclosed in order to conceal the available accommodation, though as per the own admission of PW Inder Pal Singh, the said floors are also commercial. It is further argued that moreover except denial that the property does not belong to the petitioner, despite being the best person in position to produce the relevant documents to show that the same actually belongs to his other brothers, no proof was filed on record to substantiate the said fact.
It is further argued that similarly the sale of one basement existing at property no.3/5946 on 02.12.2016 by the petitioner and his wife vide registered sale deed, the contents of which reveal that at the time of the sale the petitioner and his wife were in possession of the said basement further highlights that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide else the petitioner would not have sold off of the said property.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 21 of 39It is also argued that moreover the shop no. 5960 is already lying vacant and unutilized as petitioner and his son are not running any business from the said premises. It is also submitted that the petitioner is also not in a position to run any business due to his old age and ailing condition as is also clear from the testimony of PW2 who deposed during his crossexamination that the petitioner can see only little bit from one eye and has also very feeble hearing. It is stated that his illness was also a reason that he did not appear in the Court for his crossexamination and his son/attorney was examined on his behalf. Reliance is also placed on "Sh. Manohar Lal Vs. Smt. Pushpawati Jain 1993 (26) DRJ (Hon'ble High Court of Delhi)".
Similarly, it is also argued that the fact that son of the petitioner is already running his business from property no.103, First Floor, Vardhaman Market, J Block, Vikaspuri, also establishes that his son is also not running any business from shop no. 5960 and does not require the tenanted property. It is stated that even otherwise since the petitioner is not in a position to run any business, the need of his son stands satisfied from shop no.5960 itself. The Ld. Counsel submits that in view of the failure of the petitioner to place on record any books of account, details of their employees and other records pertaining to their business being carried out at shop no.5960, it stands sufficiently proved that the said shop is lying vacant and unutilized as is contended by the respondent. Reliance is also placed on "Mr. S.R. Dutta Vs. Chunni Lal Bhatia SAO No.188/1980 RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 22 of 39 (Hon'ble High Court of Delhi" "M/s. Rashtriya Printing Press Vs. Sh. Gyan Chand ILR (1997) 1 Delhi.
21. Refuting the contentions of Ld. Counsel for respondent, it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that there is no concealment of any property by the petitioner as none of the properties disclosed by the respondent was ever suitable for the needs of the petitioner. It is stated that property no.3/594647 is not only situated on a road (Hardayan Singh Road) which is less popular and commercial as compared to the road where the tenanted property is situated (Guru Ravi Das Marg) but the same is also situated at much inner side of the street no.4 and there is a garbage dumping yard and public toilet in between the two properties which are also divided by a road as also clear from the photographs Ex.RW1/P1, P2 and Mark X/ X1. It is further submitted that there is a very narrow street/entrance to the said property from the main road and towards the lane, there is a shop which has already been occupied by the old tenant. Similar submissions have been made w.r.t the upper floors of the said property. It is further argued that since the abovesaid property was never vacant and suitable, its nondisclosure was never material and as such can not be termed as concealment. Reliance is also placed on "Chaman Lal Mittal Vs. Kamini Sharma 2020 (1) RCR (Rent) 227 (Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), "Batuk Prasad Jaitley Vs. Rajesh Chugh & Anr.".
With respect to the upper floors of property no. 595860, it is submitted that, firstly, the said property does not belong to the petitioner and, secondly, as upper floors of a building can never be considered as RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 23 of 39 better in comparison to a property available on ground floor, the said property can also not be considered as suitable alternate accommodation. It is further argued that since it was the plea of the respondent that the said upper floors belongs to the petitioner, it was for him to prove the said fact and such burden cannot be shifted to the petitioner.
Further, with respect to the office of the son of the petitioner situated at property no. 103, First Floor, Vardhaman Market, JBlock, Vikaspuri New Delhi, it is submitted that it is just a branch office of the son of the petitioner and since no evidence was produced by the respondent to prove that the said property is owned by the petitioner or his son, the existence of the said branch office can also not disentitle the plaintiff to seek eviction of the tenanted premises. Moreover, as the said branch office has been opened after the institution of the petition, it is argued that the existence of the same otherwise also does not effect the bonafide need of the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on "Pratap Rai Tanwani & Ors. Vs. Uttam Chand & Ors.". Similalry, with respect to contention that shop no.5960 is lying vacant and unutilized, it is argued that no evidence has been placed on record by the respondent to substantiate the said fact.
Lastly, it is argued that as a landlord is the best judge of his requirement, a tenant cannot dictate him as to how the property available with him should be utilized. It is argued that a heavy burden lies on the respondenttenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. Hence, it is argued that since the respondent has failed to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine and he is in possession RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 24 of 39 of sufficient alternate suitable accommodation, the plaintiff is entitled to the order of eviction. Reliance is also placed on, "Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778, "Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja (2014) 91 RCR (Rent) 84 (SC)", "Raghvender Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. (2000) 1 RCR (Rent) 135 (SC)", "Surender Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh 172 (2010) DLT 611", "Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Anr. Vs. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503", "Banwari Lal & Ors. Vs. Mahender Pal Gupta"
22. As already mentioned above, the bonafide need shown by the petitioner to seek the eviction of the tenanted premises is that the tenanted property is required by the petitioner and his son as the already available space available with them in the form of shop no.5960 is not sufficient for them to run their business. The available premises is stated to be measuring only 10 x 10.7 and insufficient to accommodate their staff as well as spare parts of their vehicles. However, the respondent has termed the said need of the petitioner as false and selfcreated on the ground that no business is currently being run by the petitioner or his son at the suit premises and the same is lying vacant. A suggestion to that effect was also given to PW2 to during his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for the respondent. However, the witness answered the same in negative. Further, nothing more was placed on record to substantiate that fact except a photograph which shows the shop of the petitioner is lying closed. However, in the absence of any material evidence, a mere picture showing closing of the shop can not be considered as proving that no business is being run by the petitioner or his RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 25 of 39 son from the shop in their possession. Further, even if for the sake of argument it is believed that due to passage of time the petitioner has become old and weak and is not physically fit to run any business at his available shop, then also the said fact does not per se give any right to the respondent to seek dismissal of the eviction petition, as it is the passage of time and delay in the disposal of the present petition which is more to be blamed for such situation.
23. It is relevant to note here that in the case of "Pratap Rai Tanwani & Ors. Vs. Uttam Chand & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 492", the following observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to ultimate termini, is malady afflicting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system, it shatters the confidence of the litigants despite the impairment already caused".
24. Similarly in the case of "Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Shrivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604", it was again observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para no.10 of the judgment: "10. We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bonafides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 26 of 39 said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bonafides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord, there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slowprocess system subsists. During 23 years after the landlord moved for eviction of ground that his son needed a building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation, the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent development during the traditional, lengthy, longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of litigations, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period".
25. Similarly in "Kamleshwar Prasad Vs. Pradamanju Agarwal (dead) by LRs, (1997) 4 SCC 413", the Hon'ble SC in para 3 of the judgment again observed: RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 27 of 39 "That apart, the fact that the landlord needed the premises in question for starting a business which fact has been found by the appellate authority, in the eye of the law, it must be that on the day of the application for eviction which is the crucial date, the tenant incurred the liability of being evicted from the premises. Even if the landlord died during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the bonafide need cannot be said to have lapsed as the business in question can be carried on by his widow or any elder son".
26. As such, applying the ratio of the abovesaid judgments to the case in hand, even though the respondent has not been able to prove it to the satisfaction of the Court that no business is being carried on by the petitioner or his son from the shop no.5960 under their possession, however, taking into account that even if due to the passage of time and his old age, the petitioner is not in a position to run any business and his son has also started another office at 103, First Floor, Vardhaman Market, J Block, Vikaspuri New Delhi, it cannot be said that the bonafide need of the petitioner has extinct and as such the petition is bad in law. Moreover, there is no substantive material placed on record by the respondent to prove that actually the shop no. 5960 is lying closed and unused as claimed by the respondent.
27. Now coming to the contention of the respondent that the petitioner was already in possession of sufficient alternate accommodation at the time of the filing of the present petition and that presently also he is in possession of the same, the Court shall discuss whether any alternate RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 28 of 39 accommodation available with the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition and whether he is still in possession of the same or not. At the same time, the Court shall also consider whether there is any deliberate concealment of available alternate accommodation by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court shall discuss all the alternate accommodations disclosed by the respondent allegedly available with the petitioner at the time of filing of his petition as well as on date.
28. The first alternate accommodation which was stated to be available with the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition is property no. 3/594647, Hardayan Singh Road, Karol Bagh. As per the case of respondent, the said property is situated just opposite to the tenanted shop and is only separated by a street bearing Gali No.4. It is stated that the said property was comprising of four floors i.e. basement, ground, first and second and at the time of the filing of the petition, most of the portion of the said property was stated to be under the possession of the petitioner and lying unused. It is further contended that one more floor was also constructed by the petitioner later on making the building five storey. It is further his claim that there is one big shop on the ground floor of the said property which is still lying vacant and unutilized and there are two more shops on the ground floor out of which one shop measuring 7 x 24 ft. was let out by the petitioner in the year 2010. It is further asserted that the basement of the said property was sold by the petitioner alongwith his wife in the year 02.12.2016. It is further pleaded that though the upper floor of the said building was earlier used by the petitioner and his family for his RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 29 of 39 residence, however, after their shifting to J39, Vikaspuri, New Delhi, the first, second and third floors of the building were let out to the tenants in the year 2015. It is also stated that the said property was deliberately not disclosed by the petitioner in order to conceal the available accommodation. Further, as the major portion of the said property was lying vacant at the time of institution of the petition and the same was let out during the pendency of the petition, it is argued that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is false and selfcreated.
Likewise, the property/plot at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and upper floors of subject property i.e. 59585960 are also stated to be suitable alternate accommodation and was allegedly possessed by the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition.
Similar submissions have also been with respect to their non disclosure by the petitioner.
29. On the other hand, the petitioner has contended that there is no concealment of any suitable alternate accommodation on his part as the property bearing no.3/594647 as well as the plot at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar were never the suitable alternate accommodation to satisfy the bonafide need of the petitioner and his son. It is stated that the property bearing no.3/594647 is situated at much inner side of the main road and there is a very narrow entrance to the said property from the street and towards the lane there is a shop which has already been occupied by the old tenant. It is also pleaded that there is one garbage dumping yard and public toilet in between the tenanted shop and the said property which per se RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 30 of 39 make it unsuitable as no person would like to go the said property by passing through a dumping yard and public toilet which are usually not maintained by civic authorities with proper sanitation. Moreover, as the tenanted property is situated on the main road i.e. Guru Ravi Das Marg which is more popular and commercial as compared to Hardayan Singh Road where the said property is situated, the same is otherwise also unsuitable from the commercial angle. Further, the availability of any big shop on the ground floor is also denied and the entire property is stated to be occupied by the tenants. As far as the sale of the basement of the said property is concerned, it is argued that the same was done for the purpose of clearing the loans borrowed by the petitioner and his wife from different banks.
With respect to the property/plot situated at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, it is stated that the said property being at a very far off distance from the existing shop of the petitioner, was also never the suitable accommodation. As far as the upper floors of the property no.59585960 i.e. the subject property, are concerned, it is argued that since the same does not belong to the petitioner, there is no question of concealment of the said property.
30. Admittedly, the property bearing no.3/594647, Karol Bagh Delhi, is situated on the Hardayan Singh Road and the tenanted property is situated on Guru Ravi Das Marg which is the main road. It is also not disputed that the property No.3/594647 is situated on the inner side whereas the tenanted shop is situated on the main road. The existence of a RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 31 of 39 dumping yard and public toilet in between the tenanted shop and the said property is also pleaded by the petitioner. During the crossexamination certain photographs Ex.RW1/P1, Ex.RW1/P2, Mark X, Mark X1, Mark RW1/E1 depicting the tenanted shop, property bearing no.594647, a dumping yard and public toilet, were shown to the respondent to identify the tenanted shop, the shop under the possession of petitioner, property no.3/59465947 as well as to prove the existence of a dumping yard and public toilet in between the two properties. However, though the respondent admitted that photograph Ex.RW1/P1 and Mark X depicting the tenanted shop and the shop of the petitioner as correct (though Mark X was partly recognized), he denied that there is any dumping yard or public toilet existing in between the tenanted shop and property no.3/594647 (though the same are visible in the other photographs). Be it as may, it is undisputed that property no.3/594647 is situated on the inner side of the main road.
As far as the property i.e. plot at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar is concerned, admittedly the said property is situated at a very far distance from the tenanted shop as well as the existing shop of the petitioner.
Further, with respect to the upper floor of property no.5958 5960, there is no documentary or oral proof filed on record by the respondent to prove that the same actually belongs to the petitioner.
31. It is pertinent to mention here that during the arguments, it was also argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent that suitability and non suitability of the property is a different thing, however, when the available RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 32 of 39 property is itself not disclosed, the petitioner landlord cannot be allowed to take the abovesaid plea as it is for the Court to decide whether the said available property is suitable as per the need of the petitioner or not. It is argued that however, in the present case, the petitioner has deliberately concealed the said property and as such his petition is liable to dismissed on that ground itself as the same shows that he has not approached the Court with clean hands. Reliance is also placed on "Munna @ Manoj Vs. Ram Narain 2011 SCC Online DEL 4593", "Mehar Ellahi Vs. Sultana & Ors. 2012 SCC Online DEL 2725", "OP Gupta Vs. R.K. Sharma 2000 SCC Online DEL 740".
32. Admittedly, the petitioner has not disclosed about property no.3/594647 as well as the property/plot at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar in his petition. The ground given by the petitioner for such non disclosure is that the said properties were not suitable so as to meet the need of the petitioner and as such their nondisclosure is immaterial. To fortify such contention, reliance is also placed upon "Chaman Lal Mittal Vs. Kamini Sharma 2020 (1) RCR (Rent) 227" and "Pawan Kumar Sethi & Ors. Vs. Anil Kumar Singhal & Ors. (Hon'ble High Court of Delhi)".
33. In the case of "Munna @ Manoj Vs. Ram Narain 2011 SCC Online DEL 4593", a revision petition against an eviction order passed u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act against the petitionertenant was filed. The main eviction petition was filed by the respondentlandlord on the ground that the tenanted property was required by him as he was only having pension income which was not sufficient to support his family comprising of himself RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 33 of 39 and two minor grand sons. In his WS, the petitionertenant had taken a plea that the respondentlandlord had apart from pension income, rental income from various other tenants in the property in question and was having possession of three vacant shops. The leave to defend was granted to the petitionertenant by the Ld. Addl. Rent Controller as it was found that during the course of arguments, the respondentlandlord admitted that he had 13 shops. During the trial, though both the abovesaid pleas raised by the petitionertenant were accepted by the Ld. Addl. Rent Controller as proved, however, still an eviction order was passed on the ground that even though the respondent/landlord have sufficient income from the pension income, he still could have desired to more income. It was further observed that since despite the availability of three vacant shops, the respondent landlord could still decide to have the tenanted shop vacated from the petitioner being more suitable for the business which intends to start as he is the best judge of his choice.
While allowing the revision petition and setting aside the abovesaid eviction order, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that since the case of the respondentlandlord in his eviction petition was not that though he had other shops available at his disposal but the same were not suitable for the kind of business which he intends to start, the order of eviction could not have passed in his favour and the Ld. Addl. Rent Controller was not justified by making out a new case for the respondent and reaching to the conclusion that it was for the respondentlandlord to decide which of the shop was more suitable. It was further observed that the RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 34 of 39 nondisclosure of the available three shops and the absence of pleadings on that aspect was a deliberate concealment of material fact.
34. Similarly in the case of "Mehar Ellahi Vs. Sultana & Ors. 2012 SCC Online DEL 2725", it was observed that where a landlord makes a wrong and false statement with respect to the available property, his need cannot be considered as a bonafide need. Further, in the case of "OP Gupta Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 90 DLT 276", the dismissal of eviction petition was held to be right in view of concealment of necessary and relevant fact that the petitionerlandlord was one of the coowner of the property which after the death of his parents had devolved upon him.
35. The consequences of concealment of material fact by a landlord petitioner in an eviction petition w.r.t. the nondisclosure of available properties as well as other material facts which have a bearing on the facts of the case and ultimate decision have been laid down in the abovesiad authorities relied upon by both the sides. All the said authorities clearly provides that where there is a concealment on part of the landlord of any material fact which would have a bearing on the fact of the case and ultimate decision, the said concealment would disentitle him from seeking the relief of eviction. However, the said authorities also provides that it is only the concealment of a material fact which would nonsuit a landlord. A landlord is obliged to disclose the accommodation which is available to him and which could be comparable or alternative to the tenanted premises. However, the nondisclosure of accommodation, which is neither RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 35 of 39 comparable nor alternative to the tenanted accommodation would not non suit the landlord or disentitle him from the relief of eviction.
36. In the present case, as already noted above, the property no.3/594647 is situated on the inner side of the main road. Though the existence of dumping yard and public toilet in between the tenanted shop and the said property is also disputed by the respondent as he has disputed the photographs of the petitioner Mark X, Mark X1 and Ex.RW1/P1 and has also disputed his site plan Ex.PW1/2A (though the photographs Ex.RW1/P2 and Mark X admitted to be correct by the respondent shows the presence of a garbage removing dumper at the site), however, it is not disputed that the said property is situated on inner side of Hardayan Singh Road and is away from the main road Ravi Das Marg.
37. Now as far as the claim that the property bearing no.3/594647 was lying vacant and used in the possession of the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition, admittedly no evidence to prove the said fact has been placed on record by the respondent. There is no material on record which may show that any shop at the said property was let out by the petitioner in the year 2010 or that any vacant shop is still available with them at the said property. As far as the contention that the basement was sold in the year 2016 and the copy of the sale deed of the same shows that the possession of the same was available with the petitioner, even if the said contention is believed then also as a basement can never be said to be a suitable accommodation as compared to the business of the petitioner and his son, the availability or nonavailability of the same is immaterial.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 36 of 3938. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, it was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for respondent that as the need of the petitioner was to have space for storage of his spare parts/articles and sitting of his staff i.e. drivers/cleaners etc. and for that purpose the property no.3/594647 could have been easily used by the petitioner to satisfy his need as two shops on the ground floor of the said property as per the own admission of PW2 were rented out in the year 201214 to one Mr. Jain and Samir Chopra and as such the nondisclosure of the same disentitles him from any relief, the said arguments is also without any merits as it would be very unreasonable to expect that a landlordpetitioner should run from one place to another to see and collect his articles as well as to meet his staff. Moreover, as a landlord is a best judge of his choice, it cannot be dictated as to how should he satisfy his needs from the available properties. Further, in the present case, the respondent has already failed to prove that any vacant space was ever available with the petitioner at property no.3/594647 at the time of filing of the petition.
39. As far as the property at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar is concerned, since admittedly that property being located at a very distant place cannot be said to be a suitable accommodation available with the petitioner at any point of time. Further, as there is no documentary proof placed on record w.r.t the office of the son of the petitioner situated at 103, First Floor, Vardhaman Market, JBlock, Vikaspuri, New Delhi that the same is owned and possessed by the petitioner or his son, the same can also not RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 37 of 39 be considered as suitable alternate accommodation. Further, the mere fact of the opening of the said office during the pendency of the petition also does not extinct the bonafide need of the petitioner and his son. Similarly, the availability of the space for parking provided by the concerned schools where the buses of the petitioner and his son are deployed also does not suggest that the petitioner does not require the tenanted premises as it cannot be expected that all the record pertaining to their buses, drivers/cleaners etc. and their work, salary, maintenance of buses etc. shall also be maintained/carried out by the petitioner at the concerned schools.
40. Thus, in view of the abovesaid discussion, the Court does not find that there is any concealment of any material fact by the petitioner or that he is already in possession of any suitable alternate sufficient accommodation so as to satisfy his needs.
41. In view of the above finding, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed against the respondent qua the tenanted premises i.e. one shop bearing No.5958, Ground Floor, Gali No.3, Block No.3, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 measuring 14.10 x 8.7 with covered verandah of 3 ft. as shown in the red color of the site plan attached with the petition.
42. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to obtain possession of the above tenanted premises before the expiry of the period of six months from the date of this order in terms of Section 14 (7) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 38 of 3943. File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of judgment be given dasti to both the sides on request.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court by BALWINDER
BALWINDER SINGH
on this 28th day of July, 2022 SINGH Date:
2022.07.28
21:35:01 +0530
Balwinder Singh
SCJ-cum-RC: Central District:
28.07.2022
RC ARC No.477458/2016 Ajit Singh Vs. Mohaender Bansal Page 39 of 39