Delhi District Court
Sh. Gurpreet Singh Arora vs Sh. Shamshuddin on 11 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH, SCJCUMRC(CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC/ARC NO. 79081/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Gurpreet Singh Arora
S/o Sh. H.S Arora
R/o 24/20, Shakti Nagar,
Delhi110007 ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Shamshuddin
S/o Allahdin
C/o Property No.51/8,
Siri Nagar, near Shakti Nagar Extension,
Delhi110052 ....Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.06.2013
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 22.12.2022
DATE OF DECISION : 11.01.2023
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 petitioner14 (1) (e) of DRC Act against the respondent seeking his eviction from the tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide requirement.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows: "The petitioner is the owner/landlord of property bearing No. 51/8, Old No.SN32, Siri Nagar, near Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi110052 having purchased it from its previous owner Smt. Bhupinder Kaur thorough a registered sale deed date 07.01.2008. The property in question is built up on a RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 1 of 19 plot of land measuring 116.5 sq. yds. and is consisting of ground floor, first floor and the second floor. The respondent is stated to be a tenant and in possession of two shops on the ground floor described as Mark No. 11 and 12 as shown in the red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted property). It is stated that the respondent is an old tenant prior to the purchase of the subject property by the petitioner and initially was a tenant only in respect of one shop. However, he committed criminal trespass into the second shop and started claiming himself to be a tenant thereof as well. In order to avoid any controversy, the petitioner accepted him as a tenant in the other shops as well. The rent of the tenanted property is stated to be Rs.400/ per month.
The petitioner is stated to be in the business of ball bearing, artificial plastic flower, furniture, imitation jewellery, decoration items, plastic toys etc. which is being run by him as sole proprietor under the name of M/s. GE International. The petitioner also imports goods from China and other countries which are generally imported in bulk quantities in order to minimise the freight and shipping charges and as such huge space is required by the petitioner for the storage of his articles.
The ground floor of the property in question comprises of 13 shops, out of which shop marked as No.1 is in the tenancy of Sh. Mukesh Kumar; shop marked as No.2 is in the tenancy of Sh Harish Chander, who has also encroached upon the shops marked as No.7 and 8; shop marked as No.3, 4, 5 and 9 are in the tenancy of Sh. Ashok Kumar Sanoria who has also encroached upon shop No.6 and has further claimed his brother Anil Kumar to be a tenant in shop No.4; shop No.10 was in possession of a tenant Darshan Lal who has already vacated the same and the same is currently in possession of the petitioner; shop No.11 is in the possession of the respondent who has also encroached upon the shop No.12; and shop No.13 is in possession of the RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 2 of 19 petitioner since the date of purchase of the property.
The first and second floor of the property are also in the tenancy of Sardar Jagmohan Singh, paternal uncle of the petitioner even prior to the purchase of the property by the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioner has no other commercial property to store the goods/articles of his business and on his request his uncle Sardar Jagmohan Singh provided him some space on the first and second floor of the property as temporary arrangement for storage of his goods. However, the loading and unloading of his articles to and from first and second floor costs a lot to the petitioner and reduces his profit. Further the said space made available to the petitioner is also dependent upon the mercy of his uncle and he has already started asking him to make some alternative arrangement as he also needs the said space for his own business.
It is further submitted that the petitioner also imports ball bearing on regular basis which are heavy in weight and cannot be stored on the first and second floor of the property as the same is not strong enough to bear their load and as such he requested his friend Sunder Lal Garg who permitted him to store such articles/ball bearings in a portion of his property No.101, First Floor, Plot No.10, Facility Center, Mayapuri, PhaseII near Petrol Pump, New Delhi110006 on license basis at a monthly license fee of Rs.15,000/. However, Sh. Sunder Lal Garg has also asked the petitioner to look for alternative arrangement to store his goods.
The petitioner further pleads that he requires at least 5000 sq. ft. area for running of his business of sale for which proper shop, office, display area, cabin for staff etc. is required and as such he requires the entire ground floor portion and is presently only in possession of two shops on the ground floor marked as No.10 and 13 having approximate area of 100 sq. ft. each and the said two shops are also situated at a distance from each other and cannot RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 3 of 19 be joined because of the other existing shops in between.
The petitioner further avers that the tenanted property is bonafidely required by him for running his business and he has no other suitable alternate accommodation to satisfy his need. Hence, the present petition.
3. 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. Since the leave was already granted by the Court in connected eviction petition bearing No. E340/2013 instituted by the petitioner against the other tenants, on the consent of the petitioner the leave to defend was also granted to the present respondent. Thereafter, a WS was filed on behalf of the respondent.
4. In his WS, without disputing the relationship of landlordtenant between the parties, the respondent has opposed the petition of the petitioner submitting that the same is false, malafide and nonmaintainable. It is pleaded that the petitioner has filed the petition for additional accommodation without telling how much additional accommodation is required and for what specific use. Further, he has also not disclosed the extent of his business and the accommodation available with him for commercial purpose. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is already in possession of the following properties:
i) Two shops on the ground floor, one hall on the first and second floors of the property in question.
ii) Three storeyed property measuring about 250 sq. mts. bearing No.24/20, Shakti Nagar, which is occupied by the petitioner and his uncle and having ample space on the ground floor and the same is also located in commercial area.
iii) Plot measuring 100 sq. yds. bearing No.M153, Sector1, Bhawana Industrial Area, which is constructed upto three stories.
iv) Office/godown at Mayapuri.
RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 4 of 19
v) Office godown at B79, Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, Delhi
110035.
vi) Office with a big hall in a building bearing No.5140, third floor, shop
No.56, Chaudhary Market, Rui Mandi, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar.
vii) Big shop on the first floor of the property bearing No.664, Gali No.11, Sadar Bazar, Delhi110006.
viii) Property bearing No.416, Mercury House, Wazirpur, Industrial Complex, Wazirpur, Delhi.
It is also submitted that the petitioner is doing his business from Sadar Bazar. Further, a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Palco Plastics was the tenant on the first floor of the property in question in which Sh. Harvinder Singh and Sh. Jagmohan Singh (father and the uncle of the petitioner) were partners. The said partnership firm had already got an alternative plot No. M153, Sector 8, Industrial Area, Bhawana, in relocation scheme and the first floor of the property was reverted back to the petitioner.
The respondent has also denied the allegation of criminal trespass into his second shop.
Other averments of the petition were also similarly denied by the respondent.
5. Replication was also filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein refuting the averments of the respondent, the claim of the petitioner was reiterated. Further with respect to the properties disclosed by the respondent and stated to be allegedly available with the petitioner, the following averments were made:
i) It is denied that except two shops bearing No. 10 and 13 of property No.51/8, Siri Nagar near Shakti Nagar Extension, any other portion of the said property is in the possession of the petitioner.
ii) With respect to property No.24/20, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, it is RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 5 of 19 submitted that the said property is measuring 200 sq. yds. and constructing upto the second floor, out of which the ground floor comprising of two bed rooms, study room, drawing room and dining room is in the possession of the petitioner after the death of his father, the first floor is in the possession of his uncle Sardar Jagmohan Singh and the second floor thereof is in the possession of aunt Ms. Preet Kaur w/o Late Sh. Prithpal Singh. It is further stated that the abovesaid property is situated in a gali where no trucks are allowed. It is also submitted that the said property is a residential and cannot be used for any commercial purpose.
iii) Plot No. M113, Sector1, Bhawana Industrial Area is denied to be owned by or belonging to the petitioner.
iv) Office/godown at Mayapuri was taken by the petitioner on license basis from his friend Sunder Lal Garg and he has already been asked to vacate the same.
iv) Properties i.e. office godown at B79, Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, Delhi03, office with a big hall in building No.5140, Third Floor, Shop No.56, Chaudhary Preet Market, Rui Mandi, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, a big shop on the first floor of property No.664, Gali No.11, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and property bearing shop no.416, Mercury House, Wazirpur Complex, Wazirpur, Delhi52 are also denied to be owned by or belonging to the petitioner.
6. Respondent also filed a rejoinder to the replication of the petitioner wherein he again reaffirmed his defence and denied the averments of the petitioner.
Thereafter the matter was fixed for Petitioner's Evidence (PE).
7. During PE, the petitioner has examined total seven number of witnesses. PW1 is petitioner himself who appeared in the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has also relied upon RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 6 of 19 the following documents:
i) Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) is the copy of sale deed dated 07.01.2008.
ii) Ex.PW1/2 is site plan. iii) Ex.PW1/3 is the copy of letter dated 15.05.2013. iv) Ex.PW1/4 (OSR) is copy of ITR for the year 201112. v) Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) is the copy of VAT Registration of the firm of the petitioner. vi) Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) is the copy of Sales Tax Registration of the firm of the petitioner. vii) Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) is the copy of ImporterExporter Code Certificate. viii) Ex.PW1/8 is the copy of invoice dated 13.11.2012. ix) Ex.PW1/9 is the copy of invoice dated 12.11.2012. ix) Ex.PW1/10 is the copy of MTNL Bill. x) Ex.PW1/11 is the copy of invoice dated 09.03.2013. xi) Ex.PW1/12 is copy of invoice dated 07.04.2013. xii) PW1/13 is the copy of invoice dated 10.04.2013. xiii) Ex.PW1/14 is the copy of certified copy of judgment dated 02.12.2004 passed in E/258/03. xiv) Ex.PW1/15 is the copy of NCR report dated 14.05.2019 registered
with respect to loss of documents registered on the complaint of the petitioner at PS Crime Branch, Delhi.
(Documents Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/13 were objected to on the mode of proof).
8. PW2, Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana, UDC, Office of SubRegistrarI, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, PW3 Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Manager (Relocation Division) DSIIDC, Patparganj, Delhi, PW4 Ms. Rama Rajput, GST Inspector, Department of Trade and Taxes and PW5 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, FTDO from Additional Director, General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi are the formal RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 7 of 19 witnesses who only produced the summoned record.
9. PW2 has furnished the summons record pertaining to registration of relinquishment deed dated 01.02.2003 whereby Smt. Nirmal Kuar and Smt. Manjeet Kaur, sisters of the father of the petitioner namely Sh. Harvinder Singh relinquished their share in favour of her brothers i.e. Sh. Harvinder Singh, Sh. Prithpal Singh Arora and Sh. Jagmohan Singh Arora in respect of property bearing No.20, Plot No.24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. He also produced the relevant record pertaining to registration of sale deed 23.03.2012 whereby the property i.e. one shop on the first floor bearing Private No.1, measuring 21.93 sq. meter, part of property bearing muncipal No.749, Ward No.14 situated at Gali No.11, Bara Tuti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi was sold by one Smt. Rajni Marwah to Jagmohan Singh Arora i.e. the uncle of the petitioner. The said documents are Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2.
10. PW3 has produced the summoned record pertaining to registered lease deed of plot No.153, Sector1, Udhyog Vihar, Bawana which is registered in the name of Sh. Jagmohan Singh Arora and Smt. Preet Kaur. The copy of the lease deed is Ex.PW3/1. Perusal of the copy of the said lease deed reveals that the plot in question was allotted to M/s. Palco Plastic and Sh. Jagmohan Singh Arora and Smt. Preet Kaur were the partner of the said partnership firm.
11. PW4 and PW5 have produced the summoned record pertaining to the registration of the proprietorship firm of the petitioner namely M/s. G.E. International with the Department of Trade & Taxes and Foreign Trade. The relevant documents are Ex.PW4/1, Ex.PW4/2 and Ex.Ex.PW5/1 and the same reveals the VAT registration, importerexporter code number as well as the GST number of the proprietorship firm of the petitioner.
12. PW6 is Sh. Sunder Lal Garg, who deposed that the property bearing No.101, First Floor, Plot No.10, Facilitation Center, Mayapuri, PhaseII near Petrol Pump, New Delhi64 was given on license basis to the petitioner on a RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 8 of 19 monthly license fee of Rs.15,000/ and the tenancy as well as the possession of the abovesaid property has already been surrendered by the petitioner vide surrendercumpossession letter executed on 01.11.2017. The copy of the said letter is Ex.PW6/1 (OSR).
13. PW7 is Ms. Preet Kaur w/o Late Sh. Prithpal Singh who also simply deposed that she is one of the partners in M/s. Palco Plastics. She further denied that Sh. Harvinder Singh i.e. the father of the petitioner was ever a partner in the said partnership firm or that they have shifted the business of the firm from the property bearing No. 51/8, Old No.SN32, Siri Nagar, near Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi110052 to plot bearing No. M153, Bawana Industrial Area.
All the petitioner's witnesses were duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for respondent.
14. During respondent's evidence (RE), respondent also appeared in the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A. Respondent was also duly crossexamined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
15. I have already heard the final arguments from both the sides and have also gone through the case file very carefully.
16. 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 RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 9 of 19 premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: *********************
(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;"
17. 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.
18. Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord tenant between petitioners and respondent:
19. As far as the landlordtenant relationship between the parties is concerned, the respondent has not disputed the existence of such relationship in his WS and has also claimed himself to be a tenant of the petitioners in respect of the tenanted premises. Further there is also no dispute w.r.t. the ownership of the petitioner.
20. Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for members of his family dependent upon him and nonavailability of RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 10 of 19 any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
21. 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 petitioner is running a business of ball bearing, artificial plastic flower, furniture, imitation jewellery, decoration items, plastic toys etc. as a sole proprietor under the name of M/s. GE International and requires the tenanted property for the purpose of running of such business. The petitioner has also pleaded that he imports goods of his business from different countries in bulk quantities to minimise the freight and shipping charges. However, due to the nonavailability of the alternate suitable commercial property, is presently storing his goods on the first floor and the second floor of the property in question with the permission of his uncle Sh. Jagmohan Singh who on his request had provided him some space as temporary arrangement for storage of such goods. The petitioner further states that, however, the loading and unloading of the said goods to and from the first and second floor of the property financially costs him a lot and reduces his profits. Further, due to the heavy weight of some of such articles (ball bearing), the same cannot be stored on the upper floor as the property is not strong enough to bear their loads and accordingly he was storing the said articles at the property of his friend namely Sunder Lal Garg in a portion of property no.101, First Floor, plot No.10, Facility Center, Mayapuri, PhaseII near Petrol Pump and was also constrained to pay a license fee of Rs.15,000/. As per the petitioner, both his uncle Sh. Jagmohan Singh and friend Sh. Sunder Lal Garg have already started asking him to vacate their properties and make some alternative arrangement for the storage of his goods. The petitioner also pleads that for the smooth running of his business, he requires proper shop, office, display area and cabin for staff etc. and as such requires at least 5000 sq. ft. of area RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 11 of 19 and, therefore, requires all the shops existing on the ground floor of the property in question apart from the tenanted premises and as such has also filed separate eviction petitions against the other tenants as well.
22. Thus, as is apparent the bonafide need of the petitioner is based on the premise that the tenanted property is required by him for the smooth running of his business being run under the name and style of M/s. G.E. International and storage of his goods.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that in support of his claim that the abovesaid business is presently being run from the premises in question, the petitioner has already filed on record the relevant record pertaining to the registration of his firm with the Department of Trade & Taxes in the form of VAT registration, GST number, importerexporter code number as well as ITR for the year 201112 (Ex PW4/1, 4/2, PW5/1 and PW1/4 respcetively) and perusal of the said record reveals that all the documents bear the address of his proprietorship firm as 51/8, First Floor, Siri Nagar Colony, Bharat Nagar Road, Delhi. Further, the running of such business is also not disputed by the respondent though he has termed the petition of the petitioner as a case of additional accommodation raising stating that the petitioner has not disclosed as to how much additional accommodation is required and for what specific use. Similarly, the bonafide need of the petitioner is also disputed on the ground that he has not disclosed the extent of his business and as to how many workers/employees are to be employed or are presently working with him. Further, the petitioner is also stated to be already in possession of sufficient alternate accommodation.
24. As far as the contention of the respondent w.r.t. the nondisclosure of number of employees and the extent of his business by the petitioner is concerned, though it is correct that the petitioner has not mentioned the number of his current employees or how many of them are to be employed by RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 12 of 19 him in future, however, such nondisclosure per se cannot be considered as having any material bearing on the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner or creating any suspicion therein, more particularly when the petitioner has specifically pleaded that at present he is at the mercy of his uncle Jagmohan Singh for running of his business as he is storing the goods of his business in a space provided by his uncle on the first and second floor of the same property which is also under the tenancy of his uncle prior to its purchase by the petitioner. Thus, even if it is presumed that the petitioner has not engaged any employee or that the employees engaged by him are very few in number, the said fact per se does not make the need of the petitioner as false or malafide so long he desires to run his business and has an adequate space for running it smoothly. On the contrary, the ITR record furnished by the petitioner for the assessment year 201112 Ex.PW1/4 reveals that he earned a gross total income of Rs.19,67,664/ and had paid a sum of Rs.4,26,727/ as tax in respect of his business being run under the name and style of M/s. G.E. International. Thus, the bonafide need of the petitioner cannot be said to be farce for the mere above discussed sole reason.
25. However, in order to obtain the eviction order, the petitioner is also required to prove that he has no other suitable alternate accommodation available with him. Thus, it is also required to be seen whether the petitioner is possession of any other equally suitable alternate accommodation or not?
To ascertain this the court shall discuss one by one all the alleged properties disclosed by the respondent and stated to be available with the petitioner. As also noted in preceding para No.4 of this judgment, the following properties are stated to be available with the petitioner:
i) Two shops on the ground floor, one hall on the first and second floors of the property in question ,i.e. 51/8, Old No.SN32, Siri Nagar, near Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi110052 RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 13 of 19
ii) Three storeyed property measuring about 250 sq. mts. bearing No.24/20, Shakti Nagar, which is occupied by the petitioner and his uncle Sardar Jagmohan Singh and Aunt Ms. Preet Kaur and having ample space on the ground floor and the same is also located in commercial area. Iii) Plot measuring 100 sq. yds. bearing No.M153, Sector1, Bhawana Industrial Area, which is constructed upto three stories.
iv) Office/godown at Mayapuri. v) Office godown at B79, Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, Delhi 110035. vi) Office with a big hall in a building bearing No.5140, third floor, shop
No.56, Chaudhary Market, Rui Mandi, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar.
vii) Big shop on the first floor of the property bearing No.664, Gali No.11, Sadar Bazar, Delhi110006.
viii) Property bearing NO.416, Mercury House, Wazirpur, Industrial Complex, Wazirpur, Delhi.
26. Before proceeding further, at the outset it is mentioned that it is an admitted position that no documentary proof has been filed by the respondent in respect of any of the abovesaid alleged properties to show that they are either owned by or in the possession of the petitioner.
27. Now, firstly reverting to property bearing No. 51/8, Old No. SN 32, Siri Nagar, near Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi110052, admittedly the possession of two shops on the ground floor in the form of Shop No.10 and 13 is not disputed by the petitioner. However, as far as its upper floors are concerned, no record has been produced to show that the same are also possessed by the petitioner except the space which is admittedly made available to the petitioner on his request by his uncle. On the contrary, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the upper floor are under the tenancy of his uncle Jagmohan singh prior to its purchase and he is running his own RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 14 of 19 business from the said floors in partnership under the name of M/S Palco Plastics with Ms Preet Kaur widow of his another uncle Late Sh. Prithpal Singh. It is pertinent to mention here that PW7 Ms Preet Kaur has also deposed the same fact in her testimony and has even denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for respondent that they have shifted the business of the firm from the property in question to Plot no.M153, Bawana Industrial Area. She even denied the suggestion that father of the petitioner was ever a partner in the abovesaid partnership business. Moreover, the own admission of the respondent during his crossexamination that M/s. Palco Plastic was doing its work from the first floor and above further leaves no scope to believe that the upper floors the said property are available with the petitioner. Further, though in two other connected eviction petitions bearing no. 79562/2016 & 79563/16, Sh. Jagmohan Singh deposed on behalf of another respondent tenant and stated that he has surrendered the possession of the upper floor to petitioner, however, he has also not been able to substantiate such fact in those petitions through any documentary record. Thus, in view of the categorical deposition of PW7 that the business of her partnership firm M/s. Palco Plastic is still being run from the upper floor of the property in question and the failure of the respondent to contradict the petitioner or PW7 on that aspect, there is no reason for the Court to believe that the upper floors of the property in question are available with the petitioner and amounts to suitable alternate accommodation.
28. Now coming to another property bearing No.24/20, Shakti Nagar, the said property is stated to be occupied by the petitioner as well as his uncle Jagmohan Singh and aunt Ms. Preet Kaur and is also stated to be a residential property and the petitioner has further pleaded that he is only in the possession of ground floor thereof. During his crossexamination though the respondent deposed that he has seen the residential house of the petitioner at RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 15 of 19 Shakti Nagar, however, he further deposed that he did not see or cannot say that any commercial activity was going on in the said house. Further, no material was placed on record to show how the said property is available with the petitioner for his commercial need and how the same is suitable and an alternate accommodation when it was specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the same is a residential property and no commercial activities is permissible from such property. Neither any material has been placed on record to show the availability of the above said property nor any evidence was led to contradict the petitioner on his claim that no commercial activity is permissible from such property. Thus, the possibility of the the availability of the abovesaid property as suitable alternate accommodation for the bonafide requirement of the petitioner also gets ruled out.
29. Similarly, the alleged office/godown at Mayapuri, which was taken by the petitioner on license basis has also been stated to be already handed over to Sh. Sandeep Garg who has also confirmed the said fact during his examination in the Court and also proved the surrender of the said property vide surrendercumpossession letter dated 01.11.2017 Ex.PW6/1 executed between the petitoner and the Sandeep Garg. Further, the respondent has also failed to produce any material on record to the contrary to disprove the testimony of PW6. Moreover, since the said property was also obtained by the petitioner only on license basis against a license fee of Rs.15,000/, the same otherwise also cannot be considered as a suitable alternate accomodation as not owned by the petioner.
30. Likewise, the fact that PW7 Ms. Preet Kaur deposed that the plot bearing No. M153, Bawana Industrial Area was allotted to M/s. Palco Plastic with which the petitioner has no concern also rules out the availability of the said accommodation with the petitioner.
31. The other properties i.e. plot No. M113, Sector1, Bawana, RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 16 of 19 Industrial Area, office godown at B79, Industrial Area, GT Karnal Road, Delhi03, office with a big hall in building No.5140, Third Floor, Shop No.56, Chaudhary Preet Market, Rui Mandi, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, a big shop on the first floor of property No.664, Gali No.11, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and property bearing shop no.416, Mercury House, Wazirpur Complex, Wazirpur, Delhi52 have already been denied to be owned by or belonging to the petitioner and no evidence to contradict the petitioner has been placed on record by the respondent. Hence, none of the abovesaid property can also be said to be available with the petitioner.
32. Thus, as a net result the petitioner has been able to prove that he has no other suitable alternate accommodation to meet his bonafide requirement except the tenanted premises.
33. Now proceeding further to see as to how much space is required by the petitioner, indisputably, the petitioner is only in possession of two shops marked as shop No. 10 and 13 in the site plan on the ground floor of the property in question which are also stated to be situated at distance from each other and cannot be joined together. Further, it is also his case that he requires a proper shop, office, display area as well as space/cabin for his staff. The shops in the admitted possession of the petitioner are stated to be having a combined area of approximate 100 sq. feet whereas he has pleaded that he requires at least 5000 sq. feet of area for the smooth running of his business. The total area of the entire property is stated to be 116.5 sq. yds. and the said entire area even if made available would not provide a space of 5000 sq. feet of area to the petitioner. Apparently, there are 13 shops existing on the ground floor and apart from the abovesaid two shops, all the other shops are in the possession of the different tenants. The petitioner has also not specified the dimensions as to how much of area he is expecting for his shop, office, display area and sitting of staff. However, considering the fact that the total RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 17 of 19 area of the entire property is only 116.5 sq. yds. and thereafter taking into account the need specified by the petitioner in the form of requirement of a property shop, an office for his sitting, a reasonable space for the display of his goods and a reasonable space for sitting of his staff, it cannot be said that the demand of the petitioner to seek the tenanted property alongwith the entire remaining portion as existing on the ground floor is fanciful or unreasonable as in an area of only 116.5 sq. yds., it cannot be expected that the petitioner would be having more space than his required need. In an area of 116.5 sq. yds. generally only two or three big rooms can be constructed and considering the abovestated need of the petitioner, his demand for the tenanted property cannot be considered as unreasonable. Moreover, the respondent being a tenant can otherwise also not dictate the petitioner the manner in which he should satisfy his needs. The petitioner has envisaged his need for the entire area including the tenanted premises and he can not be dictated by the respondent or the court to squeeze his need.
34. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and finding, the court is of the considered view that the petitioner has successfully discharged his burden to prove the parties are in an admitted landlordtenant relationship, the tenanted property is bonafidely required by the petitioner for the bonafide need of running of his business and there is no other equally suitable alternate accommodation available with him to satisfy such bonafide need.
35. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed against the respondent qua the tenanted premises i.e. two shops situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. 51/8, Old No.SN32, Siri Nagar, near Shakti Nagar Extension, Delhi110052 marked as Shop No.11 and 12 and as specifically shown in the red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
36. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to obtain possession of the above tenanted premises before the expiry of the period of six months RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 18 of 19 from the date of this order in terms of Section 14 (7) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
37. File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of judgment be given dasti to both the sides on request.
Digitally signed by BALWINDER BALWINDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
Announced in the open Court 2023.01.11
15:10:53 +0100
on this 11th day of January, 2023
(Balwinder Singh)
SCJcumRC: Central District:
11.01.2023
RC ARC No. 79081/2016 Gurpreet Singh Arora Vs. Shamshuddin Page 19 of 19