Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajiv Gupta Huf vs M/S Mani Ram & Sons on 11 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL, ARC-1, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. E-1068/14 (New No.78599/16)
Unique Case ID/CNR No.DLCT03-001154-2014
Sh. Rajiv Gupta HUF
Through its Karta
Sh. Rajiv Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Sudarshan Lal
R/o 4332/3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj
New Delhi-110002. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Mani Ram & Sons
4329/3, Ansari Road
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal
Proprietor of Mani Ram & Sons
4329/3, Ansari Road
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002
3. Smt. Shakuntala Devi
W/o Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal
4. Smt. Santosh Bala
Daughter of Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal
5. Smt. Madhubala
D/o Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal
4329/3, Ansari Road
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002
Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 1 of 24
6. Sh. Madan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Mani Ram
4329/3, Ansari Road
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. ...Respondents
Date of Institution of Petition : 18.10.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 09.12.2019
Date of decision : 11.12.2019
Decision : Application seeking leave to defend
filed on behalf of respondents no.
1 and 2 is allowed.
ORDER
1. This is a petition for eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This order shall dispose off the application seeking leave to defend filed by respondents no. 1 and 2.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and landlord of a shop on the ground floor bearing no. 4329, situated at No.3, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi-110002 as shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises'). It is pleaded that the respondents are occupying this property as tenants and the monthly rate of rent is Rs.700/- including house tax.
3. It is stated that the property was earlier owned by Sh.Johri Lal who died Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 2 of 24 executing a Will in favour of his daughter Smt. Shanti Devi. Accordingly, Smt. Shanti Devi became owner of the tenanted premises. Smt. Shanti Devi also died executing a registered Will in favour of her son Mr. Rajiv Gupta, thereby making the said Mr. Rajiv Gupta, the owner of the property. Mr. Rajiv Gupta then put the property in the petitioner HUF. Accordingly, the petitioner HUF which comprises of Mr. Rajiv Gupta, his wife Smt. Alka Gupta and their two sons Mr. Sahil and Mr. Sidharth, became the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises.
4. It is stated that the petitioner has following properties:-
(a) Part of the ground floor of property no. 4328 to 4334, situated at 3, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi measuring about 400 sq. ft. as shown in green color in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition - being used by Smt. Alka Gupta, wife of Mr. Rajiv Gupta for doing her business and by Mr. Rajiv Gupta for doing his business.
(b) Part of the first floor of property no. 4328 to 4334, situated at 3, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi which is not colored in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition.
(c) Part of the first floor of property no. 4328 to 4334, situated at 3, Ansari Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 3 of 24 Road, Daryaganj, Delhi as shown in blue color in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition - being used by Mr. Nitin Gupta, nephew of Mr. Rajiv Gupta, for his business.
(d) Mezzanine floor of property no. 4328 to 4334, situated at 3, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi as shown in blue color in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition - being used by Mr. Nitin Gupta, nephew of Mr. Rajiv Gupta, for his business.
(e) Part of the ground floor of property no. 4328 to 4334, situated at 3, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi as shown in yellow color in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition - being used by another tenant, namely, M/s Kishori Lal & Sons
(f) Residential plots no. 65 & 76, DLF Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad
(g) Residential property no. 97, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi - used for the residence of the petitioner except the ground floor which was with a tenant who has vacated the premises with effect from 01.09.2014.
(h) Residential plot no. B-15/3, DLF Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad
(i) Half of residential plot no. D-27/C-5, Tronica City, Ghaziabad
(j) Residential plot no. D-21/B1, Tronica City, Ghaziabad
(k) Residential plot No. B-68/C7, Tronica City, Ghaziabad Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 4 of 24
5. It is stated that the petitioner and none of its members have any other property except what is mentioned hereinabove.
6. It is pleaded that the space available for the businesses of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife Smt. Alka Gupta is not sufficient keeping in view the large machines etc. that are installed in the premises and the number of employees that are working there. It is stated that due to paucity of space, the paper used for the printing and publishing businesses of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife, has to be stored on the first floor. It is pleaded that taking the paper to the first floor is cumbersome and increases costs.
7. It is stated that the tenanted premises is required for the furtherance and expansion of the business of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife. It is averred that the portions in green, red and yellow color shall be integrated and join the businesses being run.
8. Petitioner has prayed that eviction order may be passed in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
9. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondents. The Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 5 of 24 respondents no. 1 and 2 filed an application seeking leave to defend. It is stated that petitioner is neither the owner nor landlord of the tenanted premises. It is pleaded that the petitioner and his mother are mere rent collectors on behalf of the landlord Sh. Johri Lal.
10. It is stated that the petitioner is already in possession of around 800 sq. ft. on the ground floor, 1100 sq. ft. on the first floor and more than 1100 sq. ft. on the roof, of property no. 4328 to 4334 situated at No.3, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi. It is stated that besides that the petitioner has some other properties. It is pleaded that the petitioner does not need the tenanted premises and has sufficient commercial accommodation for its use.
11. It is stated that the petitioner has number of tenants and is getting good rental income. It is stated that earning of petitioner is not less than Rs.9 lakhs from all sources.
12. The respondents have pleaded that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is fake and malafide and have prayed that leave to defend the petition may be granted to the respondents as the application/affidavit of the respondents/tenants disclose such facts as would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises under Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 6 of 24 section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
13. The petitioner filed reply to the application seeking leave to defend. The petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of its eviction petition. In particular it is stated that Mr. Johri Lal and the mother of Mr. Rajiv Gupta had died long back. It is pleaded that the respondents have not stated as to who is the owner of the property if not the petitioner herein.
14. It is denied that the petitioner has 800 sq. ft. upon the ground floor and 1100 sq. ft on the first floor of the property. It is stated that only about 400 sq. ft. area is available with the petitioner on the ground floor and only about 183 sq. ft on the first floor. It is stated that the ground and first floor plans with dimensions have already been filed by the petitioner. It is stated that the second floor is an open terrace and carrying out construction on it is not advisable. It is stated that the requirement of the petitioner is for a ground floor property.
15. The respondents filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner and denied the averments made in the reply of the petitioner and simultaneously reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the application. Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 7 of 24
16. I have heard arguments and carefully gone through the record. The petitioner has filed copy of the Wills executed by Mr. Johri Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi. It has been admitted by the respondents that the Mr. Johri Lal was the owner of the property. Even though, the respondents have denied the ownership of Smt. Shanti Devi and Mr. Rajiv Gupta over the property, they have not denied the authenticity of the Wills, copy of which have been filed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the respondents do not even have any locus to dispute the Wills relied upon by the petitioner. It has also not been denied that Mr. Johir Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi have died. Since they have died, it was incumbent upon the respondents to disclose as to who really is the owner of the property if not the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Gupta and before him Smt. Shanti Devi. A mere bald denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondents does not give rise to any triable issue. In the case of Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008(153) DLT 247, the Hon'ble High Court held that it was not in the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. It was observed that if a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his favour, he is deemed to have discharged his burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, it cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 8 of 24 landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner. This Court is therefore of the view that the denial by the respondents that the petitioner is owner of the property does not give rise to any triable issue and that the petitioner is indeed the owner of the property and there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents herein.
17. The petitioner has claimed that the space available for the businesses of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife in property bearing no. 4328-4334, 3, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi is not sufficient and therefore, there is a requirement for the tenanted premises for the furtherance and expansion of the businesses. This Court is of the opinion that whether the space already available for the business is sufficient or not can be decided only after granting an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The claims made by the petitioner about the area required for the businesses cannot be presumed to be gospel truth. Since the requirement of the petitioner is for additional accommodation, leave to defend should not be refused to the respondents, in this regard, reference is made to the decisions in the cases of S.M. Mehra Vs. D.D. Malik (2001) 1 SCC 256 and Santosh Devi Sohni Vs. Chand Kiran (2001) 1 SCC 255. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 9 of 24 of Sh. Mittar Sen Vs. Sh. Rajesh Kumar RC Rev. No.196/2013 dated 22.08.2014 relied upon by the petitioner in this regard does not apply to the facts of the present case. In this case of Mittar Sen Vs. Rajesh Kumar, it was contended by the landlord that there was no alternative suitable accommodation available with him. He also provided particulars to show insufficiency of the accommodation already available for his existing business. On the other hand, the tenant had not made any averment as to the existence of alternate, suitable commercial accommodation. However, in the present case, the tenant has alleged that there exists alternative suitable commercial accommodation for the requirement of the petitioner. More importantly, contrary to the claims of the petitioner as made in the reply to the application for leave to defend, it has not disclosed the dimensions of the area already available with it on the ground and first floors of the property. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the dimensions have been mentioned in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition. However, on perusal of the site plan, the dimensions purported to have been mentioned, are barely visible. As such, the landlord in the present case has not provided particulars to show insufficiency of the accommodation already available for his existing business.
Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 10 of 24
18. In the absence of any material placed on record by the petitioner, it cannot be presumed that its contention that it only has 400 sq. ft. on the ground floor in its possession is correct and the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has 800 sq. ft. on the ground floor is false. Also, it must be noted herein that the petitioner has no where even mentioned in the entire eviction petition that the properties already available with it and its members are not suitable for the business requirement of the petitioner. This is another reason how the facts of the present case are different from the facts in the aforesaid case of Mittar Sen Vs. Rajesh Kumar wherein it was categorically contended by the landlord that there was no alternative suitable accommodation available with him. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arjun Uppal & Anr. Vs. Seth & Sons Pvt. Ltd. RC (Rev.) No.28/2012 dated 04.09.2012 upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller by which leave to defend was granted since the requirement of the landlord was for additional accommodation. Leave was granted also for the reason that the tenanted premises was situated in slum area and therefore, there was a requirement for the landlord to take prior permission before carrying out structural change in the property which he had contended is required to be done before he can use it for his purported requirement. It was held that the landlord had not Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 11 of 24 obtained prior permission for carrying out the structural change in the property. In the present case as well, it has been contended that the petitioner that it will be utilizing the tenanted premises by integrating and joining the properties adjoining the tenanted premises. Even though it has not been contended by the respondents in their application for leave to defend that the property is situated in slum area, yet, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that since the property is situated at Daryaganj, Ansari Road, it is part of the walled city and the entire area of the walled city has been notified as slum areas. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Harish Chander Malik Vs. Vivek Kumar Gupta & Ors. 186(2012) DLT 697. In this case of Harish Chander Malik, the respondents had failed to file their written statement and as such, their defence could not be considered by the Court. However, the Hon'ble High Court held that the trial Court had correctly taken judicial notice of the fact that the tenanted premises is situated in a notified slum area. The following was held in this case:-
"39. Lastly it is contended by Counsel for the appellant that trial Court has erred in taking judicial notice of the fact that the said shop lies in a notified slums area and that the question whether the shop lies in a notified slum area or not is a question of fact, which requires Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 12 of 24 leading of evidence. There is no force in the aforesaid contention of the Counsel for the appellant in view of the fact that under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, the Courts are empowered to take judicial notice of certain notorious facts and various judgment have been cited before this Court by the Counsel for respondent. It is contended by Counsel for respondent that looking upon the notification declaring Chandni Chowk to be a noted slum area would amount to considering evidence. I find the aforesaid contention to be without any merit since taking judicial notice means that the Court is itself duty- bound to hunt up the fact and apply it even though the parties or their Counsel fail to produce it. Further while taking judicial notice of a fact, a judge may resort to any such means of reference as may be at hand and are deemed to be worthy of confidence. I further find that during the course of arguments of the appeal, the appellant has till date not denied the fact that the said shop is situated in a notified slum area and thus, I am fortified with the view of the trial Court that the trial Court has correctly taken judicial notice of the fact that Chandni Chowk is a notified slum area."
19. Since the petitioner intends to join the tenanted premises alongwith adjacent portions, it would require structural changes to be carried out in the property. Since the tenanted premises is situated in a notified slum area, the petitioner requires permission before it could carried out structural changes. Since the permission has not been obtained, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case of Arjun Uppal, this is another reason why the respondents should be granted leave to defend the present case Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 13 of 24 since the non-filing of permission creates a doubt on the purported bonafide requirement of the petitioner for the tenanted premises.
20. In the last lines of the first paragraph on page no. 29 of the eviction petition, the petitioner has stated that neither the petitioner nor its members have any other property than what have been stated in the petition. However, despite listing the numerous properties that the members of the petitioner HUF own, it has not been stated that these numerous properties are not suitable for the requirement of businesses of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife. It has already been observed hereinabove that the petitioner has no where stated in the eviction petition that the petitioner and its members do not have any other property which is suitable for their requirement. Therefore, a necessary ingredient of Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act has not been pleaded by the petitioner. In the case of N D Khanna Vs. M/s Hindustan Industrial Corporation AIR 1981 Delhi 305, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that for obtaining an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord has to plead and prove the following ingredients:-
(i) That he is the owner landlord of the Suit premises;
(ii) That the premises were let for residential purposes;
(iii) That he requires the premises for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him;Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 14 of 24
(iv) That he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation.
21. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that Order 7 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure provides that the plaint shall contain the facts constituting the cause of action, etc. The Hon'ble Court observed that the petitioner had not pleaded that she has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation. It was held that if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the Court has no option but to reject the same. It was further held that replication may be part of the pleadings, but the facts constituting the cause of action must be pleaded in the plaint and not in the replication.
22. Even though the respondents have not taken an objection in their application for leave to defend that the necessary ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) have not been pleaded by the petitioner, as has been held in the case of N D Khanna, "it is the duty of the Court to see whether the plaint contains necessary allegations which must be proved before a decree can be given". Even though the respondent has not taken an objection in this regard, the Court has to on its own check if the eviction petition discloses a cause of action.
23. In view of the decision in the case of N D Khanna, a triable issue arises on whether the properties that are already available with the members of the petitioner HUF are suitable for the stated requirements or not. Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 15 of 24
24. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the requirements disclosed in the eviction petition are exaggerated and even if the petitioner occupies the entire building including the tenanted premises, it will still not satisfy the requirements disclosed in the eviction petition. It is argued that the area of the tenanted premises is just about 34 sq. ft.
25. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the area of the tenanted premises is about 200 sq. ft.
26. This Court is of the opinion that the assertions of either of the parties in this case with regard to the requirement for the businesses of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife and the area of the tenanted premises cannot be accepted or rejected outrightly without giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in this regard. This Court is also of the opinion that the averment of the petitioner with regard to the area required for the various machines and paper used for the businesses of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife cannot blindly be accepted to be correct.
27. At this stage, when the application for leave to defend is to be decided, the Court is not required to check proof of the defence raised by the tenant. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Precision Steel & Engineering Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal 1982 AIR Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 16 of 24 1518, is relevant, the following was held in this case:-
"The language of sub-section 5 of Section 25-B casts a statutory duty on the Controller to give to the tenant leave to contest the application, the only pre-condition for exercise of jurisdiction being that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground mentioned in section 14(1)(e). Upon a true construction of proviso (e) to section 14(1) it would unmistakably appear that the burden is on the landlord to satisfy the Controller that the premises of which possession is sought is: (i) let for residential purposes : and (ii) possession of the premises is required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family etc. and (iii) that the landlord or the person for whose benefit possession is sought has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. This burden, landlord is required to discharge before the Controller gets jurisdiction to make an order for eviction. This necessarily transpires from the language of Section 14(1) which precludes the Controller from making any order or decree for recovery of possession unless the landlord proves to his satisfaction the condition in the enabling provision enacted as proviso under which possession is sought. Initial burden is thus on the landlord.
...On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by landlord the Controller has to pose to himself the only question: Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to section 14(1). The Controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 17 of 24 of affidavits against other set of affidavits. That is not the jurisdiction conferred on the Controller by sub-sec. 5 because the Controller while examining the question whether there is a proper case for granting leave to contest the application has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant disclosing such facts as would prima facie and not on contest disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. At the stage when affidavit is filed under sub-section (4) by the tenant and the same is being examined for the purposes of sub-section (5) the Controller has to confine himself only to the averments in the affidavit and the reply if any and that becomes manifestly clear from the language of sub-section (5) that the Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession etc. The jurisdiction to grant leave to contest or refuse the same is to be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant. That alone at stage is the relevant document and one must confine to the averments in the affidavit. If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence raise by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown."
28. Reliance is also placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 18 of 24 Court in the cases of Santosh Kumar Vs. Bhai Mool Singh 1958 AIR 321, Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand (1983) 1 SCC 301 and Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh I (2001) SLT 1.
29. In view of the aforementioned decisions, the Court cannot at this stage decide whether Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife indeed require more space for their machines, paper and their employees. The Court also cannot outrightly reject the contention that the petitioner already has sufficient accommodation for the two businesses. This court is of the view that the landlord being the best judge of his requirement is not an absolute principle of law. The court is required to check the bonafide of the alleged requirement of petitioner for seeking possession of the tenanted premises. In this context, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Khem Chand & Ors. vs Arjun Jain & Ors. Rev. No.442/2012 dated 13 September, 2013. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the following in this case:
"39. It is true that there are other cases where in the appropriate facts the courts have held that the landlord is the best judge to decide his convenience. The said are the line of the cases where the landlord is put to the extreme hardship by tenant's insistence that he should adjust to inconvenient premises by squeezing his needs. The facts of the present case are entirely different where the landlord is enjoying the property Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 19 of 24 with in the same location though as a tenant coupled with another property lying vacant within the same location though on the different floor owned by the landlord himself where the business can be carried out as per the market conditions and thereafter the landlord is seeking to vacate the third property in the same location on the basis of bonafide need and non availability of the alternative accommodation which raises the doubt on the need of the landlord as not felt need but fanciful desire. ... It is not the thumb rule that in every case the landlord always is the best judge and the court is helpless by not scrutinizing the stand of the tenant while testing the reasonableness and suitability of the alternative accommodation. Actually it depends upon the case to case basis. The courts have otherwise also held consistently that even though the landlord is the best judge to decide his needs and he cannot be compelled by the tenant to accommodate at the place which is lesser in any way than the place which is sought to be evicted, still the court would examine the reasonableness and suitability of the existing accommodation by weighing what is available with the landlord vis-à-vis the plea of the tenant.
...42. The Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar lal, AIR 1981 SC 1113 which is a three bench decision passed by the court speaking through Hon'ble Desai, J. (as His Lordship then was) has categorically flawed this approach of mechanically stating that the landlord is the best judge without applying a judicious approach in the matter."
30. In the case of M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors. 1981 AIR 1113, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held the following:- Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 20 of 24
"It would, however, be a bald statement unsupported by the Rent Act to say that the landlord has an unfettered right to choose whatever premises he wants and that too irrespective of the fact that he has some vacant premises in possession which he would not occupy and try to seek to remove the tenant. This approach would put a premium on the landlord's greed to throw out tenants paying lower rent in the name of personal occupation and rent out the premises in his possession at the market rate."
31. The very purpose of creation of machinery of Rent Controllers and Additional Rent Controllers, is that the plea of the landlord is to be tested on the anvil of bonafide. The ground on which the landlord is seeking eviction of tenant has thus been put to test and this itself implies that the grounds urged have to be carefully scrutinized rather than being accepted on face value.
32. The aforesaid decisions make it incumbent for the court to analyse the alleged requirement of the landlord and assess if it is natural, real, sincere and honest. It has already been explained hereinabove that there are doubts on the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises and availability of alternative suitable accommodations.
33. In the case of Liaq Ahmed and Ors. Vs Habeeb-Ur-Rehman (2000) 5 SCC 708, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rent control legislations Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 21 of 24 seek to strike a balance between the rights of the landlord and requirements of the tenant. It was held that the purpose of the legislation should not be nullified by giving hyper technical or liberal construction to the language of the statute which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in its frustration. It was observed that Rent Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection to the tenants and with paramount object of essentially safeguarding their interest and their benefit. It was held that a rational approach should be followed in interpreting the law relating to control of tenants.
34. The petitioner claims that the space already under use for the businesses of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife are not sufficient for their businesses. Yet, as per their own case, part of their own property has been given to their relative Mr. Nitin Gupta. It has not been disclosed as to why and in what circumstances, the property is being allowed to be used by Mr. Nitin Gupta despite the fact that Mr. Rajiv Gupta is facing paucity of accommodation. The petitioner has not even disclosed the dimensions and area of the tenanted premises and the remaining portions of property no. 4328 to 4334. No material has been placed on record which establishes that the area of various portions is indeed what has been claimed by the Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 22 of 24 petitioner. The denials by the petitioner to the assertions of the respondents with regard to the area of the property are bald denials.
35. The prime question to be answered is that whether the tenanted premises is required bonafide by the landlord for his use and whether he has no alternative suitable accommodation for his requirement. If on such vague pleas as is taken in the present eviction petition, tenant protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act is allowed to be evicted, it would frustrate the very purpose of the enactment of the beneficial legislation, since every landlord can take such a plea that he wants his property for business or residence without giving any further details and placing material and this plea would, if the case of the petitioner's contention is accepted, would be judicially inscrutable.
36. This Court is of the view that triable issues have been raised with regard to the requirement of more space for the businesses of Mr. Rajiv Gupta and his wife and the sufficiency of space already available with them for their businesses. There are sufficient grounds which entitle the respondents no. 1 and 2 to have leave to defend and contest the present eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act of the petitioner.
37. Accordingly, the application of the respondents no. 1 and 2 seeking Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 23 of 24 leave to defend is allowed. Let the written statement be filed within 30 days from today after supplying advance copy to the petitioner. Replication be filed within 30 days from receiving copy of the written statement after supplying advance copy to the respondents no. 1 and 2.
38. To come up for petitioner's evidence on 25.03.2020. Advance copy of evidence by way of affidavit be supplied to the respondents no. 1 and 2 at Digitally signed least 15 days prior to the next date of hearing. Shirish by Shirish Aggarwal Aggarwal Date:
2019.12.11 15:53:08 +0530 SHIRISH AGGARWAL ARC-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court on 11.12.2019) Eviction petition No.1068/14 (New No. 78599/16) Page 24 of 24