Delhi District Court
M/S Adroit Holding Pvt. Ltd vs . on 24 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CUM RENT CONTROLLER, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
RC ARC 55/19
In the matter of :-
M/s Adroit Holding Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
M/s Soma Exporters
M/s Adroit Holding Pvt. Ltd.
H-108, Connaught Circus,
Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001
......Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Soma Exporters
Through its partner
Ms. Gulshan Bajaj
G-74, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi 110003
2. M/s Shikha Constructions pvt. Ltd.
46, Regal Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110001
3. Sh. I M Garg
46, Regal Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110001
4. M/s Garg & Associates
46, Regal Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110001
5. M/s IMG Architects Pvt. Ltd.
46, Regal Building, Connaught Place,
New Delhi 110001
......Respondents
Date of Institution : 17.12.2019
Date of order when reserved : 20.05.2023
Date of order when announced : 24.05.2023
RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 1 of 35
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. Vide this order, the undersigned shall dispose of the leave to defend filed by the respondent against the petitioner U/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 read with Section 25 B of DRC Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), in respect of premises 46, First Floor, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises).
2. The averments as mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner Company/Landlord is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, on 17th day of July, 1996 which was formerly known as M/s Victoria Properties Holdings Private Ltd. And M/s Nisha Properties Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that the company was incorporated with an object to enter into the business of real estate and other various business activities which have been detailed out in the Memorandum of Association of the Company. It is further stated that he petitioner company initially was having its registered office at the time of its incorporation at Room No.1, 111/9, Kishangarh Main Road, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070 but later the above said registered office was shifted to A-19/1, Mahipalpur Extension Street No.1, New Delhi 110037 with effect from 09 th July, 2001 being the said address as well as property was not available with company to have its registered office. It is further stated that the registered office of the company thereafter shifted to 302, K.C. House 5/66, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 w.e.f. 28.09.2004. It is further stated that the registered office of the company was again shifted to 203, Himgiri, 19, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi 110055 w.e.f. 01.04.2011. It is further stated that the company again had shifted its registered office to 1 st Floor 14 Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi 110055 w.e.f. 01.11.2012, and thereafter, w.e.f. 01.03.2017, again the registered office of the company shifted to H-108, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, New Delhi RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 2 of 35 110001. It is further stated that the above premises were used as registered offices were either taken on rent or on license from its owners and the above premises in which the petitioner company used to have its registered office were not owned by the company and as such the same are not available with the company from the date on which the registered addresses of the company had changed with the Registrar of Companies. It is further stated that the Company at present is maintaining its registered office from the premises taken from M/s Good Luck Estates Pvt. Ltd on a license fee of Rs.1000.00 per month which is a mandatory requirement of Companies Act to maintain its registered office for the purpose of the necessary compliances of the Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act. It is further stated that except of the above premises, the earlier premises are no more available with the petitioner company on which the petitioner company was having its registered office prior to 01.03.2017. It is further stated that petitioner company is an active company and as per the requirement of the company law, the company has to conduct Annual General Meeting, Extra General Body meeting and meeting of its Board of Directors either at the registered office or any other place which is to be arranged on payment of user charges. It is further stated that the space which has been taken by the petitioner Company on license basis is only a table space from its associates company only for having its registered office and for keeping its statutory records and since the petitioner company does not have any place to conduct its board meetings, statutory meetings and business meetings, the company is finding it difficult to carry out its business or plan its expansion. It is further stated that petitioner company at present is sustaining itself on the earning from its brokerage/commission earned from advising corporate about various investment portfolios available in the market. It is further stated that the petitioner company is not able to plan its growth in the absence of the space. It is further stated that the petitioner company during the last three financial years has done the RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 3 of 35 business of Rs.51,173/-, Rs.53457/- and Rs.1,23,099/- and the petitioner company on the basis of its aforesaid turnover can only sustain itself but cannot afford to take a property on rent in Delhi. It is further stated that the Company's main object is to get into the business of Real Estate and considering the said object in mind the company had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 27th September, 1996 where it had agreed to purchase the demised premises from its erstwhile owner and the Sale Deed was executed on 21.12.2009. It is further stated that in the sale deed dated 21.12.2009, there was discrepancy in relation to the area of the premises accordingly Deed of Rectification of the area of the demised premises was signed and registered on 24th July, 2014. It is further stated that the demised premises had been acquired by petitioner/landlord company which was leased out to M/s Soma Exporter/respondent no.1 by erstwhile owner Daljit Singh. It is further stated that M/s Soma Exporters / respondent no.1 had without the prior written consent of the land lord/owner in writing sub-let the demised premises to M/s Shikha Construction Pvt. Ltd. / respondent no.2 and M/s T.R. Anand and Associates vide sub lease deed dated 25.05.1985 on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- per month. It is further stated that respondent no.2 company was a private limited company formed by Mr. T.R. Anand and his wife on 12.06.1984 and Mr. T R Anand was the proprietor of M/s T R Anand and Associates. It is further stated that the respondent no.2 company was incorporated on 12.06.1984 by Mr. T.R. Anand and his wife and the respondent no.2 and M/s T R Anand and associates had orally partitioned the demised premises on 23.11.1989. It is further stated that respondent no.2 vide sub-lease dated 30.12.1989 sub-let its portion of the demised premises to respondent no.3 to 5 on a monthly rent of Rs.1400/- per month. It is further stated that M/s T R Anand who had sold its sub-lease right in the demise premises to the respondent no.5 vide agreement dated 28.12.1989 and further vide release deed dated 17.12.1990, released and relinquished all his rights and interest in the sub-tenancy of the demised RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 4 of 35 premises in favour of the joint tenant i.e. respondent no.2. It is further stated that M/s T.R. Anand and associates had executed a full and final receipt dated 08.01.1991 in favour of respondent no.2 against all claims, rights title or interest in respect of fittings, fixture and lease of the premises. It is further stated that the family members of respondent no.3 to 5 after taking the demised premises from the respondent no.2 vide sub- lease dated 25.05.1995 acquired the entire share-holding and control of the respondent no.2 Company.
3. It is stated that the company on the basis of declaration of the erstwhile owner made in the Agreement to Sell/Sale deed dated 21.12.2009 preferred an eviction proceedings against tenants including sub-tenants under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on 28.08.2010 being eviction petition no.5620/2016 (old number eviction petition no.25/2010) and the same petition was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2019 whereby the Ld. Rent Controller has held that sub tenancy by M/s Soma Exporters is valid. It is further stated that he company has filed an appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the Rent Control Tribunal, Patiala House, new Delhi being Appeal No.RCT 17/2019 titled M/s Adroit Holdings Private Ltd. Vs. Soma Exporters Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that the said appeal still pending adjudication before the Tribunal. It is further stated that the company had purchased the premises from its erstwhile owner vide Sale Deed dated 21st December, 2009/rectification deed was registered on 24 th July, 2014 as such the restriction paced in Section 14 (6) of the Act does not apply as the period of five years had already been lapsed from the date of purchase i.e. execution of the sale deed/rectification deed. It is further stated that the petitioner company is dire in need of the demised premises for its bonafide use and occupation as the petitioner company at present is just managing its affair and business from the table space taken on license n the premises bearing no.H-108, Connaught Circus, RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 5 of 35 Connaught Place, New Delhi and the petitioner company does not have any other property available in Delhi, except the demised premises, where it can have its registered office on its own property and carry its existing business activities and save the expenses which the petitioner Company is paying to the Licensor i.e. M/s Good Luck Estates Pvt. Ltd @ Rs.1000/- per month for maintaining its registered office. It is further stated that the respondents are in possession of the demised premises in the capacity of tenants/sub-tenants. It is further stated that the petitioner company vide its board resolution dated 28.08.2019 has authorized its one of the Director namely Sh. Sanjeev Mittal to file the present eviction petition. It is further stated that the company does not have any other immovable property except the demised premises in Delhi where it can have its own registered office and carry out its business activity and the company needs the demised premises for its use and occupation for maintaining its registered office and carried out its business activities and day-to-day affairs and the company can plan to expand its business activities to increase its revenue which is at present the company not able to achieve due to non availability of a property office space. With aforesaid, it is prayed that to pass an order of eviction against the respondents from the demised premises under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act as the petitioner company requires the premises for its bonafide need.
4. The summons of the petition were served upon the respondents and respondent no.1 to 5 have filed application for leave to defend the petition seeking permission to contest the petition.
5. Respondent no.1 in his application of leave to defend has stated that the eviction petition is filed by the petitioner with the malafide intention and the requirement vis-a-vis the tenanted premises sought for in the petition is neither genuine nor proper and the circumstances is not bonafide and RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 6 of 35 the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that the eviction petition is without any cause of action and not maintainable. It is argued that the present eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act is not applicable to commercial premises and it is only by virtue and implication of Satyawati Sharma (dead) through LRs Vs. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 2007 have extended to commercial premises, but the said judgment is per incuriam as it does not take into consideration previous pronouncements of Apex Court and the question of applicability of the aforesaid judgment to commercial premises is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed. It is argued that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material particulars within his personal knowledge. It is argued that the need projected by the petitioner is in the nature of purported expansion of business and hence, need for additional space/accommodation cannot be termed as bonafide requirement. It is argued that the petitioner has himself admitted that Good Luck Estates Pvt. Ltd. is an associate company of the petitioner who is running its office from the premises having No.H-108, Connaught Place, New Delhi and therefore, the petitioner is in possession, use, occupation and control of the entire aforesaid premises and therefore, the need of the petitioner is not bonafide. It is further argued that the petitioner is virtually a proprietorship concern of Sh. Virender Kumar, Director of the petitioner, who has incorporated / acquired various companies with him and his family members being Directors and is already carrying out several businesses in the name of Millionaire Estates Pvt. Ltd. Roger Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Monnet International Ltd., Jai Bajgrang Bali Finance Pvt. Ltd. Admire Holdings Pvt. Ltd. And all the aforesaid companies are carring out their business and have registered offices at H-108, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, New Delhi. It is further argued that all the aforesaid companies share the common email ID which can be verified RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 7 of 35 from the master data of all the aforesaid companies available on the website of Ministry of Coorporate Affairs.
6. It is further argued that the premises H-108, is having area of 2800-3000 Sq. Ft which is in use and occupation of the petitioner and thus, the need projected by the petitioner is malafide. It is further argued that all the aforesaid companies have common Directors, Registered Office as well as email ID. Further the petitioner is also having other shell companies working in his name. It is further argued that the petitioner has time to time changed its name from Victoria Properties Holding Pvt. Ltd. to Nisha Properties Pvt. Ltd. And presently Adroit Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
7. It is argued that the petitioner is in occupation of the following properties.
a). Flat No.23, having a covered area of 1450 Sq. Ft. on ground floor of Regal Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (owned by petitioner under Agreement to Sell dated 27.09.1996).
b) Area of 700 Sq. Ft. on first Floor Regal Buidling, Connaught Place, new Delhi (owned by petitioner under Sale deed dated 21.12.2009).
c) Flat no.64/64A, Second Floor, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi having an area of approximately 1400 Sq. Ft. (Owned by petitioner under agreement to sale dated 04.10.1996, further the respondent came to know that the erstwhile owner has since executed sale deed in respect of said property in October, 2019 in favor of the petitioner and the draft sale deed has been relied upon by respondent no.1).
d) H-24, Green Park Extension New Delhi.
e) 302, K C House, 5/66, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
8. Respondent no.1 has further argued that the petitioner has not described the demised premises properly in the eviction petition has not mentioned regarding the size and measurement and the site plan filed by the RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 8 of 35 petitioner is incorrect. It is further argued that the respondent no.1 has sub-let the property as per law which has been upheld by the judgment dated 18.02.2019 and the appeal against the same filed by the petitioner is pending before the appellate Court.
9. It is further argued that the petitioner has sufficient space in the premises of H-108, Connaught Circus, Connanght Place, New Delhi which is available with them and the petitioner is carrying out all his business activities, and the petitioner has failed to explain the manner in which he wishes to plan for expansion of his business and the same being triable issue, the leave to defend be granted to respondent no.1. It is further argued that the eviction petition has not been signed or verified by a competent person and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further argued that the petitioner has intentionally not disclosed regarding the previous eviction petition filed by him against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) vide eviction petition no.28/2010 which was withdrawn by the petitioner and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.05.2013, and therefore, the leave to defend be granted to respondent no.1.
10. Respondent no.1 has relied upon the copy of agreement to sell dated 27.09.1996, copy of sale deed dated 21.12.2009, Draft sale deed of October, 2019, Master Data of Companies and Order dated 18.03.2011 and 01.05.2013 in Ev No.28/2010 by Sh. Gorak Nath Pandey SCJ cum RC, New Delhi.
11. To the aforesaid leave to defend, petitioner filed the reply and has stated that the leave to contest filed by respondent no.1 is liable to be dismissed since the demise premises is in possession of sub-tenants as the premises has been sub-let by respondent no.1 and respondent no.1 has failed to show any triable issue. It is further argued that the petitioner has RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 9 of 35 specifically averred the reasons in the eviction petition to seek the vacation of the demised premises from the respondents. In the aforesaid reply it has been specifically mentioned by the petitioner regarding all the aforesaid premises pointed out by respondent no.1 to be not in possession of the respondent.
12. It is argued that the following premises are not occupied, owned or possessed by the petitioner i.e.
a). Flat No.23, having a covered area of 1450 Sq. Ft. on ground floor of Regal Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (owned by petitioner under Agreement to Sell dated 27.09.1996), but the same has already been disposed of by the petitioner company in the month of March, 2009 to S M & Sons through Agreement to Sell on as is where is basis.
b) Area of 700 Sq. Ft. on first Floor Regal Buidling, Connaught Place, new Delhi (owned by petitioner under Sale deed dated 21.12.2009) , but the aforesaid office space is in the possession of M/s Khadi & Village Industries Corporation and when the petitioner sent a notice to M/s Khadi & Village Industries Corporation dated 07.05.2011, in reply dated 02.06.2011, it has been stated that the aforesaid area is a common portion of passage with toilet block which is in their use and occupation since 1976 onwards and upon verifying, the petitioner came to know that the aforesaid space is not an office space as depicted in the sale deed and the copies of the above communication have been annexed with the reply.
c) Flat no.64/64A, Second Floor, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi having an area of approximately 1400 Sq. Ft. (Owned by petitioner under agreement to sale dated 04.10.1996, further the respondent came to know that the erstwhile owner has since executed sale deed in respect of said property in October, 2019 in favor of the petitioner and the draft sale deed has been relied upon by respondent no.1), it is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner never agreed nor purchased the same from its owner and the alleged draft sale deed placed on record by RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 10 of 35 respondent no.1 is forged and fabricated.
d) H-24, Green Park Extension New Delhi and e) 302, K C House, 5/66, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi are not in occupation of the petitioner company as there were only at some point of time used as Registered Office of the petitioner company.
13. To the aforesaid reply, on behalf of the petitioner to the leave to defend, rejoinder on behalf of the respondent no.1 was filed and respondent no.1 reiterated the contentions raised by respondent no.1 in the leave to defend.
14. Respondent no.2 to 5 also filed leave to defend in respect to the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated by respondent no.2 to 5 that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts with regard to the assets and properties of the petitioner. It is stated that the status of the petitioner being a land lord is also disputed as the execution of the sale deed filed by the petitioner is unclear and the area of the property is in dispute and the petitioner cannot claim partial eviction in the petition. It is further stated that the petitioner is not entitled to seek eviction as the title of the petitioner is not clear and the respondents have a prima facie case in their favour. It is further argued that the demise premises / suit premises has been re-entered upon by the original owner i.e. Land and Development Office in 1982, and therefore, the respondent cannot recover possession of the suit premises as the respondent is not the owner or landlord of the demise premises. It is argued that the sale deed is void ab initio illegal and inadmissible and the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the alleged property. It is further argued that the property has not been transferred in the name of Ms. Amarjeet Kaur by L&DO and further all the legal heirs of the original owner Sh. Daljit Singh has not been made a party in the sale agreement. It is further argued that the eviction petition previously filed RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 11 of 35 by the petitioner had been withdrawn by the petitioner due to the aforesaid objections raised by the respondents, and therefore, the aforesaid issue of ownership still subsists and is a triable issue. It is argued that after the death of Sir Sobha Singh, Sh. Daljit Singh had become one of the co-owner and the partner in the firm Soma Exporter vide partnership deed 14.07.1973 and 01.07.1979 and Ms. Gulshan Bajaj being the authorized attorney had executed a sub lease dated 25.05.1985 in favour of M/s T R Anand and Associates and M/s Shikha Constructions Pvt. Ltd. At a monthly rent of Rs.2000/- with the permission to sub-lease, sub-let, assign or part with possession of the whole or part thereof or hand over on the basis of lease and license the premises and the same shall remain vested in sub-lessee. The permission had been further granted that the such right shall be communicable and transferable by the sub lessee or any amongst them for all times to come as stated in the sub lease deed. That there has been no illegality in creating the sub tenancy as alleged by the petitioner and the original tenant M/s Shikha Construction Pvt. Ltd. has delivered 2/3rd of the First Floor of the demise premises on monthly rent of Rs.1400/- to I M Garg, M/s Garg and Associates and I M G Architect Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 29.12.1989. It is argued that the respondent no.2 to 5 had been sub lease the premises as per the agreement dated 30.12.1989 between M/s Shikha Construction Pvt. Ltd. and I M Garg and Associates and M/s I M G Architects Pvt. Ltd. It is further argued that the total existing area is 3175 Sq. Ft. plus extra area on mezzanine floor of 150 Sq. Ft., i.e. when the petitioner in agreement to sell has sought to purchase 5000 Sq. Ft. but as per the alleged sale deed has purchased an area of 2508 Sq. Ft. of the flat in question (tenanted premises). It is argued that the partial eviction petition is not maintainable and therefore is a triable issue. It is further argued that the site plans of the petitioner is incorrect and the petitioner company does not have any locus to file the present petition as the same has not been signed by authorized representative. Ld. Counsel for the RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 12 of 35 respondent has also mentioned about the same properties being occupied by the petitioner as mentioned by respondent no.1 and in addition to them has mentioned name of some more properties. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 to 5 has argued that the group companies are having common email ID and common Directors and also the balance sheet of the petitioner for the year 2004-05 disclose that the petitioner is having occupation in property i.e. L-196, Nagmandir Road, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi, A-19/1, Mahipalpur Extension, Street No.1, New Delhi, 302-K C House, 5/66, Padam Singh Road, Karol bagh, New Delhi, Room No.1, 119/9, Kishan Garh, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 203, Himgiri, 19, Rani Jhanshi Road, New Delhi and No.14, Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi.
15. It is further argued on behalf of respondent no.2 to 5 that the petitioner has not disclosed the official addresses of the Directors and has not placed on record the balance sheet to show the addresses and the assets of the company. It is further argued that the Directors of the Company of the petitioner namely Sh. Virender Kumar and Sh. Narain Singh Negi are not filing income tax returns for the last 10 years which show that there is no requirement of any accommodation to carry on any business as alleged by the petitioner.
16. It is further argued that the petitioner is in the business of sale & purchase of property and are not in the need of the demised premises. It is further argued that the petitioner company has sufficient accommodation already with them and there is no bonafide need of the petitioner and therefore, the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. It is further argued that the petitioner has not placed on record any record pertaining to the ROC regarding change of name of the petitioner company and the present petition is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties.
RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 13 of 3517. Respondent no.2 to 5 has relied upon site plan of the premises, agreement to sale dated 27.09.1996, certified copy of the perpetual lease and several other documents which are also filed by the petitioner with the previous eviction petition.
18. To the aforesaid leave to defend, reply was filed on behalf of petitioner wherein the averments made on behalf of respondent no.2 to 5 have been denied by the petitioner. It is argued that the properties narrated by the aforesaid respondents in their leave to defend to be in possession of petitioner is incorrect and in addition to the reply filed by the petitioner to the leave to defend of respondent no.1, it has been stated that the petitioner is not having ownership of any of the aforesaid properties and the petitioner company has never agreed to purchase nor purchase Flat no.64/64A, Second Floor, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
19. To the aforesaid, reply rejoinder was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 to 5 wherein they have reiterated the claims made by them in their leave to defend and have prayed for grant of leave to defend. Respondent no.2 to 5 have also placed on record the order of RCT in RCT No.17/2019 dated 21.12.2021 wherein the order dated 18.02.2019 of the Ld. RC has been upheld.
20. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner company namely M/s Adroit Holding Pvt. Ltd. Formerly known as M/s Nisha Properties Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as landlord) incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 on 17th of July, 1996 having its registered Office at Room No.1, 111/9, Kishangarh Main Road, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, Vsant Kunj, New Delhi 110070, however, changed to various locations but since 01.03.2017 it is in the premises of H-108, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, new Delhi 110001 taken on license RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 14 of 35 fee basis from their associates concern M/s Good Luck Estates Pvt Ltd which had taken the said premises on lease from Arya Dharma Seva Sangh vide lease agreement dated 08.03.1984. It is further argued that the landlord has instituted the present eviction petition against respondent no.1 namely M/s Soma Exporters (tenant) and respondent no.2 to 5 (sub tenants) under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 to seek eviction of the tenant/subtenants from the tenanted premises bearing no.46 situated at Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 (herein after "tenanted premises) on the ground of bonafide requirement as the landlord is managing its affairs and business from the table space taken on licence fee/rent on sharing basis, being the owner of the tenanted premises by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 21.12.2009 and rectification deed dated 24.07.2014 in continuation to the agreement to sale dated 27.09.1996.
21. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment in case of Satyawati Sharma (dead) through LRs Vs. Union of India AIR 2008 SC 3148 partially stuck down the sub-section (e) of Section 14 (1) of DRC Act it has been held that "it is made applicable to any of the premises whether let for use as a residence or for commercial use". As per the applicable sub-section (e) of Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act, the essential ingredients which a landlord is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are (a) the petitioner is the owner / landlord of the tenanted premises and period of 5 year has elapsed from the date of acquisition (b) the tenanted premises are required bona fide by the landlord for herself and any of her family members dependent upon him (c) the landlord or such other family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation. It is further argued that the landlord has filed the present eviction petition on 17.12.2019 under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, after the expiry of the period of 5 years from the date of their acquisition of the tenanted RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 15 of 35 premises i.e. 21.12.2009/24.07.2014. The erstwhile landlord i.e. Sardar Daljit Singh admittedly let the tenanted premises for commercial purpose to respondent no.1 which had sub let by way of an indenture of sub lease dated 25.05.1985 to M/s Shikha Constructions Pvt. Ltd and T R Anand and Associates. It is further argued that Shri T R Anand has signed the sub lease for M/s Shikha Constructions Pvt. Ltd as well as M/s T R Anand and Associates being Director and proprietor respectively. The above two sub tenants had further sub leased the tenanted premises to respondent no.3 to 5 vide sub lease dated 30.12.1989 and 28.11.1989. it is further argued that M/s T R Anand and Associate had released his share in the tenanted premises in favour of M/s Shikha Constructions Pvt. Ltd vide release deed dated 17.11.1990 which is respondent no.2. It is further argued that the ownership of the landlord qua the tenanted premises being 46 First Floor, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi and in the occupation of the tenant/sub tenants is not in dispute which can be discerned from the judgment dated 18.02.2019 passed between the same parties in an eviction petition no.RC No.5260/2016. It is further argued that Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, interdict the tenant of immovable property or persons claiming through such tenant shall during the continuance of the tenancy, to deny th title of the landlord to such immovable property. Even respondent no.2 to 5 in para 17 of their application to leave to defend unequivocally admitted the indenture of sub lease dated 25.05.1985 between the respondent no.1 and 2 with M/s T R Anand and Associates as such no evidence oral or otherwise are acceptable for the purpose of contradicting varying adding to or subtracting from its terms.
22. It is further argued that admittedly, prior to sale of the tenanted premise to the landlord, it belongs to Sardar Daljit Singh and he had entered into a registered agreement to sale on 27.09.1996 to sale the tenanted premises for a total sale consideration of Rs.15,10,000/- and received RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 16 of 35 Rs.15,00,000/- and the balance is to paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The area of the tenanted portion was mentioned as 5000 Sq. Ft. however, this discrepancy was observed at the time of the execution of the sale deed on 21.12.2009 and area was corrected and a plan was provided which the respondent no.2 to 5 has placed at page 19 of their documents with leave to defend. It is further argued that it is discernable from the said document at page 19 is a plan where on top it describes the area of the tenanted premises is 2508 sq. ft. and the correction of the area is made in deed of rectification dated 24.07.2014 and the plan annexed therewith with description is 2508 sq. fts. Further, entire flat bearing no.46 located on the first floor of the regal building was leased to M/s Soma Exports which in turn sub lease to respondent no.2 and M/s T R Anand and Associates.
23. It is further argued that flat no.46 is located on the first floor and it is entire flat which was leased out to respondent no.1 and there is no dispute raised by the respondent no.1 qua the measurement as the tenanted premises is identify by number 46 which is entire first floor of the Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Thus the objections by the respondent no.2 to 5 qua the measurements are frivolous and untenable. It is further argued that the landlord was incorporated on 17.07.1996 and it entered into a registered agreement to sell qua the demised premises from the erstwhile owner on 27.09.1996 but its sale deed was executed only on 21.12.2009. The rent being less than Rs.3500/- per month, the respondents were protected under the DRC Act. The registered office of the landlord used to shift from one place or to the other being the said premises were either taken on rent or license from the respective owners of the premises. It is further argued that the landlord is dire in need of the tenanted premises for its bonafide use and occupation as the landlord at present is just managing its affair and business from the table space taken on license in the premises bearing RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 17 of 35 no.H-108, Connaught Circus, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The respondents are enjoying the possession of the tenanted premises in the capacity of tenant/sub tenant being protected under the DRC Act.
24. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment in case title "Shiv Kumar Gupta V. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222" wherein it has been held in para no.13, 14 & 15 that "13. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean 'in good faith : genuine'. The word 'genuine' means 'natural; not spurious; real:
pure: sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whit ley define bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra- distinction with a mere pretence or pretext to ev.ict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 18 of 35 should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself- whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited .for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice Of the landlord by holding that not one. but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 19 of 35 approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against.
14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14, which speaks of nonavailability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 20 of 35 that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors.
While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come.
15. A few decided cases apposite to the point may be referred. A Division Bench of Madhya Bharat High Court in Motilal Vs. Badrilal - ILR 1954 MB
1. interpreted clause (g) of the Madhya Bharat Sthan Niyantran Vidhan Samvat, 2006 where-
under a landlord was entitled to eject a tenant if he "really needs a house for himself and he possesses no other accommodation belonging to him elsewhere". It was held that the landlord was made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he in fact wants and genuinely intended to occupy-the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy the premises. As to alternative accommodation disentitling the landlord to the relief of possession it was held that it must be reasonably equivalent as regards suitability in respect to the accommodation he was claiming.
RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 21 of 35This statement of law was cited with approval before a Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Damodar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Nandram Deviram - AIR 1960 MP 345. Pandey, J. recording the majority opinion emphasised the distinction between the expressions 'genuinely requires' and 'reasonably requires' and said:-
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is a distinction between the two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the latter to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belongs to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Sec.4(g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy the premises".
25. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has further relied upon the judgment in case Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash 2010 SCC Online DEL 351 wherein it has been held in para 7 that "........ Ordinarily, when a tenant approaches an RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 22 of 35 advocate for drafting a leave to defend application, the advocate, using his legal acumen would dispute each and every plea of the landlord in the eviction petition. However, merely because the tenant so disputes and controverts the pleas of the landlord does not imply that the provision of summary procedure introduced in the Act with respect to ground of eviction on the ground of requirement is to be set at naught. The Controller is required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the tenant has given any facts/particulars which require to be established by evidence and which if established would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction.
The test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine the impact thereof".
26. Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 to 5 relied in the judgment in case title "Precision Steel & Engineering Works and Ors. Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal" C.A. 209 of 1981; "Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand" MANU/SC/0557/1982; "S P Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Ors"
MANU/SC/0192/ 1994; "Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh"
MANU/SC/0823/ 2000; "Liaq Ahmed and Ors. Vs. Habeeb Ur Rehman" MANU/SC/0314/2000; "Manoj Kumar Vs. Bihari Lal (D) by LRs" MANU/SC/0271/2001; "SK Prakash Vs. DDA" passed in CS No.374/2004; "Rachapl Singh and Ors. Vs. Gurmit Kaur and Ors"
RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 23 of 35MANU/SC/0755/2009.
27. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
28. The essential ingredients which a landlord/ petitioner is required to prove for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are :-
(i) the petitioner is the owner/ landlord of the suit premises.
(ii) the suit premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself or any of his family members dependent upon him
(iii) the landlord or such other family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
29. Thus the foremost condition which the landlord has to prove is his bonafide requirement. Further he has to prove that there is no other alternate accommodation available. Thus there are twin requirements which are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of the Section 14(1)(e) of the Act i.e the bonafide requirement coupled with the reasonably suitable accommodation, which means that both are to be satisfied together and collectively. While deciding the question of grant of leave, the court has to consider whether the tenant has raised any triable point / issue, the decision of which may disentitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises.
30. In Precision Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518 the Hon'ble Supreme Court having discussed the relevant provisions of Act 59 of 1958 held as follows:-
"The Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under sub-sec. (4) and the reply if any. 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 RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 24 of 35 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 cl. (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 of affidavits against the 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-sec.(4) by the tenant and the same is being examined for the purpose of sub-sec.(5) the Controller has to confine himself only to the averments in the affidavit and the reply if any and that become manifestly clear from the language of sub-sec. (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 that stage is the relevant document and one must confine to the averments in the affidavit. If the averments in the RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 25 of 35 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 raised 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."
31. In Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash, 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as follows:
"............However, merely because the tenant so disputes and controverts the pleas of the landlord does not imply that the provisions of summary procedure introduced in the Act with respect to ground of eviction on the ground of requirement is to be set at naught. The Controller is required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the tenant has given any facts/particulars which require to be established by evidence and which if established would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is to examine the pleas of facts RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 26 of 35 and then to determine the impact thereof."
32. Thus while deciding the question of leave, the controller is not required to conduct a full fledged trial but only to see from the affidavit of the tenant, as to whether any triable point / issue the decision of which may disentitle the landlord from recovering the possession of the premises is disclosed. The Controller is not required to seek the proof of the defence of the tenant but only to see whether any triable issue is raised by the tenant or not.
33. As regards the question of petitioner being the owner / landlord and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner is only the owner qua some part in the tenanted premises as the ownership document placed on record by the petitioner shows that the petitioner had purchased the property from one of the LR's of erstwhile owner Daljit Singh and therefore, the petitioner could have only bought the share from the aforesaid LRs and not of other LR's, which is also reflected in the site plan and the area mentioned and does not depict the entire area of the tenanted premises. It is further seen that despite the rectification deed signed by the petitioner, the area of the suit property is mentioned to be 2508 sq. ft. and the same was also mentioned in the Sale Deed executed in the year 2009. On the contrary the stand of the petitioner is that he had purchased the property from the erstwhile owner in December 2009 and since there was some discrepancy, a recitification deed was executed on 24.07.2014 and since the petitioner had purchased th property bearing no.46, First Floor, Regal Building, Cannought Place, Delhi from the previous owner, the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the respondent are inconsequential and the respondent cannot challenge the ownership of the petitioner, as the respondents are only the tenants and sub-tenants in the demised premises. The documents placed on record by RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 27 of 35 petitioner in support of his ownership/ title are being questioned by the respondents.
34. The Ld. counsel for petitioner during his arguments has relied upon the judgment in RC No. 5620/16, which was filed by he petitioner under Section 14(1)(b) DRC Act, wherein, though the aforesaid petition filed by the petitioner was rejected, in para no.10, the capacity of the petitioner company in instituting the eviction petition and the challenge to the same was negatived and therefore, the respondents cannot question the title of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner company are in capacity to file the present eviction petition but the ownership of the tenanted premises in required to be proved by the petitioner only by leading evidence and the same is a triable issues.
35. Respondents have placed on record the copy of the previous eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act vide eviction no.28/10, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 01.05.2013 on the grounds that the ownership of the tenanted premises was unclear and more so in the aforesaid eviction petition respondents were granted leave to defend on the no objection of the petitioner. Further, the above documents of the previous eviction petition has not been filed by the petitioner and the petitioner has not whispered regarding the same in his petition. The veracity of these documents pertaining to the ownership cannot be looked into at this stage, to reach to the conclusion that it is the petitioner who is the owner in respect of the tenanted premises when immediately before filing the present petition, he has filed the similar petitioner for recovery of possession, this aspect certainly requires evidence to be lead and an opportunity to respondent for cross examination on these aspects. There is a triable point regarding ownership of petitioner.
RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 28 of 3536. Now coming to the other aspect as to whether the premises is bonafide required by the petitioner and as to whether he has any other suitable alternate accommodation. These are twin requirements which are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)
(e) of the Act i.e the bonafide requirement coupled with the reasonably suitable accommodation, are to be satisfied together and collectively.
37. Now coming to the plea of boanfide requirement, it is stated by petitioner company that they require the tenanted premises for conducting Annual General Meeting, Extra General Body Meeting and Meeting of its Board of Directors and also for maintaining its registered office and carrying out its business activities and day to day affairs and also that the company can plan to expand its business activities to increase its revenue which the petitioner company is not able to achieve due to non availability of a proper office space. The bonafide requirement of petitioner is challenged by respondent on two grounds. Firstly, that the petitioner company is presently running its business from premises property No.H-108, Connaught Circus, Cannaught Place, New Delhi and is having in its possession of the entire premises which is evident from the fact that the petitioner company is running business by its associate companies, having common address, common email ID and common Directors and therefore, the need shown by the petitioner is not bonafide. Secondly, the petitioner has only by bald averments stated that the aforesaid premises property No.H-108, Connaught Circus, Cannaught Place, New Delhi is not owned by the petitioner, but the petitioner has failed to specify as to who is the owner of the aforesaid premises.
38. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta , 1999 (6) SCC 222 it has been observed that:
" ............ The judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 29 of 35 question to himself - whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural , real , sincere, honest . If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or , in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord is merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant , would be enough to persuade the court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord."
39. In Smt. Kamla Soni V Rup Lal Mehra, 1969, RLR 1017 it has been held that:
" a mere assertion that the landlord requires the premises occupied by the tenant for his personal occupation is not decisive. It is for the court to determine the truth of the claim, and also to determine whether the claim is bonafide. In determining whether the claim is bonafide, the Court is entitled and indeed bound to consider whether it is reasonable. A claim founded on abnormal predilections of the landlord may not be regarded as bonafide."
40. In Deena Nath V. Pooran Lal, V (2001) SLT 195 =(2001) 5 SCC 705, it has been held that:
"the statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 30 of 35 not a mere whim or fanciful desire by him; further such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid a mere whim or desire. The bonafide requirement must be in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire."
41. In T Shvasubramaniam V Kasinath Pujari, VII (1999) DLT 205= (1999) 7 SCC 275, also it was held that:
"when a landlord desires a premises, the requirement of law is that the landlord must set out his need for the premises in the petition and establish that such need is bonafide. The need must be bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. In this case, the court found no material on record to show that the landlord required the premises and that his need was bonafide. The material on record for the eviction of tenants before the Rent Control Authority was the mere desire of the landlord to live separate from his father."
42. In Freddy Fernandes Vs P C Mehra, 1973 RCR 53, it has been held that :
"the expression bonafide is not to be understood as indefinitely enlarging the choice of the landlord and leaving to its own subjective discretions. Further, whenever the subjective discretion of a person is to be scrutinized by a Court or a Tribunal, it necessarily follows that such subjective discretion has to be reasonably RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 31 of 35 exercised. The need of the landlord, even if subjective to the extent of being based on his requirement cannot be limitless and has to be reasonable vis-a vis the protection afforded to the tenant by the Act against eviction."
43. Thus, it is well settled law that the requirement or need not be fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire and must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. It may be a need in presenti or within a reasonable proximity in the future. Petitioner in the present case has pleaded all the requirements for maintaining its registered office and carrying out its business activities and day to day affairs and also that the company can plan to expand its business activities to increase its revenue as bonafide requirement in respect of the tenanted premises. Petitioner company is not clear as to for which specific purpose they require the tenanted premises. Though, the landlord is the best judge of his property, however abnormal predilections of the landlord cannot be regarded as bonafide requirement. Requirement must be manifested in actual need and cannot be understood as indefinitely enlarging the choice of landlord and leaving it to his subjective discretion. The facts in entirety are to be considered. This averment itself shows that the need of the petitioner is not specific but is based upon certain eventuality that is if the petitioner wishes to expand its business in future. On this aspect of bonafide requirement of petitioner, triable issue is raised by the respondents.
44. As regards the alternate accommodation is concerned. The petitioner himself has stated that he has purchased property having Area of 700 Sq. Ft. on first Floor Regal Buidling, Connaught Place, new Delhi (under Sale deed dated 21.12.2009), but the same is not occupied by the petitioner as the same is a passage, having toilet block and it is difficult RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 32 of 35 to believe that after purchasing the aforesaid premises, petitioner did not file any proceedings to take the possession of the aforesaid premises in a posh locality like Connaught Place. More so, the petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that he had sent notice to the respondents regarding the fact of him entering the shoe of the landlord being the owner of the tenanted premises. Respondent has not not placed on record any rent receipt to show that he has been collecting rent from the tenants/respondents. Petitioner in his petition has merely stated that it is not the suitable accommodation for him to run any business without assigning any reason as to how it is not suitable for him for the purpose set out. It is germane that many of the leading brand showrooms and restaurants are working / functioning on the first floor of Connaught place which is a hub for such activities. This point also raises a triable issue and cannot be adjudicated without appreciating evidence.
45. From the above discussion, it is evident that the respondent has raised certain points / issues which can be properly adjudicated only after ascertainment of truth through cross examination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits and other material documents.
46. In Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, JT 2001 (1) SC 308 it has been held that:
" 11. As is evident from Section 25 B(4) & (5) of the Act, burden placed on a tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act with which we are concerned in this case are good enough to grant leave to defend.RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 33 of 35
12. A landlord, who bona fidely requires a premises for his residence and occupation should not suffer for long waiting for eviction of the tenant. At the same time, a tenant cannot be thrown out from a premises summarily even though prima facie he is able to say that the claim of the landlord is not bonafide or untenable and as such not entitled to obtain an order of eviction. Hence the approach has to be cautious and judicious in granting or refusing leave to defend to a tenant to contest an eviction petition within the broad scheme of Chapter IIIA and in particular having regard to the clear terms and language of Section 25 B(5)."
47. In Liaq Ahmed v. Habeeb-Ur-Rehman, AIR 2000 SC 2470 it has been held that:
" Rent Control legislations have been acknowledged to be pieces of social legislation which seek to strike a just balance between the rights of the landlord and the requirements of the tenants. Such legislations prevent the landlords from taking the extreme step of evicting the tenants merely upon technicalities or carved grounds. This court in Mangat Rai v. Kidar Nath (1980) 4 SCC 276: (AIR 1980 SC 1709) held that where the Rent Acts afford a real and sanctified protection of the tenant the same should not be nullified by giving a hypertechnical or liberal construction to the language of the statue which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in its frustration.
RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 34 of 35The Rent Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection to the tenants."
48. In Rachpal Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Kaur and Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 88 it has been held that :
"If some triable issues are raised then the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through cross examination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits and other material documents. Burden is on the landlord to prove his requirements and his assertion is required to be tested more so when the status of the respondent has been specifically challenged and also when the landlord- tenant relationship is in question. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the common order passed by the High Court in civil revision petitions 4096 of 2007 and connected matters dt. 28.04.2008."
49. From the entire conspectus of the facts and law as discussed above, triable issue regarding the ownership , bonafide requirement as well as suitable alternate accommodation has been raised by respondent which needs adjudication. Hence, the application of respondent for leave to contest is allowed. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to the parties.
[Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan]
Announced in the open court SCJ-CUM-RC
on 24.05.2023 New Delhi Distt, PHC, Delhi
RC ARC No.55/2019 Page No. 35 of 35