Delhi District Court
Narender Grover vs Raman Chopra on 11 January, 2016
Page no. 1 of 27
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ (WEST) THC, DELHI
UID No. 02401C0002772012
E No.5/2012 U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act
Date of institution: 04.01.2012
Date of Order: 11.01.2016
Narender Grover
S/o Late Sh. Laxman Dass Grover,
R/o 17/3A, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018 ........ Petitioner
Versus
Raman Chopra
S/o Sh. Kewal Krishan Chopra,
R/o 17/3A (First Floor), Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
R/o 2/400(Second Floor),
Subhash Nagar, New Delhi-110027
.......Respondent
Order deciding Leave to Defend in Eviction petition
U/sec. 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC Act, 1958
1) Vide this order the Court shall dispose of the application U/s 25-B (4 & 5) of DRC
Act of the respondent seeking leave to defend the eviction petition, filed on
25.01.2012.
2) The eviction petition U/sec. 14(1)(e) Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) was filed by the petitioner against the
respondent on 04.01.2012.
FACTS
3) The averments made in the petition are that:-
3.1 One shop on the first floor of the property bearing no. 17/3A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018, (herein after called tenanted premises/shop in question), as shown in red colour in the site plan. The premises let out to the E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 2 of 27 respondent for doing only property dealers business, is lying locked for long and presently the rate of rent is Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred) per month exclusive of other charges.
3.2 On 01/10/1987, Rent deed for governing terms of tenancy was executed.
The rent by respondent, has been paid only against the rent receipts to the late father of the petitioner.
3.3 The premises, as shown red in the site plan annexed, on the first floor of the property bearing no. 17/3A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, let out to the respondent for non residential use, is bonafide required, by the petitioner(owner/landlord) for his own non-residential use. The petitioner, for his said bonafide need of the demised premises, has no other reasonably suitable accommodation, in Delhi or elsewhere.
3.4 Property bearing no. 17/3A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi absolutely belonged to late Sh. Laxman Dass Grover, S/o Late Sh. Chander Bhan Grover. Said Sh. Laxman Dass Grover, to avoid conflict between his legal heirs, in his life time, made a fair distribution of whole of the property in favour of the petitioner, his son, his late father executed a Registered Gift Deed with possession, in respect of the portions, shown "A" & "B", shown in the site plan annexed with the said Gift Deed, on the first floor of the property. Portion shown "A", in red in the site plan annexed, is under tenancy of the respondent and petitioner, is drudging, for earning livelihood, having no working place in Delhi. As per resources of the petitioner, the premises of the respondent, is the suitable non residential place.
3.5 No notice is required for filing the present petition. However notice dt. 16.03.2011, was sent the respondent at both of his addresses. A false vague and non specific reply to the said notice, was sent by the respondent.
3.6 Another eviction petition, on the ground under section 14(1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, was pending disposal in the court of Sh. Rakesh Kumar-III, Rent Controller (West), Delhi (at the time of filing this petition).
3.7 Subsequently to the filing of the above said eviction petition, the respondent also filed a suit for injunction, based on false grounds, which is E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 3 of 27 pending disposal in the court of Sh. Arun Goel, Civil Judge (West), Delhi.
4) The respondent has filed application for leave to defend along with affidavit wherein he admitted the following facts:
4.1 That he has taken the portion on the first floor of the property bearing no.17/3A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, from Sh. Laxman Dass, on the basis of the rent agreement dated 28.09.1987 for commercial purposes at a monthly rent of Rs.300/-.1 4.2 That after taking the said premises, he started carrying on the business of a property dealer in the said premises in conformity with the terms and conditions of tenancy.2
5) Respondent has raised certain defenses in the application for leave to defend and the same are as under:
5.1 That the petitioner has filed an eviction petition against Ramesh Chopra, whereas the name of the respondent is Raman Chopra and not Ramesh Chopra and in the earlier eviction petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of non payment of rent which is also pending in this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has mentioned the name of the respondent as Raman Chopra and the petitioner is fully aware that the name of the respondent is Raman Chopra and the tenancy is in the name of Raman Chopra and Ramesh Chopra has got nothing to do with the said tenancy premises.
5.2 That at the time of taking the said premises, he has made a payment of Rs.2,40,000/- as a security/pagree and at the time of taking the said premises it was further agreed that the tenancy in respect of the said premises shall be in perpetuity and the landlord shall not be competent to get the said premises vacated from me on any ground, provided he continues to pay the rent in respect of the said premises.
5.3 That the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present petition because there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the premises in dispute was taken from Sh. Lachhman Dass, at a monthly 1 Para 2 of the application under consideration.
2 Para 3 of the application under consideration.
E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra
Page no. 4 of 27
rent of Rs.300/- and after taking the said premises, he started paying the rent to Sh. Lachhman Dass and after the death of Sh. Lachhman Dass, no one had shown any documents entitling him to receive the rent and the petitioner had never shown any document regarding the devolution of the said property to him on the basis of the alleged Gift Deed and he never sent any notice to him to the effect that he became the owner/landlord in respect of the said property.
5.4 That during the life time of Sh. Lachhman Dass, the petitioner was living along with his family members in property bearing No.23/30, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and after the death of Sh. Lachhman Dass Grover, he sold the property bearing no.23/30, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, and shifted permanently along with his other family members at Rudrapur, Uttarkhand in the year 2003-2004 and since then, he has been living in Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and carrying on the business there.
5.5 That the petitioner is permanently settled and living at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and his children are also admitted in school at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and the petitioner has no intention to settle in Delhi because for the last more than eight years, he has been living and carrying on the business at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and as such the present petition has been filed malfide with the sole object to take the benefit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in allowing the landlord to seek the eviction of the tenant from the commercial premises.
5.6 That the petitioner was having another shop in the same property on the first floor where he was running his business and he has been getting the said shop vacated from the various tenants and letting out the same to various tenants from time to time on higher rent which clearly shows that the petitioner has no intention to shift to Delhi because in case if he had any intention to settle or carry on any business in Delhi, he would not have re-let the shop on the first floor of the said property.
5.7 That the oblique motives of the petitioner in filing the present petition is to pressurize the respondent to increase the rent from Rs.300/- per month to R. 5000/- per month and the respondent showed his inability to increase the rent.
E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra
Page no. 5 of 27
5.8 That the petitioner has earlier filed an eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent which is also pending in this Hon'ble Court and the relief of bonafide requirement was also available at that time but he did not claim the said relief as he did not require the said premises bonafide and the present petition has been filed with a malafide motive to harass the respondent who is the oldest tenant in the said premises and carrying on the business for the last more than 25 years approximately.
5.9 That on 5th of November, 2011, the petitioner has approached the respondent that the rent in the locality has gone high and the respondent should also enhance the rent to Rs.5000/- per month and the respondent told that he is ready and willing to enhance the rent by 10% and he even agreed to pay the rent in respect of the said premises at the rate of Rs.500/- per month which was not agreeable by the petitioner and consequently, the present petition has been filed.
5.10 That the present petition is otherwise not maintainable because the object of getting the said premises vacated from the respondent is to re-let the same on higher rent and he has also been contacting various property dealers regarding the sale of his share in the said property with the object to settle permanently at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand where he has been carrying on the business and his children are also settled and studying in school and he has no intention to settle in Delhi because in case he had any intention to settle, then he would not have gone to Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and he left for Rudrapur, Uttarakhand immediately after the death of his father and is permanently settled there and is carrying on his business with his brother in law Sh. Raman Phutela.
5.11 That the petitioner has manipulated the Gift Deed because in case the Gift Deed would have been executed by his father in his favour as back as on 25th of July, 2000, then the petitioner would have informed the respondent regarding the execution of the said Gift Deed and at no point of time, no notice was ever given regarding the execution of the said Gift Deed and it was never acted upon and he had not obtained NOC from the other legal heirs of E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 6 of 27 the deceased Sh. Lachhman Dass and in the Gift Deed, it was mentioned that Sh. Lachhman Dass has given the first floor portion of the above said property to the petitioner but he has not disclosed the name of the tenants and the occupants on the first floor to whom he was authorized to collect the rent and deal with them.
6) The petitioner has filed a reply to the application for Leave to Defend along with counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit the petitioner has denied the defences taken by the respondent. The petitioner further submitted as under:
6.1 That a clerical error, regarding the name of respondent had occurred in the eviction petition only, while in affidavit filed in support of eviction petition contained respondent's correct name. On moving an application by the petitioner, the clerical error regarding the name of respondent, was ordered to be corrected. It is correct that a petition u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act, besides the present one titled Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra is also pending disposal before this Hon'ble Court. In the said other petition, an order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act, stands passed, the same has not been challenged by the respondent. In the said eviction petition, also fixed before this Hon'ble Court, today(17.02.2014), the petitioner has already adduced his evidence. It is wrong that petitioner had mentioned the name of respondent as Ramesh Chopra instead of Raman Chopra(actual), to play any fraud upon this Hon'ble Court.
6.2 That the respondent did not pay any security/pagri to any extent what to speak to the extent of Rs.2,40,000/-, at the time of taking premises on rent from the late father of the petitioner. It is wrong that by giving alleged amount of pagri, the tenancy was agreed to be in perpetuity, i.e, landlord being not competent to get the premises vacated, in the event of respondent continuing to make payment of rent.
6.3 That the respondent has not disclosed as to who-else is his landlord entitled to receive rent from him.
6.4 That it is wrong that the petitioner has no intention to settle in Delhi. Petitioner works in Delhi and also goes on tours to work outside, including E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 7 of 27 Rudrapur Uttarakhand.
6.5 That during life time of Laxman Dass, petitioner admittedly lived with his late father, along with his other family members in Delhi. It is wrong that petitioner after quitting his property no.23/30, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi has permanently shifted to Rudhrapur, Uttarakhand. The premises in question is commercial which is the only suitable property, on the first floor of the property which its parts immediately near the stair case. The first floor is entirely commercial, customers in order to go the the premises with the respondent, which the petitioner needs for his commercial use, would have an easy approach. It is wrong that pwetitioner had permanently shifted to Rudhrpur Uttarakhand in year 2003-2004. The petitioner of necessity in the recent past, had/has to shift to Uttarakhand, since he had no working place in Delhi, under compulsion, at the time of filing eviction petition, he was in Delhi, in his own house.
6.6 That the petitioner as had no place of working, in Delhi, of his own, after the demise of his father, his portion having been occupied by the tenants, in the circumstances, he had of necessity to earn livelihood for his family members, to choose touring job, etc as also to assist his brother-in-law, in Rudhrapur Uttarakhand.
6.7 That petitioner, having no working place in Delhi, has his reasonable suitable need, for accommodation of the respondent only, as per his resources.
6.8 That it is correct that there is another tenant for commercial premises, in the same property under petitioner away from front of the first floor. The petitioner as per his resources, within his means, needs only the premises of the respondent, from which he can safely earn his livelihood. The petitioner has not concealed in the eviction petition that he possesses another commercial portion, on the same floor of the property. In other words petitioner has not concealed, the existence of another tenant under him for commercial use. Respondent has not disclosed that petitioner owns any other working place in Delhi. The petitioner has an intention to permanently settle near his own brother's in Delhi, where he took birth, got married and his E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 8 of 27 children took birth.
6.9 That it is wrong that petitioner ever asked the respondent to raise rent from existing Rs.300/- per month exclusive of any other charges to Rs.5000/- per month.
6.10 That it is wrong that the petitioner on 05/1/2011 approached the respondent to raise the rent as alleged. It is correct that in another eviction petition, petitioner has sought permissible raise in rent, as provided under section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act, for which he is legally bound.
6.11 That the registered gift deed, in favour of the petitioner, executed by his late father, is not a manipulated document. The gift deed was executed, by giving symbolic possession to the petitioner, as even at the time demise of father of the petitioner, the respondent and other tenant, were occupying the portion coming to his (petitioner's) share.
7) Vide order dated 29.04.2013, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed for correction of the name of the respondent in the title of the petition and rectification of the clerical error therein.
8) Arguments were heard on the application under consideration on behalf of both the parties. Material on record has been perused. Submissions considered.
REQUIREMENTS
9) In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act the petitioner must establish that:
i.He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises. ii.That he requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii.That he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation
10) The scope of the section has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India: AIR 2008 E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 9 of 27 SUPREME COURT 3148 so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes also within the scope and ambit of a petition under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. The defences which are taken by respondents are discussed below and the same are as under:-
DEFENCES
11) The petitioner mentioned the name of the respondent wrongly:
11.1 The respondent alleged that the petitioner has filed an eviction petition against Ramesh Chopra, whereas the name of the respondent is Raman Chopra and not Ramesh Chopra and in the earlier eviction petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of non payment of rent which is also pending in this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has mentioned the name of the respondent as Raman Chopra and the petitioner is fully aware that the name of the respondent is Raman Chopra and the tenancy is in the name of Raman Chopra and Ramesh Chopra has got nothing to do with the said tenancy premises.
11.2 The petitioner countered that a clerical error, regarding the name of respondent had occurred in the eviction petition only, while in affidavit filed in support of eviction petition contained respondent's correct name. On moving an application by the petitioner, the clerical error regarding the name of respondent, was ordered to be corrected. It is correct that a petition u/s 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act, besides the present one titled Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra is also pending disposal before this Hon'ble Court. In the said other petition, an order u/s 15 (1) of DRC Act, stands passed, the same has not been challenged by the respondent. In the said eviction petition, also fixed before this Hon'ble Court, today(17.02.2014), the petitioner has already adduced his evidence. It is wrong that petitioner had mentioned the name of respondent as Ramesh Chopra instead of Raman Chopra(actual), to play any fraud upon this Hon'ble Court.
11.3 The said defence does not need detailed deliberation for the simple reason that vide order dated 29.04.2013, the application filed by the petitioner E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 10 of 27 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed for correction of the name of the respondent in the title of the petition and rectification of the clerical error therein.
11.4 Thus, this defence does not raise any triable issue.
12) The respondent had given security/ pagri at the time of taking the premises on rent:
12.1 The respondent contended that at the time of taking the said premises, he has made a payment of Rs.2,40,000/- as a security/pagree and at the time of taking the said premises it was further agreed that the tenancy in respect of the said premises shall be in perpetuity and the landlord shall not be competent to get the said premises vacated from him on any ground, provided he continues to pay the rent in respect of the said premises.
12.2 The petitioner countered that the respondent did not pay any security/pagri to any extent what to speak to the extent of Rs.2,40,000/-, at the time of taking premises on rent from the late father of the petitioner. It is wrong that by giving alleged amount of pagri, the tenancy was agreed to be in perpetuity, i.e, landlord being not competent to get the premises vacated, in the event of respondent continuing to make payment of rent.
12.3 It is well settled law that bald allegation without any material on record to substantiate the same could not be looked into as the mere bald allegations are not enough for grant of leave to defend. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Leelawati and Ors. (supra) that:
11....."Only those averments in affidavit are to be considered by Rent Controller which have some substance in it and are supported by some material."
Moreover, it is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case tiled as Hari Shanker Vs. Madan Mohan Gupta: 111 (2004) DLT 534 that:
"Summary procedure in Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be defeated by merely making frivolous and vague allegations E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 11 of 27 which can never be substantiated."
12.4 Thus, the mere submission that the respondent had paid pagri to the landlord is highly untenable. Moreover, the sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was a big amount in the year in 1987 and it is highly inconceivable that no receipt would have been executed when such a big amount exchanged hands. Further, the practice of pagri or payment thereof has been termed illegal by the law itself. A tenancy under the DRC Act enjoys protection under the Act but is also strictly bound by the statute. The protection to the tenants cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act. The contract for perpetual tenancy, if at all it ever transpired, cannot have overriding effect on the provisions of the Act and cannot negate the grounds of eviction provided by the Act. The respondent has his other remedies against the landlord for recovery of such money, if at all it was paid. However, this would not disentitle the petitioner from the relief of eviction.
12.5 Hence, the defence does not raise any triable issue.
13) The petitioner is not the landlord and the gift deed relied upon by the petitioner is manipulated:
13.1 The respondent has alleged that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present petition because there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the premises in dispute was taken from Sh. Lachhman Dass, at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- and after taking the said premises, he started paying the rent to Sh. Lachhman Dass and after the death of Sh. Lachhman Dass, no one had shown any documents entitling him to receive the rent and the petitioner had never shown any document regarding the devolution of the said property to him on the basis of the alleged Gift Deed and he never sent any notice to him to the effect that he became the owner/landlord in respect of the said property.
13.2 He also contended that the petitioner has manipulated the Gift Deed because in case the Gift Deed would have been executed by his father in his favour as back as on 25th of July, 2000, then the petitioner would have informed the respondent regarding the execution of the said Gift Deed and at E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 12 of 27 no point of time, no notice was ever given regarding the execution of the said Gift Deed and it was never acted upon and he had not obtained NOC from the other legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Lachhman Dass and in the Gift Deed, it was mentioned that Sh. Lachhman Dass has given the first floor portion of the above said property to the petitioner but he has not disclosed the name of the tenants and the occupants on the first floor to whom he was authorized to collect the rent and deal with them.
13.3 The petitioner countered that the respondent has not disclosed as to who-else is his landlord entitled to receive rent from him.
13.4 He also countered that the registered gift deed, in favour of the petitioner, executed by his late father, is not a manipulated document. The gift deed was executed, by giving symbolic possession to the petitioner, as even at the time demise of father of the petitioner, the respondent and other tenant, were occupying the portion coming to his (petitioner's) share.
13.5 The present litigation is for eviction of an admitted tenant and as such the Court is not required to give a finding as regards absolute ownership of the property. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be owner, if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else, to evict the tenant and then to retain, control, hold and use the premises for himself.
13.6 In M.M.Quasim Vs Manohar Lal Sharma: (1981) 3 SCC 36 it was observed by the Apex Court that an "owner-landlord" can seek eviction on the ground of his personal requirement is one who has a right against the whole world to occupy the building in his own right and exclude anyone holding a title lesser than his own.
13.7 It was observed in Shanti Sharma Vs Smt Ved Prabha: AIR 1987 SC 2028 that the term "owner" has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. The Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But, at the same time, it has provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 13 of 27 eviction and bona fide requirement is one of such grounds. Ordinarily, the concept of the ownership may be absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereon. But in the modern context, where all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some term from the Government or the authorities constituted by the State. The legislature, when it used the term "owner" in s. 14(1)(e), did not think of ownership as absolute ownership. The meaning of the term "owner" is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. In cases where the plot of land is taken on lease, the structure is built by the landlord and he is the owner of the structure.
13.8 In the present case the defence raised by the respondent as regards ownership is not tenable even prima facie for the simple reasons that the respondent has admitted that he was inducted as tenant by the father of petitioner. After death of his father, the petitioner has atleast some rights in the tenanted premises being legal heir even if he is not the absolute owner thereof and now when eviction petition has been filed by petitioner, the respondent cannot challenge/deny the relationship between the parties. Provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act are also attracted; the tenant is stopped from questioning the ownership or title of the landlord. Likewise, the tenant cannot challenge the documents of title of the petitioner as the petitioner is still having better title to the property as compared to the tenant. The respondent has not stated that if the petitioner landlord is not the owner of the tenanted premises, then, who is.
13.9 Even if it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner does not have exclusive ownership of the premises it amounts to indirectly admitting that the petitioner is the owner of the premises but not exclusive owner of the premises. Thus, even if the will sought to be relied upon the petitioner is not considered, then also the petitioner is having a right against the whole world to occupy the tenanted premises in his own right and exclude anyone holding a title lesser than his own. Consequently, he is entitled to file the present petition. Further, it is not essential that the eviction petition is to be filed by all the co-owners of the property. As a co-owner petitioner can file eviction E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 14 of 27 petition without impleading other co-owners. Reliance is placed on judgments Kanta Udharam Jagasia Vs C.K.S Rao: (1998)1 SCC 403; Surender Kumar Jhamb Vs Om Prakash Shokeen: 2000(2) RCR 540; Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs Manohar Lal Jain: (2006) 2 SCC 724; India Umbrella Manufacturing Co Vs Bhagadandei Aggarwal: (2004) 3 SCC 178; Sri Ram Pasricha Vs Jagannath: (1976)4 SCC 184.
13.10 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent is a vague and sham defence and it does not raise any triable issue.
14) The petitioner is settled in Uttarakhand and he has let out another shop:
14.1 The petitioner has alleged that during the lifetime of Sh. Lachhman Dass, the petitioner was living along with his family members in property bearing No.23/30, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and after the death of Sh. Lachhman Dass Grover, he sold the property bearing no.23/30, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, and shifted permanently along with his other family members at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand in the year 2003-2004 and since then, he has been living in Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and carrying on the business there.
14.2 He further alleged that the petitioner is permanently settled and living at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and his children are also admitted in school at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and the petitioner has no intention to settle in Delhi because for the last more than eight years, he has been living and carrying on the business at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and as such the present petition has been filed malfide with the sole object to take the benefit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in allowing the landlord to seek the eviction of the tenant from the commercial premises.
14.3 The petitioner denied that he has no intention to settle in Delhi. Petitioner works in Delhi and also goes on tours to work outside, including Rudrapur Uttarakhand.
14.4 He also countered that during life time of Laxman Dass, petitioner admittedly lived with his late father, along with his other family members in Delhi. It is wrong that petitioner after quitting his property no.23/30, Tilak E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 15 of 27 Nagar, New Delhi has permanently shifted to Rudhrapur, Uttarakhand. The premises in question is commercial which is the only suitable property, on the first floor of the property which its parts immediately near the stair case. The first floor is entirely commercial, customers in order to go the premises with the respondent, which the petitioner needs for his commercial use, would have an easy approach. It is wrong that petitioner had permanently shifted to Rudhrpur Uttarakhand in year 2003-2004. The petitioner of necessity in the recent past, had/has to shift to Uttarakhand, since he had no working place in Delhi, under compulsion, at the time of filing eviction petition, he was in Delhi, in his own house.
14.5 He further countered that the petitioner as had no place of working, in Delhi, of his own, after the demise of his father, his portion having been occupied by the tenants, in the circumstances, he had of necessity to earn livelihood for his family members, to choose touring job, etc as also to assist his brother-in-law, in Rudhrapur Uttarakhand.
14.6 The respondent also contended that the petitioner was having another shop in the same property on the first floor where he was running his business and he has been getting the said shop vacated from the various tenants and letting out the same to various tenants from time to time on higher rent which clearly shows that the petitioner has no intention to shift to Delhi because in case if he had any intention to settle or carry on any business in Delhi, he would not have re-let the shop on the first floor of the said property.
14.7 The petitioner has countered that he, having no working place in Delhi, has his reasonable suitable need, for accommodation of the respondent only, as per his resources.
14.8 He further stated that it is correct that there is another tenant for commercial premises, in the same property under petitioner away from front of the first floor. The petitioner as per his resources, within his means, needs only the premises of the respondent, from which he can safely earn his livelihood. The petitioner has not concealed in the eviction petition that he possesses another commercial portion, on the same floor of the property. In E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 16 of 27 other words petitioner has not concealed, the existence of another tenant under him for commercial use. Respondent has not disclosed that petitioner owns any other working place in Delhi. The petitioner has an intention to permanently settle near his own brother's in Delhi, where he took birth, got married and his children took birth.
14.9 It has been observed in judgment titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors.: 155 (2008) DLT 383 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"11)....Thus, the affidavit filed by the tenant was shown to be false by the landlady on the basis of documents placed by it. No Rent Con-
troller is supposed to grant leave to the tenant on the basis of a false affidavit and false averments and assertions. Such affidavit should be outrightly rejected by the Rent Controller. Only those averments in the affidavit are to be considered by the Rent Controller which have same substance in it and are supported by some material. Mere as- sertions made by a tenant in respect of landlord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of alternate accommodation are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend."
14.10 In the judgment titled as Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary: AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 534 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Moreover, as has been held in a plethora of cases, neither the Court nor the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding the suitability of the premises or even the extent of the business proposed to be carried out.
14.11 In the present case, it is not for the respondent to judge whether it would be suitable for the petitioner to run his business in Delhi or elsewhere and it is hereby held that the defence being deliberated upon does not raise any triable issue.
14.12 Every person wants to settle himself in the best possible manner and E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 17 of 27 if the petitioner has found it proper to start his business at the tenanted premises, then it would not be proper for the Court to interfere in such decision of the petitioner, as the petitioner is the best judge of his own requirements and that of the requirements of his family.
14.13 In the opinion of the Court it is the right of every person to excel in life. If the petitioner is of the opinion that it would be better in life to start a business from the tenanted premises than run his business with his brother at Uttarakhand then it would not be just for this Court to direct the petitioner otherwise and thereby stop the financial growth of the family of the petitioner. The Court cannot ask the petitioner to give up his dreams of excelling in life and to establish his own business from a premises owned by him. Though the success of the business to be established by the petitioner is not guaranteed, but, at the same time the Court cannot predict the failure of the same and thereby decline the petitioner and his family an opportunity to establish their own business from a premises owned by them. Thus, the requirement of the petitioner is a bona fide requirement and there is no reason for the Court to find any malafide intention behind the same.
14.14 In this regard, it has been held in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta Vs. Sh. Nand Kishore: 219 (2015) DLT 9B (CN) that:
"5. So far as the shop existing in the residence of the respondent is concerned, it could not be disputed before this Court that it is not the case of the petitioner/tenant before the Additional Rent Controller that the residential premises where the alleged shop is available to the respondent/landlord is situated in a busy market like the tenanted shop. I may also note that the respondent/landlord has disputed the aspect that at all there is any shop which is available in his residence from where the son of the respondent/landlord can carry on business. In any case, taking the case of the petitioner at best that would mean that there is one shop at a premises which is not in the main market and in law it is not open to a tenant to dictate to the landlord which premises are more suitable for carrying on the business and in the E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 18 of 27 present case undoubtedly the tenanted premises in the market is more suitable than another premises which is away from the market and not in the middle of the market. This has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja in Civil Appeal No. 5513/2014 decided on 8.5.2014:2014. (210) DLT58(SC). Therefore, though the so called shop in the tenanted premises is actually not existing, but even if it is existing, the same is not an alternative suitable premises."
[....] "6. The second aspect urged was that there was a shop to the adjoining tenanted premises which has been sold by the respondent. On the first blush this argument seemed to have merit, however, the Additional Rent Controller notes that the petitioner did not file any document and this was only a bald plea. The petitioner has thereafter filed a document in this Court to show that the adjacent shop was sold about six years prior to filing of the eviction petition, and though I cannot look this document in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC15which requires that all grounds, all facts and all documents have to be stated and filed within the inflexible statutory period of 15 days for filing of the leave to defend application, and beyond which period there cannot be condonation of delay particularly even one day, yet if the document is looked into it is clear that the transfer of the shop by means of the general power of attorney is around more than six years prior to filing of the eviction petition and therefore it cannot be stated that the shop which was sold six years prior to filing of the eviction petition would amount to an alternative premises because Courts cannot dictate as to how the landlord wants to utilize his property including by selling of the same and getting moneys from the same because moneys would be required by any person for myriad reasons. And even which has happened more than six years prior to filing of the eviction petition, in E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 19 of 27 my opinion, cannot raise a bonafide triable issue."
14.15 It has also been held in the case of Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation vs Shrishti Properties Pvt Ltd: 2012 RLR 28 that:
"19. The Apex Court has time and again noted that it is prerogative of the landlord to decide whether the premises are required for expansion of his business or not; in this context the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Sait Nagjee Purushotam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalbai Prabhulal and Others (2005) 8 SCC 252 is relevant; it reads as under:-
"It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business."
20. Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Insurance Company Limited VIII (1998) SLT 374, the Apex Court had observed as under:-
"The crux of the ground envisaged in Clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide.
When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 20 of 27 getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
14.16 In Krishan Lal vs R N Bakshi decided by our own Hon'ble High Court on 19 May, 2010 that:
"8. It is settled law that it is not for a tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should adjust himself, without calling upon the tenant to vacate a tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of requirement of landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted. When the landlord shows a prima facie case, a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide, is available to be drawn. It is also settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter and it is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The tenant cannot compel a landlord to live in a particular fashion and method until and unless the requirement shown is totally mala fide or not genuine."
14.17 It has also been held in the case of Raj Kumar Khanna vs. Parduman Singh: 204 (2013) DLT 312 that:
"8. It has rightly been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Shamshed Ahmad & Ors. Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased) 152 (2008) DLT 301 (SC), wherein the Apex Court affirmed the order of the trial court which was reversed by the HC, that the requirement of section 14(1)(e) is "bonafide requirement‟ and it has to be seen as per the requirement of the petitioner(landlord), even if the petitioner is very rich and having other properties at different places that does not affect his requirement of the premises, as alleged in the petition. And E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 21 of 27 the leave to defend application was dismissed."
14.18 In the case of Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs Mohan Singh And Anr. Decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 2 January, 2014 in RC. Rev. No.391/2011 it was observed:
"13. Financial status of the landlord not relevant. In Shamshed Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased), 152 (2008) DLT 301 (SC), the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court which was reversed by the HC, that "The requirement of section 14(1)(e) is 'bonafide requirement' and it has to be seen as per the requirement of the petitioner(landlord) , even if the petitioner is very rich and having other properties at different places that does not affect his requirement of the premises, as alleged in the petition." And the leave to defend application was dismissed."
14.19 It has been held in the case of Manika Rani Ghosh & Ors. vs Dharwinder Kaur: 197 (2013) DLT 18 that:
"8. I subscribe to the view taken by the Ld. RC in deciding the eviction petition. It is often contended by the tenants that the landlord has no prior business experience, capacity or that the suit premises are not suitable for the business proposed by the landlord. For instance, simi- lar contentions were raised by the tenants before this Court in the case of Shashi Kant Jain v. Tilak Raj Salooja & Anr., R. C. Rev. 167/2010 and have been refuted. Such allegations whereby the tenant tries to raise questions regarding the age of the landlord or lack of business experience or suitability of the suit shop for the business proposed by the landlord and which are invariably vague do not consist a triable issue. The tenants/petitioners made assertions before the Ld. RC re- garding the landlady possessing alternative properties, but were un- able to furnish sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the al- legations. There is no dispute that the business cannot be profitably carried from the residential premises and thus, the plea that the land- lady could start the business form her residence is untenable. More-
E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra
Page no. 22 of 27
over, it is not for this Court to examine the viability of the business at the suit premises or assess if it may be a profitable venture for the landlady."
14.20 Thus, it is of no consequence if the petitioner sold certain residential property as properties can be disposed off for myriad reasons. Further, even if he has numerous properties at Uttarakhand, then his requirement for the tenanted premises cannot be termed malafide. Likewise, it is for the petitioner to choose in what way, by what standards and where he wants to live and start or carry out his business and the tenant cannot dictate how else the petitioner should adjust himself. For the same reason, if the petitioner found it prudent to let out another shop for earning some money then the Court cannot tell him to let go of his rental income and choose that shop for his business in place of the tenanted premises.
14.21 Accordingly, this defence raised by the respondent as regards bonafide requirement is a sham defence and it does not raise any triable issue
15) The petitioner wants to relet the premises and harass the respondent by increasing the rent:
15.1 The respondent contended that the oblique motive of the petitioner in filing the present petition is to pressurize the respondent to increase the rent from Rs.300/- per month to R.5000/- per month and the respondent showed his inability to increase the rent.
15.2 He also contended that the petitioner has earlier filed an eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent which is also pending in this Hon'ble Court and the relief of bonafide requirement was also available at that time but he did not claim the said relief as he did not require the said premises bonafide and the present petition has been filed with a malafide motive to harass the respondent who is the oldest tenant in the said premises and carrying on the business for the last more than 25 years approximately.
15.3 He further contended that on 5th of November, 2011, the petitioner has approached the respondent that the rent in the locality has gone high and the E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 23 of 27 respondent should also enhance the rent to Rs.5000/- per month and the respondent told that he is ready and willing to enhance the rent by 10% and he even agreed to pay the rent in respect of the said premises at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month which was not agreeable by the petitioner and consequently, the present petition has been filed.
15.4 He also alleged that the present petition is otherwise not maintainable because the object of getting the said premises vacated from the respondent is to re-let the same on higher rent and he has also been contacting various property dealers regarding the sale of his share in the said property with the object to settle permanently at Rudrapur, Uttarakhand where he has been carrying on the business and his children are also settled and studying in school and he has no intention to settle in Delhi because in case he had any intention to settle, then he would not have gone to Rudrapur, Uttarakhand and he left for Rudrapur, Uttarakhand immediately after the death of his father and is permanently settled there and is carrying on his business with his brother in law Sh. Raman Phutela.
15.5 The petitioner countered that it is wrong that petitioner ever asked the respondent to raise rent from existing Rs.300/- per month exclusive of any other charges to Rs.5000/- per month.
15.6 He further countered that it is wrong that the petitioner on 05/1/2011 approached the respondent to raise the rent as alleged. It is correct that in another eviction petition, petitioner has sought permissible raise in rent, as provided under section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act, for which he is legally bound.
15.7 These defences are being taken up together as they are interconnected and seek to raise doubt against the bonafide of the landlord's requirement. In the judgment titled as Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash: 167 (2010) DLT 80 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referring to the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini: (2005) 12 SCC 778 observed in para 17 as under:
E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra
Page no. 24 of 27
"..It was held that the legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if there is any breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only..."
15.8 Thus, it is clear that the special summary procedure provided for u/s 25B of the DRC Act is an exception to the general intent to the Act. The intention of the legislature is to provide an expeditious remedy to landlords who seek eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement under the stringent conditions imposed in the special procedure. Thus, the mere bald averment of the respondent to the effect that the petitioner intends to harass the respondent cannot disentitle the petitioner from relief that he is entitled to get after fulfilling the stringent requirements provided for in the special procedure. Thus, this submission of the respondent is found to be untenable.
15.9 The respondent has also taken defence in the application that petitioner after evicting the respondent, wants to re-let the tenanted premises/shop in question on higher rent. Hence, there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner. On the other hand, in reply to application, this has been denied by the petitioner and he has reiterated the fact that tenanted premises is required for establishing his business.
15.10 It is well settled law that bald allegation without any material on record to substantiate the same could not be looked into as the mere bald allegations are not enough for grant of leave to defend. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Leelawati and Ors. (supra) that:
11....."Only those averments in affidavit are to be considered by Rent Controller which have some substance in it and are supported by some E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 25 of 27 material."
15.11 Moreover, It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case tiled as Hari Shanker Vs. Madan Mohan Gupta: 111 (2004) DLT 534 that:
"Summary procedure in Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be defeated by merely making frivolous and vague allegations which can never be substantiated."
15.12 It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinod Kumar Bhalla Vs. Sh. Nanak Singh: 1982 (2) RCR (Rent) 715 that in all applications for leave to defend the common defence raised by almost all the tenants, is that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent or to sell the property after getting it vacated. It was observed by the High Court that such types of allegations are without any foundation and that after an order of eviction is passed under section 14 (1)(e), the tenant is granted six months time to vacate the premises and the landlord is required to occupy the same within two months and the landlord is further dis-entitled for re-letting or alienating the whole or any part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining possession from the tenant. Thus, the landlord is not in a position either to sell or re-let the tenanted premises for a period of three years and if a landlord does sell or re-let the premises within the said period then the tenant may proceed against the landlord for restoration of the possession under section 19 of the Act.
15.13 A similar observation was made in judgment titled Krishna Chopra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Raksha: 2000 Rajdhani Law Reporter 83.
15.14 Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid legal propositions the contention of the respondent is rejected as the same is a mere assertion without any substance. Moreover the contention of the respondent is not tenable because in such kind of cases protection/remedy is available/provided for such tenants under the DRC Act itself as they can file petition for repossession if the premises are re-let or transferred by the landlord after evicting the tenant, but certainly the leave cannot be granted solely on this ground.
E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra
Page no. 26 of 27
15.15 Likewise, it is not essential to mention bonafide requirement in a petition for eviction on the non payment of rent as these are two different causes of action.
15.16 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent is a sham defense and it does not raise any triable issue.
CONCLUSION
16) It is well settled that leave to defend is granted to the tenant in case any triable issue is raised by him, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence. The mere existence of any triable issue is not sufficient. The nature of the triable issue raised by the tenant must be such that it will disentitle the landlord from obtaining the eviction order.
17) In the judgment titled as Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referring to the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 observed in para 17 as under:
"...the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate in built strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of tenant unless his need is bona fide - no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the Court his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine.." (emphasis supplied)
18) The whole purpose and import of summary procedure under Section 25B of the E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra Page no. 27 of 27 Act would otherwise be defeated. The prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts which disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court cannot mechanically and in routine manner grant leave to defend. In the light of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and legal propositions, all the pleas taken by the respondent has failed to raise any triable issues regarding the ownership of the petitioner or the land lord-
tenant relationship; the bonafide requirement of the landlord; or the availability of any alternative suitable accommodation. The contents of the application for leave to defend have failed to rebut the presumption of bonafide qua the requirement of the petitioner. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus rejected.
19) As a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1) (e), DRC Act against the respondents regarding the tenanted premises i.e One shop on the first floor of the property bearing no. 17/3A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018, as shown in red colour in the site plan
20) However in light of Section 14 (7) DRCA, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
21) The parties are left to bear their own costs.
22) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 11th day of January, 2016 (SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI)
ACJ/ARC/CCJ(West)/11.01.2016
E. No. 5/2012 Narinder Grover Vs. Raman Chopra