Delhi District Court
Manmohan Singh vs Savitri Devi on 2 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh
CNR No.DLWT03-000481-2023
RC ARC No: 17/2023
Sh. Manmohan Singh,
S/o. Late Sh. Gurcharan Singh,
R/o. House No. 8737, Gali No. 14B,
Shidhi Pura, Near Filmistan,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005. ......Petitioner
VERSUS
Smt. Savitri Devi,
W/o. Sh. Suraj Prakash Tiwari,
M/s. Tiwari Electronics,
B-356, WZ-132, Hari Nagar,
Clock Tower, New Delhi - 110064, .....Respondent
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking eviction of the tenant from property that is "Tenanted Shops no. 5 and 6, situated on the Ground Floor of the Property bearing no. B-356, WZ-132, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi - 110064" under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act").
2. AVERMENTS IN THE PETITION :
2.1 Briefly stated the case of the petitioner in the petition is that the petitioner is the Co-owner of the suit premises. Initially about more than 38 years ago, the tenanted shops were let out to ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 1 /19 the tenant / respondent and she was inducted as a tenant by late Shri Gurcharan Singh, the father of the petitioner in respect of Tenanted Shops Nos. 5 and 6 situated on the ground floor of the property bearing Property No. B-356, WZ-132, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower. New Delhi-110064.
2.2 It has been further contended that the father of the petitioner during his lifetime Executed a Will dated 13.01.1989 in respect of the suit property bearing no. B-356, WZ-132, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi 110064 in favour of his Wife Smt. Mohinder Kaur. It is stated that the as per the Will, Smt. Mohinder Kaur after the death of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, got every right to recover the rent of the said property and use the same and further she has right to lease out any portion and recover rent but she has no right to sell, alienate and transfer the same. The Will exclusively states that in case the death of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, the said property shall be devolved into the other legal heirs of Sh. Gurcharan Singh. It is further contended that as per para no. 1 at page no. 4 of the Will, the Shops No.1 and 5 to 10 are seven shops and rooms no. 2, 3 and 4, two kitchen and 3 rooms on the first floor and one kitchen shall devolve upon his Sons namely Sheetal Singh, Narinder Singh and Manmohan Singh in equal Shares and they shall be entitled to entire first floor, second floor and whatever floor added in the property.
2.3 It has been further contended that after the death of Shri Gurcharan Singh on 14th March 1989, the aforesaid property devolved upon Smt. Mohinder Kaur and after her death on 10 th March 2012, the suit property equally devolved upon Sheetal Singh, Narinder Singh and Manmohan Singh (petitioner herein) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 2 /19 in equal Shares and the petitioner became Co-landlord of the respondent/tenant. It is pertinent to mention herein that after the death of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Sheetal Singh (petitioner's brother) had taken the rent from the respondent/tenant and had not even paid a single penny to the petitioner. It is further stated that whenever petitioner asked Sheetal Singh to divide the rent equally with him, he denied the same and threatened the petitioner that neither he will be entitled to get single penny from the rent nor he has any kind of right over the property.
2.4 It has been further contended that the shops in question are part of the residential premises of the petitioner. The family of petitioner consists of his wife, 2 unmarried daughters. It is stated that at present due to the misbehavior and harassment of Sheetal Singh, the petitioner was forced to stay in the rented accommodation and that he petitioner is doing very low-income work i.e. Panchar repairing from his rented accommodation. It is further stated that the petitioner and his aforesaid family members are totally dependent only upon the petitioner and that the petitioner is also suffering from various ailments. It is stated that the petitioner is in dire need of residential premise of his share in suit premises and arrears of rent of his share. It is stated that the petitioner is single bread earner of his family and no other source of income in his family, therefore it is necessary to the petitioner to accommodate them in the suit premises to secure their future and need. It is stated that the premises/shop in question is required bonafidely by the petitioner/Co-landlord for himself and for his family members as there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation available for them except the present premises/shops in question. It is stated that the petitioner ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 3 /19 needs the suit property for his residence as well for his livelihood and for future of his 2 unmarried daughters aged about 26 and 27 years, who are of marriageable age.
2.5 It has been further contended that the petitioner has no reasonable suitable alternate accommodation to fulfill his aforesaid needs and the Tenanted Shops Nos. 5 and 6 are on rent since the days when previous owner Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Smt. Mohinder Kaur (the Father and Mother of the petitioner) were alive, who let out the same. It is stated that the petitioner approached the respondent to vacate the said premises but the respondent has refused to vacate the said premises and as such, the petitioner is facing great hardship and inconvenience due to non-availability of the suitable accommodation for his residential purposes and the petitioner and his family are facing great hardship and Inconvenience.
2.6 Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent as the petitioner is in dire need of tenanted premises.
3. PLEAS TAKEN BY THE RESPONDENT IN LEAVE TO DEFEND:-
3.1 Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the respondent in the prescribed format which was duly served on the respondent. In response, the respondent filed her leave to defend application accompanied by an affidavit.
3.2 The pleas taken by the respondent in the leave to defend are that petitioner has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 4 /19 petition without cause of action, the petition filed by the petitioner is a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and he has no locus standi to file the present petition against the Respondent, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3.3 It is further contended that the the present eviction petition for bonafide requirement is not per-se maintainable as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the respondent has never paid any rent to the petitioner nor does the petitioner has filed a single document to show that he has ever been the landlord qua the respondent or has ever collected the rent from the respondent. Thus, the basic requirement to maintain the eviction petition is missing in the present matter and on this ground alone the respondent is entitled to be granted unconditional leave to defend. Moreover, notice regarding non- payment of rent to the petitioner has also not been sent by him to the respondent. It is stated that the respondent has been paying rent of the shops in question to Sh. Sheetal Singh who is the son of the erstwhile owner Late Sh. Gurcharan Singh.
3.4 It has been further stated that initially the respondent was inducted as tenant in shop no.5 of the above said property by Sh. Gurcharan Singh, who was the owner of the suit property and after the death of Sh. Gurcharan Singh, his wife Smt. Mohinder Kaur stepped into his shoes and the respondent started giving rent to her. On 12.02.1997, the respondent took shop no.6 of the above said property at the rate of Rs. 450/ PM also, from Smt. Mohinder Kaur and a rent deed was executed between the respondent and Late Smt. Mohinder Kaur on 12.02.1997. The ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 5 /19 respondent was paying the rent of Rs. 400/ PM to late Smt. Mohinder Kaur for the shop no.5. It is stated that after her demise, her son namely Sheetal Singh started collecting rent from the respondent. The respondent had already paid the up-to- date rent of the shop no.5 and shop no.6 to Sheetal Singh. It is submitted that Sh. Sheetal Singh is residing Abroad and when he came to India, he used to collect rent from the respondent in one lump-sum for many years. Sh. Sheetal Singh also took Rs.50,000/- from the respondent towards security money deposit for the shop No.5 and shop no.6, which is refundable to the respondent, without interest, at the time of vacation of the said shop. The respondent had paid a lump-sum payment of Rs.50,000/- to Sh. Sheetal Singh via bank transfer towards rent of the shop No.5 for 32 months on 24.07.2022. The respondent has also paid a lump-sum payment of Rs. 50,000/- to Sheetal Singh towards rent of the shop no.6 for 32 months on 20.08.2022. It is stated that the said amounts were duly acknowledged by Sheetal Singh.
3.5 It has been further stated that the present eviction petition is also liable to be dismissed and is not maintainable, as the respondent and her family members have been carrying on their business of Electronics, in the name of "Tiwari Electronic", from the said shops since the year 1987 continuously and uninterruptedly and her whole family is dependent upon the income earned from that shops only. The respondent and her family members do not have any other source of income to earn her livelihood and if the present eviction petition is allowed by this Court, then the whole family of the respondent, (which includes herself (aged about 80 years), his sons and their family ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 6 /19 members), will come to starvation. It is stated that the electricity bill and telephone bill at the shops are in the name of the respondent. The respondent has also got the property converted from residential to commercial and had paid the conversion charges for the same. It is stated that the owner/landlord of the property namely Sheetal Singh had never spent even a single penny on the repair or maintenance of the of the shops rather the whole expenditure was undertaken by the respondent only out of her hard earned money. House tax of the shops has also been paid by the respondent out of her own pocket.
3.6 It has been further contended that the present eviction petition is also liable to be dismissed and is not maintainable, as the same is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties, as the premises was in continuous possession of the respondent and her sons and they are in possession of the suit premises, since last many decades and the petitioner deliberately and intentionally did not make them as party to the present suit. The petitioner has also not made Sheetal Singh and other co owners as party in the present petition.
3.7 It has been further contended that the present petition under the bonafide requirements is nothing, but a pretext based on mere desire, whims and on the greed of the Petitioner to have more and more properties without any bonafide and genuine requirements and to let it out further on higher rate of rent. It is stated that the petitioner has been earning at about Rs. 3000/ per month from his puncture shop and there is no need or bonafide ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 7 /19 need of the petitioner of the tenanted shops. It is submitted that there is no connection of the suit property with the marriage of the daughters of the petitioner. The petitioner is having sufficient income from his puncture shop to take care of the need of his family.
3.8 It has been further stated that the respondent has raised a number of triable issues, which cannot be decided summarily without leading of evidence from both the sides and there are also disputed questions of facts, which require trial. Lastly, it is prayed by the respondent that leave to defend may be granted.
4. REPLY / COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PETITIONER:-
4.1 Reply/counter affidavit to leave to defend was filed by the petitioner refuting the pleas taken by respondent in the leave to defend.
4.2 Reply to leave to defend has been filed accompanied by counter affidavit denying the pleas taken by the respondent in the leave to defend/affidavit and petitioner has inter-alia submitted/replied that respondent has stated wrong facts in the application.
4.3 Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that eviction order may be passed against the respondent by dismissing the leave to defend.
5. STATUTE AND CASE LAW ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 8 /19
5.1 It is settled law that burden placed on a tenant is light and limited and 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) are good enough to grant leave to defend.
5.2 It is well settled that at a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima-facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. Unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would non suit the landlord leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25 B(5).
5.3. A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter III-A of the Act. It is further settled law that leave to defend cannot be refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant. It has to be borne in mind that refusing to grant leave in such a case leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great hardship to her and her family members, although the tenant could have established that a landlord would be disentitled for an order of eviction, if only leave was granted 6.4 It is also well settled that Assertions and counter assertions made in affidavits may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an affirmative conclusion one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant seeking ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 9 /19 leave to defend where either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable. It is also well settled that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire.
5.4 It can therefore be concluded that wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend but when a triable issue is raised, a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by the statute itself to grant leave. When a tenant is denied leave to defend although he had fair chance to prove his defence, will suffer great hardship. In this view a balanced view is to be taken having regard to competing claims. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action.
6. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
6.1 I have carefully gone through the petition, leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit, reply/ counter affidavit, documents, material on record and case laws relied upon.
6.2. The following are the ingredients of Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act, 1958:-
(i) Petitioner is the owner/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
(ii) Petitioner requires the premises bonafidely for himself or for family members dependent upon themselves;
(iii) Petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
6.3 Proviso (e) to Section 14 (1) is a special provision which ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 10 /19 has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a) The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b) The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
6.4 The satisfaction of the two requirements of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus:-
"The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in present and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in sub-section (e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 11 /19 legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
6.5. The meaning of "bonafide" in the context appears to be in two folds. (a) the need of the landlord must be a genuine one and not a frivolous one. (b) landlord is not motivated by extraneous considerations in trying to recover the possession from the tenant with a view to let it out again to another tenant at a higher rent.
7 EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD - TENANT RELATIONSHIP :
7.1 The first requirement to be proved by the petitioner is the existence of landlord-tenant relationship. In Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and , Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it was held that the landlord, even if not the absolute owner, is at least one of the co-owners, is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In the ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 12 /19 present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not disputed.
7.2. The petitioner has to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner" it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioner has to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264. The petitioner in an eviction petition need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the Tenant. The respondent has contended that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the respondent for the tenanted premises and there is no tenant
- landlord relationship between them. The respondent has not produced on record any document to show that she has been ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 13 /19 paying the rent to Sh. Sheetal Singh, one of the brother / co- owner of the property or that she is the owner of the property. The fact that petitioner is one of the legal heirs of erstwhile owner is not disputed. In the light of the above discussion, the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties stands duly proved.
8. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT 8.1 It has been submitted by the petitioner that the father of the petitioner during his lifetime Executed a Will dated 13.01.1989 in respect of the suit property bearing no. B-356, WZ-132, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi 110064 in favour of his Wife Smt. Mohinder Kaur and after the death of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, the said property was liable to be devolved upon his Sons namely Sheetal Singh, Narinder Singh and Manmohan Singh in equal Shares and they shall be entitled to entire first floor, second floor, etc. The petitioner is the son of Late Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Late Smt. Mohinder Kaur and he has contended that he has been living in a rented accommodation and doing the work of "puncture" from his tenanted premises. The petitioner further stated that the premises/shops in question are required bonafidely by the petitioner/Co-landlord for himself as well as for his family members as he has no other reasonable suitable accommodation except the present premises/shops in question. It is stated that the petitioner needs the suit property for his residence as well for his livelihood and for future of his 2 unmarried daughters aged about 26 and 27 years, who are of marriageable age.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 14 /19 8.2 On the other hand, it has been averred by the respondent that the petitioner has filed the present petition just to fulfill his greed of having more and more properties without any bonafide and genuine requirements and to let it out further on higher rate of rent. It is stated that the petitioner has been earning at about Rs. 3000/- per month from his puncture shop and there is no need or bonafide need of the petitioner of the tenanted shops and also there is no connection of the suit property with the marriage of the daughters of the petitioner as the petitioner is having sufficient income from his puncture shop to take care of the need of his family. It has been contended that the grounds in the eviction petition are projected and created one to secure the eviction against the tenant.
8.3 It is well settled law that the owner/landlord can seek eviction of the tenant for expansion of business. Further, it is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in life and to contribute her best to see them economically independent. In Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behl, 2002 (1) RCR Rent 583 (SC) it has been held that the landlord is entitled to evict tenant from non residential premises for use of his family member or a person who is dependent on landlord or on whom the landlord is dependent.
8.4. The requirement is to be just on the basis of the property as it stands and not by commanding the landlord to somehow or the other accommodate the tenant. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner wants to have more and more properties, earning well from his puncture shop and has sufficient money is not tenable. Further, the petitioner wants the suit property for his ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 15 /19 residence as he is living in a rented accommodation.
8.5 In Savitri Sahay v. Sachidanand Prasad AIR 2003 SC 156, Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534 and The Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Amit Goel 204 (2013) DLT 63 it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and the tenant cannot dictate landlord to adjust as suitability would be seen from the convenience of landlord and other circumstances. Further it is well settled law that the owner/landlord can seek eviction of the tenant for expansion of his business, as has been held in M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal, (2005) 8 SCC; M/s. Bajaj Associates v. Vinod Kumar, 2008 (2) RCR 258 P & H; Rajan v. Poil Raghavan, 2009 (1) RCR 429 Kerala DB.
8.6. The plea of the landlord of bonafide requirement is not to be judged by considering the possibility by which the tenant may be allowed to continue in the premises. The requirement is to be judged on the basis of the property as it stands and not by commanding the landlord to somehow or the other accommodate the tenant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561 held that the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life; an approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against.
8.7 It is settled law that a landlord need not have know how or experience of the business sought to be started as held in Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manoher Lal Jain, AIR 2006 SC ___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 16 /19 1471, Ram Babu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, AIR 2010 SC 721 and Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj AIR 2008 SC 526.
8.8 Moreover, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC100, it was held that "...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 is 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 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...".
8.9 In view of the discussion made above, the bona fide requirement of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises for starting puncture shop and for residential use stands duly proved.
9. AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION 9.1 It is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner wants to have more and more properties and has created a false bona-fide requirement of the tenanted shops.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 17 /19 9.2 The respondent has, however, not placed on record any document in support of her contention. It appears that any such contention is merely a bald assertion without any proof of the same. Reference may be made to section 19 (2) of the Rent Act which permits the tenant to even after eviction, if he finds the owner to be not putting the premises, which has been recovered for self use, apply for repossession. The respondent has failed to prove the availability of alternative suitable accommodation to the petitioner for his residence and for doing work.
10. CONCLUSION 10.1 Thus, from the discussion made above, respondent has failed to raise any triable issue, which requires evidence to be proved. The petitioner, on the other hand, has clearly established her bonafide requirement regarding tenanted premises. The application for leave to defend filed by respondent is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, eviction order is liable to be passed against the respondent under Section 25 B (4) of the Act. In view of above, petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e. "Tenanted Shops no. 5 and 6, situated on the Ground Floor of the Property bearing no. B-356, WZ-132, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi - 110064" as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances, no order as to costs.
___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 18 /19 File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open court HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
RAMAN RAMAN SINGH
on 02.04.2024. SINGH Date: 2024.04.02
16:24:13 +0530
HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC, Delhi/02.04.2024
___________________________________________________________________________________________ RC ARC No. 17/23 Manmohan Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Page 19 /19