Delhi District Court
Sh. Harish Kumar Sethi vs Smt. Sunita Tandon on 19 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No.- 25934/2016
Sh. Harish Kumar Sethi
S/o Sh. Hari Ram Sethi
C/o H-31, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi. ...... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Smt. Sunita Tandon
W/o Late Sh. Revti Tandon
2. Ms. Simmi
D/o Late Sh. Revti Taman Tandon
C/o Smt. Sunita Tandon
3. Ms. Annu
D/o Late Sh. Revti Taman Tandon
C/o Smt. Sunita Tandon
All C/o One Shop in property
Bearing No. H-31, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi. ..... Respondents
Date of Filing : 10.07.2008
Date of Judgment : 19.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Present case is a petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondents in respect of One Shop situated on the Ground Floor of the property bearing No. H-31, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, as more specifically shown and ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 1 of 26 delineated in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
2. In the present petition, it is averred by the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises which was let out in favour of Shri Revti Raman Tandon who unfortunately expired and after his death, the same are in use, occupation and possession of the respondents herein.
It is further averred that the premises under the tenancy of the respondents is required by the petitioner bonafide for the purpose of office-cum-showroom for himself and his family members dependent upon him for the said purposes. It is also submitted that one of the daughters of the petitioner is running an N.G.O. at Agra, U.P. under the name and style of Sahshakti for helping the women folk in the village to be independent and earn their livelihood and take care of their children with basic medical help etc. and for child development organization is selling the handicrafts being manufactured by the poor women folk of Agra and the sale proceeds so received from the sale of the said handicrafts are being manufactured by the poor women folk of Agra and the sale proceeds so received from the sale of the said handicrafts are being utilized by the women folk of the village.
It is also averred that to promote the said business of selling of handicrafts goods manufactured by the poor women folk of U.P. besides music cassettes and C.Ds of the folk songs, she needs a place in Delhi which is a Metropollitan city and therefore, she needs tenanted premises.
It is further averred by the petitioner that the petitioner has no accommodation to provide all these facilities to his ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 2 of 26 daughter who has worked very hard during all these years to attain this project and to promote and expand her business. She is unmarried and the petitioner wants to help her in fulfilling her dreams.
It is also averred that the tenanted premises is more suitable for petitioner's daughter as the petitioner along with his other family members is residing on the first floor and this tenanted premises is next to the small almirah which the petitioner is using in his son's shop and the tenanted premises is adjacent to said almirah and the petitioner can have a constant check and supervision over her business and day to day affairs.
Petitioner has also averred that he does not have an independent shop but runs his small business from an almirah affixed in the shop which is being used by his son and earns his livelihood. That five other small shops in the said ground floor are in use, occupation and possession of five different tenants but the said five shops are very small in size and does not suit the requirement of the petitioner as well as his daughter.
Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
3. Notice of the eviction petition was sent to the respondents. In response to which, the respondents filed detailed leave to defend application along with accompanied affidavit which was allowed ultimately and the respondents were given an opportunity to file Written Statement.
ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 3 of 264. In the Written Statement, the respondent has inter-alia contended that the petitioner is not the lawful and absolute owner of the tenanted premises. That he has failed to file on record the title deed/ sale deed executed in his favour or in favour of Late Smt. Viranwali (who died on 22.09.1976) on record to show that the petitioner is or his mother was the lawful owner of the tenanted premises.
It is also contended by the respondent that the petition is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties because the petitioner has deliberately did not implead the M/s Raman Bag Emporium (who is the tenant in the tenanted premises since 1975, as the respondent) whose the respondent no. 1 and 4 are the partners. It is further contended that the petitioner did not file any eviction petition/case against the partners i.e. respondent no. 1 and 2 of the tenant M/s Raman Bag Emporium till filing of the above false and baseless eviction petition.
Respondent also contended that neither the petitioner nor his wife Smt. Kiran Sethi are the lawful owner of the tenanted premises.
It is further contended by the respondent that the entire property consists of 13 shops at the ground floor of all the outer sides of the building. That the inner side (backside of the shops) of the ground floor consists of residential and commercial complex. That there are six tenants including the tenant of tenanted premises. That the remaining seven shops are in the physical, exclusive and peaceful possession and control of the petitioner which has been deliberately suppressed and concealed by the petitioner from this court.
ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 4 of 26It is further contended by the respondent that the entire first floor is also fully occupied by the petitioner, his wife and other members of his family, including the daughter for whom the tenanted premises is required. It is also contended that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members nor any of his daughters requires any accommmodation for office or for showroom whatsoever.
It is alleged by the respondent that the name of the said daughter of the petitioner has not been disclosed deliberately by the petitioner due to oblique motive and she is not associated with any alleged and so-called NGO registration in U.P. or else where but she was in service in Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and was getting about Rs. 60,000/- or Rs. 70,000/- per month salary from her service at the time of filing the present petition but now she is in Ahmdabad (Gujarat).
It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner has not filed any detailed site plan on record showing specific details and measurement of the actual and physical position of the construction of the shops and residential and commercial complex.
It is also contended that the petitioner is a chronic litigant as he is litigating with the different tenants for the last about 28- 29 years.
Respondent has also contended that the petitioner had also issued false and baseless legal notices to five tenants just to harass and pressurize them to vacate their respective shops and names of the tenants are Sh. Gurmohan Singh, Sh. Sunil Bhatia, Sh. Nand Lal, Sh. Subhash Gulati and all of them sent their respective replies to the petitioner.
ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 5 of 26It is also contended that the respondents no. 1 and 4 are compelled by the petitioner and his wife to deposit the rent in the court as they have been refusing the same for last many years. That photocopies of some of the rent receipts of the court have already been placed on record for ready reference.
It is further contended that the petitioner and his wife Smt. Kiran Sethi are the joint landlords of the tenanted premises but neither of them are the lawful owners of the tenanted premises. That the petitioner has failed to file on record the title deed/ Sale Deed executed in favour of Late Smt. Viranwali (who died on 22.09.1976) to show that she was the lawful owner of the tenanted premises.
That the photostat of the certified copy of the Survey Report of the M.C.D. dated 26.03.1975 is already on record as the same was filed on record by the answering respondents to show that there are 13 shops and M/s Raman Bag Emporium is very old tenant inducted by Late Sh. Hari Ram Sethi.
It is also submitted by the respondents that the petitioner is running his various businesses, including the businesses with the name of "Rubia Corner, "Shades" etc. and many shops are lying vacant and are under lock and key of the petitioner.
Lastly, it is prayed by the respondents that present petition may be dismissed with costs.
5. Thereafter, after completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for Petitioner's Evidence/P.E. Sh. Harish Kumar Sethi was examined as PW-1. Petitioner also examined Sh. Hemal Sethi as PW-2. Sh. Anil Khurana, Assistant Manager, SBI, Rajouri Garden, Delhi was also examined as PW-3, who produced records related to the proprietorship of Sh. Hemal Sethi of M/s ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 6 of 26 Shades Corner. All the witnesses were cross examined at length and thereafter petitioner's evidence was closed.
Evidence was also led by the respondents who examined Ms. Geetika Tandon as RW-1, Sh. Anoop Singh, UDC, office of Sub Registrar-II, Basaidarapur, Delhi as RW-2, Sh. Vijay Kumar as RW-3, Sh. Manish Yadav, JJA, Record Room (Civil), West District, Delhi as RW-4, Sh. Jai Kumar, JJA, Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as RW-5, Sh. Kartik Taneja, Record Keeper, SDMC Building Department, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi as RW-6 and RW-6A, Sh. Tara Adhikari, Judicial Asstt. Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Zonal Inspector, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, A & C Department, West, 59 Block, Ashok Nagar, New Delhi as RW-8. Thereafter, Respondent's Evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
6. I have heard the arguments at length advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and also gone through the written submissions, case law relied upon and the material on record very carefully.
7. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 7 of 26 possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
8. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) & (ii). Landlordship/Ownership:-
9. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has claimed to be landlord and owner of the tenanted premises.
On the other hand, respondents have admitted themselves tenant in the tenanted premises and has also admitted the petitioner as joint landlord along with his wife Smt. Kiran Sethi but they have not admitted the petitioner as owner ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 8 of 26 of the tenanted premises.
It is pertinent to mention that in the paragraph No. 23 of written statement, it is stated by the respondents that respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 4 were compelled by the petitioner and his wife to deposit the rent in the court as they refused to accept the rent.
As such, respondents themselves have admitted that they are the tenants of the petitioner and his wife as a tenant is not supposed to pay rent to a person who is not the landlord.
As far as, the issue of co-ownership/joint co-ownership as alleged by the respondent is concerned, it is well settled that one co-owner can file the eviction petition U/S 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act against the tenant even without including the other co- owners as petitioners until and unless there is objection by the other co-owners against such eviction petition. Perusal of record clearly shows that in the present case, the respondents have not placed on record any cogent and convincing material showing any objections by the other co-owner Smt. Kiran Sethi or any other co-owners against such eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents.
As such, it is proved that their exist the relationship of landlord-tenant between petitioner and respondent.
Perusal of record shows that the respondents have also disputed the ownership of the petitioner and his wife Smt. Kiran Sethi on the ground that petitioner has failed to file on record title deed/sale deed executed in favour of Late Smt. Veerawali to show that she was the lawful owner of the suit property.
In the case titled as Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagan Nath & Ors 1976 AIR 2335, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed :-
ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 9 of 26"the relationship between the parties being that of landlord and tenant,only the landlord could terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord Under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The tenant can not deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between the landlord and tenant question of title to the leased property is irrelevant."
Furthermore, in the case titled as Subhash Jain vs. Ravi Sehgal in RC Rev. No. 292/2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under :-
"The other objection of the petitioner is also without any force that the sale deed dated 29th March, 1993 is a sham document. The petitioner cannot object the history of ownership of the suit property in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord as he has not a contender to the suit property."
In the case of Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and Shanti Sharma vs. Ved Prabha, 1987 RLR 526 SC, wherein it was held that it is not the concern of the tenant as to how the landlord acquired the property.
In the case of Bharat Bhushan Vij vs. Arti Techchandani, 2008 (153) DLT 247 in paras 4 and 5 it was held as under :
"4. The concept of ownership in a landlord- tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 10 of 26 such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner."
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent has no right to dispute the title or ownership of the landlord.
In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162 a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 11 of 26
Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & ors 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :-
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
10. As such, it is sufficient for the landlord to prove that he is something more than the tenant. U/S 14(1) (e) of DRC Act, the petitioner/landlord need not prove his/her ownership in absolute term. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the petitioner has been able to prove that he is something more than the tenants/respondents. Besides, the respondents have not disclosed the name of the actual owner of the tenanted premises if not the petitioner.
It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence RW1 Geetika Tandon which is as under:-
"I got married in the year 1996. I occasionally participated in the business being run by my mother-in-law. I do not know who is the owner of H-31, Rajouri Garden. It is wrong to suggest that petitioner Sh. Harish Kr. Sethi is owner of H-31. I have seen the documents filed on record on my behalf. I have also seen the Convince Deed (Conveyance Deed) executed in favour of Veerawali.... ...I cannot say that Veerawali has expired on 26.09.1976. It is correct that after her death, her husband Sh. Hari Ram Sethi was managing the property being its owner. It is correct that Hari Ram Sethi has expired but I do not know the date, month and year of his death. It is correct that petitioner is son of Sh. Hari Ram Sethi. I do not know how many children Hari Ram Sethi was having. I cannot say that Manju Sabarwal is daughter of Hari Ram Sethi. I cannot say that Manju Sabarwal ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 12 of 26 had relinquished her rights in the tenanted property in favour of petitioner vide registered Relinquishment Deed...
.... It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Harish Kumar Sethi is the owner of the property. To my knowledge there is no owner of the property No. H-31, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, again said, I do not know who is the owner of the property. I have never seen the title documents of the property No. H-31, Rajouri Garden as I have just joined my shop......
.... I do not know who else is the owner of the property if the petitioner and his wife is not the owners. No other person except the petitioner and his wife have claimed ownership of the property. It is correct that respondents have always paid the rent to the petitioner and his wife."
Perusal of testimony of RW1 also shows that she herself has admitted that she has seen the conveyance deed executed in favour of Smt. Veerawali. As such, the contention of the respondent that petitioner has not placed on record sale deed/title deed is without any merit. Moreover, RW1 has also admitted that she does not know who is the owner of H-31, i.e. suit property where tenanted premises is situated.
11. As such, in view of material on record and discussion as earlier, the petitioner has been able to prove the ingredients of landlordship and ownership.
iii) & iv) Bonafide requirement /alternative accommodation:-
12. Perusal of record shows that petitioner has sought the tenanted premises for the bonafide commercial requirement of her daughter.
ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 13 of 26On the other hand, the respondents have claimed that there is no bonafide but malafide on the part of petitioner as he wants to get the tenanted premises vacated.
The contention of the respondent is that petitioner has not disclosed the name of his daughter in the petition and she is not associated with any NGO as claimed by petitioner instead she was in service in Safdarjung Hospital and is getting Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month as salary for her service at the time of filing of this petition but at present she is in the Ahemdabad.
Perusal of testimony of RW1 shows that during the cross- examination RW1 Smt. Geetika Tandon/daughter-in-law of respondent no.1 has herself stated that she does not know anything about the occupation and qualification etc. of daughter of petitioner.
13. As such, respondents themselves have retracted from their averments in the written statement. Moreover, perusal of W.S itself shows that the respondents are absolutely aware for whom the petitioner has filed the present petition as respondents themselves stated the exhaustive details of such daughter of petitioner. Moreover, there is no mandatory requirement of mentioning of name of such daughter when such daughter is identifiable by description itself.
14. As far as, the claim of the respondent in respect of service/employment of such daughter is concerned, petitioner or landlord or the person for whom eviction petition is filed is not supposed to sit idle till the disposal of such petition. Everyone has right as well as duty to work for himself/herself and for other family members and also for his/her country. Otherwise, there ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 14 of 26 would be no growth or will be a slow development in the country.
In case titled as "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta"
[2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi)], it has been held that the children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one.
In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1, it was held that:-
"It will be seen that the trial court and the appellate court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement" to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity". According to them, if the plaintiff had not permanently lost his job on account of the lockout or if he had not resigned his job, he could not be treated as a person without any means of livelihood, as contended by him and hence not entitled to an order for possession of the shop. This test, in our view, is not the proper test. A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. The manner in which the courts have gone into the meaning of "lockout" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 appears to us to be nothing but a perverse approach to the problem. One cannot imagine that a landlord who is in service should first resign his job and wait for the unknown and uncertain result of a long-drawn litigation. If he resigned his job, he might indeed end up in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the long-drawn litigation he started some other temporary water business to sustain himself, that would not be an indication that the need for establishing a grocery shop was not a bona fide or a reasonable requirement or that it ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 15 of 26 was motivated or was a mere design to evict the tenant".
In the case titled as Ram Babu Agarwal vs. Jay Kishan Das 2009(2) RCR 455, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also."
In the case titled as Lajpat Rai Vs Raman Jain 2012 Law suit (Del) 1439, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"The facts have been disclosed by the petitioners himself in the eviction petition; the petitioners also being a commerce graduate from the Shri Ram College of Commerce seeks an independent business of his own; thus this need to set up a business of his own cannot be in any manner be said to be imaginative or a need which is moonshine; it is a genuine need; the present petitioners having inherited this shop from his grandmother by virtue of the aforenoted Will wishes to set up his own business of rubber and latex which he was earlier carrying on with his father and in which he has gained expertise and knowledge. Thus in no manner can it be said that this need of the landlord is not a bonafide need. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement; it is not for the ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 16 of 26 tenant to dictate terms to him; neither the Court tell him the manner he wishes to set up his business."
In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 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 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."
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"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 non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 17 of 26 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 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 fact Ors. 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."
In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"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, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
The moral duty of a father/mother to help establish his/her son/daughter was also recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal" [AIR 2002 SC 2256] in the following words:
"24........Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 18 of 26 of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
15. In view of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court; it is well settled that a person is not supposed to remain unemployed till the disposal of the eviction petition. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing malafide if the petitioner wants to settle the business for his daughter. Rather, the said requirement seems to be bonafide as daughter of petitioner wants to earn her livelihood and wants to make herself independent. The tenant cannot stop the landlord/family member of landlord from starting any business for livelihood and for a social cause. The bonafide requirement of a landlord does not become malafide just because his daughter wants to run business for her livelihood from her own property. The consequent hardship to tenant from eviction order could also not convert otherwise bonafide requirement into malafide requirement. In my view, it is a right of every person to excel in his/her life and a person is not supposed to be remained in same position.
It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence RW1 Geetika Tandon which is as under:-
"I do not know who are the family members of the petitioner. It is correct that ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 19 of 26 Ms. Bani Sethi is the daughter of the petitioner and stays with the petitioner.... ....It is correct that in the portion of premises from point B to N in Ex. RW-1/X, the business under the name and style of Shades is being run by the petitioner. It is correct that Vani Sethi is the daughter of petitioner. I do not know whether Vani Sethi has any other premises or not. I am not aware of the academic qualification of Ms. Vani Sehi. I do not know whether she has done P.HD in Public Health and Food Nutrition. I do not know whether she is running NGO with the name of Sah Shakti since 2007. I do not know whether the said society is working for upliftment of the downtrodden women and children in the villages. I do not know whether the said society is engaged in selling the handicraft manufacturing by the women folk...."
16. As such, in view of discussion earlier, well settled proposition of law, it is clear that petitioner has been able to prove bonafide requirement and respondents have miserably failed to prove the malafide on the part of petitioner.
iv) Alternative accommodation:-
17. Perusal of record shows that respondents have claimed that petitioner is having alternative accommodation but the petitioner has denied this contention of the respondents.
It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence RW1 Geetika Tandon which is as under:-
"I have never visited inside the shop of the petitioner. Again said, I had visited the shop of the petitioner and had purchased a saree from the shop of the petitioner. I had purchased the saree about 04 years ago. I am not having the receipt of purchase of this saree. It is correct that the shop starts from the front and is extended till the end of the ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 20 of 26 property at back. It is correct that the property is a corner property and there are six tenants in the property. It is correct that apart from the six tenants, rest of the portion the business with the Trade name of Shades is being run in the property. I have made efforts to enquire about the ownership of the business run with the name of Shades. I only inquired only from my mother-in-law and husband. I do not know that Hemal Sethi is the proprietor of business run in the name of Shades. I do not know whether the petitioner has no interest in the business run with the name of Shades... .....There are total six tenants in the property No. H-31, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The shop of the respondent/tenant is at point A. The description of the occupants in the site plan in different portions is Ex. RW- 1/X is correct. Vol. I am not sure about the measurement. I am not aware of the dimensions and sizes of the shops in occupation of other tenants. I do not know whether the whole property No. H-31, Rajouri Garden is 213 Sqr. Yards. It is correct that the remaining ground floor portion apart from the tenants is in possession of Sh. Hemal Sethi who is running his business with the name and style of Shades Corner. It is correct that no other portion on the ground floor is vacant and available....."
18. Perusal of testimony of RW1 manifestly shows that she herself has admitted that petitioners are not having the alternative commercial accommodation for the purposes for which present eviction petition has been filed.
19. It is well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of the property should be available to the petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. The property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be reasonably suitable property. If the petitioner/landlord has filed the eviction petition for commercial bonafide requirement but the property available with the petitioner is ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 21 of 26 residential one, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation.
It is well settled whether the property available with the petitioner is convenient and suitable or not is to be determined from the point of view of the petitioner/landlord and not from the point of view of the tenant/respondent. The respondent/tenant cannot dictate the terms to the petitioner to use the property in the particular manner. The petitioner/landlord is the best judge of his requirement.
20. As such in my view taking into the consideration the material on record, the petitioner is not having the alternative reasonably suitable accommodation with him. Moreover, the respondent has not been able to prove on record that the petitioner is having alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with him which can be used for satisfying the bonafide need of daughter of petitioner.
21. During the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has left the suit property and he is not residing in the suit property and has shifted to Gurgaon.
In my considered view, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the petitioner has shifted to Gurgaon, it does not rule out the bonafide requirement of the petitioner as in the present case, the petitioner is seeking the tenanted premises for satisfying the commercial requirement of her daughter and not the residential requirement. Moreover, there is no mandatory requirement of the law to have the residence of the landlord in the same property where the business is being run ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 22 of 26 by the petitioner or his family members. So, this contention of the respondent does not have any substance.
22. Another contention of the respondent is that the petitioner wants to re-let the tenanted premises.
In my considered view, this contention is having without any substance as Sec. 19 of D.R.C. Act is always there on the statute in case the petitioner contravenes the law.
23. One of the contentions of the respondent is that petitioner is a chronic litigant and has filed several litigations against other tenants also. In my considered view, this contention has no substance as every landlord has the right to file such litigation against other tenants also. Moreover, no law restricts the landlord to file such litigation only to a specific number. He may file any number of petitions. Merely filing of such eviction petition or complaint against other tenants does not prove the malafide on the part of petitioner.
24. It is well settled that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
It is well settled that the need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner should be bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.
Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 23 of 26 whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in favour of the landlord also and the courts should not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their perception carried away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of eviction.
25. I have placed myself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And I have also applied a practical approach instructed by the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement. In view of discussions as earlier and well settled proposition of law, I am of the considered view that the need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner in the present case is bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.
In my view, the choice and the proclaimed need is not whimsical and merely fanciful.
26. As such, the petitioner has been able to prove his bonafide requirement. On the other hand, respondents have not been able to prove the malafide on the part of petitioner. Moreover, the respondents have not been able to prove that the petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with them which could be used to satisfy the bonafide requirement of daughter of petitioner for which the present eviction petition has been filed. As such, all the ingredients of U/S 14(1) (e) of DRC Act are satisfied.
ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 24 of 2627. Perusal of record shows that the respondent as well as petitioner has relied upon a number of judgments of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The petitioner has relied upon the judgments i.e. Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. 2000 LawSuit (SC) 41, Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal 2002 LawSuit (SC) 603 and Ram Babu Agarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das 2009 LawSuit (SC) 1427 Etc. Etc. On the other hand, the respondent has relied upon the judgments i.e. Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999 AIR (SC) 2507, Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. V. Tehmtan Irani & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 2326 and Hiralal Mulchand Doshi Vs. Barot Ramanlal Rachhoddas 1993 LawSuit(SC) 149.
28. I have gone through the entire case law relied upon by Ld. Counsels for the parties. The case law relied upon the respondent do not assist the respondent in view of the exhaustive discussion as earlier, peculiar facts of the case, settled law and material on record.
CONCLUSION:-
29. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled proposition of law and the reasons as discussed earlier, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has proved all the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. Consequently, the present eviction petition is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondents in respect of One Shop situated on the Ground Floor of the property bearing No. H-31, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, as more specifically shown and ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 25 of 26 delineated in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition Ex. PW-1/1.
30. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
31. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date: on 19th November, 2019. NAGAR 2019.11.19 18:52:39 +0530 (This judgment contains 26 pages) (Ajay Nagar) Additional Rent Controller, West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 25934/2016 Harish Kr. Sethi Vs. Sunita Tandon & Ors. Page 26 of 26