Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Gupta vs Krishna Wanti on 23 December, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHIRISH AGGARWAL, ACJ-CUM-ARC,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. E-496/19
Unique Case ID/CNR No.DLCT03-004663-2019
Anil Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Dal Chand Gupta
R/o 407, Second Floor,
Deepali Enclave, Pitampura,
New Delhi-110034. ...Petitioner
Versus
Krishna Wanti
W/o Late Sh. Munshi Ram
C/o Property No.2438,
First Floor, Gali No.10,
Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road,
New Delhi-10005. ...Respondent
Date of Institution of Petition : 05.07.2019
Date on which order was reserved : 18.12.2021
Date of decision : 23.12.2021
Decision :Application seeking leave to
defend filed on behalf of the respondent
is dismissed. Eviction order
is passed.
Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 1 of 26
2
ORDER
1. This is a petition for eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This order shall dispose off the application seeking leave to defend filed by respondent.
2. The petitioner claims to be owner and landlord of a shop on the first floor of property bearing no. 2438, Gali No.10, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi-110005, shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises'). It is stated that the respondent is a tenant in this premises at a monthly rate of rent of Rs.442.90/- excluding other charges.
3. It is stated that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, namely, Dr. Kanika Gupta is a Dentist by profession and wants to setup her own dental clinic in the tenanted premises. It is pleaded that she is currently running a small clinic in a far away property in a congested locality of Kailash Nagar, East Delhi. It is stated that this property belongs to a close friend of her father and is at a poor location. It is far away from her Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 2 of 26 3 residence. As such, it is almost impossible for her to continue her profession from the said clinic.
4. It is pleaded that she wishes to maintain a proper balance in her family and profession life and therefore, she shifts her dental clinic to the tenanted premises. She can accompany her in-laws from their residence since the in-laws are also carrying business at Karol Bagh.
5. On the basis of these averments, it is stated that the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for the clinic of her daughter-in-law Dr. Kanika Gupta.
6. It is stated that the petitioner does not have any other reasonable and suitable accommodation for this purpose. The petitioner has prayed that eviction order be passed in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
7. Summons under the Third Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court which were served upon Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 3 of 26 4 the respondent. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend.
8. It is stated in the application for leave to defend that the respondent tenant had paid Rs.2,25,000/- as refundable security amount (pagri) to the previous owner.
9. It is averred that the present case has been filed on the false pretext that the property being required by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. It is stated that the daughter-in-law is not dependent upon the petitioner. The petitioner has three sons. The sons and their respective wives are well settled in life. It is pleaded that the daughter-in-law in question is well educated and settled, being a dental surgeon and is already running a better clinic since even before she got married. As such, alternative accommodation is also available. It is stated that the plan of shifting the clinic from Kailash Nagar to the tenanted premises is merely a tool to get the property vacated for ulterior motives.
10. It is averred that the distance between the residence of the Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 4 of 26 5 petitioner in Pitampura and Kailash Nagar is not so much that it would make it totally impossible for the daughter-in-law to continue her practice there. It is stated that it would not take more than around one hour to travel from Pitampura to Kailash Nagar which is almost as much time as would be required to travel from Pitampura to the tenanted premises.
11. It is stated that the petition is based upon certain assumptions and presumptions that if the clinic is shifted to the tenanted premises, the practice of the daughter-in-law is likely to flourish. It is averred that the tenanted premises is in a locality which is a commercial hub and therefore, it is not likely for the daughter-in-law to find patients there. It is pleaded that the daughter-in-law is not selling any product for which she needs to be in a commercial hub.
12. It is stated that shifting of clinic to the tenanted premises will not help the daughter-in-law in any way to maintain a balance between her professional and personal life.
13. It is stated that the petitioner is multi- millionaire and has no Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 5 of 26 6 paucity of accommodation. On the other hand, the respondent has no other premises for her work and if she is evicted then she and her family will come on the road since they are totally dependent on the business being run from the tenanted premises.
14. It is submitted that after the petitioner received possession of the big hall on the first floor in the same building and one shop and window shop on the ground floor and two rooms on the mezzanine floor in the year 2018, it could have been used for opening the clinic, but it was not.
15. It is stated that the petitioner does not have any bonafide need of the tenanted premises and this is evident from the fact that when the petitioner got his property vacated for the business need of his son, no business was ever started from it.
16. It is stated that the petition has been filed with malafide intention to get the tenanted premises back so that it can be rented out at a higher rate of rent in the future.
Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 6 of 26 7
17. It is pleaded that the family members shown to be dependent by the petitioner are fully independent and engaged in flourishing businesses. It is pointed out that the name of the daughter-in-law, namely, Dr. Kanika Gupta is not included in the list of dependents. It is stated that Dr. Kanika Gupta can claim any right through her husband who is well settled, therefore, the requirement disclosed by the petitioner is nothing but fanciful.
18. It is stated that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner is not dependent upon the petitioner since even currently, she is running her own clinic without any support from the petitioner.
19. It is stated that the petitioner has concealed the fact that he had re-let window shop no. 2 one year ago at a rental of Rs.20,000/- per month and window shop no. 4 at a rental of Rs.9,000/-.
20. The respondent has pleaded that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is fake and malafide and has prayed that leave to defend the petition may be granted to the respondent as the application/affidavit of Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 7 of 26 8 the respondent/tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises under section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
21. The petitioner filed reply to the application seeking leave to defend. The petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of his eviction petition and denied the averments made in the application for leave to defend. The petitioner denied that any security amount was paid and agreed to be refunded. It is averred that no document has been filed in support of the averment.
22. It is stated that Dr. Kanika Gupta is fully dependent upon her father-in-law and that the tenant is not entitled to dictate as to whether she can be considered dependent or not. It is denied that the three sons of the petitioner have their independent businesses and are well settled.
23. It is stated that Dr. Kanika Gupta was earlier running a small dental clinic in a far off and congested locality at Kailash Nagar, East Delhi which belongs to a close friend of her father. However, recently, due to Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 8 of 26 9 the poor location of the property and since it is far off from the residence of Dr. Kanika Gupta situated at Pitampura, it almost became impossible for her to continue her profession from the said clinic. As such, Dr. Kanika Gupta had to permanently close her clinic at Kailash Nagar. It is submitted that a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord.
24. It is denied that the petitioner had re-let the window shops no. 2 & 4 at a rental of Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.9,000/- per month respectively. It is stated that the present case is for a shop measuring approximately 93.15 sq. ft. on the first floor of property bearing no. 2438, Gali No. 10, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi and as such the averment about the window shops which cannot otherwise be utilized for starting a dental clinic, is not relevant for the present case.
25. With regard to the hall on the first floor of the property, it is submitted that its possession was received by the petitioner in pursuance of a compromise and after taking possession of the hall, it is being used by Mr. Vivek Gupta, third son of the petitioner for his business being run Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 9 of 26 10 under the name of M/s D.C. Fashions.
26. It is stated that Mr. Vishesh Gupta, son of the petitioner is doing business from one shop and a window shop no. 4 on the ground floor and two rooms on the mezzanine floor of the property. It is denied that the petitioner obtained possession of properties for setting up of businesses and no business has ever started. It is prayed that the application for leave to defend be dismissed.
27. Despite opportunity, the respondent did not file rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner.
28. I have heard the arguments and have carefully gone through the record.
29. 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 owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises. ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 10 of 26 11
iii. He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
30. The respondent has not denied the ownership of the petitioner and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.
31. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodation which can be provided by him to his daughter- in-law for opening her dental clinic. It is stated that the hall on the first floor, shop and window shop on the ground floor and two rooms on the mezzanine floor are available for opening of the clinic. This averment has been denied by the petitioner. He has stated that the hall on the first floor is being used by Mr. Vivek and the shop and window shop on the ground floor and two rooms on the mezzanine floor are being used by Mr. Vishesh, both sons of the petitioner, for their respective businesses.
32. Despite opportunity, the respondent did not even file the rejoinder. In the case of M/s Roxy Dry Cleaners Vs. Sameer Wason & Anr. RC Rev. Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 11 of 26 12 No. 142/2013 dated 17.09.2014, the following was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court:-
"Once these specific facts were stated by the respondents/landlords in the reply to the additional affidavit of lack of adequate space in the existing shop of the respondent no.1, in my opinion, the petitioner/tenant was bound to file a rejoinder-affidavit if it was disputing this fact."
33. In the case of Madan Mohan Vs. Sheel Gulati CS (OS) No.357/2006 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 19.08.2015, it was held that non-filing of replication will amount to deemed admission of the averments made in the written statement. It was held that deemed admission will arise in view of Order 8 Rule 9 r/w Order 8 Rule 5 and Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC which provides that on non-filing of replication (technically called additional written statement and not replication in Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC), the same will amount to deemed admission of the contents of the written statement filed by a defendant.
34. Since rejoinder was not filed, the respondent is deemed to have admitted the averment of the petitioner that hall on the first floor, shop Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 12 of 26 13 and window shop on the ground floor and the two rooms on the mezzanine floor are not vacant, but are being used by the sons of the petitioner for their respective businesses.
35. Moreover, the assertion of the respondent that the sons of the petitioner are not really using the premises got vacated for running of business is not supported with any material. In the case of Rajender Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Leela Wati 155 (2008) DLT 383, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the respondents tenants have to place on record some material in support of the assertions made in the application for leave to defend. In this context, the following was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 161 (2010) DLT 80:
"However, merely because the tenant so disputes and controverts the pleas of the landlord does not imply that the provision of summary procedure introduced in the Act with respect to ground of eviction on the ground of requirement is to be set at naught....The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bonafide requirement of the landlord;Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 13 of 26 14
a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
36. In the case of K.K. Sarin Vs. M/s Pigott Chapman & Co. 46 (1992) DLT 352, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held the following:
"Due to paucity of accommodation in Delhi the tenants are likely to plead facts and if they are held to be raising triable issue in every case, hardly any application seeking leave to defend would fail. This certainly is not the idea behind this provision. While deciding the application seeking leave, what is required of the Rent Controller is to observe the rules of natural justice and to give opportunity to both the parties to produce the affidavits and material on which they rely. When leave to defend is sought, the tenant must make out a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge."
37. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the case of Mohd. Naseer Vs. Mohd. Zaheer and Anr. RC Rev. No. 267/2016 dated 03.11.2016 in which the following was held :-
"19. ...Mere raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a ground for being granted leave to defend to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the petitioners have given facts or particulars which require to be established by way of evidence. The petitioners have merely made allegations for the sake of making allegation. There is no merit in the said plea of Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 14 of 26 15 the petitioner.
20. The trial court has rightly concluded that the petitioners have failed to place on record any material to raise a suspicion that the respondents are having a vacant space on the ground floor of the suit property which can be used by them to open his workshop for industrial tools."
38. As per the petitioner, the portions of the property in question are being used for running of businesses. Admittedly, the tenanted premises is situated in the same property and is being used by the respondent for her business. The respondent could have easily provided better details and material including photographs in support of her contention that the portion of the property are vacant and available for use by the petitioner's daughter-in-law. However, besides a self-serving and ipse dixit statement in this regard, no material has been placed on record by the respondent to establish that the hall on the first floor, shop and window shop on the ground floor and the two rooms on the mezanine floor are vacant and available with the petitioner. In similar circumstances where the alleged vacant premises were situated next to the tenanted premises, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mohd. Naseer Vs. Mohd. Zaheer and Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 15 of 26 16 Anr. RC Rev. No. 267/2016 dated 03.11.2016 held the following:-
"19. Clearly, the contentions raised by the petitioners appear to be an allegation without any basis whatsoever. The respondent on affidavit has denied the contention and has name the occupants/tenants. The petitioner themselves are occupying a shop in the premises and would certainly have better details if the respondent was in occupation of the two shops. Mere raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a ground for being granted leave to defend to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the petitioners have given facts or particulars which require to be established by way of evidence. The petitioners have merely made allegations for the sake of making allegation. There is no merit in the said plea of the petitioner.
20. The trial court has rightly concluded that the petitioners have failed to place on record any material to raise a suspicion that the respondents are having a vacant space on the ground floor of the suit property which can be used by them to open his workshop for industrial tools."
39. Also, in view of the aforementioned decisions, it was for the respondent to place on record material to establish that the petitioner has re-let window shops no. 2 & 4. Having failed to do so, there is no reason to believe that the petitioner has indeed re-let these portions of the property. Moreover, even if these two window shops were indeed re-let by the petitioner, it does not give rise to any triable issue and does not create a doubt on the genuineness of the requirement stated by the Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 16 of 26 17 petitioner since these window shops are not alternative suitable accommodations. On asking by the Court during the course of arguments, it was pointed out that these window shops are the small portions on the external left side of the ground floor of the property, as shown in the site plan filed by the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, these window shops can be said to be alternative suitable accommodations for starting of a dental clinic. Therefore, even if these shops were re-let, it does not give rise to any doubt on the genuineness of the requirement of the petitioner.
40. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has other premises available for his stated requirement, even then the choice is left to the landlord/petitioner to decide as to which of these premises he/his family should occupy and the tenant does not have any say in this matter. In the case of Ravichandran and Ors. Vs Natrajan Nadar and Ors. (2004) 1 MLJ 458, the following was held:
"Even assuming that other premises are available, then the choice is left to the landlord to decide as to which non-Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 17 of 26 18
residential premises he should occupy, and the tenant cannot have any say in the matter. If the landlord is able to show the bonafide, then the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord that he should occupy some other building and not the one mentioned in the petition."
41. In the case of Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 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. Reference may also be made to the case of Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353.
42. In view of the settled legal position it is not for the respondent to dictate to the petitioner that he should use some other accommodation for his daughter-in-law's clinic, even if it is indeed available with the petitioner. The tenanted premises belongs to the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to see whether it is suitable for his requirement or not. It is the right of the petitioner and his daughter-in-law to chose a property which is going to be more profitable and convenient for them. If the tenanted Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 18 of 26 19 premises is suitable as per their needs, the petitioner has every right to possess the said premises and the respondent cannot contend that the petitioner should manage his affairs otherwise. While deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted. The respondent cannot decide as to whether the premises in Kailash Nagar or in Karol Bagh is going to be more convenient and profitable for the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. This is besides the fact that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Kailash Nagar is at a much more distance than is Karol Bagh for a person who is residing at Pitampura. Therefore, from the point of view of distance and travelling time, the property in Karol Bagh is going to be more suitable for the daughter-in- law of the petitioner to run her clinic.
43. It is not in dispute that the property in Kailash Nagar is not owned by the petitioner, his daughter-in-law or by any other family member of the daughter-in-law. It is stated to be owned by a friend of the father of Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 19 of 26 20 the daughter-in-law. Since it is not owned by the daughter-in-law or by any of her family members, it cannot be held to be an alternative suitable accommodation for her clinic. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in similar facts of case titled Ashok Kumar Mehra Vs. Kuldeep Kumar Mehra, 2010 (172) DLT 274. The following was held by the Hon'ble High Court in this case:
"26. Respondent is admittedly living in a rented accommodation and has placed various documents on record. Now if respondent wants to live in his own house. i.e. property in question he cannot be compelled to live in rented accommodation when his own accommodation is available even more particularly when he was no alternative accommodation in his possession. Under these circumstance, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the requirement of respondent to live in his own house is not bonafide or genuine. Respondent who is presently living in a rented accommodation has all the right to shift to his own property.
27. In Kailash Chand & Ors. Vs. Chand, 1998, RLR 603, it has been observed that;
"If an owner is living in tenanted premises, he is entitled to seek eviction of his tenant and this desire cannot be held to be imaginary, fanciful or unnatural."
28. Similarly, in Surjit Singh Kalra Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. with Mahendra Raj Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Colonel Ashok Puri, JT1991 (1) SC 417 the court observed;
"The landlord cannot be denied possession of his premises under Section 14B when he is residing in a rented accommodation".Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 20 of 26 21
44. In the case of Dipika Arora Vs. S.N.Sehgal 58 (1995) DLT 729, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that the desire of the landlord to stay in his own house was bonafide. Since the property in Kailash Nagar is not owned by the family of Dr. Kanika Gupta, her desire to shift her clinic to the property owned by her father-in-law cannot be said to be fanciful or malafide. This is besides the fact that due to the non-filing of rejoinder, it is not in dispute and is deemed to be admitted that Dr. Kanika Gupta has already closed the clinic in Kailash Nagar. Merely because she so far ran a clinic without the support of her husband and father-in-law does not mean that she is not dependent upon them for the purpose of accommodation for all times to come.
45. Even if the contention of the respondent that the sons of the petitioner are already well settled and running their established businesses is correct, it still does not give rise to any triable issue since the daughter- in-law is still deemed to be dependent upon her father-in-law for accommodation. In this regard, the Court is of the view that dependence Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 21 of 26 22 of children upon the parent is not always financial or physical. In the context of section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in which the legislature has consciously use the words 'any member of family dependent on the landlord', dependency includes emotional reliance on another person. It is not in dispute that the daughter-in-law is residing in the same house as is the petitioner. By this very fact, it is clear that she is dependent upon the petitioner. The following was held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Naresh Khanna Vs. Saroj Gupta RC Rev. 281/2017 dated 28.08.2017 :-
"...The said question is no longer res integra and it has been settled that the words 'requirement of the landlord' within the meaning of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is not only confined to requirement of the landlord but of all members of the family of the landlord who are dependent upon the landlord for accommodation and with whom landlord is residing as a family or who constitute family of landlord. It is for this reason only that eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been ordered for the requirements of financially well off sons as well. In the present case, the plea of the respondent/landlady in the petition for eviction is that the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant is required to enable her daughter-in-law who have been doing the work of sale of garments from their residence, to set up a boutique.
...It was yet further held that dependence may not in all circumstances be entirely a matter of finance. Again in Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 22 of 26 23 J.L.Mehta Vs. Hira Devi (1970) 6 DLT 484 it was held that what constitutes a family in a particular society depends upon the habits and ideas of persons constituting that society and the religious and socio religious customs of the community to which such persons may belong. It was thus held that the requirement of the family of the brother of the landlord residing with the landlord would also be the requirement of the landlord. It was further held that the requirement of the landlord "himself"
cannot be considered by excluding the requirement of other persons with whom the landlord is habituated to residing us a family. To the same effect is the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Dass Vs. Kuldip Singh ILR (1970) I Delhi 585. Supreme Court in Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397 approved of the view taken in J.L.Mehta supra as well as in Krishna Devi Vs. Parmeshwari Devi (1977) 2 RCJ 529 where requirement of the family of the married daughter was also considered as a requirement of the landlady. It was further held that the words "for his own use"
cannot be construed narrowly. Again, in Kailash Chand Vs. Dharam Das (2005) 5 SCC 375 it was held that the expression "his own occupation" has to be liberally construed and given a practical meaning and does not mean occupation by the landlord himself only. Recently in Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi (2016) 10 SCC 209 also the requirement of premises for the business of the son already engaged in one other business was held to be the requirement of the landlord. Reference in this regard may also be made to my judgment dated 17th July, 2017 in RC. Rev. No. 315/2017 titled Asha Sawhney Vs. Kamini Gupta and to Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Deepika Verma (224) 2015 DLT 473 and Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta (2010) 119 DRJ 599. The latter two were also cases of requirement of the daughter-in-law residing with the mother-in-law. Mention may also be made of M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.K.Soni AIR 1994 Del 167 and Santosh Kumari Mehra Vs. Om Prakash (2015) 221 DLT 578 (SLP (C) No. 20970/2015 preferred where against was dismissed on 15th January, 2016), both of which were cases of requirement for financially independent sons and grand children of the Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 23 of 26 24 landlord."
46. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner is not interested in using the tenanted premises for the clinic of his daughter-in- law but wants to earn more out of the property after having the respondent evicted. In this context, the Court is of the opinion that in case the petitioner fails to occupy the premises as has been claimed by him, the Delhi Rent Control Act provides for recovery of possession by the respondent/tenant of the tenanted premises for its re-entry and occupation. It has also been the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s A.K.Woolen Industries & Ors. Vs. Shri Narayan Gupta RC. Rev. No. 495/2017 dated 31.10.2017 that section 19(2) of the Rent Act of Delhi provides a remedy to the tenant of repossession, if the landlord is not in use of the premises after obtaining an order of eviction against the tenant on the ground of the requirement of the premises for own use.
47. The averment that the refundable security amount/pagri was paid Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 24 of 26 25 also does not give rise to any triable issue. At best, the tenant may initiate separate proceedings for recovery of the security amount. In the case of Puran Chand Aggarwal Vs. Lekh Raj RC Rev. No. 291/2012 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 16.04.2014, the following was held:-
"31. As regards the argument of the petitioner that he has spent 2,50,000/- in construction and has also paid 2,25,000/- to the petitioner's brother as per agreement, the original agreement was not filed in the trial court. Even otherwise, in case any amount is paid to the brother of the respondent that has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Similar is the case of spending money for construction. The petitioner is entitled to recover the said amount, if recoverable in law. The said plea taken by the petitioner does not help the case of the petitioner and it is not a triable issue".
48. The net result is that the petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted premises is required by his daughter-in-law for her clinic and that they do not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for this purpose. The respondent has failed to raise any reasonable triable issue. The application for leave to defend is dismissed.
49. Since the application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed, Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 25 of 26 26 the petitioner is entitled to an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e a shop on the first floor of property bearing no. 2438, Gali No.10, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi-110005, as shown in red color in the site plan filed alongwith eviction petition, in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlord however shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
50. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
SHIRISH AGGARWAL ACJ-cum-ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court On 23.12.2021) Eviction petition No.496/19 Page 26 of 26