Delhi District Court
Raj Kumar Gujral vs Amardeep Singh on 21 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJEET SINGH JASPAL
SCJ-CUM-RC(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC No. 280/2020
DLCT03-002612-2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Raj Kumar Gujral
S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral
R/o 1-B/21, N.E.A, Pusa Road,
Old Rajender Nagar,
Delhi-110060 ......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Amardeep Singh
S/o Sh. Surjit Singh
2. Parminder Singh
S/o Sh. Surjit Singh
Both C/o
Shop at Ground Floor,
Property bearing no. 10212-10216,
Ganga Ram Building,
Ajmal Khan Road,
Karol Bagh,New Delhi ......... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.08.2020
RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 08.08.2024
DATE OF DECISION : 21.08.2024
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF THE TENANT UNDER
SECTION 14 (1) (e) R/W SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT
CONTROL ACT, 1958
JUDGMENT
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 1 of 74
HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:41:21 +0530
1. This is an eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter as the DRC Act), which is a special legislation and is beneficial in nature. Under the said special law, the courts are under compulsion to harmoniously read the provisions of the Act so as to balance the rights of the landlord and the obligations of the tenant toward each other keeping in mind that one of the objects of the legislature while enacting the Act was to curb the tendency of the greedy landlords to throw out the tenants, paying lower rent, in the name of personal occupation and rent out the premises at the market rate. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra K. Tandon, AIR 1198 SC 1639.
2. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner Sh. Raj Kumar Gujral (herein as the petitioner) under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act, 1958 against the respondents namely Amardeep Singh and Parminder Singh (hereinafter as the respondents) seeking their eviction from a shop and a Kolki (un- numbered) both situated on the ground floor of the property bearing No.10212-10216, Ganga Ram Building, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as specifically shown in the red color of the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises in question).
3. The bonafide requirement quoted by the petitioner is that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the petitioner as the petitioner wants to provide commercial space to his wife, RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:41:31 +0530 namely Smt. Neelam Gujral, as she needs the tenanted premises in question bonafidely, wherefrom she wants to independently start her own business of Ladies Garment/Boutique.
4. The facts of the eviction petition are being reproduced as under:-
i). That the petitioner is the exclusive and absolute owner, as well as the landlord of the tenanted premises in question bearing one shop ad-measuring 16.0' X 9.0' alongwith the Kolki ad-measuring 10' X 4 ½' adjacent thereto, though having separate shutters, situated on the ground floor of the property bearing no. 10212-10216, Ganga Ram Building, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110055 (hereinafter as the suit property). It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner alongwith three other co-
owners, namely, Smt. Kanta Rani, Shri Vinod Gujral and Sh. Praveen Gujral, all of whom are closely related to each other, are the registered owners of the entire freehold property bearing no. 10212-10216, falling in Khasra No.1450/1255, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (of which the tenanted premises in question forms only a part), vide a registered Conveyance Deed dated 24.04.2019 executed by the Delhi Development Authority in their favour.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:41:40 +0530
ii). That the petitioner possesses a pre- existing right in respect of the property in question even prior to the execution of the said Conveyance Deed dated 24.04.2019, and has thus not acquired the premises in question by transfer within the meaning of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. In this regard, before proceeding further, it would be imperative to provide a brief background about how the petitioner became the absolute owner and landlord of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that the said property (as a whole) situated at Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was originally allotted in favour of Sh. Ganga Ram Gujral, the predecessor-in-interest (grandfather) of the petitioner by the DDA by virtue of a Lease Deed dated 20.07.1954. However, Shri Ganga Ram Gujral unfortunately expired intestate on 30.05.1962. Thereafter three sons of late Sh. Ganga Ram Gujral, namely Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral (father of the petitioner), Sh. Manohar Lal Gujral and Sh. Krishan Lal Gujral entered into an Oral Family settlement vide registered Declaration/Memorandum of Oral Family Arrangement dated 01.07.1995. All the said three sons of Late Sh. Ganga Ram Gujral have since expired.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 74 Digitally signedHARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:41:52 +0530
iii). That vide the said Declaration/Memorandum of the Oral Family Arrangement dated 01.07.1995, it was agreed amongst the parties thereto that the aforesaid property bearing No.10212-10216, Ganga Ram Building, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 shall be jointly owned by Late Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral (father of the petitioner), Late Sh. Manohar Lal Gujral and Late Sh. Krishan Lal Gujral excluding the portions in occupation of the existing partnership firms, namely, 'Gujralsons' and Bombay Silk Store. It is also submitted that the said partnership firms, namely, Gujralsons and Bombay Silk Store, after the execution of the said family arrangement, fell to the share of the family members of Late Sh. Krishan Lal Gujral and the family members of Late Sh. Krishan Lal Gujral and the family members of Late Sh.
Jagdish Lal Gujral (father of the petitioner) respectively.
iv). In the year, 1998, on the strength of being one of the co-owners of the said property, the father of the petitioner, namely Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral, entered into an oral family settlement with the branches of the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 5 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:42:20 +0530 other aforesaid two co-owners by virtue whereof, it was mutually agreed amongst them that the branch of Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral shall be the owner of Yellow Colour, Red Colour, and Blue colour shown in the site plan. The portions which have been shown in yellow colour are presently in occupation of Bombay Silk Store and Red Colour portion is the tenanted premises in the site plan annexed to the present petition. That during lifetime of Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral, it was also agreed and settled amongst the family members of Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral (father of the petitioner) that after his death, the ownership of the portions shown in Yellow Colour from where the petitioner is carrying on his business in partnership under the name and style of "Bombay Silk Store"
and portion shown in Red colour under the tenancy of the respondents/tenants shall be owned by the petitioner, whereas, the ownership of the portions shown in Blue Colur shall devolve upon the real brother of the petitioner, namely Sh. Praveen Kumar Gujral. This oral partition had taken place during the lifetime of Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral, and since then, the petitioner and his brother (Praveen Kumar Gujral) have been in occupation of their respective yellow and RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 6 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:42:36 +0530 blue colour portions. It is stated that the petitioner and his brother have always respected the said oral partition and none of them have interfered in the portions of the other.
v). That in view of the aforesaid, after the death of Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral on 20.04.2006, his sons, namely Sh. Raj Kumar Gujral and Sh. Praveen Kumar Gujral became the co-owners, alongwith the branches of the other two owners (i.e. Late Sh. Manohar Lal Gujral and Late Sh. Krishan Lal Gujral) of the suit property, except the portions already in occupation of the aforesaid partnership firms. However, after the death of the father of the petitioner, namely Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the portions in occupation of the said partnership firm namely, "Bombay Silk Store" as well as the tenanted premises, which forms part of the larger portion in occupation of the said "Bombay Silk Store", though the tenanted premises have a independent entrance from the road.
vi). That the petitioner has been carrying on his business in partnership, under RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 7 of 74 Digitally signed by HARJEET HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:42:45 +0530 the name and style of 'Bombay Silk Store', from the yellow portion of the said property bearing No.10212-10216, Ganga Ram Building, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 comprising of the Ground Floor, First Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor, on the strength of the partnership deed dated 07.07.1995, the terms whereof were modified by virtue of a subsequent partnership deed dated 01.04.2000 executed between the petitioner, his wife (Smt. Neelam Gujral) and his two sons, namely Sh. Pankaj Gujral and Sh.
Vikram Gujral. However, one of the said sons of the petitioner, namely Sh. Pankaj Gujral, who was a sleeping partner in the said partnership business, has however permanently shifted alongwith his family to Chicago (USA) and is now a US citizen.
vii). That the tenanted premises in question was let out to the respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.240/-. However, till the year 1996, the respondents paid rent qua the tenanted premises to the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, i.e. Late Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral (father of the petitioner), Late Sh. Manohar Lal Gujral and Late Sh. Krishan Lal Gujral. However, thereafter, the respondents RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 8 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:42:54 +0530 used to pay the rent to the petitioner occasionally at their own whims, but since the rent of the premises in question was so minimal, the petitioner did not demand the same in writing, though he used to make repeated requests, however, the respondents failed to pay the rent to him qua the tenanted premises in their occupation. It is submitted that respondent no. 1 is doing the business of Readymade clothes for women under the name and style of "Royal Exclusif", whereas, the respondent no. 2 who also claims tenancy rights in the tenanted premises is however doing his separate business from the shop situated on the main Ajmal Khan Road.
viii). That the present eviction petition has been necessitated on behalf of the petitioner, as the petitioner wants to provide commercial space to his wife, namely, Smt. Neelam Gujral, as she needs the tenanted premises bonafidely, wherefrom she wants to independently start her own business of ladies garments/boutique. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner, who is also one of the partners of the aforesaid firm "Bombay Silk Stores", possesses rich experience in handling the business of Garments, but she now wants to independently pursue the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 9 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:43:04 +0530 business of ladies garments for which she, being an educated and experienced person, is confident of good prospects. It is submitted that the petitioner already possesses rich experience in the business of Garments, however, the firm Bombay Silk Store, deals only in Women Ethnic wear, hence the wife of the petitioner wants to independently foray into modern-style readymade garments for women, which has a huge potential and totally different from Ethnic wear. Therefore, the petitioner has also decided to guide and assist his wife in her independent business of ladies garments, which she intends to start from the tenanted premises in question. Furthermore, it has been agreed amongst the partners of the said Partnership Firm of Bombay Silk Store that in case the wife of the petitioner is able to settle down successfully in her own independent business from the tenanted premises, she shall retire from the said partnership firm. Moreover, after obtaining the possession of the tenanted premises, the petitioner intends to remove the intervening wall between the said shop and the Kolki (i.e. the tenanted premises), so that the wife of the petitioner could get sufficient space to carry her own independent business. Not only that, the tenanted premises is RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 10 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:43:11 +0530 adjoining (from three sides) the portions of 'Bombay Silk Store' and offers a huge potential and much better prospects as well as attractive location of the Ground Floor, as the same is situated in the famous and prime commercial hub of Central Delhi.
ix). That except the premises in question, there is no other alternative suitable commercial accommodation available with the petitioner which could be utilized by his wife for starting her own independent business. It is further submitted that except the tenanted premises in question, the remaining portions of the suit property are already being utilized by him for carrying on the business of garments under the name and style of Bombay Silk Store and hence, no other portion of the said property is available for utilization by the petitioner to help his wife start her new independent business of ladies garments which she intends to start only from the Ground Floor owing to the flourishing prospects and potential of the said location. In any case, the upper floors of the said property in occupation of the petitioner are being utilized for the business of Bombay Silk Store and are otherwise also unsuitable RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 11 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:43:17 +0530 for the new business of of ladies garments to be started by the wife of the petitioner.
x). That there was a property bearing no. 2292 to 2336, known as Peeli Kothi, situated at Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi which was owned by the company Mercuty General Corporation Pvt. Ltd., which fell to the joint ownership of Late Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral (father of the petitioner), Late Sh. Manohar Lal Gujral and Late Sh. Krishan Lal Gujral vide the declaration/memorandum of the oral family arrangement dated 01.07.1995, however, the said property has already been sold many years ago by the Directors of the said company through its director belonging to the branches of Late Sh. Manohar Lal Gujral, Late Shri Krishan Lal Gujral and Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral.
xi). That there was another shop bearing no. 237, situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi-
110006, which fell to the exclusive ownership of the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Sh. Jagdish Lal Gujral vide the said Declaration/memorandum of oral family arrangement dated 01.07.1995, however, the same had been sold by the father of the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 12 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:43:26 +0530 petitioner during his lifetime approximately 15-16 years back.
xii). That it would be pertinent to mention here that there were certain shops on the ground floor of the property known as Ganga Ram Building, and which shops were co-owned by all the three branches of the larger family of the Gujral household (i.e. JLG, MLG and KLG). The said shops no. 4, 5, 10, 11 and 12 have been disposed of recently by the consent of all the said co- owners. Since the petitioner only had a small share in the said shops, being one of the co- owners, therefore, he had no other alternative but to abide by the decision of the entire family, as he was not its exclusive owner.
xiii). That there is a residential house of the petitioner, bearing house no. 1-B/21, N.E.A., Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi-110060 which is being used as residence by the petitioner and his family, and hence the same cannot be used for any commercial activity.
Apart from the said residential house, the petitioner is also the owner of the First Floor and Second Floor of a property bearing No.30/42, Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi- 110060, however, both the said floors of the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 13 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:43:34 +0530 property are in occupation of tenants and the said floors of the property are in occupation of tenants and are being used as residence. In any case, since the said property of Old Rajinder Nagar is situated in a residential locality, hence, the same can also not be used for carrying out any commercial activity. In fact, the petitioner requested the respondents to vacate the tenanted premises as he requires the same bonafidely for the reasons stated hereinabove, but the respondents flatly refused to accede to the request of the petitioner/landlord.
5. On the receipt of notice of the petition in the form prescribed in the third Schedule of DRC Act, the respondents appeared before the Court and applied for leave to defend. The said liberty was granted to the respondent by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2021, and thereafter, a written statement was jointly filed on behalf of the respondents.
6. In their joint written statement, opposing the petition, it is submitted by the respondents that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, the following objections were raised by the respondents:-
i). That the tenanted premises was let out for commercial purpose, hence the ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is not available to the petitioner. That as per Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act as promulgated by the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 14 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:43:42 +0530 legislature the grounds of eviction under the said provision is available only in case of residential properties and the present is a case of commercial property which is stated to be required for commercial purposes. That it is humbly submitted that when the statute permits filing of an eviction petition only on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for residential premises, the re-writing of the section to include premises let out for any purpose including commercial premises could not have been done.
ii). That the summons have not been duly served upon the respondents.
iii). That the site plan provided to the respondents is not clear, neither legible, nor a colored photocopy of the same has been provided. In the absence of the same, it is difficult for the respondents to fathom and understand the same. In the absence of the proper site plan being provided to the respondents the petition itself is faulty and lacks in material particular.
iv). That the eviction petition is bad in law in view of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, which provides for prohibition on filing eviction proceedings until the lapse of 5 years. That since the petitioner has become owner of the property by virtue of Conveyance Deed dated 24.04.2019 and the period of five years has not yet elapsed, hence, the present petition is not maintainable.RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 15 of 74
HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:43:59 +0530
v). That rights in favor of the petitioner have been created for the first time by virtue of alleged Conveyance Deed dated 24.04.2019. Presuming though not admitting that the said conveyance deed to be valid and genuine even then the bar of Section 14(6) of the Act applies to him. That the present petition is thus liable to be dismissed.
vi). That the petition of the petitioner is without any cause of action whatsoever in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents. The necessary postulates mandated for the presentation of the petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act are not made out.
vii). That there is no jural relationship of landlord tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. That the petitioner has never professed himself to be the landlord or demonstrated any such right and the respondents have also never accepted the petitioner as their landlord. That no rent has ever been paid by the respondents to the petitioner or claimed by the petitioner from the respondents.
viii). That the premises was let out by the firm M/s Gangaram, Jagdishlal, Manoharlal, Krishanlal, that the rent was received and the rent receipts were also issued by the said firm. That the said firm is thus the landlord in respect of the premises and the petitioner has no locus standi to present this petition.
ix). That, without prejudice it is submitted that in case M/s Gangaram, Jagdishlal, Manoharlal, Krishanlal is not RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 16 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:44:07 +0530 construed to be a firm then it is joint landlordship and all the said persons/ their legal heirs have to be joined as parties to any petition in respect of the property.
x). That the petitioner has got no locus standi to present this petition as owner since his claim regarding ownership is not only contradictory but also disputed. That the petitioner on the one hand has stated that he is the owner of the suit property, while at the same time stating that he alongwith Smt. Kanta Rani, Shri Raj Kumar Gujral and Shri Praveen Gujral is co-owner of the property by virtue of Conveyance Deed dated 24.04.2019 executed by Delhi Development Authority in their favour.
xi). That the suit property is stated to have been owned by Shri Ganga Ram Gujral and after his death the property devolved upon his three sons Shri Jagdish Lal Gujral, Shri Manohar Lal Gujral, Shri Krishan Lal Gujral. It is however stated in the petition that the petitioner alongwith Smt. Kanta Rani, Shri Raj Kumar Gujral and Shri Praveen Gujral are co-
owners of the property. That the said persons and/or those claiming through them as legal heirs have been excluded. There is thus apparently an inter-se dispute as to ownership of the property and the petition by the petitioner without arraying them as party to the petition is not-maintainable.
xii). That the falsity of the assertion made by the petitioner is apparent from the fact that after the intestate death of Shri Ganga Ram Gujral the property would not only have devolved upon his three sons Shri Jagdish Lal Gujral, Shri RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 17 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:44:15 +0530 Manohar Lal Gujral, Shri Krishan Lal Gujral but also his daughter Smt. Santosh Rani Kapoor and wife Smt. Lajwanti Gujral who are all Class-I legal heirs. That, however, the family chart in paragraph 18(a) (ii) neither reflects the daughter Smt. Santosh Rani Kapoor nor wife Smt. Lajwanti Gujral as legal heirs.
xiii). That it has been stated that there was a Declaration/ Memorandum of Oral Family Arrangement dated 01.07.1995 wherein it was mentioned that Shri Jagdish Lal Gujral, Shri Manohar Lal Gujral, Shri Krishan Lal Gujral jointly owned the property except the portions which are with M/s Gujralsons and M/s Bombay Silk Store. That the said Declaration/ Memorandum of Oral Family Arrangement dated 01.07.1995 is of no legal consequences in as much as Shri Jagdish Lal Gujral, Shri Manohar Lal Gujral, Shri Krishan Lal Gujral were not the only legal heirs who could have divided the property amongst themselves in the absence of Smt. Santosh Rani Kapoor and Smt. Lajwanti Gujral.
xiv). That in any case even as per the own case of the petitioner Shri Jagdish Lal Gujral, Shri Manohar Lal Gujral, Shri Krishan Lal Gujral jointly owned the property. That, however, the petition has been filed by the petitioner alone stating himself to be the owner without arraying the said persons/ their legal heirs.
xv). That the petitioner has stated that in the year 1998 there was an Oral Family Settlement amongst the three sons of RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 18 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:44:31 +0530 Shri Gangaram as co-owners and that at the same time oral partition was arrived at between the petitioner and his brother. That pertinently no particulars whatsoever including date or month of the alleged oral settlement and oral partition have been given in the petition. That the averments are completely vague and ambiguous. That in fact no such oral family settlement and oral partition have ever taken place and no intimation thereof has ever been given to the respondents at any point of time.
xvi). That the falsity of the said Oral Family Settlement and Oral Partition, having been arrived at, is apparent from the fact that the petitioner as plaintiff no.1 alongwith his brother Praveen Kumar Gujral as plaintiff no.2 had filed suit no.
1110/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court including seeking partition including in respect of the suit property, wherein there is no reference to any such Oral Family Settlement having been arrived at between the three sons of Shri Gangaram or Oral Partition between the petitioner and his brother in the year 1998.
xvii). It is stated that had there already been any Oral Family Settlement having been arrived at between the three sons of Shri Gangaram or Oral Partition between the petitioner and his brother in the year 1998, no occasion for filing the suit seeking the relief of partition would have arisen. That the petitioner had instead sought 2/9th share in the properties including the suit property, alongwith his brother. The said suit refers only to Declaration/ Memorandum of Oral Family Arrangement dated 01.07.1995 and to none other settlement/ partition. It had been pleaded that by virtue of the said settlement the suit property RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 19 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:44:41 +0530 shall continue to remain joint property of three smaller families of the three sons of Shri Ganga Ram Gujral and income net of expenses shall be shared in the ratio of 1/3rd each and that sale, transfer, rent receipt and any other action shall be in the name of three families, the plaintiffs claimed 2/9th share in the joint properties including the subject property. In paragraph 8 & 10 of the said suit it was stated that the plaintiffs along with defendants were in joint ownership and possession of the suit property and that this was the subject matter of partition. It had been stated in paragraph 15 that various proposals had been mooted for partition and separation of the joint properties particularly the suit property.
xviii). That there is thus an apparent falsity in the assertion made by the petitioner as to an Oral Family Settlement having been arrived at between the three sons of Shri Gangaram.
xix). That moreover since the property was co-owned by the father of the petitioner alongwith his two brothers by virtue of Declaration/ Memorandum of Oral Family Arrangement dated 01.07.1995, the petitioner and his brother did not have any right in the property which they could have partitioned amongst themselves during the lifetime of their father since it is the case of the petitioner that the death of his father occurred on 20.04.2006.
xx). That there is no reference to any Will having been left behind by the father of the petitioner and thus he would have RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 20 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:44:50 +0530 died intestate, even in such case his rights would have devolved not only on his two sons but also on his wife Smt. Ram Chameli.
xxi). That, even otherwise, a Family Settlement and Partition being in relation to immovable property and interest and rights therein is necessarily to be reduced in writing and is compulsorily registrable in terms of Section 17 & 49 of Registration Act and in the absence of the same the alleged Oral Family Settlement and Oral Partition cannot be given any credence.
xxii). That, without prejudice to the aforementioned, the alleged Oral Family Settlement and Oral Partition have not been substantiated by any material in any manner whatsoever, the said self-serving the assertion of the petitioner is thus liable to be discarded for all intents and purposes.
xxiii). That pertinently in the written statement filed in Suit no.1110/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court by the defendant no.1 Shri Vinod Gujral wherein it was stated that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property and that there was a partial partition of the said property and that the property is owned by Shri Vinod Gujral, Shri Jagdish Lal Gujral and Shri Krishan Gujral and the property is also being assessed in the name of the said three owners.
xxiv). That interestingly the same Shri Vinod Gujral had also earlier filed eviction petition bearing E.P. No.471/2019 against Shri Devender Kumar & Anr. through the same counsel RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 21 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:44:56 +0530 and in the said petition not even the year of the said alleged Oral Family Settlement had been stated.
xxv). That the petitioner in paragraph 18(a)(v) has stated that after the death of his father on 20.04.2006 he and his brother became the co-owners along with other two-three sons/ their legal heirs, that from the said pleading it is apparent that there was no Oral Family Settlement or Oral Partition and property continued to be joint. However, taking a completely contradictory stand in the same paragraph it is then stated that after the death of his father the petitioner became absolute owner of the tenanted premises.
xxvi). That the petitioner is thus neither the sole owner nor has he joined the other co-owners to the present petition. That there have also been disputes regarding the subject property and contradictory claims have been made including in the present petition. That the petitioner is also not the landlord in respect of the subject premises. That the petitioner thus has no locus standi to present this petition.
xxvii). That for section 14(1)(e) DRC Act to operate the premises should be required by the landlord for himself or for any member of the family dependent upon him if he is the owner thereof. That the terms 'family member' is conditioned by the words 'dependent upon him'. A landlord cannot thus seek eviction for the requirement of any of his family member but only for one who is dependent upon him. Furthermore, to come RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 22 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:45:06 +0530 under the ambit of section 14(1)(e) of the act, the landlord has to be the owner of the tenanted premises.
xxviii). That the statute clearly states that in case eviction of the tenanted premises is required by a person for his dependent family members, then in that case, the said person has to be the owner of the suit property and not merely a landlord. In the present case, the ownership of the landlord and even more the landlord-tenant relationship is disputed by the answering respondents. Therefore, the ground contemplated in Section 14(1)(e) cannot be made available to the petitioner, him not being the owner of the tenanted premises.
xxix). That the petitioner has sought the eviction for starting of business in the tenanted premises by his wife. There is neither any averment of financial or other dependency of his wife Smt. Neelam Gujral upon the petitioner and any financial or other dependency cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination because Smt. Neelam Gujral is herself well established person which is apparent from the fact that as per the own case of the petitioner she is a partner of M/s Bombay Silk Store along with the petitioner and their two sons. That to allege and aver that an already established person like Smt. Neelam Gujral is dependent upon the petitioner is totally incomprehensible and beyond any logic.
xxx). That the ground on which eviction has been sought by the petitioner is ostensibly to start-up a business of ladies garments/ boutique by his wife Smt. Neelam Gujral. That the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 23 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:45:15 +0530 purported requirement for the business is not at all bonafide, merely fanciful and intended for only getting the property vacated maliciously. That the alleged requirement has thus been apparently manufactured only for the purpose of the present petition and malafides are writ large on the fact of the present petition.
xxxi). That the petitioner is aged around 74 years and his wife is aged about 72 years. That the wife of the petitioner is suffering from various old age ailments. It is beyond comprehension that a lady at such an advanced stage of life would venture into a new business that too when she is suffering from various ailments.
xxxii). That as per the own case of the petitioner, Smt. Neelam Gujral is a partner of M/s Bombay Silk Store along with the petitioner and their two sons and the said firm is dealing in women wear itself.
xxxiii). That it has been averred in the petition that it has been decided amongst the partners of M/s Bombay Silk Store that in case Smt. Neelam Gujral is able to settle successfully in her business from the tenanted premises she would retire from the partnership. Pertinently, the firm M/s Bombay Silk Store is a family firm and consists of four family members itself and it is thus a self-serving assertion of her retiring from the partnership firm.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 24 of 74 Digitally signedHARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:45:26 +0530 xxxiv). That M/s Bombay Silk Store is possessed not only of ground floor but also upper floors and already has a huge area with it. That in case the petitioner does wish for his wife to pursue the purported ladies garment business the same can very well be carried out from the premises of the said firm itself or part thereof.
xxxv). That the petitioner along with his petition has filed Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2000 of the Firm M/s. Bombay Silk Store and Clause 2 of the said Deed specifically provides that the partnership business shall consist of dealing in cloth.
New lines may be taken up either in addition to or in substitution of proposed activities with the consent of the parties. That there is thus already a provision for taking up new lines and thus the proposed business can very well be carried out under the said partnership itself. Thus, there is no such requirement of one partner to independently foray into the same field of business, in which the other partner has already agreed to expand/diversify their existing business. Rather, such an act is considered contrary to the deed itself in law.
xxxvi). That, the petitioner is guilty of stating false facts in the petition. On one hand the petitioner claims that Smt. Neelam Gujral possesses rich experience in handling the business of garments and she deals (along with others) in women ethnic wear. It is further stated in the petition that the said Smt. Neelam Gujral wants to now independently set up into modern style readymade garments business for women. However, it is submitted that Smt. Neelam Gujral is a housewife, she is not RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 25 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:45:33 +0530 involved in the business of women ethnic wear at all. She is a partner merely on paper. The said fact is clear from the partnership deed itself which mentions here as a Sleeping Partner. Thus, it is clear that she has no requirement, much less any bonafide requirement and the entire petition is a bundle of lies and smacks of malice. It is submitted that the petition should be dismissed on this ground alone as the petitioner is stating false facts to his own knowledge on oath.
xxxvii). That there is no rationale whatsoever for the choice of the subject premises when the family of the petitioner has all along been and continue to be in possession of various other properties which are not only similarly but better situated. That also the family of the petitioner are super rich and are already engaged in lucrative businesses.
xxxviii). That interestingly Shri Vinod Gujral, a member of the Gujral family had also earlier filed eviction petition bearing E.P. no. 471/2019 against Shri Devender Kumar & Anr. on the ground of bonafide requirement. That the said petition was presented on identical ground i.e. for the alleged requirement of wife of the petitioner Smt. Nishi Gujral for running the business of ladies garments/boutique. Interestingly, she is also partner in family firm M/s Gujral & Sons. It is extremely strange that an almost identical requirement has arisen for wives of two family members in respect of tenanted premises in the same property and for identical business of modern ladies garments. That it is thus apparent that requirement is sought to be created malafidely to get the premises vacated.RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 26 of 74
HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:45:42 +0530 xxxix). That the said eviction petition was filed by a member of the Gujral family and brother of the petitioner through the same counsel, however, the factum of the filing of the said petition has not been disclosed in the present. Even otherwise, eviction order has also been obtained in E.P. no.471/2019 and the said has thus also come in possession of the Gujral family.
XL). That as per the own case of the petitioner as made out in paragraph 18(a)(xii) that shop nos. 4, 5, 11 & 12 have been disposed off recently with the consent of all the co-owners including the petitioner. That in case the petitioner had any requirement the said shops could have been retained and used for the said purpose. That the very fact that the said shops have been sold and now eviction is being sought of the respondents from the tenanted premises speaks volumes about the malafides of the petitioner. That the averments made in the said paragraph of the petition are vague and material details have been deliberately concealed. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has deliberately not filed the documents of the alleged sale deeds.
Further, the petitioner has deliberately not specifically mentioned his share in the said shops which has been sold by the petitioner as co owner.
XLI). That eviction cannot be sought at the whims and fancies of the landlord. That for the purpose of seeking eviction there ought to be a 'requirement of the premises by the landlord. The word 'requirement' is different from a 'want, desire or wish'.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 27 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:45:49 +0530 While the former attaches to itself a basic, actual and physical attributes, the latter are mere mental positions without actual physical requirements.
XLII). That the present petition has been presented malafidely by the petitioner against the respondents with oblique considerations and motives. The petition presented by the petitioner is gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and that of this Court. The petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands, is guilty of suppressioveri and suggestio falsi. The petition of the petitioner is accordingly liable to be dismissed.
XLIII). That the petitioner seeking to invoke the relief of eviction thereby depriving the tenant of the statutory protection afforded by the DRC Act he is required to come before Court with clean hands and disclose all material facts. That the petitioner in the present case has suppressed material facts and thus is disentitled to seek the relief.
XLIV). That the petitioner has suppressed that he along with his brother Shri Praveen Gujral, both sons of Shri Jagdish Lal Gujral had filed a suit for partition being Suit no.1110/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court in respect of the suit property and the averments made in the said suit are contrary to those made in the present petition.
XLV). That the petitioner has concealed a very relevant and material fact which is to the effect that the shop on the ground RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 28 of 74 Digitally signed by HARJEET HARJEET SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:45:56 +0530 floor in the same building which is owned and possessed by the petitioner is lying vacant. That, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
XLVI). That the petition merely states that no other suitable accommodation is available with the petitioner. That, however, the petitioner has deliberately and maliciously suppressed the details of the other properties available. That the suitability of the said properties which is a very relevant consideration can only be considered in case the said details had been furnished and brought on record. That the said suppression has deliberately been done since the said properties are very much suitable and are in fact already being so used for commercial purposes.
XLVII). That in suit no.1110/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court filed by the petitioner as plaintiff no.1 it had been pleaded that, "3. The Gujral family owned movable and immovable properties and was carrying on various businesses. The businesses and investments in various immovable properties were held, run and managed through a number of entities such as companies, partnership firms, Hindu Undivided Families, trusts. The movable and immovable properties and businesses were acquired and created out of joint efforts and funds of the Gujral family."
XLVIII). That the petitioner and his family members are thus admittedly owners/ in possession of many other residential and commercial properties, which are not in knowledge of RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 29 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:46:02 +0530 respondents at present and they are seeking the liberty to file the same as and when the same is made available to the respondents.
XLIX). That the suit property is huge and built on an area of around 1000 sq. yds. with various shops and is three side open and is owned by Gujral family.
L). That in the suit No.1110/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court filed by the petitioner, it had been pleaded in paragraph 10, 11 & 14 that on the first floor of the suit property, the constructed area is approx. 6300 sq. ft. and that the said premises was vacated by the tenant in the September 1998. It is further stated in paragraph 14 that the plaintiff intended to use the said floor for the same garment business. That the entire area is under the control and possession of the Gujral family.
Li). That the Gujral family has also carried out construction on the second and third floor of the property as well or approx. 5000 and 3500 sq. ft. respectively and the entire area is under the control and possession of the Gujral family.
Lii). That the Gujral family consisting of the petitioner and his family members are having three shops in the front of the property wherein they are carrying on business in the name and style of Bombay Silk Store, Gujralsons and Gujrals dealing in readymade garments, clothing material, lehngas, sarees and other dress materials.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 30 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:46:11 +0530 Liii). That it is the own case of the petitioner in paragraph 18(a)(iii) admitted that the area under the occupation of Bombay Silk Store, Gujralsons has fallen to the share of family of the petitioner and Shri Krishan Lal Gujral. That the said portion is thus already in the possession of the petitioner.
Liv). That the Gujral family consisting of the petitioner and his family members are also having a shop on Padam Singh Road wherein they are running business in the name and style of G&S and dealing in clothing, readymade including ladies garments.
Lv). That the Gujral family consisting of the petitioner and his family members are also having property bearing no. 2292 to 2336, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh admeasuring approx. 400 ft. X 70 ft. That the said property has around forty shops on the main road and thirty five shops in the service lane and many of the said shops are lying vacant and are in power and possession of the family. The said property also has a fully constructed first floor which is also in the occupation and possession of the family.
Lvi). That the Gujral family consisting of the petitioner and his family members also has a massive property bearing on. 1/7B, Main Pusa Road admeasuring around 2000 sq. yds. That the said building has number of shops on the ground floor many of which are lying vacant. The first floor which is fully constructed as also the second and third floor are also in power and possession of the family. That the said property is on the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 31 of 74 HARJEET Digitally signed by HARJEET SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:46:21 +0530 main road, has a better access and is better suited for the purposes of purported business sought to be carried out by the wife of the petitioner.
Lvii). That the Gujral family consisting of the petitioner and his family members also has a massive property bearing on. 1-B/21, Pusa Road in their power and possession. That the said property is also on the main road and well suited for carrying out commercial activities.
Lviii). That the Gujral family consisting of the petitioner and his family members are also the owner of property bearing no. 30/42, Old Rajender Nagar. That the said area has become commercialized, is inhabited by not only families but students including girls with the opening of various coaching centers and institutes and hence is well suited for the alleged purpose of the wife of the petitioner.
Lix). That the Gujral family consisting of the petitioner and his family members are thus having more than suitable accommodation and have massive commercial areas in their power and possession wherein they are carrying on their business and wherein they have the option of expansion/ starting new businesses. That, however, the said areas in the property have deliberately been suppressed in the present petition. That there is thus no bonafide requirement whatsoever of the petitioner or his family members.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 32 of 74 Digitally signedHARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:46:28 +0530 Lx). That the petitioner has falsely and wrongly stated that the requirement of the premises is ostensibly to start-up a business by his wife. That admittedly the petitioner along with her as partner is already carrying on business of garments from the same property. That the requirement can thus at best be construed as being for expansion of business/ additional accommodation.
Lxi). That as per the own admission of the petitioner, the respondents/their father has been in possession and occupation of the tenanted premises since the past around 29 years, and have thus established themselves herein and thus it shall be gravely prejudicial to the respondents if the present petition is allowed.
Lxii). That the premises have been let out for commercial purposes and the respondents have been using the same for running business and respondents are not possessed of any other alternate suitable accommodation for carrying on the said business which would be completed uprooted in case the petition of the petitioner is granted.
Lxiii). That the Gujral family has given on rent various other portions and assuming though not admitting at all that there is any requirement for the said business, the said portions are better suited for the said requirement and there is no requirement whatsoever for the premises under the tenancy of the respondents.RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 33 of 74
HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:46:37 +0530 Lxiv). That, admittedly, the wife of the petitioner, Neelam Gujral and the petitioner are Partners, indulged in the business of Ladies Garments. That the law of Partnership does not allow one partner to do any other business, much less a business of competing nature individually. If any such partner wishes to do so, the other partner/partners can seek injunction from the court in order to restrain him from doing so.
Lxv). That, however, in the present case, one partner is seeking permission from the court to allow the other partner to run a business of competing nature. The said act of the petitioner is not only against law but also defies logic and is against basic common business sense.
Lxvi). That, it is submitted that the entire petition is misleading, besides being collusive, the only idea is to throw away the answering respondents from the tenanted premises by hook or crook. In cases like such, the courts are supposed to dismiss outrightly such false and frivolous petitions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with exemplary costs.
7. Further, by replying on merits, opposing the petition of the petitioner, all the averments made in the petition were similarly denied.
8. A replication was also filed by the petitioner to the WS of the respondents wherein the averments of the WS were refuted and the claim of the petitioner was reiterated.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 34 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:46:45 +0530
9. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
10. During petitioner's evidence, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1, who appeared in the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. His deposition is on the lines of the eviction petition. He has relied upon the following documents:-
i). The site plan of the premises in
question is Ex. PW1/1.
ii). Conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019
is Ex.PW1/2 (OSR),
iii). Death certificate of Sh. Ganga Ram
Gujral as Ex.PW1/3 (OSR),
iv). Declaration/memorandum of oral
family arrangement dated 01.07.1995 is Ex.PW1/4 (OSR),
v). GST Registration certificate of the partnership firm, namely "Bombay Silk Store" is Ex.PW1/5 (OSR),
vi). Partnership deed dated 01.04.2000 is Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) and
vii). Rent receipts in respect of tenanted premises Ex.PW1/8 (Colly).
11. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the petitioner, PE was closed and the matter was fixed for respondent's evidence.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 35 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:46:52 +0530
12. During respondent's evidence, the respondent has examined himself as RW1. He has appeared himself in the witness box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A.
13. RW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, vide separate statement, RE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
14. Ample opportunities were given to both the parties to advance their arguments. At length, arguments were heard on multiple dates. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of both the sides and the same have been duly considered.
15. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that by way of oral and documentary evidence, the petitioner has proved his case on the scales of preponderance of probabilities. It was argued further that the petitioner has no alternate accommodation to satisfy the projected need and that is why it is prayed that the tenanted premises in question be vacated in favour of the petitioner.
16. It was argued further that the respondent has clearly admitted that the petitioner herein is at least a co-owner of the tenanted premises in question and therefore, there can be no questions on the authority of the petitioner to initiate the present proceedings and to consequently seek eviction.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 36 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:46:58 +0530
17. It was argued that the respondents have admitted their status as that of tenants and they have admitted Jagdishlal, Manoharlal and Krishanlal as their landlords.
18. As per the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, M/s. Jagdishlal, Manoharlal and Krishanlal is not a partnership firm, rather it only means the joint ownership of the three brothers namely, Jagdishlal Gujral, Manoharlal Gujral and Krishanlal Gujral, who have now expired and on the basis of family partition, the entire suit property, which also includes the tenanted premises in question, has been partitioned. Since the respondents have admitted the landlord-tenant relationship they cannot be allowed to usurp the tenanted premises in question only on the ground that M/s. M/s. Jagdishlal, Manoharlal and Krishanlal, cannot come to the Court collectively. It was argued that the law on Rent Control provides that the petitioner/landlord has to show not the title, but a right better than that of the respondent/tenant.
19. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner herein is only a co-owner of the tenanted premises in question and thus, there can be no question of eviction. It was argued that the family settlement, on the basis of which the present petitioner claims ownership is unregistered and thus, it cannot be relied upon.
20. It was argued that the projected need is not bonafide, which is apparent from the fact that the petitioner and his wife, for whom the tenanted premises in question is sought, are RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 37 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:47:07 +0530 partners in a similar business and it cannot be assumed that a partner will provide ground and opportunity for other partner to compete with the existing business.
21. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents drew the attention of the Court to the six sale deeds Ex.PW1/R1X1 to Ex.PW1/R1X6 to argue that the said sale deeds were executed after filing of the present eviction petition. This, as per the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, shows that the petitioner does not have a real need.
22. It was pointed by the respondents that the petitioner has a property at Rajender Nagar and many other properties have also been mentioned in the eviction petition. This, as per the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, means that the petitioner herein has suitable alternate accommodation available and, therefore, the projected need is not bonafide. It was also pointed out that the property at Rajender Nagar is merely at a distance of 2 k.m. from the tenanted premises in question.
23. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the wife of the petitioner is a sleeping partner in the existing business and that being a case, it is unrealistic to assume that she would now start a business by obtaining the possession of the tenanted premises in question.
24. In conclusion, it was argued by the respondents that the present eviction proceedings are malafide in nature and have been initiated with the aim of obtaining the possession of the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 38 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:47:19 +0530 tenanted premises in question, so that it can be rented at a higher rent in future.
25. Having heard the Ld. Counsels for both the sides and having perused the entire record (including the written submissions and case laws filed on behalf of both the sides), I shall now proceed to decide the matter on its merits.
26. The present petition is an eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act, whereby the petitioner is seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of Bonafide Need. Hence, before proceeding to appreciate the contentions of the contesting parties in the light of evidence lead during the trial, it is appropriate to reproduce the bare provision of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act. It reads as under;-
"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 and court or Controller in favor 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 the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
(a) ***
(b)*** RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 39 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:47:26 +0530
(c)***
(d)***
(e) That the premises are required bona fide 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 the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation;
Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, "premises let for residential purpose" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;"
27. Thus, in order to establish the grounds for eviction of the tenant/respondent under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish the following essentials, viz.
1. Landlord - tenant relationship between the parties; and
2. Petitioner requires the premises bonafide for himself, or for any member of his family dependent upon him; and
3. That the petitioner does not have any other reasonable alternate suitable accommodation.
28. In the matter at hand, apart from a customary discussion on aforementioned three points, all arguments raised by the two sides will be individually discussed.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 40 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:47:34 +0530 Application of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act to a commercial property:
29. In the very beginning of the WS, the respondents have taken the ground that Section 14(1)(e) is not applicable to commercial properties and since the tenanted premises in question is a commercial property, the present proceedings are bad in law.
30. The said argument has no merits in law, in view of a categorical adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, 2008 (5) SCC 287. In the said matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no distinction, for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, in the premises let out for residential or commercial purposes Application of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act:
31. It has been pleaded by the respondents in their WS that the present eviction petition is bad in law in view of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, which provides for prohibition on filing eviction proceedings until the lapse of 5 years. That since the petitioner has become owner of the property by virtue of Conveyance Deed dated 24.04.2019 and the period of five years has not yet elapsed, on the day of filing of the eviction petition, hence, the present eviction petition is not maintainable.
32. This Court finds no merits in the said argument.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 41 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:47:42 +0530
33. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.
"Where a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, no application for the recovery of possession of such premises shall lie under Sub-Section (1), on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso thereto, unless a period of five years have elapsed from the date of the acquisition".
34. The legislative intention underlying Section 14(6) is that a landlord who is himself unable to evict a tenant for some reason should be deprived of the temptation of transferring the premises to another person, who could not otherwise be prevented. Section 14(6) applies only when the person becomes the landlord of the premises in question by virtue of transfer itself.
35. This provision has been incorporated to protect the tenant against eviction at the hands of the landlord who may use the 'transfer of property' as device for creating a ground of eviction. It, therefore, restricts the purchaser for five years before a petition for eviction on the ground bona fide requirement can be filed.
36. It may be added here that the aforementioned provision is not applicable to a family partition/family settlement. Reference is made to the judgment in "Kale Vs. Deputy Director RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 42 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:47:49 +0530 of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807", wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court made following observation:
"A family arrangement, on the contrary, is a transaction between members of the same family for the benefit of the family so as to preserve the family property, the peace and security of the family, avoidance of family dispute and litigation and also for saving the honour of the family. Such an arrangement is based on the assumption that there was an antecedent title in the parties and the arrangement acknowledges and defines what that title is. It is for this reason that a family arrangement by which each party takes a share in the property has been held as not amounting to a "conveyance of property" from a person who has title to it to a person who has no title. It is not a transfer but is only recognition of the title already existing in them.
37. Coming to the matter at hand, the respondents have categorically admitted in their pleadings the title of the family of the petitioner, inter-alia of the father and grandfather of the petitioner. It will not be wrong to say that the entire suit property, including the tenanted premises in question, has remained in the family of the petitioner, the same has also been admitted by the respondent. It has been averred to have fallen in the share of the petitioner by way of a family arrangement/oral partition. The petitioner has relied upon the conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019 RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 43 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:47:57 +0530 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) to show his better title over the tenanted premises in question. As discussed above, a family arrangement is a transaction between members of the same family for the benefit of the family so as to preserve the family property. Such an arrangement is based on the assumption that there was an antecedent title in the parties and the arrangement merely acknowledges and defines what that title is. It is for this reason that a family arrangement by which each party takes a share in the property has been held as not amounting to a "conveyance of property" from a person who has title to it to a person who has no title. In the matter at hand too, the conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019 is not a transfer but is only recognition of the title already existing in the family, of which the petitioner is a part.
38. In view of the aforementioned discussion, it can be said that there is no force in the arguments that the present eviction petition is barred by Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.
JURAL RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD-TENANT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
39. Whereas the petitioner claims that there is landlord- tenant relationship between the parties, the respondents have denied it. The petitioner has relied upon the conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) to show his better title over the tenanted premises in question. As per respondents, the petitioner has no locus qua the present eviction proceedings. The respondents herein have admitted their status as that of tenants, however, it is stated that the petitioner is neither landlord nor the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 44 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:48:04 +0530 owner of the tenanted premises in question, rather he is stranger to the tenanted premises in question.
40. Before embarking upon the adjudicatory discussion relevant to the present matter, the meaning of the word 'owner' must be understood in context to the provisions of the DRC Act.
41. In the DRC Act, the word 'owner' has not been defined. The word 'owner' as used in the Act, has to be construed in the background of the purpose and object of enacting it. The use of the word 'owner' in the DRC Act seems to have been inspired by the definition of the word 'landlord' as contained in Section 2(e) of the Act which is wide enough to include a person receiving or entitled to receive the rent of any premises on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person.
42. Construed in the context in which the word 'owner' is used in clause (e), the concept of ownership in a landlord- tenant litigation, governed by Rent Control Laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. The ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used.
43. Coming to the matter at hand, once again, the respondents herein have admitted their status as that of tenants, however, it is stated that the petitioner is neither landlord nor the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 45 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:48:10 +0530 owner of the tenanted premises in question, rather he is stranger to the tenanted premises in question. The petitioner has relied upon the conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) to show his better title over the tenanted premises in question. The same has been duly proved and by itself the said document shows the superior title of the petitioner, vis a vis the respondent. Needless to say that in a landlord-tenant dispute, a landlord is one who has better rights than that of the tenant, it is not incumbent upon the petitioner to prove his title beyond the shadow of doubt.
44. Before anything else, the stand of the respondents must be understood.
45. As per respondents, they are the tenants in the tenanted premises in question and their landlord is M/s. Jagdishlal, Manoharlal and Krishanlal. As per them, since the property of Late Sh. Ganga Ram Gujral, who was the father of the Jagdishlal, Manoharlal and Krishanlal, has not been partitioned properly and as pe law, the said partition in itself has no value.
46. The questions that arise here are that whether the law requires that for an eviction proceeding, only the admitted landlord must come into picture; Whether the descendants/family members can initiate eviction proceedings, if the original landlord expires or ceases to exist, whether the heirs of the admitted landlord have to prove their title or the family partition RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 46 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:48:17 +0530 to the satisfaction of the tenant/respondent and lastly whether the tenant can question the family settlement.
47. As per the settled law and in the considered opinion of the Court, the common answer to the said questions is a resounding NO.
48. It is neither the intent nor the purpose of the Rent Control Legislation to allow a tenant to question the landlordship or the claim of the heirs of the original landlord, rather the law is "once a tenant, always a tenant". If the averments of the respondents are to be believed, then the proposition of law would be that once the original landlord has expired or ceases to be in existence, for any reason whatsoever, the tenancy will become perpetual and will consequence in a perpetual occupation of the tenanted premises, for there will be no successor/heir who would be entitled to seek eviction. Needless to say that this is absolutely quixotic, incorrect and unrealistic. The same cannot be permitted in law. The correct position of law is that a petitioner in an eviction petition has merely to show that he has right to exclude everyone holding lesser title than him.
49. In a landlord-tenant dispute, a landlord is one who has better rights than that of the tenant, it is not incumbent upon the petitioner to prove his title beyond the shadow of doubt.
50. It is the case of the petitioner that upon family settlement, the tenanted premises in question has fallen in his RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 47 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:48:24 +0530 share and thus he has now stepped into the shoes of the landlord. The petitioner has relied upon the conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) to show his better title over the tenanted premises in question. The respondents herein have admitted that the petitioner herein is the successor in the family chain of admitted landlords i.e. Jagdishlal Gujral, Manoharlal Gujral and Krishanla Gujral. The reading of the entire written statement of the respondents, reveals that the respondents have, while questioning the validity of family settlement, admitted the petitioner to be at least a co-owner of the tenanted premises in question, if not an absolute owner.
51. It is settled law that the tenant cannot question the title of co-owners. In the matter at hand, the tenancy has been admitted. It is also admitted that the present petitioner is the co- owner of the property in question, in such situation there are no merits in saying that being a 'co-owner only', the petitioner cannot initiate eviction proceedings. A landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right as distinguished from, and on behalf of someone else, to evict the tenant and then to retain, control, hold and use the premises for himself. In a landlord-tenant dispute, the owner is one who has better rights than that of the tenant and it is not incumbent upon him to prove beyond shadow of doubt that he is the owner of the property as he is contesting a suit challenging his title. Reliance is placed on Sheela & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC SCC194 375/ AIR 2002 SC 1264.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 48 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:48:32 +0530
52. It is trite law that the landlord has only to show that he is one who has right to exclude everyone holding a lesser title than him. Reliance is placed on MM Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal, AIR 1981 SC 1113.
53. In the matter at hand as well, since the respondent have clearly admitted that the present petitioner is at least a co- owner of the tenanted premises in question, it can be said that the petitioner has right to exclude everyone holding lesser title than him, including the respondents herein. Even otherwise, the petitioner has relied upon the conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) to show his better title over the tenanted premises in question.
54. Furthermore, the law is settled that the tenant cannot take advantage of the inter se dispute between the petitioner and his family member, including those having conflicting claims on the title qua the tenanted premises. In this context, with the position of law being as above, there are no merits in the arguments of the respondents that the petitioner has committed concealment of facts qua the date of partition. Irrespective of the date of partition, it remains a fact that the petitioner is at least an admitted co-owner in the suit property and, therefore, has better title than that of the respondents. Ergo, the respondents cannot say that the petitioner has no locus to initiate the present eviction proceedings and thus, it can be concluded that there exists a jural relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties.
Unregistered family settlement:
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 49 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:48:39 +0530
55. The respondents have argued that since the family settlement on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming the title over the tenanted premises in question is unregistered and the same cannot be looked into.
56. I find no merits in the said submission.
57. It is settled law that the tenant cannot challenge the family settlement, vide which the landlord/petitioner claims ownership over the tenanted premises in question even when it is unregistered. Reliance is placed on the judgment in A.K. Nayar VS. Mahesh Prasad, 153 (2008) DLT 423 and Syed Mohammed Main Nizami vs. Qasima Khatoon (Delhi), 2012(1) Rent LR63 (1976) 3 SCR 202. In the same context, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kale (Supra) may also taken note of, from this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that it is not necessary that in all circumstances the family settlement is required to be registered, relying on the same it has been observed that the tenant cannot challenge the family settlement even on the ground that it is not a registered document, otherwise also the tenant has no right to challenge the family settlement as the eviction petition cannot be converted it to a title suit.
Non-joinder of parties:
58. It is the case of the respondents that since the tenanted premises in question originally belongs to Sh. Ganga Ram Gujral and thereafter, it came to his three sons i.e. Jagdishlal, Manoharlal and Krishanlal and thereafter there is no RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 50 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:48:48 +0530 proper partition, thus all the members of the family must be joined as petitioners.
59. Once again, there are no merits in the said argument.
60. It is settled law that an eviction petition cannot be called bad in law merely because a co-owner has not given an express consent. It must be kept in mind that there is a sea of difference between not giving formal consent and making objection. Whereas the former means an inaction or lack of interest by a co-owner, the latter is a specific choice wherein the co-owner decides specifically to make an objection to the eviction of the tenant.
61. Even if, the argument of the respondents is assumed to be correct that the petitioner herein is not an absolute owner, but only a co-owner and that he has not joined other co-owners, still non-joining the other co-owners will not cause any defect in the proceedings. It is not the case that any co-owner has come forward to object to the eviction against the respondents herein.
62. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Khanna Jewellers Vs. Kapil Tandon & Ors, decided on 11.01.2021 [2021 (2) CLJ 323 (Del.)] provides that even one of co-owners/co-landlords can file a suit for eviction of tenant. It is not necessary for co-owner to show before initiating eviction proceedings before Rent Controller that he had taken option or consent of other co-owners.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 51 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:48:57 +0530
63. Furthermore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in India Umbrella Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwala, in Appeal (Civil) 5357 of 1996, decided on 05.01.2024 by the bench of HMJ R.C. Lahoti and HMJ Ashok Bhan, is relevant and is squarely applicable. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners.
64. Since it is settled law that the tenant cannot question the title of co-owners and since in the matter at hand, the tenancy has been admitted and also since it is admitted that the present petitioner is at least a co-owner of the property in question, in such situation there are no merits in saying that being a co-owner only, the petitioner cannot initiate eviction proceedings. A landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right as distinguished from, and on behalf of someone else, to evict the tenant and then to retain, control, hold and use the premises for himself. In a landlord-tenant dispute, the owner is one who has better rights than that of the tenant and it is not incumbent upon him to prove beyond shadow of doubt that he is the owner of the property as he is contesting a suit challenging his title. It is trite law that the landlord has only to show that he is one who has right to exclude everyone holding a lesser title than RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 52 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:49:06 +0530 him. Reliance is placed on MM Quasim (supra). In the matter at hand as well, since the respondent has clearly admitted that the present petitioner is at least a co-owner in the tenanted premises in question and since the respondent has admitted his status as that of a tenant, at the time of filing of the eviction proceedings, it can be said that the petitioner has right to exclude everyone holding lesser title than him, including the respondents herein. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it can be said that there exists a jural relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties.
Wife being dependent:-
65. It has been argued by the respondents that the wife of the petitioner who is shown to be a working lady, and also a partner in the firm called Bombay Silk Store, cannot be called dependent on the petitioner.
66. At this juncture, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the word 'dependent' within the meaning of Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act.
67. It has been held in a plethora of judgments of Hon'ble Constitutional Courts that the word 'dependent' has to be construed liberally. The Court on being satisfied of the reasonability and genuineness of claim, as distinguished from a mere ruse to get rid of the tenant, will uphold the landlord's claim. The landlord's children/spouse may be working, however, they still may be dependent upon him for providing reasonable accommodation/commercial space for business needs/ RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 53 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:49:13 +0530 commercial needs. The term 'dependent' cannot be restricted to only include a person dependent in economic terms. A landlord's desire to provide a suitable commercial space to his spouse/children, who do not have one, makes them dependent on the landlord for that specific purpose. If the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent is believed to be true then any person making any amount of money will never be able to get an eviction order in his favour, purely because he/she is gainfully employed and thus, cannot be called 'dependent'. The petitioner cannot be compelled to sacrifice his right over the property simply because his wife is earning her livelihood or is a partner in a firm or has a rental income.
68. To conclude, this Court has no hesitation to hold that in the present matter, the wife of the petitioner can be called dependent for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
Whether the need projected by the petitioner is bonafide?
69. It is settled law that where eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide requirement, the petitioner is required to show 'need', as opposed to 'mere wish' and necessarily an element of genuineness must be shown. The whole emphasis of the requirement is on the element of genuine need which has to be established.
70. In Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited; AIR 1999, SC 100, Apex court observed;
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 54 of 74 Digitally signedHARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:49:19 +0530 "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."
71. In M/s John Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Dr. Surinder Singh & Ors., 135 (2006) Delhi Law Times 265, it was held;
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 55 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:49:26 +0530 "The conspectus of the aforesaid judgments shows that the broad principles have been set down of the requirement of a landlord not being a mere whim or fanciful but that it should be a genuine need of the landlord. It is only then that the requirement can be said to be bona fide within the meaning of under Section 14(1) (e) of the said Act. This would naturally require all the necessary matrix in terms of the factual averments and the evidence to be adduced in that behalf. Simultaneously it has to be kept in mind that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and a tenant cannot dictate the terms on which the landlord should live. The bona fide requirement of the landlord would also depend on his financial status and his standard of living".
72. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whims or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 56 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:49:32 +0530 occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant.
73. It is settled law that the question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer is in positive, the need is bonafide. The concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
74. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his need.
75. Coming to the matter at hand, the petitioner has pleaded that the tenanted premises in question is needed for the personal requirement of the petitioner's wife i.e. she wants to start a business of garments/women's wear at the tenanted premises in question.
76. The respondent on the other hand has argued that the projected need is not bonafide. The respondent has doubted the bonafide on two grounds:-
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 57 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:49:38 +0530
a). Firstly that the said wife of the petitioner is already a partner in the Bombay Silk Store, a firm which is engaged in similar business, meaning thereby if she starts the business as projected, she will be in direct competition with the existing business of the petitioner. (This, as per the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, appears unrealistic and is a reason to doubt the projected need).
b). Secondly, that she is currently a sleeping partner in the aforesaid business i.e. Bombay Silk Store; as per the ld.
Counsel for the respondents, her being a sleeping partner conveys the idea of her inactivity in business and, therefore, it cannot be assumed that she has suddenly developed interst in business and wants to start a new business. (This, as per the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, appears unrealistic and is a reason to doubt the projected need).
77. In addition to the aforesaid two factors, the respondents have also casted doubts qua the age of the wife of the petitioner while arguing that she is extremely old and feeble and thus, it is unrealistic that she would start a new commercial venture.
78. The law is settled that a tenant can question the projected need on ground of age of the landlord/dependent. To quote the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, age is not a factor to decide the bonafides of the projected need, no Court can stop an individual to start or expand his business. Reference is made to the judgments in Abdul Qadir Vs. Smt. Prakash Rani Bhalla, RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 58 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:49:44 +0530 2023 (1) RCJ 80 and Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Tulsi Ram, 2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 562. Ergo, there are no merits in the arguments of the respondents qua the age of the wife of the petitioner.
79. As far as the argument of her being a sleeping partner is concerned, in the considered opinion of this Court, a person can always switch roles at any point of time in life. Just because a person was a sleeping partner at some point of time in the past, it does not mean that he/she will stick to the same role for the rest of the life. A sleeping partner today can always be an active business lady in future, there is no stamp of conformity on her, which can deprive her from being actively involved in a business of her choice in future. As discussed hereinabove, a tenant cannot dictate terms, he has no business telling a landlord or his wife what business he or she can start and run. It is the sweet discretion of the landlord as to how he wants to put his property to use and the law cannot prevent a landlord from realizing and enjoying the fruits of his property.
80. Once again in the matter at hand, the need projected by the petitioner is that his wife, whom the respondents admit as a business partner of the petitioner, though sleeping, wants to start a garment business/women's apparel business at the tenanted premises in question. The respondents themselves are running a similar business at the tenanted premises in question, from past many years and even the petitioner himself is into the similar business, adjacent to the tenanted premises in question. Therefore, it cannot be said that the tenanted premises in question RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 59 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:49:51 +0530 is not a place suitable for the projected need. The Court is mindful of the fact that the tenanted premises in question is situated in the Karol Bagh area which is commonly known as a popular shopping destination, therefore, once again it cannot be said that the tenanted premises in question is not a place suitable for the projected need.
81. Furthermore, the law is settled in this regard that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and that the tenant cannot dictate terms. The court finds no authority in the tenants/respondent's argument that by starting the business, as projected, the wife of the petitioner will become a direct competitor to the petitioner and, therefore, the projected need must be doubted and disbelieved. A person may have many shops, having similar businesses and it is not necessary that one is in the competition with other. In fact, the petitioner's expertise, which he has acquired from the already existing business of garments, can be of aid to his wife who wants to start a similar business. In the course of the final arguments, it has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioner already has a business of garments and even though the wife of the petitioner also wants to start the business of garments, yet the two cannot be confused as overlapping, as there is sea of difference in what already exists and what is to be started. What already exists is the business called Bombay Silk Store, which deals with Silk garments, whereas the wife of the petitioner wants to start a store of readymade ethnic wear. This Court is satisfied with the arguments put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. The respondents, being tenants, cannot dictate and RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 60 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:49:57 +0530 guide the landlord on how he should run his own business. As per the settled law, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his need.
82. It has further been argued that the projected need is not bonafide as the said wife of the petitioner has rental income. Even if the averments of the respondent are assumed to be correct, that by itself does not disentitle the landlord/petitioner or his wife from starting a new venture/business at the tenanted premises in question. A landlord cannot be prejudiced merely because he has a running business or that he has rental income or that his spouse is earning handsomely. It is not the intent of the Rent Control Legislation that the landlord must starve himself before seeking eviction for himself or his dependents.
83. Having heard the submissions and having perused the record, I find no merits in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the projected 'need' is malafide. It has not been argued that the petitioner's wife suffers from any kind of disability or incapacity, which disallows her from starting the business, as projected, at the tenanted premises in question. A landlord's desire to seek economic improvement for himself, his RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 61 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:50:04 +0530 wife or for his family, as a whole, cannot be called 'malafide', merely because the respondent/tenant says so.
84. In the matter at hand, the petitioner has unequivocally projected his need that the tenanted premises in question is needed to start a business of women ethnic wear at the tenanted premises in question, which has come to the share of the petitioner by way of family settlement, the petitioner has relied upon the conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) to show his better title over the tenanted premises in question.
85. In the entire testimony of PW-1 i.e. the petitioner, as such there are no contradictions which could prompt the Court to disbelief the testimony. It can be said that as such nothing has come in the cross-examination of PW-1, which can make the Court doubt the requirement of the petitioner or to label it as malafide. It can be said that petitioner has survived the test of cross-examination.
86. Even otherwise, it cannot be forgotten that in a matter under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, there is a presumption, though rebuttable, in the favour of the projected need being bonafide. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench's judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua (decided on 07.04.2022 in civil Appeal No.9444/2016, by the Bench of H.M.J M.M. Sundresh and H.M.J S.K. Kaul). Sarla Ahuja (Supra) too is a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the same lines.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 62 of 74 Digitally signedHARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:50:12 +0530
87. The aforesaid judgments guide that the degree of probability is one of preponderance, to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller, thus, the quality of adjudication is between mere moonshine and adequate material. Before a presumption is drawn, the landlord is duty bound to place prima facie material in support of his averment, which in the present matter the petitioner has done.
88. In the matter at hand, apart from arguments qua her age, the respondents have not denied the ability/capacity of the petitioner's wife to start the business, as projected, at the tenanted premises in question, their only argument is that she is a sleeping partner in the existing business/firm of the petitioner and that she is a housewife and thus, cannot start any business. The respondent's suspicion, in the considered opinion of this Court, is no ground to disallow eviction in favour of the landlord. Even an affluent businessman cannot be prejudiced merely because he has existing businesses, the law does not require that a landlord must starve himself before coming to the Court of a Rent Controller, the same analogy can also be drawn for spouses/children for whom the tenanted premises in question is sought. A person's desire to expand business is understandable and unless contrary is proved, it is natural human desire. If the petitioner too wants the same, it cannot be called malafide merely because he/his wife has an existing source of income. The landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises, which in the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 63 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:50:19 +0530 matter at hand the petitioner has done, on the scales of preponderance of probabilities.
89. Having taken the facts and circumstances in its entirety, this Court is of the opinion that the 'need' projected by the petitioner is not a mere moonshine and has been sufficiently demonstrated, on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, to the satisfaction of the Court.
90. Ergo, this Court holds that there is nothing on record to say that the need projected is not bonafide.
Alternate Accommodation:
91. In the written statement filed by the respondents, they have highlighted the following properties as alternatives to the tenanted premises in question:
i). Many portions in the suit property itself, including portions on ground floor, second floor and third floor.
ii). Three shops where the business of Bombay Silk Store/Gujral Sons is being run.
iii). A shop at Padam Singh Road, where business in the name and style of G&S is being run.
iv). Property bearing No.2292 to 2336, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, many shops are stated to be vacant here, however, the number and its descriptions, including area etc., are not specified.
v). 2000 sq. yds. Property at Pusa Road, many shops are stated to be lying vacant on the ground floor, second floor and RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 64 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:50:27 +0530 third floor, however, the number and its descriptions, including area etc., are not specified.
vi). 1B/21, Pusa Road, however, the number and its descriptions, including area etc., are not specified.
vii). Property bearing No.30/42, Old Rajender Nagar.
92. Despite the long list of properties mentioned in the WS, there is no suggestion in the cross-examination of the petitioner that the aforesaid properties are lying vacant and they can be a suitable alternative to the tenanted premises in question. In fact, in the entire cross-examination, there is a reference to only two properties, both at Rajender Nagar.
93. Inter alia, the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner has in his possession a property at Rajender Nagar, where a PG is being run and also he has space available on the upper floors (with lift facility) of the suit property i.e. right above the tenanted premises in question. It is also averred that there are various properties which are in ownership of the Gujral family, of which the petitioner and his family are a part.
94. At this stage, it needs to be understood what is meant by suitable alternate accommodation.
95. The concept of alternate accommodation means that accommodation which is 'reasonably suitable' for the landlord. As to alternative accommodation disentitling the landlord to the relief of possession, it has been held time and again that it must be reasonably equivalent as regards suitability in respect to the accommodation he was claiming.
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 65 of 74HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:50:33 +0530
96. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life.
97. The gist of the aforesaid discussions it that the apples and oranges cannot be compared. The landlord is the master of his choice and it is for him to decide what suits his interest the best, a tenant can neither dictate terms nor can he thrust his choice upon the landlord.
98. A question which arises here is whether the aforesaid properties can be called a suitable alternative to the tenanted premises in question.
99. In the considered opinion of this Court, having taken into account the applicable law and the guiding principles developed by the Hon'ble Constitutional Courts, the answer is a resounding NO.
100. The tenanted premises in question is situated in Karol Bagh. It is on the ground floor and consists of one shop and a Kolki (area under the staircase) with separate shutters. It is situated in the same building where the petitioner too has an RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 66 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:50:40 +0530 existing business/store. With this in background, a property which can be called a suitable alternative to the tenanted premises in question has to be a property which is on the ground floor, in the same area and perhaps in the same building too, however, none of the property cited by the respondents appears to match the description.
101. As discussed above, a tenant cannot compel a landlord to sacrifice his requirement only so that no inconvenience is caused to the tenant. A tenant cannot dictate terms, he has no business telling the landlord to shift to Rajender Nagar instead of Karol Bagh, which is his original choice. Similarly, floors above (despite there being a lift) cannot be compared to a shop on the ground floor sheerly on the basis of ease of access, better visibility and consequently better economics.
102. It cannot be forgotten that the tenanted premises in question is situated on the ground floor of the building and in the same building, the petitioner and his son have their working spaces, including the Bombay Silk Store, of which the said wife of the petitioner is a sleeping partner. The wife of the petitioner, who as per the respondents, is old and feeble and for whom the tenanted premises in question is sought, will always feel more comfortable and convenient in the close vicinity of her family members. This comfort and convenience is not only in reference to safety, ease and security but also is in reference to sharing common amenities such as a pantry, staff, servants, electricity and internet connection, security guards etc. All these benefits RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 67 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:50:51 +0530 get diluted even if the 'alternative accommodation' is separated by a few meters/few lanes.
103. All these facts, taken together, cannot be ignored while judging the suitability of the tenanted premises in question qua the projected need. Even though, judging purely by distance, the alternates suggested by the respondents are not far from the tenanted premises in question, still they cannot be called a suitable alternatives in view of the afore-discussed benefits and the future gains to the petitioner and his wife. It goes without saying that the law on rent control does not allow a prejudice against a landlord merely because there will be possible hardship to the tenants. Similarly, a wealthy landlord who has many properties cannot be forced to sacrifice the fruits of his property merely because certain alternatives are available, he has a right, as per law, to utilize his properties as per his desire, provided it is bonafide.
104. Additionally, it has been argued that various other properties belonging to the Gujral family are under tenancy and the same can be utilized by the wife of the petitioner for the projected need. There are no merits in the said arguments. A tenant cannot arm twist the landlord to seek eviction from other tenants against the wishes of the landlord. The landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements.
105. To sum up the discussion on this sub-head, it can be said that the respondents have not highlighted any property which can be called suitable alternative to the tenanted premises in question. The law does not permit the tenant to dictate terms RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 68 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:50:58 +0530 nor can the tenant, in the matter at hand, make choices for the petitioner so as to disentitle him from starting a business. It is settled law that the ultimate master is the landlord and he cannot be forced to sacrifice her choices only so that the tenant does not feel inconvenience. With the aforesaid discussion in mind, the only suitable answer to the projected need is the tenanted premises in question and I find no merits in the submissions of the respondents that the other properties, as discussed hereinabove and as mentioned in the WS, can be occupied for the projected need.
106. Ergo, in light of the said discussion, this Court finds no reason to doubt the bonafides of the need projected by the petitioner and it cannot be said that the petitioner is in possession of suitable alternative, the projected need can be satisfied. As such, the respondents have failed to show that the requirement is not bonafide and that the petitioner has alternate accommodations available.
107. Next, the respondents/tenants lastly claim that the he is in possession of the tenanted premises for many years now and the Landlord, who is a wealthy person and has a number of properties, should not seek to evict the Tenant because of the hardships which the Tenant will face would weigh out the need of the Landlord. In this regard, it would be pertinent to refer to Bosco Joseph vs Raj Kumar 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2029, wherein Delhi High Court has made following observation:
"Unlike a few of the Rent Control statutes where comparative hardship is one of the tests that a Rent Controller applies, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, there is no test of comparative RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 69 of 74 Digitally signed HARJEET by HARJEET SINGH JASPAL SINGH Date:
JASPAL 2024.08.21 16:51:06 +0530 requirement. Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, all that has to be shown is that the tenanted premises is bona fide required by the Landlord or by any member of the family who is dependent on the Landlord for the said premises or that other member of the family for whose benefit the premises is sought for is dependent on him and no other reasonably suitable accommodation is available. There is no test of comparative hardship in the Delhi Rent Control Act. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Landlord, coming from a wealthy family and having more than 100 people working under him, cannot be permitted to evict the Tenant, who is solely dependent on the tenanted premises for his livelihood, cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that the younger son of the Landlord has become a graduate and the need of a father to settle his son cannot be said to be not bona fide".
108. It is clear that once the landlord establishes its bonafides, the hardship of the tenant cannot be taken into consideration for declining an eviction. If it is accepted that tenancy should be protected either on the ground of long residency or because of non-availability of house with the tenant, no landlord will ever be able to get an eviction order. Even otherwise, the law contemplates a buffer period of 6 months for the tenant in which he can arrange for a shelter.
109. It has also been argued by the respondents that in the recent past, after filing of the present eviction proceedings, the petitioner has sold various properties, which is apparent from the six sale deeds on record, Ex.PW1/R1X1 to Ex.PW1/R1X6. It is argued that since the said sale deeds were executed after filing of the present eviction petition, therefore, it shows that the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 70 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:51:14 +0530 petitioner does not have a real need of the tenanted premises in question.
110. The said sale deeds Ex.PW1/R1X1 to Ex.PW1/R1X6 have been admitted by the petitioner. The same are perused.
111. The said sale deeds are in the name of the petitioner and three other family members, as the sellers and the share of the petitioner is shown to be 1/6th undivided share. With this in background, in the considered opinion of this Court, the tenanted premises in question cannot be compared to the said properties, in view of the conveyance deed dated 24.04.2019 Ex.PW1/2 (OSR), by virtue of which the petitioner claims absolute title over the tenanted premises in question. The Court finds merits in the submissions of the petitioner that since the said shops are part of the joint family property, falling in the share of the other family members, by way of oral partition, the petitioner had no veto to stop the sale, it was the need and decision of the family members, in whose share the said properties had fallen.
112. In the considered opinion of the Court, the question of bonafide has to be seen in the over all conditions in the Indian society. It would have been a different matter if the aforesaid properties, qua which the sale deeds have been placed on record, were exclusively in the name of the petitioner, however, that is not the case.
113. It is understandable that where the members of a joint family, jointly own properties, their disposal is dependent RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 71 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:51:23 +0530 on the collective need of the family, if the property is unpartitioned and on the flip side, on the specific need of an individual, in whose share the property has come, in case of partition.
114. Lastly, the respondents have put forth averments that the summons were not issued by prescribed authority that the site plan is not proper. In the considered opinion of the Court, there is no material on record to find merits in the said averments, they appear to be mere bald submissions. The application seeking leave to defend was filed within time by the respondents and upon the same, a right was granted to the respondents to contest the matter, the said issue was not raised at the time of filing of the the application seeking leave to defend. In fact, the very first paragraph of the application seeking leave to defend says that summons have been duly served on 01.06.2020, "in compliance of provisions of the Act". For easy reference, the first paragraph of the the application seeking leave to defend is being reproduced hereunder:-
"The respondent has been served with the summons of the present petition on 01.06.2020 and in compliance with the provisions of the is filing the present Application within the period of limitation of fifteen days as provided for".
115. Qua the site plan filed by the petitioner, an objection has been taken by the respondents that it is not proper, however, the respondents have themselves not filed any site plan of their own. The law in this regard is settled that if the landlord has filed his site plan and if the tenant does not file a site plan, full RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 72 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:51:32 +0530 credence will be given to the site plan filed by the petitioner/landlord. Reference is made to the judgment in V.S. Sachdeva Vs. M.L. Grover, 67 (1997) DLT 737.
116. Furthermore, there is no suggestion in the entire cross-examination of the petitioner/PW-1, which hints that on what basis there is a confusion in the identification of the tenanted premises in question. The eviction petition and the written statement have same description of the tenanted premises in question. There is nothing on record which disputes the identity of the tenanted premises in question. In light thereof, it can be said that the arguments put forth qua the site plan are bald averments.
117. To sum up, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. As long as the landlord is able to establish that he/she in good faith and genuinely wishes to occupy the premises in possession of the tenant and that good faith or genuineness is of a reasonable man, it would not be open to the Controller to weigh the claim of the landlord in a fine scale. In the matter at hand, the petitioner has, on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, proved the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, that he requires the tenanted premises in question bonafide for his dependent family member and that he does not have any other reasonable alternate suitable accommodation.
118. In view of the above finding, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed against the RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 73 of 74 HARJEET Digitally by HARJEET signed SINGH SINGH JASPAL Date: 2024.08.21 JASPAL 16:51:39 +0530 respondents qua the tenanted premises i.e. a Shop and a Kolki (un-numbered), both situated on the ground floor of the property bearing No.10212-10216, Ganga Ram Building, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as specifically shown in the red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
119. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to obtain possession of the above tenanted premises before the expiry of the period of six months from the date of this order in terms of Section 14 (7) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
120. File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of judgment be given dasti to both the sides on request.
Announced in the open Court (Harjeet Singh Jaspal)
on this 21st day of August, 2024 SCJ-cum-RC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
RC/ARC 280/2022 Raj Kumar Gujral Vs. Amardeep Singh & Anr. Page 74 of 74
Digitally signed by
HARJEET HARJEET SINGH
SINGH JASPAL
Date: 2024.08.21
JASPAL 16:51:48 +0530