Delhi District Court
Smt. Shakila Begum vs Sh. Mohd. Ejaz @ Irshad on 18 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI, ADDL. RENT
CONTROLLER (NORTH EAST DISTRICT), COURT ROOM
NO. 53, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
E41/10
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0260932010
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT. SHAKILA BEGUM .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
SH. MOHD. EJAZ @ IRSHAD .... RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application of the respondent for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner u/S 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner in petition u/S. 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is that she is the owner and landlady in respect of two adjoining shops measuring 6'4" X 9' each on the E41/10 Page 1/9 ground floor of property bearing no. E23, Gali No.1, Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the Site Plan. These two shops were letout to the respondent in February 2001 and March 2004 respectively at a monthly rent of Rs.1300/ and Rs.1500/ respectively excluding all other charges. Thus, the total rent of both these shops is Rs.2800/ per month excluding all other charges. The two shops were let out to the respondent for commercial purpose. The contention of the petitioner is that her son is in the final year of Law Graduation and is in need of office to run his profession as a Lawyer. The younger daughter of the petitioner is specialized in Computer Software field and wants to run her Computer Software Centre. The case of the petitioner is that the two shops are required so that her children can earn their livelihood. On this ground, an eviction order has been sought against the respondent.
3. In his application for grant of leave to defend the present E41/10 Page 2/9 petition, the respondent has averred that the petitioner has one big room with kitchen and bath on the ground floor; one big hall room, toilet and bathroom on the first floor and two rooms with toilet and bath on the second floor and therefore, she does not require any additional accommodation. The son and younger daughter of the petitioner are unmarried and one of the daughters is married. The younger daughter of the petitioner is employed in Bangalore and is permanently settled there. The petitioner, therefore, does not require any additional accommodation. It is submitted that the petitioner has been letting out the first floor portion to different tenants from time to time. It is also submitted that the first and second floors of property no. E23 are lying vacant and are in possession of the petitioner. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner has deliberately not filed the complete and proper Site Plan and has avoided to show the complete accommodation in her possession. It is also alleged that the E41/10 Page 3/9 petitioner wants to sell her property no. E23 and for this reason, she wants to get the tenanted premises vacated. It is also the case of the respondent that the tenanted premises were letout for commercial purpose and petitioner's need is also for commercial purpose, therefore, DRC Act is not applicable in the present situation. On these grounds, the respondent has sought permission for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition.
4. In her reply, the petitioner has denied the allegations of the respondent and has reiterated her stand in the petition. It has been pointed out that now the son of the petitioner has completed his Law Graduation and is enrolled in Delhi Bar Council.
5. I have heard arguments on the application for grant of leave to defend the present eviction petition on behalf of both the parties and perused the records carefully.
6. Certified copy of the earlier eviction petition u/S. 14D of E41/10 Page 4/9 the DRC Act filed by the present petitioner in respect of the two tenanted suit shops is on record. This eviction petition was withdrawn by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on 18.02.2010. Since this earlier eviction petition no. 214/09 was filed under Section 14D of the DRC Act, there was no requirement of mentioning the details/ grounds under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
7. In para 19 of the petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that she has no alternative for non residential accommodation except the tenanted shops in question. It is well settled that the DRC Act, including Section 14(1)(e), is applicable to the commercial premises also and for commercial requirement.
8. The petitioner has filed photocopy of the Certificate of Enrollment as Advocate in the Bar Council of Delhi in the name of her son Sh. Shakeel Ahmed (OSR). It shows that the elder son of the petitioner is an Advocate. The contention of the petitioner is that her E41/10 Page 5/9 younger daughter wants to open a Computer Centre in one of the suit shops. Even if it is presumed that the younger daughter of the petitioner is not pursuing any Computer course, it is not a requirement for opening a Computer Centre or carrying out any business in Computer/ software field. There is nothing on record to show that the younger daughter of the petitioner is employed and permanently settled in Bangalore. Even if this contention of the respondent is believed, there is no reason why the daughter of the petitioner cannot choose the vocation of her own choice and run a business in Computer/ software field from the tenanted premises. The requirement of shops for settling her two children and to add to her source of income and improve her financial status is a bonafide requirement. It has been held in Sarwan Dass Bange V/s. Ram Prakash 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252 "... a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in E41/10 Page 6/9 the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine." A heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The respondent has not brought anything on record to show that the real purpose of the petitioner for getting an eviction order is to sell her property no. E23 at a higher rate. The respondent has failed to disclose facts which would show that the need of the petitioner is fanciful and not bonafide.
9. In her Site Plan, petitioner has shown the location of the suit shops in property no. E23. The situation of the two tenanted suit shops as shown in the Site Plan is not disputed. It is contended, however, that the petitioner has not filed the Site Plan of the first floor and the second floor of the property no. E23. The contention of the respondent is that the first floor and the second floor of property no. E23 are lying vacant and the petitioner can use the same for E41/10 Page 7/9 establishing their businesses. The petitioner has denied this averment and has also argued that since the suit shops are located on the ground floor, therefore, these shops are more conducive for running the businesses of their choice by her two children. It is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide as to how and in what manner should he fulfill his requirement and the tenant cannot dictate the terms to his landlord as to how the latter should adjust his family. In Prativa Devi V/s. T.V. Krishnan 1996 (5) SCC 353, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that there is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.
10. The respondent has failed to disclose any such fact as would disentitle the landlady from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the tenanted suit premises on the ground of bonafide requirement as specified in Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. The application for grant of leave to defend is, therefore, dismissed. E41/10 Page 8/9 The petitioner is entitled to an eviction order.
11. An eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises, that is, two adjoining shops measuring 6'4" X 9' each on the ground floor of property bearing no. E23, Gali No.1, Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the Site Plan. This order is subject to Section 14 (7) of the DRC Act.
12. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY 2011.
(VRINDA KUMARI) ARC (NE) KKD, DELHI.
18.01.2011
E41/10 Page 9/9
E41/10
18.01.2011
Present: Petitioner in person.
Respondent in person.
Vide a separate order of even date, the application of the respondent for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition has been dismissed. The petitioner is entitled to an eviction order.
An eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises, that is, two adjoining shops measuring 6'4" X 9' each on the ground floor of property bearing no. E23, Gali No.1, Subhash Vihar, North Ghonda, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the Site Plan. This order is subject to Section 14 (7) of the DRC Act.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(VRINDA KUMARI) ARC (NE) KKD, DELHI.
18.01.2011 E41/10 Page 10/9