Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar Khushwani vs Jagdish Chander on 12 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. TARUNPREET KAUR
ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
RC ARC 63/2019
VIJAY KUMAR KHUSHWANI Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER
Sh. Vijay Kumar Khushwani
S/o Late Sh. Gopal Kumar Khushwani
R/o H.No. 164, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi-110092
...........petitioner
versus
Sh. Jagdish Chander
S/o Late Sh. Bhagirath Lal,
Prop. Of M/s Star Watch Co.,
Shop No. 22-A, Sewa Nagar Market,
New Delhi-110003
.........respondent
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1)(e) READ WITH SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT
CONTROL ACT, 1958
Date of Institution : 19.09.2019
Decision : Allowed
Date of Decision : 12.02.2025
RC ARC 63/19
Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 1 of 22
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC") wherein, the petitioner has sought eviction of the respondent from property i.e., Shop No. 22A, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi-110003 (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted/suit property/premises").
Case of the Petitioner
2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally, Sh. Sunder Dass and the father of the petitioner were the landlords of the respondent and they had given the tenanted premises to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 150/- vide rent agreement dated 03.03.1979. Further, after death of the father of the petitioner, petitioner is landlord of the respondent. It has been further averred that in the year 2009, suit for partition had been filed by uncle ("chacha") of the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was decided vide order dated 27.11.2014 as compromised and the respondent is aware of the same. Therefore, the suit property is in the share of the petitioner alongwith the other portion of the building. It has been further averred that by operation of law, after demise of father of petitioner, respondent is tenant of petitioner with respect to the tenanted premises. It has been further averred that the respondent is in occupation of tenanted premises for around last 40 years and RC ARC 63/19 Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 2 of 22 that he is running a watch shop in name and style of "M/s Star Watch Co." thereat.
3. It has been further averred that the respondent is presently depositing monthly rent of Rs. 150/- in court. It has been further averred that the son of the petitioner namely, Puneet Kumar Khushwani, has completed his Grade 7 piano learning in the year 2012 and that he now wants to start music classes. Further, he is already imparting music classes in South Delhi area. It has been further averred that therefore, the tenanted premises are bonafidely required by the petitioner for his son for setting up his career. It has been further averred that no other reasonably suitable accommodation is available with the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. It has been further averred that a legal notice dated 13.09.2018 had been served upon the respondent by the petitioner and the same was replied to by the respondent on 18.09.2018.
4. It has been further averred that in September 2018, the respondent had asked the petitioner for one year's time to vacate the premises and the same was granted to him. Thereafter, the respondent again assured that he would vacate the suit premises in August 2019, however, the respondent did not give any satisfactory reply thereafter. Therefore, it has been prayed through the present petition that an order for eviction be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent with respect to the tenanted premises.
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 3 of 22 Application Seeking Leave to Defend
5. An application under section 25B of DRC has been filed on behalf of the respondent seeking leave to defend the present petition along with separate detailed affidavit and documents. The leave to defend has been sought by the respondent on the following grounds :-
(i) The suit property is situated at Government land and the same is a leasehold property and therefore, provision of DRC would not be applicable to the present petition in view of bar under section 3(b) DRC. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable.
(ii) The suit property was allotted vide conveyance deed, to grandfather of petitioner i.e., Late Sh. Amolak Dass, being a refugee who came from Pakistan at the time of partition of the country. After demise of Late Sh. Amolak Dass, the respondent is not aware as to if the suit property was partitioned between the legal heirs of the aforenamed deceased. Further, the respondent had been paying rent to the petitioner, however, he received a letter from one Lachhman Kumar Khushwani, one of the co-sharers of the suit property, to not to pay rent qua the suit property to any person until orders from court. Further, the respondent is not aware about the alleged partition of the suit property and the petitioner has not placed any document on record to substantiate about his ownership to the tenanted RC ARC 63/19 Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 4 of 22 premises. Hence, there is a triable issue to ascertain about the actual owner of the suit property.
(iii) The present petition has been filed on false and frivolous grounds and the petitioner has withheld information regarding other reasonable alternate accommodation available with him. The petitioner has not disclosed about his entire properties, nor has he given reasonable explanation as to why the available alternate property is not suitable for him and his family members dependent upon him. Following properties have been stated to be available with the petitioner :-
a) It has been stated that the property bearing no. 22, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi admeasuring 100 sq. yards, out of which respondent is occupying 12 sq. yards (i.e., the tenanted premises) and no explanation has been given by the petitioner regarding 88 sq. yards.
b) The entire first floor, measuring 100 sq. yards of property bearing no. 22, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi and the said portion is lying completely vacant.
c) Property no. 164, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
(iv) Non-explanation as to availability of aforementioned properties by the petitioner, shows that there is no bona fide need of the petitioner and therefore, evidence is required to ascertain as to if the need of the petitioner is genuine. Further, the petitioner has not explained as to how 12 sq. yards would be sufficient for petitioner's son to run his music classes.RC ARC 63/19
Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 5 of 22
(v) The entire property is two side open and is situated at market area, having 30-40 ft. wide road at front side and 20-25 feet wide road at back side. Therefore, there is no impediment for petitioner to use the suit property from the back side and it has not been explained by the petitioner as to how the back side portion of the suit property is not suitable for carrying out the aforesaid music classes.
(vi) The petitioner and his family have been residing at House No. 164, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Trans Yamuna, Delhi for last more than three decades. The petitioner has his own property measuring 200 sq. yards situated in middle of the market and he is having 6 shops available with him in Laxmi Nagar area. The said vacant shops are suitable for petitioner and his family members dependent upon him for carrying out their business.
(vii) Therefore, the alleged bona fide need of the petitioner is not real, sincere and honest.
Reply to Application Seeking Leave to Defend
6. In reply to application seeking leave to defend, it has been denied by the petitioner that the suit property is government land. It has been stated that the total area of property in question is 78 sq. yards and not 100 sq. yards. It has been further stated that copy of report of commission dated 05.02.2013, application dated 03.11.2014 under Order 23 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, site plan and order dated 27.11.2014 of the Hon'ble RC ARC 63/19 Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 6 of 22 High Court of Delhi have been placed on record and the same reveal that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property. Further, it has been stated that the respondent has not denied landlord- tenant relation as such. It has been further stated that the petitioner does not have any other reasonable alternate accommodation available with him, except the suit property- which he had acquired by way of partition. It has been further stated that the suit property is bona fidely required by petitioner for his son, who is giving music classes and has to visit door to door to impart lessons for lack of space in South Delhi.
7. It has been further stated that the area of property No. 22, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi is about 78 sq. yards, which has been partitioned and the petitioner has got the suit property and a small portion of about 6 ½ sq. yards behind the suit property, which the petitioner intends to use after removing the wall. It has been further stated that the entire remaining portion is share of his uncles and the petitioner has no right in the said portion. It has been further stated the floor above the suit property is for residential purpose and son of the petitioner would use the same for his residence and not for commercial purpose. It has been further stated that the property no. 164, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi belongs to mother of the petitioner, the shops thereat are given on rent and petitoner is running his business from one of those shops. Further, the mother of the petitioner is surviving on the said rental income. Further, the floors constructed above the said property are being used by petitioner, his family and his mother for their residence.
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 7 of 22 Rejoinder to reply filed on behalf of petitioner
8. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of the respondent to reply to leave to defend application, filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein the respondent re-affirmed and re-averred the facts as stated in his application seeking leave to defend filed alongwith affidavit.
Arguments
9. Arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties have been heard at length and the record has been perused. It was submitted by Learned counsel for respondent that the property in question is the leasehold property owned by Government of India and now, the area within which the tenanted premises falls, has been acquired by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, therefore, the present petition is barred under DRC. He further submitted that the requirement of petitioner is not genuine as the respondent is having possession over a very small portion of the property in question while the rest of the area is in possession and is at disposal of the petitioner. He further submitted that other properties are also owned by the petitioner and the same have not been disclosed in the present petition. He further submitted that as per the site plan, the petitioner is having 7 commercial spaces available with him, however, the same have not been disclosed. He further submitted that the area of the suit property is not even sufficient for installing a piano there, for which alleged purpose the tenanted premises are required by the petitioner. He further submitted that trial is required in order to ascertain as to if the property falls within share of the petitioner.
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 8 of 22
10. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenanted premises are required by petitioner for the use of his son, who is already giving piano lessons and that the tenanted premises are needed to run office for the said purpose. He further submitted that the tenant could not dictate as to how the landlord should be using his property and therefore, the application seeking leave to defend be dismissed and an eviction order qua the suit property be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Bonafide Requirement U/s 14 (1) (e) DRC Act
11. The present petition for eviction has been filed under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958, which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India", on 16.04.2008 reads as under :-
14.(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 any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
***
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation :RC ARC 63/19
Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 9 of 22
12. Thus, to establish his case under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients:
(i) That he is the owner of the tenanted shop and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent.
(ii) That tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(iii) That the petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
13. Under Section 25 (B) of DRC, a summary procedure has been laid down for landlords requiring premises for bonafide use for themselves or for any member of their family dependent upon them. The tenant shall be granted leave to contest the eviction petition if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would dis-entitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the tenanted premises. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Charandas Duggal Vs. Bhramanand 1983, 1SCC 301 that the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and the same should be sufficient to grant leave. Therefore, the test is that of a triable issue and not of the final success in the action.
14. Further, it is the settled position of law that once landlord pleads his bonafide requirement and non-availability of an alternative suitable accommodation, the onus shifts on the tenant to show that there exists a triable issue, which requires trial in the matter. With the above-stated principles of law in mind, it shall RC ARC 63/19 Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 10 of 22 now be examined as to whether the respondent has raised any triable issue through his application seeking leave to defend.
Ownership and Landlord-Tenant Relationship Between The Parties
15. It has been contended by the respondent that the suit property is a leasehold property belonging to Government of India. Further, during the course of proceedings in the present matter, he filed an application under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") stating that the area within which the tenanted premises falls, has now been acquired by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. Similar submissions had been made on behalf of the respondent during arguments on the present application. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the respondent had failed to furnish the notification or other official document vide which the said area had been so acquired and eventually, the said application under section 151 CPC had been withdrawn vide statement of counsel for respondent recorded to that effect on 22.05.2024. In this manner, the respondent failed to establish prima facie that the area of tenanted premises has been acquired by Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.
16. Further objection to ownership of petitioner has been raised by the respondent by contending that there is doubt as to if the suit property has fallen into the share of the petitioner on partition with his uncles/relatives. It has been further contended that the respondent had received a letter from Lachhman Khushwani, who told him that there are three owners of the suit RC ARC 63/19 Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 11 of 22 property i.e., himself, Sh. Gopal Kumar Khushwani and Sh. Sunder Dass @ Ram Chand Khushwani and, to not to pay rent for the tenanted premises to anyone until order from court is received. Admittedly, until receipt of said letter, the respondent had been paying rent qua the tenanted premises to the petitioner. It must also be noted that Sh. Gopal Kumar Khushwani was the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent has not denied his status as tenant at the suit property nor has he denied having paid rent to the petitioner herein, however, he has tried to challenge the ownership of petitioner by averring that there is doubt regarding the fact as alleged by the petitioner that the suit property fell into his share on partition. Hence, according to respondent, the disputed question of fact qua the claim of ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises, itself is a triable issue, which needs a full-fledged trial by putting onus upon the petitioner to prove his ownership in accordance with law.
17. It is pertinent at this juncture, to discuss authority as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Sheela & Ors. Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash 2002 (SC) that "In rent matters, the burden of proving ownership on a landlord is not that heavy as it is in a title suit and even a lesser quantum of proof may suffice for holding that the landlord is the owner of the premises in question."
17.1 Further, in case titled Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction RC ARC 63/19 Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 12 of 22 petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:-
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
17.2 Further, in the case titled Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : -
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
"It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant."
17.3 It was held in case titled Ram Chander Vs. Ram Pyari, 109 (2004) DLT 388, that "proceedings under the Act are not title proceedings."
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 13 of 22 17.4 Further, it was held in case titled B.K. Gupta Vs. Sudarshan Chaudhary, 2000 (1), RCR 53, that- "In a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement, the tenant cannot challenge the ownership of the landlord merely on the ground that the premises had been allotted to the landlord by the Government on hire-purchase basis."
18. It must be appreciated that, in the present case also, the respondent has not stated as to who, if not the petitioner, is the owner of the suit property. At the same time, it must be taken into consideration that the petitioner has brought on record copy of Deed of Family Settlement dated 31.05.1989 executed between Sh. Gopal Kumar Khushwani (father of petitioner), Sh. Sunder Das Khushwani and Sh. Lachhman Kumar Khushwani and copy of Mutation dated 19.06.1989 qua the property in question. Further, copy of report of Local Commissioner dated 05.02.2013, application filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC and copy of order dated 27.11.2014 pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, have also been placed on record. Hence, by way of the aforesaid documents, the petitioner has prima facie established that the suit property had fallen into his share upon partition.
19. Hence, the tenancy being admitted, documents placed on record by petitioner to prove compromise between him and his uncle and silence on part of the respondent as to who else is the owner of the suit property, no triable issue arise with respect to ownership of petitioner with respect to the tenanted premises RC ARC 63/19 Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 14 of 22 and landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in the present matter.
Bona Fide Requirement
20. The bona fide requirement as stated by the petitioner/landlord is that the tenanted premises are required by him for setting up his son's career and that he intends to open office for his son at the tenanted premises. It has been further contended that son of petitioner has attained majority, has learnt piano and that he is imparting music lessons in the South Delhi area. It has been further contended that an accommodation in South Delhi area is required for his son as his students are from the said area.
21. On the other hand, it has been contended by respondent/tenant that the alleged requirement of petitioner is not bonafide as he has not disclosed about availability of his other properties. Further, it has been averred that the petitioner has not explained as to how 12 sq. yards (the area of tenanted premises) would be sufficient for his son to run his music classes. Besides that, it had been submitted by the Learned counsel for the respondent during arguments, that the area of tenanted premises is not even sufficient to install a piano thereat, and therefore, the same could not reasonably be used by the petitioner for the purpose as stated by him. It has also been contended that the entire property in question, of which the tenanted premises are a part, are available with the petitioner and as to why the petitioner could not use the rear portion of the shop in question/tenanted premises for his purpose.
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 15 of 22
22. It is the established position of law that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement. In the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 it was observed that:-
"24. 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.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
22.1 Thus, it is an established position of law that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the court cannot direct the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. It has been held that court must place itself in the shoes of the landlord and decide whether in the given facts the need of the landlord to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest and that if the answer is in the positive, the need is bona fide. Reliance has been placed upon the authority laid down in case titled Shiv Swaroop Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, 1999, SCC 222. It was also held in the said case that "convenience and safety of landlord and his family members would be relevant."
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 16 of 22 22.2 Further, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Sunder Singh Talwar Vs. Kamal Chand Duggar 2018 (1) RCR 537, and also in the matter of Lahorian Di Hatti Vs. Shyam Lal Mehar Chand Jain 214 (2014) DLT 431, that the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for the daughter/daughter in law to set up an independent business so as to make them independent and also held that the requirement to settle the daughter in law would be considered as bonafide.
22.3 It is also relevant to discuss authority laid down in case titled Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta 2011(1) RCR, (Rent) 231 (Delhi) by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "the children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a Bonafide one."
23. Thus, the tenant could not dictate as to how the landlord should be using and enjoying his property. If the landlord states that he seeks to use the tenanted premises for a particular purpose, the tenant could not question and put his own suggestions that the said premises could not reasonably be used for the purpose as sought by the landlord. It is the case of the petitioner that he seeks to use the tenanted premises for opening office for his son's music classes. It has also been explained as to why space in South Delhi is required. Therefore, in such circumstances, the respondent/tenant could not put questions upon the said need of the landlord/petitioner by saying that the tenanted premises would not be appropriate for installing piano, or as to why petitioner's son could not impart lessons from the area where they reside (i.e., Laxmi Nagar), or as to why the RC ARC 63/19 Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 17 of 22 petitioner could not use the rear portion of the tenanted premises for the alleged purpose.
24. Not just that, it is also the settled law that the petitioner is not required to state the exact business which is proposed to be carried out from the tenanted premises. Further, even if the purpose is stated in the petition, petitioner is not bound by the same and can later use the premises for some other purpose. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Sunder Singh Talwar v. Kamal Chand Dugar, 2018 SCC Online Del 8376.
25. Therefore, the petitioner has prima facie established that the tenanted premises are required for bona fide purpose and accordingly, no triable issue arises regarding the same.
Availability of Alternate Reasonable Accommodation
26. It has been stated on behalf of the respondent that the following properties are available with the petitioner, and he could use the same for his alleged purpose:-
i) That the property bearing no. 22, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi is admeasuring 100 sq. yards, out of which respondent is occupying 12 sq. yards (i.e., the tenanted premises) and no explanation has been given by the petitioner regarding 88 sq. yards.
ii) The entire first floor, measuring 100 sq. yards of property bearing no. 22, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi and the said portion is lying completely vacant.RC ARC 63/19
Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 18 of 22
iii) Property no. 164, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
27. Per contra, it is the case of the petitioner that he does not have alternate suitable accommodation available with him for the purpose as stated by him. It has been contended by him that the area of property No. 22, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi is about 78 sq. yards, which has been partitioned and he has got the suit property and a small portion of about 6 ½ sq. yards behind the suit property, which he intends to use after removing the wall. It has been further stated that the entire remaining portion is share of his uncles and he has no right over the said portion. It has been further contended that the floor above the suit property is for residential purpose and son of the petitioner would use the same for his residence and not for commercial purpose. It has been further contended that the property no. 164, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi belongs to his mother, the shops thereat are given on rent and that he is running his business from one of those shops. Further, the floors constructed above the said property are being used by petitioner, his family and his mother for their residence.
28. It has been explained by the petitioner/landlord that the property concerned at Laxmi Nagar belongs to his mother and the shops at the said property have already been given on rent and that the petitioner is carrying on his business from one of the said shops. Further, the petitioner and his family are using the first floor of the said property for their residential purpose. At this juncture, it is significant to point out that it has already been stated by petitioner that an accommodation in South Delhi area is required as his son his imparting lessons in South Delhi area.
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 19 of 22 Therefore, the property at Laxmi Nagar would not be suitable for his purpose. Accordingly, the respondent/tenant could not be allowed to say as to why the son of petitioner could not impart lessons in the area where they are residing.
29. Further, it has been categorically denied by petitioner that area of property bearing no. 22, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi, is 100 sq. yards. It has been stated that area of said property is about 78 sq. yards and the remaining portion belongs to his uncles and that he does not have any right or title over the said remaining portion. With respect to availability of first floor at the said property, it has been stated that the same is to be used by his son for his residential purpose.
30. It is worth appreciating that availability of alternate accommodation is a different thing from availability of suitable accommodation. If accommodation is available and it is not suitable for the purpose for which the tenanted premises are required, the same could not be said to be available alternate accommodation. Further, it must be appreciated that the landlord could not be told and dictated by the tenant or anyone else as to how he shall utilize his property for his needs. As discussed already, landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he could not be made to alter his utilization of property just for the reason that the tenant thinks otherwise.
31. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Metropolitan Book Company Ltd. Vs. Ajay Rastogi that-
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 20 of 22 "Even assuming other properties available, and which actually they are not as stated below, these other properties situated far from the present residence of the respondent no.1/landlord, and his family members, cannot be considered as alternative suitable accommodation."
The implication of the above-stated authority is that relevance of alternate accommodation is to be seen in light of requirement of landlord and the purpose for which the tenanted premises are sought.
32. In light of the above discussion, it could not be said that any alternate suitable accommodation is available with the petitioner. Accordingly, no triable issue is there with respect to the aspect under discussion either.
Final Analysis
33. No other ground for seeking leave to defend has been raised by the respondent in the present application. Thus, in view of the discussion above, this court is of considered opinion that the present application is without any merit and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of respondent stands dismissed and disposed of. Consequently, the present petition filed under section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B DRC, on behalf of petitioner is allowed.
34. The respondent is, accordingly, directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., Shop No. 22A, Sewa Nagar Market, New Delhi-110003 (as shown in Red colour in the site plan).
RC ARC 63/19Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 21 of 22 The petitioner shall not file the execution petition for eviction of the tenanted premises before expiry of period of six months from today.
35. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed
by
on 12th of February, 2025 TARUNPREET TARUNPREET
KAUR KAUR
Date: 2025.02.12
14:50:57 +0530
(TARUNPREET KAUR)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC,
South-East District, Saket Courts
RC ARC 63/19
Vijay Kumar Khushwani Vs. Jagdish Chander Page No. 22 of 22