Delhi District Court
Girdhar Gopal Gupta vs Satish Chand on 16 February, 2022
In the Court of CCJ cum ARC (Central District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Presided by: Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh
Case No. E-311/18
CNR No. DLCT03-002338-2018
Judgment dictated through Video Conferencing via Cisco
Webex.
Judgment pronounced in open Court.
In the matter of:-
Girdhar Gopal Gupta
S/o Late Dwarka Dass Gupta
R/o House No. 73-74, Gujrawalan Town,
Part-II, Delhi-110033. ............Petitioner
Versus
1. Satish Chand
S/o Late Mittar Sen
2. Vinod Kumar
S/o Late Mittar Sen
Both at Shop No. 4747,
Ground Floor, Main Road,
Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006. ..............Respondents
Date of institution : 04.04.2018
Date of reserved for judgment : 31.01.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.02.2022
Decision : Petition
Allowed
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER
SECTION 14 (1) (e) READ WITH SECTION 25B OF THE
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, AS AMENDED UPTO
DATE
CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 1 of 30
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:34:22 +0500
JUDGMENT :-
1. This petition for eviction of tenant/respondent under clause
(e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') is preferred by the petitioner against the respondent for recovery of possession of tenanted premises, i.e., shop bearing no. 4747, measuring 9'-0 x 38'-0 equivalent to 342 sq. ft., Ground Floor, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi- 110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises').
2. In nutshell, the facts are that vide Registered Partnership Deed dated 24.01.1997, partition was arrived at between the petitioner and his brother Sh. Ram Narayan Gupta of the properties bearing no. 4752-4753 of the area measuring 50 sq. yds. situated in Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, New Delhi. There is a shop bearing no. 4753, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, New Delhi on the ground floor portion of the property measuring 28'-6" x 23'-3" and shutter measuring 8'-6", total area measuring 199 sq. ft. and this shop came into the share of Sh. Ram Narayan Gupta vide abovesaid Partition Deed. The shop is shown in 'blue' colour in the site plan annexed. Hence, Sh. Ram Narayan Gupta was recorded owner/landlord of the said shop, which is in his possession. Sh. Ram Narayan Gupta, brother of the petitioner, has been doing his independent business under the Name & Style of M/s Krishna Sales Corporation as a Sole proprietor of the firm, having TIN No. LC/32/045728/0577. Copy of TIN No. issued by NCT of Delhi issued in the name of this firm is annexed as Annexure-4.
CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 2 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:34:40 +0500
The petitioner is the registered owner/landlord of the first and second floor, right side portion of property bearing no. 4752, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. He is in possession of two rooms, i.e., one room measuring 12'-5" x 12'-7.5" and another room measuring 14'-6" x 8'-9" and also store, WC and kitchen on the first floor portion of the property. The petitioner is in possession of portions of second floor portion of the property bearing no. 4752, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. The accommodation on the second floor of the said property is consisting of two rooms, i.e., one room measuring 10'-6" x 7'- 1.5" and another room measuring 18'-6" x 10'-3", a store and a open veranda with jali. The portions on the first & second floors of the property are in possession of the petitioner and have been shown in 'green' colour in the site plan annexed and the same is being used for residential purpose, for which the petitioner is paying the property tax to MCD. The first floor portion of the property was sealed by the MCD vide order dated 21.04.2006 for misuse. Upon giving the undertaking by the petitioner, the sealed portion was de-sealed.
Sh. Laxmi Narayan Gupta, brother of the petitioner is in possession of one room situated on the left side of the abovesaid property measuring 8'-0" x 18'-0" which is owned by him. There is another room situated on the first floor of the property measuring 7'-3' x 18'-0" which is in possession of Sh. Hari Ram Gupta, brother of the petitioner, who is the owner thereof. The said portions are shown in 'brown' colour in the site plan.
There are two rooms on the left side portion on the second floor of property bearing no. 4752, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. One room measuring 8'-0" x 18'0", total area measuring CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 3 of 30 SANTOSH Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.16 15:35:00 SINGH +0500 44 sq. ft. which belongs to Sh. Laxmi Narayan Gupta, as per the Partition Deed. Second room measuring 7'-3" x 18'-0", total measuring 131 sq. ft. belongs to Sh. Hari Ram Gupta, who is the owner/landlord of the said portion. The same is shown in the site plan in 'brown colour'.
Two shops situated on the ground floor of property bearing no. 4750-4751, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi, out of which the measurement of one shop is 8'-0" x 15'-0", equivalent to 127.6 sq. ft., bearing no. 4750, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi owned by Sh. Hari Ram Gupta, now deceased (brother of the petitioner). The same is shown in 'brown' colour in the site plan. The second shop measuring 9'-0" x 15'-9", equivalent to 142 sq. ft. bearing no. 4751, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi is owned by Sh. Laxmi Narayan Gupta, brother of the petitioner. Both shops are shown in 'brown' colour in the site plan.
The petitioner is also the owner/landlord of the shop situated on the ground floor portion of property bearing no. 4753A, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi, which came to his share vide Partition Deed dated 24.01.1997. The private number 4753A was given to the shop for identification purpose and also for convenient sake. This shop is measuring 5'-3" x 28'-6", equivalent to 154 sq. ft. is in possession of the petitioner, as shown in 'yellow' colour in the site plan, who is carrying on business under the Name & Style M/s Gopal Sales Corporation and its copy of its GST Registration is on record. This shop is also in possession of younger son of the petitioner Sh. Sachin Gupta, being the Sole proprietor of the firm M/s S.B. Board House.
The shop bearing no. 4747, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 4 of 30 SANTOSH Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.16 15:35:26 SINGH +0500 Delhi, i.e., tenanted premises fell into the share of the petitioner, pursuant to Partition Deed dated 24.01.1997, of which petitioner is the owner. The measurement of the shop is 9'-0" x 38'-0", equivalent to 342 sq. ft. situated on the ground floor portion of the property as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan and this shop was let out to the father of the respondents, namely, Mittar Sen, by virtue of written Rent Note dated 23.05.1961, which was inherited by the respondents after the demise of their father Mittar Sen and since then, the respondents are in the possession. This shop is facing the main road. The rent of this shop was increased from time to time since the inception of tenancy and presently, the rate of rent is Rs. 310/- per month, excluding electricity charges. This rent has not been increased for the last 09 years. The respondents are irregular in paying the monthly rent to the petitioner and the respondents have deposited the rent u/s 27 of the DRC Act in respect of the tenanted premises w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018. Copy of DRC petition dated 17.04.2017 is on record as Annexure-5. It is stated that relationship of landlord-tenant between the petitioner and respondent exists qua the tenanted premises.
It is stated that shop bearing no. 4748, measuring 9'-0" x 16'-0", equivalent to 144 sq. ft. situated on ground floor, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, is in possession of tenant, Sh. Kishan Kumar Dua, as shown in 'purple' colour in the site plan. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had filed an eviction petition bearing no. 903/14/2012 on the ground of bonafide need against Sh. Kishan Kumar Dua qua the abovesaid shop, which was decreed vide order dated 27.02.2017 by the Ld. ARC and this eviction order was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 5 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:35:43 +0500 of Delhi in RCR No. 417 of 2017, however, the same was dismissed on 05.09.2017. The tenant had also preferred SLP No. 25120/17 against the dismissal order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, however, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 22.09.2017. Copy is on record as Annexure-6. However, 02 years time was given to the tenant Sh. Kishan Kumar Dua to vacate the shop and to hand over the possession to the petitioner. The said shop now is in possession of the petitioner, as shown in the 'purple' colour in the site plan.
The petitioner has not filed any eviction petition against the father of the respondents, nor against the present respondents on the ground of bonafide need, after purchase of the tenanted premises from its earlier owner/landlord by virtue of Registered Sale Deed dated 13.09.1965 executed in favour of the petitioner. Copy is on record as Annexure-7.
The petitioner has two grown up married sons, namely, Amit Gupta and Sachin Gupta. Sh. Amit Gupta, elder son of the petitioner has been doing his independent business being a Sole proprietor of the firm named as M/s S.B. Marketing having GST No. 07AIPG2822J1ZU. Copy of the same is on record as Annexure-9. Sh. Sachin Gupta, younger son of the petitioner is doing his business under the Name & Style M/s S.B. Board House, being its Sole proprietor having GST No. 07AFTPG2067B1Zl. Copy of the same is on record as Annexure-10.
Petitioner and his two sons are independently carrying on their businesses under the Name & Style as stated above.
The petitioner has filed a plan of the properties showing different accommodations in the ownership of his own, of his CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 6 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:35:58 +0500 brother Sh. Laxmi Narayan Gupta, children of late Sh. Hari Ram Gupta and Sh. Ram Narayan Gupta. Site plan is on record as Annexure-11.
The petitioner is having godown measuring 11'-3" x 23'-0"
in the property no. 4785, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and the same is being used by Sh. Amit Gupta, elder son of the petitioner. Plan of the same is annexed as Annexure-12. Other properties :-
1. A warehouse plot measuring 50 sq. meters at Gazipur, Delhi bearing no. 912 was allotted to the petitioner by the DDA for storage purpose. After constructing the same, the petitioner has let it out to Sh. Rajinder Kumar on the monthly rent of Rs.
15,000/- as the said accommodation was not suitable for the business of the petitioner as well as for his two sons as the same is situated at a distance of more than 25 km away from the working place of the petitioner and his two sons.
2. First floor portion of property bearing no. 947-949, Chhota Chippiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-06 is owned by Sh. Amit Gupta and its measurement is 9'-0" x 11'-0" and the same is lying vacant as situated in a narrow lane. This premises is situated 8 km away from Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi and the same is not suitable to the petitioner as well as for his two sons.
3. Property no. 10148, Katra Chajju Pandit, Manakpura, near Filmistan, Delhi is owned by Ms. Garima Gupta W/o Sh. Amit Gupta and Ms. Kajal Gupta W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta. However, it is two storied constructed property, which was let out to the tenant, namely, Ravinder Kumar for about 07 years back by the registered co-owner/landladies.
4. Property no. 73, Gujranwala Town, Delhi is owned by Smt. CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 7 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:36:34 +0500 Madhu Gupta wife of the petitioner. However, the same is residential property being occupied by the petitioner and his whole family including sons and their families.
5. Property no. 74, Gujranwala Town, Delhi is owned by Smt. Garima Gupta W/o Sh. Amit Gupta and Smt. Kajal Gupta W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta. However, the same is residential property being occupied by the petitioner and his whole family including sons and their families.
6. The petitioner is having godowns at Sirarpur, Delhi, Kharsa No. 563 & 567. Also, at 563, 564 & 566, Gali No. 24 and at Khasra No. 639, Siraspur Village, Libaspur on the basis of customary documents executed by the respective owners/landlords in the name of the petitioner. These godowns are being used by the petitioner and his two sons for storing their goods. These godowns are situated at 20 kms away from the place of working of the petitioner and his two sons. There is a restriction by the Government for storing goods in the walled cities of Delhi and also there is restriction on the movements of the trucks in the area of working of the petitioner and his sons.
Tenanted premises being situated on the ground floor is required bonafide by the petitioner for his married son, namely, Sh. Amit Gupta, who is doing the business of duplex board as Sole proprietor of M/s S.B. Marketing from the godown bearing no. 4785, Ground Floor, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi under forced circumstances. The tenanted premises is suitable for the petitioner's elder son Sh. Amit Gupta, who is dependent upon the petitioner for the purpose of accommodation.
The tenanted premises is situated in the hub of commercial business of paper and other allied products. The tenanted CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 8 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:36:57 +0500 premises has common wall in between the shop of the petitioner bearing no. 4753-A and 4747 both situated on ground floor portion, Ahata Kidara, Main Bazar, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner has no alternate suitable accommodation with him to satisfy bonafide need. The age of the petitioner is 71 years (at the time of filing of petition), who wishes to settle his grown up two sons in the properties owned by him for doing their respective independent businesses, so that there may not be any dispute between the petitioner and his two sons, Amit Gupta and Sachin Gupta.
Upon the above quoted facts, prayer is made for passing an eviction order against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner with respect to the tenanted premises.
3. Summons were served upon the respondents, who filed the leave to defend application alongwith separate detailed affidavits, which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2018.
Common written statement of defence was filed by both the respondents citing the preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable in the present form. It is stated that admittedly, the petitioner is alleged to have been given the suit property on the basis of a Sale Deed executed in favour of Sh. Laxmi Narayan, Ram Narayan, Hari Ram and Girdhar Gopal (petitioner), who are alleged to have become owner of the property bearing no. 4747-4749, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, New Delhi. It is alleged that the Partition Deed executed between the petitioner and his brother Sh. Ram Narayan is not annexed alongwith the site plan showing the portions allocated to CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 9 of 30 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:37:12 +0500 the respective parties and hence, there is no document to show about the shares of Sh. Laxmi Narayan & Sh. Hari Ram. The petitioner appears to be concealing and suppressing these facts, which is sufficient to non-suit the petitioner. It is stated that the present petition is neither genuine nor bonafide because the petitioner is seeking to claim the need for his son Sh. Amit Gupta, who admittedly is carrying on his independent business from 4785, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, New Delhi and is possessed of additional place or business at 563 & 565, Village Siraspur, Delhi and this fact has intentionally not been disclosed by the petitioner. Therefore, the present bonafide need is for additional accommodation. The petitioner has already admitted that his son Sh. Amit Gupta is the owner of property bearing no. 947 to 949, Chhota Chhippiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, where a portion measuring 9'-0" x 11'-0" is lying vacant and it is also a well known fact that area of Chawri Bazar is a hub of paper and cardboard business and despite the fact that Government of NCT of Delhi want to shift this market and in this regard, an alternate accommodation was allotted to the petitioner at Gazipur, so that the traders of the Chawri Bazar can do their business from the allotted sites at Gazipur. Hence, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. The present petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as the tenanted premises was let out to Sh. Mittar Sen and Sh. Hukum Chand. Besides that, the respondent have left behind other legal heirs, who were the parties to the earlier litigation and therefore, they are necessary and proper parties to the present petition and without their impleadment, the present petition is liable to be rejected. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 10 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:37:29 +0500 hands and has not disclosed as to when and how there is any need of son of the petitioner, who is financially independent. The son of the petitioner alongwith his wife owns various properties. Therefore, in that way, it cannot be deemed that the son of the petitioner is dependent upon him (petitioner). Hence, the need is malafide. The petitioner is relying upon the Rent Agreement which categorically states that the tenant can only be evicted in case of violation with regard to payment of rent or property being sub-let or any additions or alternations being made. Since, the respondents have not committed any such breach of violation, therefore, the present petition deserves rejection. The main aim of the petitioner is to seek enhancement of rent. The petitioner has himself admitted to have been allotted alternate plots at Gazipur bearing no. 912, Block C, IFC Gaziabad Scheme, which has been let out to Sh. Rajinder Kumar, which itself is a violation of scheme. It is stated that when this premises was allotted to the petitioner by the Government with an intention to de-congest paper merchants from Chawri Bazar, Delhi, the subsequent renting out such accommodation to someone raises doubts on the bonafide need of the petitioner. The petitioner had already obtained an order of eviction against other tenant Sh. Kishan Kumar Dua, who was to vacate the premises by Diwali, 2019. Hence, the need of the petitioner stood satisfied at that time. Predecessors of the respondent had paid a huge pagri to predecessors of the petitioner at the time of inception of tenancy. Petitioner and his family are possessed of several properties at Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi and also possessed of properties bearing Khasra No. 563 & 565, also at Khasra No. 639/5, Libaspur, Delhi, where they own 6-7 properties of around 1,000 sq. yds.
CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 11 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:37:44 +0500
each. The family of the petitioner is also believed to be owing other properties at Gujranwala Town, Delhi and at 10148, Katra, Chhaju Pandit, Manakpura, Delhi. It is stated that the present petition is filed to pressurize the respondents either to increase the rate of rent substantially or to extort more money by way of premium by filing the present petition. It is stated that the respondents have no other commercial space available with them in Delhi and hence, the entire family dependent upon the income from the tenanted premises. It is stated that comparative hardship of the respondents has to be considered by the Court accordingly.
In para wise reply, i.e. 3 (b) of WS on merits, it has been admitted that the father of the respondents was the tenant in respect of the tenanted premises by virtue of Rent Note dated 23.05.1961 executed by the erstwhile owner of the property and after his death, the tenancy rights devolved upon the other legal heirs of Sh. Mittar Sen. It is denied that the rate of rent is Rs. 310/-, however, it is submitted that the petitioner himself had been recovering the house tax from the respondents and when the respondents deposited the same u/s 27 of the DRC Act, then the petitioner contested the said petition showing his malafide intention by not accepting the rent tendered by the respondents personally or through Money Order.
Para no. 14 of the petition has been admitted in the WS. It is stated that the petitioner and his family has alternate suitable accommodations with them.
On the abovesaid grounds, prayer is made for dismissal of the present petition.
CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 12 of 30 SANTOSH Digitally signed by
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH
KUMAR Date: 2022.02.16 15:38:01
SINGH +0500
4. Replication was filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondents, wherein he re-affirmed and re- iterated the facts mentioned in the petition and denied the defences taken by the respondents.
5. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1 relying upon several documents as follows :-
a) Ex. PW-1/1 is the copy of Will dated 09.03.1981.
b). Ex. PW-1/2 is the original sale deed dated 16.09.1965.
c). Ex. PW-1/3 is the partition deed dated 28.08.1985.
d). Ex. PW-1/4 is the partition deed dated 24.01.1997.
e). Ex. PW-1/5 is the certified copy of the partition deed 24.01.1997.
f). Ex. PW-1/6 is the rent note dated 23.05.1961.
g). Ex. PW-1/7 is the site plan of the entire property including the portion of the respondents and the various portions have been mark A to L.
h). Ex. PW-1/8 to Ex. PW-1/14 are the counterfoils of the rent receipts.
i). Ex. PW-1/15 is the certified copy of the application filed by the respondent under Section 27 of the DRC Act.
j). Ex. PW-1/16 is the certified copy of the order passed by the Apex Court dated 22.09.2017.
k). Ex. PW-1/17 is the undertaking given by the petitioner dated 05.04.2006.
l). Ex. PW-1/18 is the order passed by the MCD dated 21.04.2006 on the undertaking filed by the petitioner.
m). Ex. PW-1/19 is the copy of the sale tax registration of M/s CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 13 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:38:25 +0500 Krishna Sales Corporation. n). Ex. PW-1/20 is the copy of the GST number issued to the petitioner firm. o). Ex. PW-1/21 is the copy of the GST certificate issued by
NCT of Delhi in respect of the firm owned by Shri Amit Gupta who is the sole proprietor of SB Marketing.
p). Ex. PW-1/22 is the site plan of the slum property bearing no. 4785, Ahata Kidhara, Delhi.
q). Ex. PW-1/23 is the copy of the GST number issued by the NCT of Delhi in the name of S.B. Board House, sole proprietorship concern of Sachin Gupta.
r). Ex. PW-1/24 was de-exhibited, being not taken on record.
s.) Ex. PW-1/25 and Ex. PW-1/26 are the photographs of Ghazipur area, Delhi.
PW was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondents and PE was closed vide order dated 18.04.2019.
6. In respondent's evidence, Sh. Vinod Kumar examined himself as RW1 and Sh. Vipin Kumar as RW2.
RW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A relying upon the document already Ex. PW1/R1.
RW2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW2/A and relied upon photographs Ex. RW2/1 (colly. 06 in numbers).
7. I have heard the arguments tendered by Sh. P.P. Ahuja, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. J. C. Mahindru, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.
CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 14 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:39:40 +0500
Both Ld. Counsels for the parties have also filed the written synopsis of their arguments, which are on record.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments titled as Vathsala Manickavasagam Vs. N. Ganesan, 2013 (8) SCALE 522:2013, Mritunjoy Sett Vs. Jadunath Basak, AIR 2011 (SC)-2496, Pandit Hardutt Mishra Vs. Mithailal And Another, 2007 (5) RCR (CIVIL) 20 Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench), Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery And Co., [2000] 1 SCR 77, Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC, Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja, AIR 2014 SC 2294.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments titled as Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. Arjun Jain & Ors. Bearing RC. REV. No. 442/2012 & C.M. No. 9444/2013 decided on 13.09.2013, M/s Gopal Dass & Sons Vs. Dineshwar Nath Kedar bearing RC. REV. No. 240/2011 decided on 21.12.2012, Bharat Bhushan Gupta Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma bearing RC. REV. No. 99/2015 & C.M. No. 3875/2015 decided on 15.09.2015, Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal bearing RC. REV. No. 127/2011 decided on 05.09.2011.
I have also gone through the entire material placed on record carefully.
8. In order to succeed in the case, the petitioner must establish :
(i) Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 15 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:40:02 +0500
(ii) The petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafide for
himself and for his son dependent upon him.
(iii) The petitioner has no other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation.
Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties :-
9. It is stated that PW1 alongwith his brothers, namely, Sh. Ram Narayan, Sh. Hari Narayan and Sh. Laxmi Narayan became the owner of the properties bearing no. 4747-4759, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi by virtue of Sale Deed dated 13.09.1965 registered on 16.09.1965 Ex. PW1/2 from its erstwhile owner/landlord Haji Fazaluddin. It is deposed that vide Registered Partition Deed dated 26.05.1985 Ex. PW1/3, partition was affected among the petitioner and his brothers, namely, Sh. Ram Narayan, Sh. Hari Narayan and Sh. Laxmi Narayan with respect to properties bearing no. 4747-4759, equivalent to 71.2 sq. yds., Main Bazar, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. Vide Registered Partition Deed dated 24.01.1997 Ex. PW1/4, partition was affected between PW1 and co-owner Sh. Ram Narayan Gupta with respect to property no. 4752-4753, area of 50 sq. yds. situated at Ahata Kidara Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. It is deposed that vide Registered Partition Deed dated 24.01.1997 Ex. PW1/5, partition affected between PW1 and Sh. Ram Narayan Gupta with respect to property bearing no. 4747, 4748 and 4754, equivalent to 115 sq. yds. It is deposed that PW1 became the owner/landlord of the shops situated on the ground floor portion of property bearing no. 4747, 4748, 4753A CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 16 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:40:29 +0500 & also of property bearing no. 4752 on the 1st & 2nd floor portions of the properties, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-06, by virtue of abovementioned Registered Partition Deed dated 24.01.1997 and these portions stood assessed in the name of PW1 in North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) records. It is deposed that shop no. 4747, Ground Floor, Main Pahari Dhiraj was let out to the respondents' predecessors-in-interest by previous owners/landlords of the property for commercial purpose by virtue of Rent Note dated 23.05.1961 which is Ex. PW1/6. It is deposed that after the death of the original tenant Sh. Mittar Sen, i.e., father of the respondents, the tenancy was changed in the name of the present respondents who started paying rent to PW1. It is deposed that the site plan of the entire property including the portions rented out to the respondents and various portions have been marked from 'A' to 'L' in site plan Ex. PW1/7. It is deposed that the petitioner used to issue rent receipts to the respondents, counterfoils of which are Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/14. It is deposed that the respondents had filed a DR petition against the present petitioner, which is Ex. PW1/15.
Per contra, it is deposed by RW1 & RW2 that they were very regular in paying the rent to the petitioner and when the PW1 did not accept the rent, then they filed the DR petition Ex. PW1/15.
10. Although, ownership & the landlordship of the petitioner over the tenanted premises has not been disputed by the respondents and they have categorically admitted in their evidence as RW1 & RW2.
Even then, in order to prove the ownership as well as CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 17 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:40:49 +0500 landlordship, PW1 has relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/2, Ex. PW1/3, Ex. PW1/4, Ex. PW1/5, Ex. PW1/6, Ex. PW1/7, Ex. PW1/8 to Ex. PW1/14 & Ex. PW1/15. And these documents have not been questioned by the respondents anywhere in their evidence.
11. The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by rent control law has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. The word "owner" is not used in the Act in the context of an absolute owner. In this regard reference can be have to the decision of the Apex Court in "Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2028", wherein it was held that:
"14. The word 'owner' has not been defined in this Act and the word 'owner' has also not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be is that ownership means absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereupon. Ordinarily, the concept of ownership may be what is contended by the counsel for the appellant but in the modern context where it is more or less admitted that all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some terms from the Govt. or the authorities constituted by the State and in this view of the matter it could not be thought of that the Legislature when it used the term 'owner' in the provision of Sec. 14 (1) (e) it thought of ownership as absolute ownership. It must be presumed that the concept of ownership only will be as it is understood at present. It could not be doubted that the term 'owner' has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. This Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But at the same time it has provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bonafide requirement is one of such grounds on the basis of which landlords have been permitted to have CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 18 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:41:06 +0500 eviction of a tenant. In this context, the phrase 'owner' thereof has to be understood, and it is clear that what is contemplated is that where the person builds up his property and lets out to the tenant and subsequently needs it for his own use, he should be entitled to an order or decree for eviction, the only thing necessary for him to prove is bonafide requirement and that he is the owner thereof. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
In another case law, "Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & others, 155 (2008) DLT 383", it was laid down that a landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act and he is required to show only that he is more than a tenant. Same was the ratio of decision given in "Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162." Further, the High Court of Delhi made important observations in the decision given in the case titled as "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450" it has been held that :-
"It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly......".CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 19 of 30 Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:41:21 +0500
12. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above and in the light of the evidence and material on record, it has been proved that the petitioner is the owner as well as the landlord of the tenanted premises for the purpose of the DRC Act.
Bonafide need and dependency of Sh. Amit Gupta upon the petitioner/PW1:-
13. The next element of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is whether the need of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises is bonafide or not.
14. In this regard, it is stated in the petition that tenanted shop being situated on the ground floor is required bonafide by the petitioner for his married son, namely, Sh. Amit Gupta, who is doing the business of duplex board as Sole proprietor of M/s S.B. Marketing from the godown bearing no. 4785, Ground Floor, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi under forced circumstances and this property belongs to Slum Authority, to whom use and occupation charges are being paid by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner's elder son Sh. Amit Gupta is dependent upon the petitioner for the purpose of accommodation.
The tenanted premises has common wall in between the shop of the petitioner bearing no. 4753-A and 4747 both situated on ground floor portion, Ahata Kidara, Main Bazar, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi. It is stated that the age of the petitioner is 71 years (at the time of filing of petition), who wishes to settle his grown up two sons in the properties owned by him for doing their respective independent businesses, so that there may not be any CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 20 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:41:42 +0500 dispute between the petitioner and his two sons, Amit Gupta and Sachin Gupta. It is stated that for this bonafide need, present petition is filed.
Per contra, it is stated by the respondents that the present petition is neither genuine nor bonafide because the petitioner is seeking to claim the need for his son Sh. Amit Gupta, who admittedly is carrying on his independent business from 4785, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, New Delhi and is possessed of additional place or business at 563 & 565, Village Siraspur, Delhi and this fact has intentionally not been disclosed by the petitioner. Therefore, the present need is for additional accommodation. It is stated that the petitioner has already admitted that his son Sh. Amit Gupta is the owner of property bearing no. 947 to 949, Chhota Chhippiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, where a portion measuring 9'-0" x 11'-0" is lying vacant. It is stated that the son of the petitioner Sh. Amit Gupta is financially independent as he is carrying on his independent business. Therefore, Sh. Amit Gupta is not dependent upon the petitioner for accommodation. It is stated that the need of the petitioner is malafide. It is stated that main aim of the petitioner is to enhance the rent.
15. In order to prove the bonafide need and dependency of Sh. Amit Gupta upon the petitioner, the petitioner/PW1 has deposed that his son Sh. Amit Gupta is in need to have the tenanted premises, so that he can carry out his business therefrom. PW1 has deposed that his son Sh. Amit Gupta is dependent upon him for accommodation.
However, admittedly Sh. Amit Gupta, son of the petitioner CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 21 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:41:59 +0500 is carrying on his independent business under the Name & Style SB Marketing Co., being the Sole Proprietor from property no. 4785, Gali Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi and he has relied upon the Ex. PW1/21, i.e. GST Registration. PW1 has admitted that Sh. Amit Gupta is not financially dependent upon him. He has deposed that this is a godown situated in a slum area and he has admitted that there is shutter in this property. Ex. PW1/21 is the GST Registration which shows that property no. 4785, Ground Floor, is the principal business place of Sh. Amit Gupta and it further shows Khasra No. 563 & 565, Village Siraspur, as additional place of business of Sh. Amit Gupta.
In cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that property no. 4785, Gali Ahata Kidara is a godown being used by Sh. Amit Gupta for storage purpose. He has admitted that premises at Khasra No. 563 & 565, Village Siraspur, is a godown.
16. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment tiled as "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 100", has held that :
".....The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is 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 bonafides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself....".CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 22 of 30 Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:42:12 +0500
17. After going through the abovesaid judgment, it can clearly be said that at no point of time or at any stage, the Court shall doubt the bonafide need of the petitioner in any way, unless some strong/cogent evidence has been led by the respondent/tenant to rebut this presumption. Above judgment is very much categorical and clear which suggest that the Court shall act upon the presumption that the need of the petitioner/landlord is genuine and true.
18. In the present matter also, the petitioner has proved on record that his need is bonafide, for which the present petition is filed and the respondents have not been able to raise any doubt in the petitioner's claim by adducing some cogent evidence.
19. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, in the light of above cited judgment, pleadings, evidence and entire material on record clearly suggest that the petitioner has been able to prove his bonafide need and dependency of Sh. Amit Gupta upon him for accommodation.
Availability of alternative reasonable suitable accommodation :-
20. The next element of 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is whether the petitioner possesses alternate reasonable suitable accommodation with him.
21. In this regard, it is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the following properties :-CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 23 of 30 Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:42:28 +0500
a) The petitioner is the owner of the shop situated on the
ground floor portion of property bearing no. 4753A, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi, which came to his share vide Partition Deed dated 24.01.1997. The private number 4753A was given to the shop for identification purpose and also for convenient sake. This shop is measuring 5'-3" x 28'-6", equivalent to 154 sq. ft. is in possession of the petitioner, as shown in 'yellow' colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/7, from where he is doing business under the Name & Style M/s Gopal Sales Corporation and the copy its GST Registration is Ex. PW1/20.
b) Petitioner is also the owner of the tenanted premises, i.e., shop bearing no. 4747, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi, which fell into the share of the petitioner in pursuance of Partition Deed dated 24.01.1997. The measurement of the shop is 9'-0" x 38'-0", equivalent to 342 sq. ft. situated on the ground floor portion of the property as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/7.
c) Petitioner is also the owner & in possession of shop bearing no. 4748, measuring 9'-0" x 16'-0", equivalent to 144 sq. ft. situated on ground floor, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, after getting it vacated from the previous tenant Sh. Kishan Kumar Dua, as shown in 'purple' colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/7.
d) The petitioner is having godown measuring 11'-3" x 23'-0"
in the property no. 4785, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and the same is being used by Sh. Amit Gupta, elder son of the petitioner. Plan of the same is annexed as Annexure-12.
e) A warehouse plot measuring 50 sq. meters at Gazipur, Delhi bearing no. 912 was allotted to the petitioner by the DDA for storage purpose. After constructing the same, the petitioner has let out to Sh. Rajinder Kumar on the monthly rent of Rs.CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 24 of 30
SANTOSH Digitally signed by
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH
KUMAR Date: 2022.02.16 15:42:54
SINGH +0500
15,000/- as the said accommodation was not suitable for the business of the petitioner as well as for his two sons as the same is situated at a distance of more than 25 km away from the working place of the petitioner and his two sons.
f) First floor portion of property bearing no. 947-949, Chhota Chippiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-06 is owned by Sh. Amit Gupta and its measurement is 9'-0" x 11'-0" and the same is lying vacant as situated in a narrow lane. This premises is situated 8 km away from Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi and the same is not suitable to the petitioner as well as for his two sons.
g) Property no. 10148, Katra Chajju Pandit, Manakpura, near Filmistan, Delhi is owned by Ms. Garima Gupta W/o Sh. Amit Gupta and Ms. Kajal Gupta W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta. However, it is two storied constructed property, which was let out to the tenant, namely, Ravinder Kumar for about 07 years back by the registered co-owner/landladies.
h) Property no. 73, Gujranwala Town, Delhi is owned by Smt. Madhu Gupta, wife of the petitioner and property no. 74, Gujranwala Town, Delhi is owned by Smt. Garima Gupta W/o Sh. Amit Gupta and Smt. Kajal Gupta W/o Sh. Sachin Gupta.
However, the same are residential properties being occupied by the petitioner and his whole family including sons and their families.
i) The petitioner is having godowns at Sirarpur, Delhi, Kharsa No. 563 & 567. Also, at 563, 564 & 566, Gali No. 24 and at Khasra No. 639, Siraspur Village, Libaspur on the basis of customary documents executed by the respective owners/landlords in the name of the petitioner. These godowns are being used by the petitioner and his two sons for storing their CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 25 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:43:09 +0500 goods. These godowns are situated at 20 kms away from the place of working of the petitioner and his two sons. There is a restriction for storing goods in the walled cities of Delhi and on the movements of the trucks in the area of working of the petitioner and his two sons being imposed by the Government.
It is stated that the petitioner and his younger son Sh. Sachin Gupta are doing their independent businesses being Sole proprietors from property no. 4753A, Ahata Kidara, Pahari Dhiraj Delhi vide Ex. PW1/20 & Ex. PW1/23. It is stated that his elder son Sh. Amit Gupta, is doing is independent business being its Sole Proprietor from property no. 4785 vide Ex. PW1/21. Petitioner has also filed site plans Ex. PW1/7 & Ex. PW1/22. It is stated that the petitioner doesn't have any alternate reasonable suitable to satisfy bonafide need, except the abovesaid properties.
Per contra, it has been stated by the respondents that the petitioner does have other properties in Delhi to satisfy his bonafide need. It is deposed that the petitioner needs the tenanted premises as an additional place of business because his son Sh. Amit Gupta is doing independent business from property no. 4785. It is deposed by RWs that a plot bearing no. 912 was allotted to the petitioner by NCT of Delhi in order to de-congest the area of Chawri Bazar but the petitioner, after constructing the same, had let out it to Sh. Rajinder Kumar on rent @ Rs. 15,000/-. This conduct shows that when alternate property was allotted to him, then there is no need to get the tenanted premises vacated. It is deposed that the petitioner and his sons do have other immovable properties in their name and these properties are suitable for them to satisfy their bonafide need.
CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 26 of 30 SANTOSH Digitally signed by
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH
KUMAR Date: 2022.02.16 15:43:24
SINGH +0500
22. In the present matter, the correctness of the site plans Ex. PW1/7 & Ex. PW1/22 has not been disputed by the RWs. The petitioner has categorically denied that any alternate reasonable suitable accommodation is available to satisfy the bonafide need. The RWs have not annexed any documentary evidence to prove that other alternate reasonable accommodation is available with the petitioner or his sons. PW1 has already deposed and mentioned the properties available with him and his sons in the petition as well as in the evidence.
Moreover, it has been admitted by the RWs that the petitioner is the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises.
23. The other point raised by the respondents is that the tenanted premises is required by the petitioner for additional accommodation.
24. The law regarding the expansion/additional accommodation is very much made clear by the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder K. Tandon, (supra), Siddalingamma Vs. Mamtha Shenoy, (supra), Sh. Kishan Kumar Alag Vs. Jambu Prasad Jain, (supra), Vinod Arora Vs. Deepak Aggarwal, (supra), wherein it was observed that once the landlord has succeeded in establishing his need as bonafide, then it becomes immaterial whether the accommodation which he needs is the expansion or the addition to the already premises in his possession and this fact will not dis-entitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises in question. The landlord being the best judge of his CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 27 of 30 SANTOSH Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH KUMAR Date: 2022.02.16 15:43:39 SINGH +0500 requirement has full choice with regard to the selection of accommodation/space. It has further been held that the Rent Control Act do not make any difference between requirement of the tenanted premises when the landlord is not in possession of any accommodation and requirement of tenanted premises when the landlord is in possession of some accommodation and needs more or additional accommodation. Therefore, requirement of the tenanted premises whether it be on account of no accommodation or for additional accommodation have to be treated at par.
25. The other point raised by the respondent is regarding the suitability.
26. In this regard, it is a well settled law that the suitability is to be decided by the petitioner himself or herself and the tenant has no right to dictate him/her in this regard. It is further a well settled law that alternate accommodation may be available to the petitioner/owner/landlord, however, it is the sole prerogative of the petitioner as to which property is more suitable for him/her to satisfy bonafide need.
27. In case titled as 'Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prabha Khanna & Anr.' bearing RC REV. No. 44/2004 decided on 03.10.2008, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that :-
"The suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances, including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his need."CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 28 of 30 Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:43:54 +0500
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in another case titled as 'Om Prakash Bajaj Vs. Sh. Chander Shekhar', 102 (2003) DLT 746, wherein it was observed that :-
"Suitability of the alternate premises cannot be determined by mere counting the rooms. But it has to determine keeping in view the totality of facts, the nature of need pleaded by the landlord, his and his families standard and style of life and the purpose to which the landlord wants to actually put it after coming it into possession. The landlord has right to choose which of the accommodation is required by him for himself and for his family members."
28. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, in the light of above cited judgments, pleadings, evidence and the entire material placed on record, the respondents have miserably failed to prove on record that the petitioner does have any other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation to satisfy bonafide need. Therefore, it can be said that no other reasonable suitable alternate accommodation is available with the petitioner.
29. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents u/s 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e., shop bearing no. 4747, measuring 9'-0 x 38'-0 equivalent to 342 sq. ft., Ground Floor, Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan already Ex. PW1/7 annexed with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 29 of 30 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.02.16 SINGH 15:44:14 +0500 provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
30. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.02.16
SINGH 15:44:24 +0500
Pronounced in open Court (Santosh Kumar Singh)
on 16th Day of February, 2022 CCJ cum ARC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CIS No. E-311/18 Girdhar Gopal Gupta Vs. Satish Chand and Anr. Page 30 of 30