Delhi District Court
Ms. Kuldeep Kaur vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh on 16 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No.- 26214/2016
Ms. Kuldeep Kaur
W/o Late Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o GL-18, Hari Nagar, Jail Road,
New Delhi-110064. ...... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Inderjeet Singh
S/o Late Surinder Singh
R/o GL-18, Hari Nagar,
Jail Road, New Delhi-110064.
2. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur
S/o Late Surinder Singh
R/o GL-18, Hari Nagar,
Jail Road, New Delhi-110064. ..... Respondents
Date of Filing : 30.01.2013
Date of Judgment : 16.10.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Present case is a petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondents in respect of Private Shop bearing No. 1, GL-18, Hari Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi-110064 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
2. In the present petition, it is inter-alia averred by the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner and landlady of the tenanted premises which was let to the respondent firm by the husband of the petitioner. That the husband of the petitioner and all his legal heirs have ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 1 /31 relinquished their respective rights over the tenanted premises in favour of the petitioner. Presently, it is the petitioner who is owner and landlady of the tenanted premises. That Sh. Inderjeet Singh is in occupancy of the tenanted premises.
It is further averred by the petitioner that the petitioner has four members in her family, i.e. her son, daughter- in- law and two grand children. The son of the petitioner Dr. Jagjit Singh is an Orthopedic Physician and Surgeon by profession and running his clinic at the basement of the premises No. GL-18, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. Dr. Jagjit Singh being an Orthopedic Physician and Surgeon is visited by many patients everyday and convenience of his patients is his prime concern. Being an orthopedic, most of his patients approach him with the joint and ligament problems and therefore, patients coming to his clinic generally are cases of emergency and are not in a position to walk or move properly. Considering the nature of practice of Dr. Jagjit Singh, a clinic at basement is getting inconvenient for his patients. Infact, ground floor presently in occupation of the respondents/tenants is the most ideal and convenient space for providing emergency treatment to the patients. That Dr. Jagjit Singh is also healing his patients by providing treatment through physiotherapy. The patients who are not in a position to walk or move properly have to crawl to the basement of his clinic for getting their physiotherapy done. That the tenanted premises at ground floor are very vital and suitable for the said reasons. That Dr. Jagjit Singh, due to the boast in his practice is now trying to extend the facilities to his patients. Therefore, such an extension in the services of Dr. Jagjit Singh requires lots of space especially in such a location which is convenient for his patients. The vacant shop/ tenanted premises would allow Dr. Jagjit Singh to install physiotherapy machines and Path Lab equipments and providing better services to his emergency and causality patients.
ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 2 /31It is further averred by the petitioner that the petitioner and her family need the vacant shop/ tenanted premises for their own bonafide requirements. That the father of Dr. Jagjit Singh/ the husband of the petitioner made the provisions of these shops on the suit property so that the same can be used by his son i.e. Dr. Jagjit Singh for expanding his profession. Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that an order for recovery of possession of tenanted premises as shown in red in the site plan may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and costs of the suit may also be allowed.
3. Notice of the eviction petition was sent to the respondents. In response to which, the respondents filed detailed leave to defend application which was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2015 and an eviction order was passed against the respondents but thereafter respondents filed revision against the order dated 11.08.2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and leave to defend was granted vide order dated 12.05.2016 and respondents were directed to file written statement which was filed by the respondents on 25.05.2016.
4. In the Written Statement, the respondents have inter-alia contended that the petitioner has not disclosed that during 2011 and mid 2013, her son used the left side portion of the ground floor comprising of three bedrooms etc. to run his clinic and at that time, the basement was lying vacant. It is further contended that in middle of 2013, he shifted the clinic to the basement as that was found more suitable and thereafter, the entire ground floor comprising of seven bedrooms plus two staff quarter i.e. total 09 rooms, two bathrooms, two kitchens are lying vacant. It is futher contended by the respondents that in fact the landlady/petitioner has sufficient and reasonably suitable accommodation available on the ground floor as well as in the basement which can be utilized for setting up of the ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 3 /31 clinic for her son and these are already lying vacant. It is submitted that on the first floor which is divided into three separate portions, there are total seven bedrooms and three drawing cum lobby, parts of which were earlier rented out and admittedly were vacated in November, 2014 and three out of the seven bedrooms (shown in Green colour in the site plan filed) are now in possession and lying being used by the petitioner/landlady and her family members for their residence.
It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner has failed to file a site plan showing the actual accommodation available to her.
It is also submitted by the respondents that the following areas are lying vacant in the demised premises:-
a). Five rooms in the basement shown in Red colour in the site plan;
b). Seven bedrooms, two drawing cum dinning rooms, two staff quarters, two bathrooms, and two kitchens on the ground floor shown in blue and green colours in the site plan filed;
c). Four bedrooms, two drawing cum dinning rooms, etc. On the first floor, shown in blue and yellow colours in the site plan filed.
It is also submitted by the respondents that the tenanted premises are situated at the front setback and running a clinic in the said area is in any case impermissible. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had filed RTI applications with the MCD and sought information on whether an operation theater/Poly Clinic could be opened in the front set back portion of a residential building at GL-18, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, Delhi, to which the MCD had responded vide its letter dated 23.09.2014, stating that 'as per MPD-2021 no activity indulging operation theater/ Poly Clinic is allowed in set-back in residential buildings.' It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner/ landlady has been shifting her stand inasmuch as initially she had ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 4 /31 claimed that she required the tenanted premises from the respondents for installing physiotherapy machines, Path Lab equipment and providing better emergency services to her son's patients but she subsequently changed the stand to claim that the tenanted premises were required for running a Nursing Home/ Polyclinic and an Operation Theater.
It is also submitted by the respondents that the Master Plan 2021 prescribes that for operating a Nursing Home or Polyclinic, a minimum area of 1000 sq. Meters is mandatory, however, in the present case, the entire premises in question/ suit property is admeasuring 533.33 sq. Yards i.e. 446 Square Meters only.
Respondents further submit that the petitioner has falsely claimed that her son is dependent on her inasmuch as, as per the petitioner's own assertions, he is a practicing orthopedic doctor/ surgeon and under no circumstances, it can be said that he is dependent on his mother. It is also submitted that the son of the landlady, Dr. Jagjit Singh, as a matter of fact, is in service with Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, Delhi and the Clinic at home had been created only to generate extra income during his non-office hours, whereas he attends and operates his patients at Hospital only. Besides, on parciutlar days, he used to sit and see patients at various other hospitals. Respondents further submit that the present petition is nothing but an attempt to get additional accommodation, which is not permissible under Section 14(1)(e) D.R.C. Act.
It is also submitted by the respondents that respondent no. 2 Smt. Bhupinder Kaur W/o Late Sh. Surinder Singh is a co-tenant of the tenanted prmises and was subsequently impleaded by virtue of order dated 8th August, 2014 on her application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC. Hence, both the respondents No. 1 & 2 are co-tenants in the tenanted premises. It is also submitted by the respondents that the tenanted premises have two joint tenants.
ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 5 /31It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed that she along with her family is living on the first floor of the property and the entire ground floor is lying vacant. That the respondents have only a small shop at the front setback on the ground floor and as already stated in para no. 6 of the preliminary objections, running a polyclinic/operation theater at the set back area is not allowed as per the MPD-2021. It is also submitted by the respondents that the contents of para 18(a)(5) in so far as they pertain to expertise and goodwill of the son of the petitioner need no specific reply.
Lastly, it is prayed by the respondents that present petition may be dismissed with heavy costs.
5. Replication was filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondents no. 1 & 2 wherein the petitioner has refuted the stand of the respondents and reaffirmed her orignal stand as well as the petitioner has clarified the stand taken by her. In her replication, the petitioner has reasserted her bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.
6. Thereafter, after completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for Petitioner Evidence/P.E and Ms. Kuldeep Kaur/petitioner was examined as PW-1. Petitioner also examined Dr. Jagjit Singh as PW-2, Sh. Rishipal, working as Dealing Assistant, Directorate General of Health Service, GNCTD, Karkardooma as PW-3 and Sh. Vinod Kumar, LDC, SDMC, Building Department West Zone, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi as PW-4. All the witnesses were cross examined and thereafter petitioner's evidence was closed.
Evidence was also led by the respondents who examined Sh. Inderjeet Singh as RW-1 being the only witness and was cross examined at length. Thereafter, Respondents' Evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 6 /317. I have heard the arguments at length advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and also gone through the entire record, written arguments and case law relied upon.
8. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any 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 recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 7 /31
(iv) Landlord/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
9. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) & (ii). Landlordship/Ownership:-
10. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has claimed to be landlady as well as the owner of the tenanted premises.
On the other hand, the respondents have not disputed the landladyship of the petitioner. Moreover, during the cross examination RW-1/ respondent no. 1 has himself admitted that his father was the tenant of the petitioner.
It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence of RW-1 Sh. Inderjeet Singh, which is as under:
"It is correct that the tenanted shop was given on rent to my late father sometimes in early 1970's. I do not have any rent agreement. (Vol. Even if it is there, I do not know). My father died in the year 2010. I did not enter into an fresh agreement with the petitioner after the death of my father."
As such, landlordship is proved.
11. As far as ownership is concerned, the respondents have not specifically disputed the ownership of the petitioner.
I have carefully scrutinized the entire judicial file which shows that the petitioner has placed on record relinquishment deed Ex. PW- 1/3 (OSR) executed by her children in favour of petitioner which is a registered document with Sub-Registrar, Delhi. Moreover, the respondents have not disclosed in their written statement the name of the owner of the suit property and tenanted premises, if the petitioner is not the owner. Furthermore, it is well settled that the landlord need not prove her/his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient to prove that he/she is something more than the tenant.
In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 8 /31 RLR 162 a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction 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."
Further, in the case titled as 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 well settled position of the law that for the purposes of Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act, the petitioner is required to prove his/her ownership also. But it is also well settled that petitioner need not prove his/her ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove that he/she is something more than the tenant.
In my considered view keeping in view the material on record and well settled proposition of law, the petitioner has been able to prove that she is something more than the respondents.
12. As such, ingredients in respect of landlordship and ownership are satisfied by the petitioner.
(iii) & (iv). Bonafide requirement and alternative accommodation:-
13. It is expedient to discuss some case law on these ingredients which are as under:-
In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 9 /31 Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 10 /31 the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come."
In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC
353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
The moral duty of a father/mother to help establish his/her son/daughter was also recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal" [AIR 2002 SC 2256] in the following words:
"24........Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 11 /31
14. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the petitioner has sought the tenanted premises for the bonafide commercial requirement of her son Dr. Jagjit Singh for using it for her son's medical profession as he is an Orthopedic doctor and already running a clinic from the premises where tenanted premises is situated. The petitioner has also claimed that they do not have reasonably suitable commercial accommodation for the purposes for which the present petition has been filed.
On the other hand, the respondents have claimed that the petitioner has no bonafide requirement and she has sufficient alternative accommodation with her in the suit property itself.
Perusal of Written statement shows that respondents have not claimed that the petitioner is having alternative properties other than suit property also. In fact, the respondents have not claimed that petitioner is having other properties also. As such, this court has to determine whether the petitioner is having alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation in the suit property or not.
15. Perusal of record shows that one of the pleas of the respondents is that the petitioner is having sufficient space in the basement, ground floor and first floor of the suit property.
On the other hand, the petitioner has admitted that she is the owner of the basement, ground floor and first floor of the suit property but she has submitted that the petitioner and members of her family are not having sufficient space at the ground floor in their possession as the same is occupied by petitioner along with her son, daughter in law and two grand children for residential purposes.
Even during the cross examination, PW-1 Smt. Kuldeep Kaur/petitioner has inter-alia stated that she is having six rooms at the ground floor but has also deposed that they all are occupied as residence by her and other members of family.
Moreover, PW-2 Dr. Jagjit Singh, son of the petitioner has also ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 12 /31 given the exact details of the accommodation on the ground floor of the suit property. During the cross examination PW-2 has disclosed that on the ground floor, there are one dinning room, one kitchen, three bathrooms, four bedrooms, one prayer room, one store room and one dinning room occupied by the family.
16. I have carefully scrutinized the testimonies of all the witnesses, documents and material on record.
It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence of petitioner PW-1/ Smt.Kuldeep Kaur which is as under:-
"There are six rooms in the ground floor of the property. There are three kitchen, three bathrooms and nine rooms on the first floor of the property. There is mezzanine floor in the property. There is one kitchen and three bathrooms on the ground floor of the property. Q. Are there two drawing rooms in the ground floor of the property ?
Ans. No, there is only one drawing room.
There is one dinning room and four bedrooms on the ground floor of the property. There is a small service lane behind the property in question. There are no shutters on the backside of the property. (Vol. Earlier, before the marriage of my son, there used to be shutters in the backside of the property.). The rooms on which shutters were earlier installed were not being used as shop. These rooms were lying vacant at that time and were being used by children for playing...
....The first floor of the property is entirely in our possession. The first floor is lying vacant. I shall induct tenant in the same as and when I get the right persons to occupy. Further, I am sustaining on the rent I get from my property. I am also getting pension from the government as I was earlier a government employee...."
Perusal of record shows that petitioner has claimed that she is having one son, one daughter in law and two grandchildren, who are residing on the ground floor of the suit property. Moreover, during the cross examination, PW-2 Dr. Jagjit Singh has also deposed that there are four bedrooms, one drawing room, one dinning room and one prayer room on the ground floor of the suit property.
As such, in view of the number of family members and the ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 13 /31 relations of such family members with each other, the age of the family members, lifestyle and status of the family, the accommodation available with the petitioner cannot be said to be surplus, as petitioner needs a separate bedroom for her son. Moreover, her son and daughter in law also need a separate bedroom. Besides, two grandchildren also require two separate bedrooms. As such, four rooms being used as bedrooms cannot be said to be used as unreasonable.
As far as drawing room is concerned, it is certainly required as the guests are not supposed to be asked to sit in the bedroom. There is very need of drawing room. Similarly, dinning room is also required.
As far as prayer room is concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that people at the old age specifically women become very religious and have inclination towards God and worshiping. Moreover, in the present petition, the petitioner is above the age of 75 years and if one room is being used by the petitioner or her family members as prayer room, there is no malafide.
As far as first floor of the suit property is concerned, the petitioner herself has admitted that first floor is vacant but she wants to let it out to the good tenants. As such, the availability of the first floor with the petitioner is not disputed by the petitioner. But the claim of the petitioner is that first floor of the suit property is not suitable for the purposes for which tenanted premises is being sought. The stand of the petitioner is that tenanted premises is more suitable and first floor is not suitable at all as the patients who are suffering from arthritis or met with an accident cannot be taken to the first floor and it will be very inconvenient and the patients will have to face massive hardship in such a transit.
17. The next claim of the petitioner is that width of the staircase is about approximately 03 feet, due to which it is most inconvenient to carry such helpless patients to the first floor.
ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 14 /31On the other hand, the respondents have claimed that the width of such stair case is more than 04 feet.
Perusal of the record shows that in the Written Statement filed in the present case, respondents have not disputed that the son of the petitioner i.e. Dr. Jagjit Singh is an Orthopedic Surgeon and running a clinic from the suit property at the basement. Although, respondents have raised some doubts in respect of his medical educational qualifications.
Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that one person visits doctor's clinic only when he is unwell. Generally, a healthy person is not supposed to visit a doctor's clinic/Nursing Home and the patient wants the convenience to the maximum extent possible. Moreover, when patient suffers any sort of illness or injury, a single step becomes a mountain. Besides, in the present case, son of the petitioner is an Orthopedic Surgeon and not a General Practitioner. Patients having the arthritis or accidents faced patients are supposed to visit the Orthopedic Surgeon and the people who are already suffering from such injuries and diseases are already unable to even walk and they cannot be asked to go to the first floor or the basement. Even basement is not as convenient as ground floor. Even, when such clinic is opened in the basement, same kind of great inconvenience and massive hardship are supposed to be faced by such patients, who are already facing such physical hardship. Moreover, this is an era of competition. Everyone wants maximum extent of convenience and comfort. A patient opts for such doctor as is easily accessible and provides the maximum extent of comfort and convenience in addition to the proper and immediate treatment. Patients in such a Metropolitan like Delhi always has option to avoid such an inconvenient clinics/Nursing Home. A doctor or owner of the Nursing Home/clinic is not supposed to stagnate his growth financial as well as in career merely to save the tenancy of a tenant. Everyone has a right to excel in his/her life and career.
ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 15 /3118. One of the pleas of the respondents is that Dr. Jagjit Singh is already doing jobs at other hospitals also.
In my considered view, this plea of the respondents does not have any merit as the law does not restrict a landlord or his family members to sit idle unless eviction petition is decided.
In my considered view, everyone has a right, as well as duty to work for himself/herself and for the family members dependent on them. It is well settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments of Hon'ble superior courts that bonafide requirement of a person does not become malafide merely because he/she is already working. As far as dependency of the son of the petitioner is concerned, the children of a person are always dependent upon their parents. Moreover, in my view, everyone has a right to excel in his/her life. A person is not supposed to be stagnated in the same position and status in the entire life, otherwise there will be monotony in the life.
As such, in view of the settled proposition of law, all these contentions of the respondent do not have any merits.
19. Another plea of the respondent is that the patients of Dr. Jagjit Singh have reduced and have not increased.
In my considered view, this plea of the respondents does not have any substance. Moreover, it fortifies the bonafide of the petitioner and not the malafide, as even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that patients have reduced then such blame may be passed on for inconvenience being faced by the patients who have to go to the basement for treatment.
20. In view of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court; it is well settled that a person is not supposed to remain unemployed till the disposal of the eviction petition. Furthermore, this Court is of the ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 16 /31 opinion that there is nothing malafide if the son of the petitioner wants to extend his noble profession. Rather, the said requirement seems to be bonafide as he wants to earn his livelihood and wants to serve the people who are in dire need of such treatment in emergent circumstances. Even otherwise, the tenant cannot stop the landlord or her son from having better medical facilities for such patients. The bonafide requirement of a landlord or her son does not become malafide just because son of the petitioner wants to have better medical facilities for his patients at his own property. The consequent hardship to tenant from eviction order could also not convert otherwise bonafide requirement into malafide requirement. In my considered view, it is a right of every citizen and doctor to have better medical facilities at the clinic of the doctor and if the doctor wants to provide it, there is no harm in it and it would fulfill the cause of justice.
21. The next plea of the respondents is that operation theater cannot be opened in less than 1000 square meter in view of MPD- 2021.
On the other hand, petitioner has denied this contention and claimed that Operation Theater can be set up in the suit property and there is no restriction as such.
I have gone through the relevant provision of MPD-2021 as well as Delhi Nursing Home Act relied upon by the respondents. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of MPD-2021 which is as under:-
"3.0 DELHI URBAN AREA - 2021 In 2001, about 702 sq km of area was estimated to have been built up, accommodating about 138 lakh population. To accommodate the projected population of 230 lakh by the year 2021, a three-pronged strategy is recommended:
i. To encourage the population to deflect in the NCR towns;
ii. To increase the population holding capacity of the area within existing urban limits through redevelopment; and iii. Extension of the present urban limits to the extent necessary.ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 17 /31
3.1 POPULATION HOLDING CAPACITY OF DELHI The area within the existing urbanisable limits of Delhi Urban Area-2001 consists of the planning zones A to H and the Dwarka, Rohini, Narela Sub-city projects.
Population holding capacity of A to H zones is to be enhanced through a redevelopment strategy and modified development norms. This will be related with:
i. Residential development types and their potential for higher absorption.
ii. Redensification of housing areas developed at lower densities and along selected sections of the Metro corridor.
iii. Redevelopment areas should be identified by the concerned agencies and Special Redevelopment Schemes should be prepared with regard thereto for implementation within a stipulated time framework. iv. Employment areas / centres v. Augmentation and rationalisation of infrastructure - physical and social.
vi. Increase in transportation network capacity. The holding capacity of Dwarka, Rohini Phase III, IV & V and Narela is proposed to be enhanced through:
i. Early and full utilisation of the planned areas and, ii. Implementation of the schemes under planning stages. Existing residential areas may provide a potential to accommodate about 153 lakh population ultimately i.e. 114 lakh in Zones A to H and 39 lakh in Dwarka, Rohini Phase III, IV & V and Narela.
Table 3.1: Zonewise Estimated Holding Capacity of Existing Urban Area....
3.2.2 HIERARCHY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT A planned city for an environment of convenience should have a hierarchical cellular structure; with nuclei to contain essential facilities and services at different levels. The pattern of a community module is conceived as residential area containing a 'neighbourhood' with senior secondary school and shopping facilities for day-to-day needs. The higher level of additional facilities is to be provided at Community, District and Zonal / sub-city levels. Such a structure could be maintained in the process of the preparation of plans on the basis of the standards set in the Table 3.3:........
1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7.
3. 1. Hospital 2 2000 4000 ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 18 /31 Community 2. Tertiary Health 1 15000 30,000 population Care Centre 1 10,000 10,000 1,00,000 3. (a). Family welfare 1 15,000 15,000 Centre 1 500800 500800
(b). Pediatric Centre 1 each each (c). Geriatric Centre 2 (d). Diagnostic Centre 2
4. Maternity Home
5. Nursing 1 1,000 2,0004000 Home/Polyclinic 2000 2,0004000
6. Dispensary for pet 1,000 animals and birds...... 2000 300 300
22. I have carefully gone through the relevant chapters of MPD- 2021. I have also gone through the Chapter-13 and 15 of MPD-2021. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of MPD-2021 which is as under:-
"13.0 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE The quality of life in any urban centre depends upon the availability of and accessibility to quality social infrastructure. Social infrastructure can be looked at in terms of the facilities indicated in the City Level Master Plan, and Community Facilities, which are indicated at the layout plan level in various use zones. Together, these include social infrastructure facilities pertaining to health, education, sports facilities, socio-cultural activities, communications, security and safety, and other community facilities pertaining to recreation, religious activities, social congregations and community events, cremation / burial grounds etc. These are generally planned in terms of population norms with stipulated permissibility conditions and development controls.
13.1 HEALTH The capital city is strategically located and has many specialised health facilities, which serve the city population as well as that of the region, and in many respects the country as a whole. As per available statistics, there are 23 types of health units (facilities) in Delhi. The total numbers of health units are 1914 and the number of beds is 30,667. The existing bed density per ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 19 /31 thousand population in Delhi works out to only 2.2. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended a norm of 5 beds per thousand population. It is estimated that the total number of beds required in the year 2021 will be about 1,15,000. The following broad strategies are proposed in order to meet the requirements of health related infrastructure:
i. Shortfall in the availability of number of beds per 1000 population is proposed to be met througha) ii. Enhancement in FAR for various levels of health facilities;
b) Promoting rebuilding of the existing old hospitals and;
c) Shifting of contagious diseases hospitals from existing urban areas to the proposed urban extension with proper seclusion facilities and connectivity, and using the space thus made available for general hospitals. ii. Essential provisions shall be made for Old Age Home-cum-Care Centres for Senior Citizens and Mentally Challenged by way of specialised / target group oriented facilities, which will also relieve the pressure on general hospitals to some extent.
iii. Premises earmarked for health facilities should also include other medical streams like Ayurvedic / Homeopathic medicine, governed by any statutory code / body. iv. Complementary health facilities at par should be developed in the NCR to reduce burden on Delhi.
There shall be following 1[.] health facilities for the city population:
i. 2[Hospitals category:
a) Hospital (category of hospital shall be governed by number of beds, which shall be regulated with respect to maximum permissible FAR and area per bed is 80 sqm.)
b) Tertiary Health Care Centre;
1 Deleted vide S.O. 2893(E) dated 23-09-2013 2 Modified vide S.O. 2893(E) dated 23-09-2013 MPD-2021 modified upto 31/03/2017 13.0 Social Infrastructure 13--2
c)] Other health facilities, which include maternity home, nursing home, family welfare centre, polyclinic, paediatrics centre, geriatric centre, diagnostic centre, etc. ii. For health care of animals and pets the following 3 tier of health facilities has been proposed:
a) Veterinary Hospitals for pet / domestic animals and birds shall be provided as per need.
b) Dispensary for pet animals and birds shall be provided in all the zones at Community Level. c) Pet clinic is permitted in all landuse zones except in Recreational use zone.......
15.7 OTHER ACTIVITY 15.7.1 Subject to the general conditions given in para ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 20 /31 15.4 and additional conditions given in para 15.7.3, the following public and semi-public activities shall also be permitted in the residential plots abutting roads of minimum ROW prescribed in 15.7.2, whether or not the road is notified as mixed use street:
a. Pre-primary school (including nursery / Montessori school, creche.) b.
i) Nursing home
ii) Clinic, Dispensary, Pathology lab and Diagnostic center.
iii) 1[Wellness Centers including Day Spas / Weight Loss Centres / Ayurvedic Centres offering Ayurvedic treatment / Salons offering fitness & aesthetic medical services and operating as on 7.2.2007.] c. Guest house (including lodging houses) irrespective of number of rooms.
d. Bank......
15.7.3 6[The above mentioned public and semi-public activities shall be subject to the following overriding conditions on the general conditions prescribed in preceding paras:].....
iii) Nursing Homes, dispensaries, clinics, 1[Wellness Centres including Day Spas/ Weight Loss Centers/ Ayurvedic Centres offering Ayurvedic treatment/ Salons offering fitness & aesthetic medical services,] 2[Multidisciplinary Clinics for persons with Learning Disabilities (facilities for care of the elderly and disabled shall be permissible under this category)] and pathology labs shall be permissible: on minimum plot size of 100 sqm in regular plotted development on 13.5 m ROW in C & D colonies and 9 m ROW in E, F & G colonies.
3[However, the minimum plot size size shall be 50 sqm for clinics, dispensaries and pathology labs shall be permissible: on minimum plot size of 100 sqm in regular plotted development on 13.5 m ROW in C & D colonies and 9 m ROW in E, F & G colonies.] However, the minimum plot size shall be 50 sqm for clinics, dispensaries and pathology labs running in these colonies and also in E, F and G category colonies. In Walled City, Walled city extension, villages and unauthorized- regularized colonies, conditions of plot size and minimum ROW shall not be applicable.]
iv) Nursing Homes, 4[Wellness Centres including Day Spas / Weight Loss Centres/Ayurvedic Centres offering Ayurvedic treatment / Salons offering fitness & aesthetic medical services] operating in plots abutting Master Plan roads and Zonal Plan roads shall be permissible up to 100% of built up area and the limit on the size of the plot would not apply......
15.8 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 21 /31 Subject to the general terms and conditions specified in para 15.4, professional activityis permissible in plotted development and group housing under the following specificconditions:
(i) Professional activities shall mean those activities involving services based on professional skills namely Doctor, Lawyer, Architect, and Chartered Accountant, Company secretary, Cost and Works Accountant, Engineer, Town Planner, Media professionals and Documentary Film maker, Management Professionals* 3[and Dietician/ Nutritionists.].....
23. I have carefully gone through the MPD-2021 and I have also heard the arguments at length advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties.
It is expedient to mention the relevant portion of evidence of RW-1/respondent No. 1 Sh. Inderjeet Singh which is as under:-
"I am Graduate. It is correct that the petitioner is residing in the ground floor portion of GL-18, Jail Road, Delhi. (Vol. Some portion is lying vacant). Presently, the first floor portion of GL-18 (supra) is vacant. It is wrong to suggest that presently the first floor portion of GL-18 has tenant. It is correct that the measurement of the shop in my occupation is approximately is 180 sq. feet. I do not know exactly if as per the Delhi Nursing Home Rules, the area for an operation theater is 150 sq. feet. (Vol. In my opinion the area of 150 sq. feet is very small for an operation theater).
It is correct that Dr. Jagjit Singh is an Orthopedic Surgeon. It is correct that the tenanted shop is abutting the main Jail Road. I have not observed the patients of Dr. Jagjit Singh visiting the clinic on stretchers & wheel chairs. (Vol. In a week, 1-2 patients come). It is correct that the staircase to the first floor portion of GL-18, Jail Road is at the front of the ground floor portion of GL-18. As per my estimate, the width of the staircase is about 4- 5 feet. It is wrong to suggest that the width of the said staircase is about 3/3.5 feet. I cannot say whether the practice of Dr. Jagjit Singh has increased over the years or not. (Vol. When the patients have reduced, how can the practice have increased. He also visits other hospitals).
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn to first three lines of para-18(a)(5) of the Written Statement from portion A to A and the witness is asked whether the statement is correct or not ?
It is correct....
..... I do not think that the Jail Road bears the width ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 22 /31 of 100 feet.
At this stage, the witness is confronted with the site plan Ex. RW-1/6 where it is clearly mentioned that Jail Road is 100 ft. wide. The said content is correct. I do not know if the said Jail Road has been declared as a fully commercial road. I also do not know whether this area abutting Jail Road has been declared as 'Mixed Land Use' under the MPD-2021, as I have not read it. Again said, I have not read it fully.
I do not fully know if as per MPD-2021, a road width of 45 feet is enough to entitle any person to construct a Nursing Home.
I have read the MPD-2021, though not fully. I do not remember if I had read Chapter-15 of MPD-2021. I do not know if operation Theaters are not allowed in a basement.
Que: Do you know that operation theaters are not allowed in polyclinics except for minor operations ? Ans: It is correct that even minor operations are not allowed in polyclinics.
The photographs annexed with my written statement were taken by a photographer and myself by my mobile phone. The photographer's name was Sanjay. He took photographs by a camera. It must be a digital camera. The shop of said Sanjay is on the Jail Road. However, I do not remember the address. I must have paid around Rs. 500-1000/- at that time. I did not take any receipt for the same.
The site plan filed with my written statement as well as the evidence by way of affidavit have been filed on the basis of my having visiting the GL-18, Jail Road many years back. I have seen the property from outside many times daily basis. I have made the site plan with the draftsman sitting in my shop. It is correct that there is some vacant space between the rear wall of my shop and the wall of the ground floor portion of GL-18, Jail Road. There is no space for any vehicle in the aforesaid vacant space. ( I cannot answer specifically).
At this stage, witness is shown para-4, 19, 21, 24 & 25 of his affidavit in evidence and asked whether the contents therein are mentioned in his W.S. It is correct that the contents of para-4, 19, 21, 24 & 25 of my affidavit in evidence are not mentioned in my W.S. It is wrong to suggest that the first floor portion of GL-18 cannot be used for the purpose of Dr. Jagjit Singh as the patients cannot be carried upstairs in the narrow staircase and narrow entrance of the ground floor. It is also wrong to suggest that the tenanted premises are needed for creating Emergency Room, Stablising rooms for accident Trauma patients and for patient management.
I have not paid attention as to whether doctors apart from Dr. Jagjit Singh regularly visit the polyclinic in ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 23 /31 the basement or not. (Vol. Photographs filed are of 2013). It is correct that the tenanted shop is being put to commercial use. It is wrong to suggest that the ground floor portion is fully occupied or that there is no vacant room.
At this stage, the witness is drawn his attention towards para no. 12, 15 & 20 of his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and asked as to how and from where has he obtained this information on the basis of which the contents of para no. 12, 15 & 20 of his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/A are deposed.
In so far as para 12, 15 and 20 are concerned, I say that they are based on my general assumptions. I have filed some documents in respect of para no. 12,15 & 20. Apart from the RTI, there are no other documents.
I do not know whether the petitioner has any property other than GL-18, Jail Road, New Delhi. (Vol. She might have).
I am not a doctor so I have read only some rules of Delhi Nursing Home Rules. I do not know when the Nursing Home Rules were notified. I came to know about the Nursing Home Rules from MPD-2021.
I have not done any diploma and degree in Nursing or any Medical Degree. It is wrong to suggest that as per the MPD-2021, minimum requirement of land for Nursing Home is not 1000 sq. meters. It is wrong to suggest that as per the MPD-2021, the Jail Road has been declared as fully commercial road or that the area abutting Jail Road is declared mix-land use area. It is wrong to suggest that the tenanted premises along with the vacant space behind the tenanted premises uptill the wall of ground floor portion of GL-18, Jail Road, New Delhi is sufficient for establishing Nursing Home. (Objected to by Ld. Counsel for the respondent).
It is wrong to suggest that the growth of Practice of Dr. Jagjit Singh is hampered due to lack of space. It is wrong to suggest that Dr. Jagjit Singh is unable to expand his professional practice and bonafidely requires the tenanted premises.
The photographs filed along with my evidence by way of affidavit have been clicked by me on my cell phone. I have not filed the memory card of the mobile phone from which I clicked the said photographs. (Vol. I can produce the same, if required). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that the tenanted premises are required by the petitioner or her son for bonafide requirement."
24. Perusal of MPD-2021 clearly shows that there is no embargo on that point as claimed by the respondents. Moreover, even if it assumed for the sake of arguments that the petitioner cannot open a ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 24 /31 Nursing Home/ Operation Theater in the tenanted premises, in my considered view, it is devoid of any merit in view of well settled proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it is held that the petitioner is not bound to start the same business as mentioned in the petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act. The petition can change it according to his/her needs and circumstances. Moreover, it is a matter of common knowledge that there is an extreme paucity of space in Delhi and due to which most of the Nursing Homes/ Polyclinics/ doctors' clinics and even the hospitals are constructed on the land less than 1000 square meters. It is also the matter of the common knowledge that most of such nursing homes are situated on the land which is having the area of even less than 100 meters. Moreover, even if it is constructed by the petitioner by the contravention of law and rules, the respondents always have the opportunity as well as right to approach the authority concerned for redressal of such grievance. Moreover, the intention of the petitioner is to extend the medical facilities to patients as the clinic is already being run in the basement of the suit property and the son of the petitioner wants to use the tenanted premises for the purposes of using it so that the patients of the son of the petitioner may not have to face the hardship in transit to the basement where the clinic is located. It is also on record and an undisputed fact that the tenanted premises is situated on the ground floor whereas the clinic is already being run by the son of the petitioner at the basement. It is also undisputed fact that son of the petitioner Dr. Jagjit Singh is an Orthopedic Surgeon who is running a clinic in the basement from the suit property.
25. I have gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses on record.
Perusal of cross examination of the petitioner and her son do not show any malafide on the part of the petitioner rather it reiterates ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 25 /31 the bonafide of the petitioner and her son, who is doctor by profession. Moreover, the respondents have failed to prove the malafide on the part of the petitioner.
26. The next contention of the respondents is that initially the son of the petitioner was running the clinic from the ground floor in the year 2011 to Mid 2013 but shifted to basement in 2013 as he found it more suitable. Thereafter, entire ground floor is lying vacant.
In my considered view, this plea is without any substance as in his cross examination, the RW-1/ respondent himself has admitted that ground floor is occupied by the petitioner and members of her family.
27. As far as shifting of clinic from the ground floor to the basement is concerned, it itself shows the bonafide of the petitioner as the petitioner along with her family is residing on the ground floor and record shows that due to paucity of space, he had to shift to the basement and the landlady of the age of almost 75 years, is not supposed to shift to first floor or basement merely to save the tenancy of the tenant/respondents.
28. The next plea of the respondent is that there are space or rooms available at the basement but the petitioner has denied this fact and repeated her stand that the tenanted premises is more suitable for the purposes for which the present petition has been filed.
In my considered view, in view of the discussion earlier, the more suitable space is not the basement or first floor of the suit property, but the ground floor, as convenience and comfort of such orthopedic patients are foremost. This court also has sympathy with the tenants/respondents but neither the tenants nor this court can dictate the petitioner/landlord to use the suit property in a particular ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 26 /31 manner by facing hardship and inconvenience. It does not seem to be unreasonable to seek the eviction of such tenant in such circumstances. There does not appear to be any malafide on the part of petitioner in view of the material on record.
29. The next contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has not filed on record correct site plan.
Record shows that site plan has already been placed on record by the respondents themselves. Consequently, this contention automatically vanishes.
30. The next contention of the respondents is that son of the petitioner is not dependent upon the petitioner as he is a doctor and earning himself.
In case titled as "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta" [2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi)], it has been held 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.
As such, this plea also does not have any merit in respect of dependency of son of the petitioner.
31. One of the contentions of the respondents is that son of the petitioner is already working in the hospital and clinic at home was created only for generating extra income and there is no bonafide requirement.
In my considered view, this plea does not have any substance as it is a matter of the common knowledge that in the Metropolitan like Delhi generally doctors are on the panel of hospital and visit the hospitals for consultancy in OPD and perform surgery etc. also in such private hospitals and they generally do not remain in hospital the whole day. Most of the such doctors usually have separate private clinic at home or at some other place.
ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 27 /31In my considered view, the law does not restrict the doctors to start such clinic merely because he is already working for some other private hospital. Moreover, it is for the welfare of such patients who cannot visit the hospitals due to ill health or accidents or restricted OPD hours in private hospitals.
32. The next contention of the respondent is that present petition is an attempt to get additional accommodation which is not permissible U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act.
In my considered view, the contention of the respondents is without any merit as it is bonafide requirement which is to be taken into the consideration if the petitioner has bonafide requirement and he/she is not having alternative reasonably suitable accommodation, he/she can file petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act.
It is pertinent to mention here that respondents have placed on record certain documents Ex. RW-1/3, RW-1/4, RW-1/7 and RW-1/9 to prove some subsequent events.
I have carefully gone through these documents including other documents filed by the respondents such as Ex. RW-1/1 (Colly.) to RW-1/9.
After perusal of these documents, I have come to the conclusion that there is no relevancy of such documents. It may be subsequent development/events but the respondents have not been able to prove its relevance in the present case.
I have also perused the documents Ex. RW-1/7, site plan filed by the respondents and also Ex. RW-1/6 which is also a site plan. Although, these photographs have not been proved as per law yet even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that these photographs are proved, then what is the relevance of such photographs. Moreover, enclosing the room on the ground floor as claimed by the respondents does not prove the malafide but the bonafide that the petitioner is not having sufficient space on the ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 28 /31 ground floor.
It is well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of the property should be available to the petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. The property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be reasonably suitable property. If the petitioner/landlord has filed the eviction petition for commercial bonafide requirement but the property available with the petitioner is residential one, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation.
It is well settled whether the property available with the petitioner is convenient and suitable or not is to be determined from the point of view of the petitioner/landlord and not from the point of view of the tenant/respondent. The respondent/tenant cannot dictate the terms to the petitioner to use the property in the particular manner. The petitioner/landlord is the best judge of his requirement.
As such in my view, the petitioner is not having the alternative reasonably suitable accommodation with her. Moreover, the respondents have not been able to prove on record that the petitioner is having alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with her which may be used for the purpose for which the present eviction petition has been filed.
33. As such, these two ingredients in respect of bonafide requirement and non-availability of alternative reasonably suitable accommodation are also satisfied.
34. The petitioner has relied upon the following case law:-
Son N. Shade Opticians & Ors. Vs. Shyam Sunder Budhiraja 248 (2018) DLT 463, Batuk Prasad Jaitly Vs. Rajesh Chugh & Anr. 240 (2017) DLT 695, Sait Nagjee Purshotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 252, Mehmooda ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 29 /31 Gulshan Vs. Javaid Hussain Mungloo (2017) 5 SCC 683, Financial Times Ltd. Vs. Times Publishcing House Ltd. 234 (2016) DLT 305, Vinod Gupta Vs. Kailash Aggarwal & Ors. 256 (2019) DLT76, Gauri Shanker Vs. Laxmi Chand, Kashi Nath (Dead) Through L.Rs Vs. Jaganath (2003) 8 SCC 740, Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Another (2003) 8 SCC 745, Gangamma and Ors.
vs. Shivalingaiah (2005) 9 SCC 359 and Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491.
On the other hand, respondents have relied upon the following judgments/case law:
Amarjeet Singh Vs. Katoon Quamarain Manu/SC/0579/1986, Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal (2001) 5 SCC 349, Khem Chand & Ors. Vs. Arjun Jain & Ors. (2013) 138 DRJ 154, Gauri Shanker & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 349, Bijoy Sinha Vs. Biswanath Das Civil Appeal No. 4761 of 2009 (SC), Rani Sethi Vs. Amarjeet Singh RC. Rev. 539 of 2015 (Delhi High Court) and O.P. Gupta Vs. R.K. Sharma Civil Revison No. 936 of 1995 (Delhi HC).
35. I have gone through the case law relied upon by both the parties. The case law relied upon the respondents do not assist the respondents in view of the exhaustive discussion as earlier, peculiar facts of the case, settled law and material on record.
CONCLUSION:-
36. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled proposition of law and the reasons as discussed earlier, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has proved all the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. Consequently, the present eviction petition is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondents in respect of Private Shop bearing No. 1, GL-18, Hari Nagar, Jail ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 30 /31 Road, New Delhi-110064 as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1 attached with the petition.
37. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
38. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed
on 16th October, 2019. AJAY by AJAY NAGAR
Date:
(This judgment contains 31 pages)
NAGAR 2019.10.16
17:19:59 +0530
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller,
West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 26214/2016 Ms. Kuldeep Kaur Vs Sh. Inderjeet Singh & Anr. Page 31 /31