Delhi District Court
Rekha Sharma vs . Sandeep Khanna, on 1 April, 2019
Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna,
Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and
Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma
IN THE COURT OF SH. NIPUN AWASTHI
ACJCCJARC(EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
RC/ARC No. 3/17
Smt. Rekha Sharma
W/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma
R/o 92, First Floor, Baldev Park,
Delhi110051 ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Sandeep Khanna
(Prop. of M/s Khanna Electrical)
R/o One shop at 92, Baldev Park,
Delhi 110051 ...Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.01.2017
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 04.02.2019
DATE OF DECISION : 01.04.2019
And
RC/ARC No. 4/17
Smt. Rekha Sharma
W/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma
R/o 92, First Floor, Baldev Park,
Delhi110051 ...Petitioner
RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 1/15
R/ARC No. 4/17, and
RC/ARC No. 5/17
Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna,
Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and
Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma
VERSUS
Sh. Bhupesh Sharma
(Prop. of M/s Bhupesh Photostate)
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal Sharma
R/o one shop at 92, Second Floor, Baldev Park,
Delhi110051 ...Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.01.2017
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 17.01.2019
DATE OF DECISION : 01.04.2019
And
RC/ARC No. 5/17
Smt. Rekha Sharma
W/o Sh. Jagdish Sharma
R/o 92, First Floor, Baldev Park,
Delhi110051 ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Jai Prakash Sharma
(Prop. of M/s Rajat Enterprises)
S/o Late Sh. Rikh
R/o 92, Second Floor, Baldev Park,
Delhi110051 ...Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.01.2017
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 17.01.2019
DATE OF DECISION : 01.04.2019
RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 2/15
R/ARC No. 4/17, and
RC/ARC No. 5/17
Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna,
Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and
Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment, three petitions under Section 14(1)(e() DRC Act
(i) RC/ARC No. 3/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Sandeep Khanna,
(ii)RC/ARC No. 4/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and
(iii) RC/ARC No. 5/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Jai Prakash Sharma.
are disposed off.
1.1. These three petitions are disposed off by one order common to all because the respondents i.e. Sandeep Khanna, Bhupesh Sharma and Jai Prakash Sharma are tenants of the petitioner in three shops in the same building and the need on which the present petition has been brought is the same qua all the respondents. Concise statement of facts pleaded in the petition RC/ARC No. 3/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Sandeep Khanna
2. The premises identified as one shop in property No. 92, Baldev Park, Delhi51 is occupied by respondent as tenant of the petitioner. The shop is unnumbered and identified in brown outlines in the site plan produced. The premises is used for non residential purposes by the respondent and the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 715/ per month. The respondent was introduced tenant to the premises by Chanderkala Sharma and after having purchased the premises from Chanderkala Sharma on 13.09.11, the petitioner became the landlord and the owner thereof. The petitioner wants to open big departmental store from the portion encircled in yellow colour in the site plan produced with the petition. To that end, apart from the present respondent, other tenants in the shops at this property are also to be evicted and the petitioner has moved petitions for that purpose. The RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 3/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma other tenants are - Jai Prakash Sharma, Jaikishan and Sandeep Khanna. The petitioner does not have any other reasonable suitable accommodation to satisfy the need.
Concise statement of facts pleaded in the petition RC/ARC No. 4/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Bhupesh Sharma
3. The premises identified as one shop in property No. 92, Baldev Park, Delhi51 is occupied by respondent as tenant of the petitioner. The shop is unnumbered and identified in blue outlines in the site plan produced. The premises is used for non residential purposes by the respondent and the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 420/ per month. The respondent was introduced tenant to the premises by Chanderkala Sharma and after having purchased the premises from Chanderkala Sharma on 13.09.11, the petitioner became the landlord and the owner thereof. The petitioner wants to open big departmental store from the portion encircled in yellow colour in the site plan produced with the petition. To that end, apart from the present respondent, other tenants in the shops at this property are also to be evicted and the petitioner has moved petitions for that purpose. The other tenants are - Jai Prakash Sharma, Jaikishan and Sandeep Khanna. The petitioner does not have any other reasonable suitable accommodation to satisfy the need.
Concise statement of facts pleaded in the petition RC/ARC No. 5/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Jai Prakash Sharma
4. The premises identified as one shop in property No. 92, Baldev Park, Delhi51 is occupied by respondent as tenant of the petitioner. The shop is unnumbered and identified in red outlines in RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 4/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma the site plan produced. The premises is used for non residential purposes by the respondent and the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 600/ per month. The respondent was introduced tenant to the premises by Chanderkala Sharma and after having purchased the premises from Chanderkala Sharma on 13.09.11, the petitioner became the landlord and the owner thereof. The petitioner wants to open big departmental store from the portion encircled in yellow colour in the site plan produced with the petition. To that end, apart from the present respondent, other tenants in the shops at this property are also to be evicted and the petitioner has moved petitions for that purpose. The other tenants are - Bhupesh Sharma, Jaikishan and Sandeep Khanna. The petitioner does not have any other reasonable suitable accommodation to satisfy the need.
5. On 16.03.2017, the application seeking leave to defend the present petitions was allowed unopposed. Concise statement of facts pleaded in WS RC/ARC No. 3/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Sandeep Khanna
6. The petitioner does not want to open any departmental/kiryana store. The petitioner and her husband have a shop at Lajpat Rai Market wherefrom electronic goods are sold. They manufacture electronic goods and small transformers from a factory at 9/10, Shyam Block, First Floor and Second Floor, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 31. The site plan produced with the petition is not correct nor true to scale. The petitioner has not instituted proceedings against one of the tenants - Jai Kishan. Concise statement of facts pleaded in WS RC/ARC No. 4/17 RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 5/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma titled Rekha Sharma vs. Bhupesh Sharma
7. The petitioner has concealed the existence of three shops, other than the five she admits. These three shops are shown by the petitioner to be rooms at the ground floor whereas infact they are shops. The petitioner has one shop at the second floor of the building in which the premises is situated. Consequently, the petitioner has in her possession four shops at the ground floor and one shop at the second floor. The petitioner is a housewife and she does not require the premises. The petitioner has not provided the dimensions of the shops in the building in which the premises is situated. The petitioner has sufficient income and she is not in need of opening any store. She has rental income and she is a rich lady. The petitioner and her husband own shop No. 512, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi06 and also own a factory at 9/10, Shyam Block, Kailash Nagar, Delhi37. The petitioner and her husband own an area of 100 sq. yd. in Ganga Vihar, Delhi. The petitioner had on an earlier occasion withdrawn an eviction petition against the respondent which was titled Rekha Sharma vs. Bhupesh Sharma bearing E No. 53/14 on 11.09.15 and 16 months thereafter this petition had been brought. Concise statement of facts pleaded in WS RC/ARC No. 5/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Jai Prakash Sharma
8. The husband of the petitioner has an electric shop in Lajpat Rai market and a factory and petitioner is living at home and consequently no departmental store can be opened any more and there is no one to manage the said business as children of the petitioner are minor. Two shops in the building in which the premises RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 6/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma is situated lie vacant and despite these shops lie vacant, no departmental store was opened. The petitioner does not need the premises but wants the respondent to vacate the same only to enhance the rate of rent and relet the premises to some other tenant on enhanced rate.
Evidence in the petition RC/ARC No. 3/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Sandeep Khanna
9. The petitioner adduced following evidence:
(i) Testimony of petitioner as PW1(affidavit Ex. PW1/A), and
(ii) Site Plan(Ex. PW1/1).
10. The respondent adduced following evidence:
(i) Testimony of respondent as RW1(affidavit Ex. RW1/1),
(ii) Copy of order dated 11092015 in eviction petition No. 52/2014(Ex. RW1/A),
(iii) Statement of petitioner in eviction petition No. 52/2014(Ex. RW1/B), and
(iv) Copy of petition titled Rekha Sharma vs. Sandeep Khanna(Ex. RW1/C).
Evidence in the petition RC/ARC No. 4/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Bhupesh Sharma
11. The petitioner adduced following evidence:
(i) Testimony of petitioner as PW1(affidavit Ex. PW1/A),
(ii) Site Plan(Ex. PW1/1),
(iii) Site plan filed by local commissioner(Ex.RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 7/15
R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma PW1/2), and
(iv) Photographs(Ex. PW1/3).
12. The respondent adduced following evidence:
(i) Testimony of respondent as RW1(affidavit Ex. RW1/A), and
(ii) Testimony of Manohar Lal Sharma as RW2(affidavit Ex. RW2/1).
Evidence in the petition RC/ARC No. 5/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Jai Prakash Sharma
13. The petitioner adduced following evidence:
(i) Testimony of petitioner as PW1(affidavit Ex. PW1/A), and
(ii) Site Plan(Ex. PW1/1).
14. The respondent adduced following evidence:
(i) Testimony of respondent as DW1(affidavit Ex. DW1/A), and
(ii) Copy of receipt issued by previous tenant Rajbir Singh(Ex. DW1/1),
(iii)Copy of receipt issued by previous landlord Smt. Chanderkala(Ex. DW1/2),
(iv) Copy of Rent Agreement between previous landlord Chanderkala and the respondent(Ex. DW1/4),
(v) Copy of House Tax Receipt(Ex. DW1/5),
(vi) Copy of receipt of conversion Charges for the year 1516(Ex. DW1/6), RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 8/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma
(vii) Copy of cheque paid to EDMC(Ex. DW1/7),
(viii) Copy of conversion charges(Ex. DW1/8),
(ix) Copy of license issued by MCD to the respondent(Ex. DW1/9),
(x) Copy of sale deed in favour of petitioner(Ex. DW1/10),
(xi) Copy of court order dated 12.11.2013(Ex. DW1/11),
(xii) Copy of sale deed dated 18.10.2010(Ex. DW1/12),
(xiii)Copy of electricity bill dated 03.06.2017(Ex. DW1/13),
(xiv) Copy of Legal Notice dated 04.10.2012 send by petitioner to the respondent(Ex. DW1/15), and
(xv) Testimony of Gurcharan Singh as DW2(affidavit Ex. DW2/A).
15. Commission was issued to Advocate Nitin Chaudhary to inspect the building in which the premises is situated and to prepare a true to scale site plan of the said building. This commission was issued in the case RC/ARC No. 4/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Bhupesh Sharma. This commission was issued because the respondents had been objecting to the truth of the site plan as they were not true to scale. The commissioner presented his report, acceptable to all and therefore relied upon by court.
15.1. From the site plan prepared by the Local Commissioner, it is discovered that the closed door structures behind the shops are RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 9/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma rooms and not shops as averred by the respondent - Bhupesh Sharma.
16. The crux of the matter is that in the building identified as 92, Baldev Park, Delhi - 51, there are five shops at the ground floor facing West. Four of the said shops are in possession of tenants whereas one of the shop is in possession of the petitioner. The present respondents are three of the tenants and the petitioner seeks their eviction from their respective premises as she has to combine all the shops to give effect to a large departmental store. 16.1. The petitioner had explained that why she had proceeded against three tenants and not all the four. The said explanation is that the fourth tenant has agreed to vacate the premises in his possession when the present respondents vacate their respective premises. This explanation had been putforth in answer to question No. 13 in her crossexamination conducted on 14.11.17. The name of this tenant is Jai Kishan.
16.2. Thus, what the petitioner wants is that the tenants i.e. Bhupesh Sharma, Sandeep Khanna, Jai Prakash Sharma and Jai Kishan vacate the shops in their respective possessions and thereafter the petitioner combines all the five shops at the ground floor of the building in which the premises are situated to give effect to a large departmental store. Since Jai Kishan has agreed to vacate as and when required, no eviction petition has been brought against Jai Kishan.
16.3. All the respondents/tenants have been paying rent to the petitioner and this is sufficient to infer the existence of landlordtenant RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 10/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma relationship between the petitioner and the respondents.
17. The essence of defence is that the petitioner and her husband are financially well off and the husband of the petitioner owns a factory and sells the goods produced therein and it is therefore that the petitioner does not need to open the departmental store.
18. Reference may be made to the decision in Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation V/s Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2012(1) RCJ 437(Del.). The Court cited the Apex Court to state that:
"The Apex Court has time and again noted that it is the prerogative of the landlord to decide whether the premises are required for expansion of business or not; in this context the observation of the Apex Court in case of Sai Nagjee Purushotam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalbai Prabhulal and Ors. is relevant; it reads as under:
It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business."
18.1. The court would cite here the decision in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Limited VIII(1998) SLT 374 wherein the Apex Court observed:
"The crux of the ground envisaged in Clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 11/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma 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 Contoller 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 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."
18.2. The court would cite here the decision in M/s. John Impex(Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dr. Surinder Singh & Ors. 135(2006) DLT 265 wherein it was observed that:
"The conspectus of the aforesaid judgments shows that the broad principles have been set down of the requirement of a landlord not being a mere whim or fanciful but that it should be a genuine need of the landlord. It is only then the requirement can be said to be bona fide within the meaning of under Section 14(1)(e) of the said Act. This would naturally require all the necessary matrix in terms of the factual averments and the evidence to be adduced in that behalf. Simultaneously it has to be kept in mind that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and a tenant cannot dictate the terms on which the landlord should live."
18.3. The court would cite here following observations of the RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 12/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Adarsh Electricals & Ors. v. Dinesh Dayal 173(2010) DLT 518:
"44. .....The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the Court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need.......As long as the landlord is able to establish that he in good faith and genuinely wishes to occupy the premises in possession of the tenant and that good faith or genuineness is of a reasonable man, it would not be open to the Controller to weigh the claim of the landlord in a fine scale and that the viability of the other accommodation will have also to be considered from the standpoint of a reasonable landlord. It is further to be observed that the law does not require the landlord to sacrifice his own comforts and requirements merely on the ground that the premises is with a tenant and for deciding whether or not the alternative accommodation available to the landlord is suitable or not, the social customs, conventions and habits, usage and practices of the society cannot be completely ruled out and termed as irrelevant. The problem had to be approached from the point of view of a reasonable man and not that of a whimsical landlord."
18.4. The combined reading of the above principles of law is that if the need for the tenanted portion expressed by the landlord confirms to the conduct of a reasonable person, neither the tenant nor the Controller can impose any other property/portion upon the landlord RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 13/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma for being used for the stated need.
19. In the present facts, the shops under the tenancy of the respondents are more suitable. The fact that husband of the petitioner conducts a business is of no relevance to the factinissue in the present petition, because, whether the husband of the petitioner has a vocation determines the need, is not the proposition which can be laid down to challenge the need, for the reason that the tenant cannot dictate the manner in which the premises is to be put to use by the landlord and the landlord is free to assess the need for which the premises is required and the genuineness of the need is presumed. Thus, there is no ground on which the respondent can disentitle the petitioner from the possession of the premises.
20. Thus, the present petitions are allowed. 20.1. An eviction order is passed against the respondent in petition bearing No. RC/ARC No. 3/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Sandeep Khanna qua one shop in the property bearing no. 92. Baldev Park, Delhi51 as shown in brown colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
20.2. An eviction order is passed against the respondent in petition bearing No. RC/ARC No. 4/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Bhupesh Sharma qua one shop in the property bearing no. 92. Baldev Park, Delhi51 as shown in blue colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
20.3. An eviction order is passed against the respondent in petition bearing No. RC/ARC No. 5/17 titled Rekha Sharma vs. Jai Prakash Sharma qua one shop in the property bearing no. 92. Baldev RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 14/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17 Rekha Sharma Vs. Sandeep Khanna, Rekha Sharma Vs. Bhupesh Sharma, and Rekha Sharma Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma Park, Delhi51 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
21. The petitioner would not be entitled to obtain possession of the above shops before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of this order in terms of section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
22. Files be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
Delhi Dated the 01.04.2019 This Judgment contains 15 pages and each page is signed by me.
(NIPUN AWASTHI) ACJcumCCJcumARC(E) KKD Courts, Delhi RC/ARC No. 3/17, Page No. 15/15 R/ARC No. 4/17, and RC/ARC No. 5/17