Delhi District Court
Smt. Maya Rani vs Sh. Daljit Singh on 12 July, 2023
____________________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA
ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC (NORTH), ROHINI COURT, DELHI
RC ARC NO. 368/16
1. Smt. Maya Rani,
W/o Late Sh. Anil Kumar,
R/o - B-3/18, 2nd Floor, Model Town,
New Delhi.
2. Sh. Ravi Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Balbir Singh,
R/o - B-3/18, First Floor, Model Town,
New Delhi
3. Smt. Asha Rani,
W/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar,
R/o - B-3/18, First Floor, Model Town,
New Delhi
.....Petitioners
Vs.
Sh. Daljit Singh,
S/o Sh. Amar Singh,
The sole proprietor of M/S Amar Engineer Works,
Shop No. 1 in property No. B-3/18, Modal Town,
New Delhi
.....Respondent
Date of Institution : 28.07.2016
Date reserve for order : 03.07.2023
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.07.2023
RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 1/13
Order deciding Leave to Defend in Eviction petition U/sec. 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of
DRC Act, 1958
Vide this order the Court shall dispose of the application U/s 25-B (4 & 5) of DRC
Act of the respondent seeking leave to defend the eviction petition, filed on 24.08.2016. The
eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as DRC Act) was filed by the petitioner against the respondent on 27.07.2016.
Suit property- Private shop no.1, property no. B-3/18, Model town, New Delhi measuring
8x9 sq. feet. The property is non-residential in nature. Rent of the property is 1900/- per
month excluding electricity and water charges.
Facts of the case - The father in law of petitioner no.1 and 3 and father of petitioner no. 2
i.e. Late Sh. Balbir Singh purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 12.11.1962 during his lifetime. The petitioners are the joint owners of the shop however as per the mutual understanding, Petitioner no.2 has been collecting the rent from the shop and issuing the rent receipt. That Late Sh. Balbir Singh, during his lifetime had let out the suit property to Sh. Amar Singh (father of the respondent) and upon the death of the Sh. Amar Singh, the tenancy devolved upon the respondent who use to pay the rent to the Petitioner no.2 but all three petitioners are the joint owners of the suit property. That petitioner no.1 is a widow and is having family members consisting of her her son namely Sh. Manish Kumar aged 32 years and an unmarried daughter aged 34 years. Petitioner no.1wants to open a shop for her son to run house hold expenses. Due to non availability of the suit property, he is working in a private company to support his father. Petitioner no.1 has no other residential or commercial property in Delhi.
Grounds of defence-
1. Petitioners are neither the owners nor the landlord/landlady of the tenanted premises. No documentary proof of ownership if filed by them. As per the petition it was owned by Late Sh. Balbir Singh.
2. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 2/13
3. The site plan filed is incorrect and not in accordance with the actual position and correct site plan is filed by the respondent
4. The tenanted premises was let out 30 years back on the basis of written agreement in 1983. Initially rate of rent settled between Late Sh. Balbir Singh (Landlord) and the respondent was Rs. 100/-and at present it is Rs.1900/- which is being paid by the respondent without any default.
5. Late Sh. Balbir Singh got the tenanted premises vacated from Sh. R.N.Gupta and rented it out to the respondent assuring that he is the legal tenant in the suit property but the court document revealed otherwise.
6. In the year 1983, the respondent paid an advance sum of Rs. 5000/- as a pugree to Late Sh. Balbir Singh and no acknowledgement of the same was given to the respondent. Late Sh. Balbir Singh also took his signatures on some blank documents.
7. After the death of Sh. Balbir Singh, the respondent approached to Petitioner no. 2 to deposit the rent but the same was not accepted on the ground that collection of rent from the tenants is yet to be decided. And after some time it was decided that Petitioner no.2 will collect the rent.
8. Son of the Petitioner no.1 , Sh. Munish is very well settled in the company namely ICICI, Home Finance Co. Finance Co. Ltd. In Gurgaon, Haryana and is earning around 80,000/- per month. Daughter of the Petitioner is also well settled and working in Scotia bank, CP, Delhi and earning Rs. 1 lakh per month.
9. Petitioners have more than sufficient property with them. Entire ground floor on the property bearing number B-3/18, Model Town, Delhi comprising two offices and four shops at the ground floor. Out of these, both offices are lying vacant and two shops are with tenants and one shop is occupied by petitioner no.2 and one shop is lying vacant.
10. Petitioner has been using the tenanted shop for more than 34 years and it is the source of income for him. Respondent is a senior citizen and responsible for the daughter in law and grandson as his son has already passed away.
11. Petitioners want to evict the respondent from the suit property and either built a multi story commercial complex or to re-let the same on higher rate of rent as suit property is located in thickly populated area.
RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 3/13ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS Essentials to decide the application of leave to defend In the case of Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand (1983)1SCC301 while dealing with the question in the matter of granting leave to defend to contest the eviction petition filed on the ground of personal requirement, in para 5 has stated thus: "5. What should be the approach when leave to defend is sought for? There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that stage makes out such a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to defend cannot be granted. This approach is wholly improper. When leave to defend is sought for, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action (see Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh). At the stage of granting the leave parties rely in support of their rival contentions on affidavits and assertions and counter- assertions on affidavits may not afford such incontrovertible evidence to lead to an affirmative conclusion one way or the other. Conceding that when possession is sought for on the ground of personal requirement, an absolute need is not to be satisfied but a mere desire equally is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire and being an enabling provision, the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. If as it appears in this case, the landlord is staying at Pathankot, that a house is purchased, may be in the name of his sons and daughters, but there may not be an apparent need to return to Delhi in his old age, a triable issue would come into existence and that was sufficient in our opinion to grant leave to defend in this case."
The petitioner is not the owner of the suit property The settled law in this regard is the suit under DRC act is not to decide the title between the parties. Hence, The landlord is not required to proved his absolute ownership on the suit property but only tot he extend that his title is better than that of the tenant or that his status on the suit property is more than that of a tenant. Reliance is placed upon In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi reported as 157 (2009) DLT 450 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held:".......... The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way an eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 4/13 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........."
As far as tenant challenging the ownership of landlord is concerned, the position of law is very clear that firstly tenant cannot challenge if not contesting the ownership and secondly, if tenant is also contesting the ownership, the court will see out of the two parties who has the better title to the suit property. In the present case, in the application of leave to defend, the tenant has not claimed any ownership rights over the suit property. On the contrast, the respondent has admitted that Late Sh. Balbir Singh was the landlord and he is the tenant on the suit property. Ownership of Late Sh. Balbir Singh on the suit property is not disputed. As per para 12 of the application, the respondent was informed that as per the mutual settlement, Petitioner no.2 is the sole owner of the suit property and he will receive the rent. This is denied by the Petitioners in the corresponding paragraph of their reply.As per the reply, Petitioner no.1-3 are joint owners of the suit property in terms of the mutual settlement. Therefore, only issue remains if whether the tenant can challenge the family settlement of the landlord's family. In the case of E. Parashurama (deceased by L.Rs.) v. V. Doraiswami (deceased by L.Rs.).AIR 2006 SC 376 , it was held that,the tenant has no locus standi to challenge the title of the petitioner in as much as in a proceeding under the DRC Act, the landlord is not required to prove his absolute ownership over the suit property. It is enough if he is able to prove that he is more than a tenant. The respondent cannot get any benefit even if the family settlement is an unregistered one. Such a dispute could have been raised by the family members amongst whom the settlement had taken place but this plea is not available to the tenant. As far as deciding as to who is the owner of the tenanted premises, the law is settled that cases under DRC no not require proving of absolute ownership by the landlord. Landlord is only required to show that his legal position on the suit property is more than that of a tenant. The suit will not get defeated for the imperfectness of the title. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PlastiChemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha and Anr 114 (2004) DLT 408, RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 5/13 2004 (76) DRJ 654 . It says that if a landlord is able to show by producing a document of his ownership on record, landlord is deemed to have discharged his burden of ownership vis-a-vis the Rent Control Act and such a document can at best be challenged by the heirs of the owner and not by the tenant. Similarly, in the case of Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi cited as 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 450 it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para no. 7 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 the 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." It is also well settled preposition of law that "for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property of Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant".The respondent cannot question the title of the petitioner as he as admitted his tenancy on the suit property. The petitioners have shown their ownership on the suit property by way of the means of succession and the family settlement. Hence, on the basis of the family settlement, the petitioners no.1-3 are the co-owners and Petitioner no.2 is the landlord of the suit property. Hence, this is not a triable issue.
Further it is also stated by the respondent that he In the year 1983, the respondent paid an advance sum of Rs. 50,000/- as a pugree to Late Sh. Balbir Singh. As per section 13 of DRC Act. Where any sum or other consideration has been paid, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by or on behalf of a tenant to a landlord, in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, the Controller may, on an application made to 38 of 1952 him within a period of one year from the date of such payment , order the landlord to refund such sum or the value of such consideration to the tenant or -order adjustment of such sum or the value of such consideration against the rent payable by the tenant. Considering the said provision, the RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 6/13 respondent tenant was at liberty to recover the pugree amount if paid to the father of the Petitioner no.2. Hence, this ground does not raise any triable issue.
There exists a landlord tenant relationship between the parties The relation between the landlord and tenant can be proved by admission of the tenant or by proving execution of the rent agreement or proving the rent receipts. In the present case, the respondent has clearly made an admission in the application for leave to defend that he use to pay the rent to the father of the petitioner no.2 and father in law of petitioner no,1 and 3. After his death and upon mutual settlement among the petitioners, he started paying rent again to the Petitioner no.2. The ownership on the suit property and relationship of Late Sh. Balbir Singh with the petitioners is not disputed. Further, it is a settled law that once the tenant admits his tenancy on the suit property, he/she is estopped from raising the objection on the ownership of the Landlord. The Petitioner NO.1-3 have become co-owners on the suit property upon succession and by mutual settlement among Petitioner no.1-3, Petitioner no.2 is collecting rent of the suit property. In fact in para 12 of the application for the leave to defend, it is clearly stated that the Petitioner no.2 has accepted the rent through cheque from the respondent. Hence, there are two admissions which strengthens the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. Firstly, the respondent admitted tenancy on the suit property qua Late SH. Balbir Singh. After his death, the suit property passed on to his three sons. Two sons have died and as of today Petitioner no.1 (daughter-in-law), Petitioner no.2 (son) and Petitioner no.3 (daughter-in-law) have inherited the suit property after his death. The respondent has admitted that Petitioner no.2 accepted the rent through cheque. Hence, existence of landlord tenant relationship is not a triable issue.
There exists a bona fide requirement of the petitioner to use the suit property The settled law in this regard is the requirement must be genuine and reasonable and not just a mere desire of the landlord. Reliance is placed upon the case of G.C. Kapoor v. Nan Kumar Bhasin, (2002) 1 SCC 610,It is settled position of law that bonafide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde [1999] 2 SCR 912, the Court while considering the bonafide need of the landlord RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 7/13 was of the view that when a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation, he has to prove it but there is no warrant for 'presuming that his need is not bonafide'. It was also held that while deciding this question. Court would look into the broad aspects and if the Courts feels any doubt about bonafide requirement, it is for the landlord to clear such doubt."Further in the case of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, the concept how the bona fide need is not a mere desire to be analyzed was discussed. The court stated that , in a case when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire. The ground under Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub- section (1) of Section 14 enables a landlord to recover possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement. This being an enabling provision, essentially the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. In short and substance wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend but when a triable issue is raised a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by the statute itself to grant leave. At the stage of granting leave the real test should be whether facts disclosed in the affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima facie show that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an order of eviction and not whether at the end defence may fail. It is well to remember that when a leave to defend is refused, serious consequences of eviction shall follow and the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments made in the eviction petition by cross-examination. It may also be noted that even in cases where leave is granted provisions are made in this very Chapter for expeditious disposal of eviction petitions.
(a) The site plan do not depict the clear situation of the actual premises- In application for leave to defend, respondent has taken objection that petitioners have not filed the correct site plan of the tenanted premises and they have filed the correct site plan. However, it has not been stated as to how the site plan of the petitioner is not correct. The respondent has filed the counter site plan to show the actual location and situation of the suit property. Both the site plans are compared. Upon comparison it is concluded, that both the site plans are exactly same and show exactly same number of rooms and their location. Hence there is no discrepancy in the site plan filed by the petitioner no.1-3 and this does not raise any triable issue.RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 8/13
(b) Petitioners want to evict the respondent from the suit property and either built a multi story commercial complex or to re-let the same on higher rate of rent-On the other hand, in reply to application, this has been denied by the petitioners and they have reiterated the fact that tenanted premises is required for establishing a boutique by Petitioner no.1.It is well settled law that bald allegation without any material on record to substantiate the same could not be looked into as the mere bald allegations are not enough for grant of leave to defend. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Leelawati and Ors. RCR Appeal no. 23/2007 that:11....."Only those averments in affidavit are to be considered by Rent Controller which have some substance in it and are supported by some material."Moreover, It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case tiled as Hari Shanker Vs. Madan Mohan Gupta: 111 (2004) DLT 534 that:"Summary procedure in Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be defeated by merely making frivolous and vague allegations which can never be substantiated."It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinod Kumar Bhalla Vs. Sh. Nanak Singh: 1982 (2) RCR (Rent) 715 that in all applications for leave to defend the common defence raised by almost all the tenants, is that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent or to sell the property after getting it vacated. It was observed by the High Court that such types of allegations are without any foundation and that after an order of eviction is passed under section 14 (1)(e), the tenant is granted six months time to vacate the premises and the landlord is required to occupy the same within two months and the landlord is further dis-entitled for re-letting or alienating the whole or any part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining possession from the tenant. Thus, the landlord is not in a position either to sell or re-let the tenanted premises for a period of three years and if a landlord does sell or re- let the premises within the said period then the tenant may proceed against the landlord for restoration of the possession under section 19 of the Act.A similar observation was made in judgment titled Krishna Chopra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Raksha: 2000 Rajdhani Law Reporter
83.Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid legal propositions the contention of the respondent is rejected as the same is a mere assertion without any substance. Moreover the contention of the respondent is not tenable because in such kind of cases protection/remedy available/provided for such tenants under the DRC Act itself as they can file petition for repossession if the premises are re-let or transferred by the landlords after evicting the RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 9/13 tenant, but certainly the leave cannot be granted solely on this ground. Thus, this defence raised by the respondent does not raise any triable issue.
(c) Petitioner has been using the tenanted shop for more than 34 years and it is the source of income for him - The object of the act is to protect the tenants however the special summary procedure provided for u/s 25B of the DRC Act is an exception to the general intent to the Act. The intention of the legislature is to provide an expeditious remedy to landlords who seek eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement under the stringent conditions imposed in the special procedure. Thus, the mere bald averment of the respondent to the effect that the tenanted premises is their sole source of earning cannot dis- entitle the petitioners from relief that he is entitled to get after fulfilling the stringent requirements provided for in the special procedure. Thus, this submission of the respondent is found to be untenable. Moreover, an eviction order on the ground of bonafide requirement cannot be executed for six months. This, would afford ample time to the respondent to shift his place of business. Further, it is well settled that comparative hardship is not grow to reject the eviction petition. In Mohd. Ayub V. Mukesh (2012) 2 SCC 155, The Supreme Court held that the hardship the landlord would suffer by not occupying his premises would be far greater than the hardship of the tenant. Accordingly, this defence does not raise any triable issue.
(d) Son and Daughter of the Petitioner no.1 are well settled- This ground is denied in the reply. As per the corresponding paragraph, salary of the son of the Petitioner is not fixed and struggling for the survival. Therefore, he requires the suit premises for starting the business. Further, it is also denied that the daughter of the Petitioner no.1 earns around 1 lakh per month. She is self dependent and does not shares the expenses with her family. The petitioner has already disclosed the fact in the petition that her son is already working. A person cannot be expected to quit the job before filing the petition for eviction and start the required occupation inly after the possession is received. It was held in the case of Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs. is available Chaganlal Sundarji and Co. (1999) 8 SCC " It is un-imaginable that a landlord who is in service should first resign from his job and wait for the un-known and un-certain result of a long drawn litigation. If he resigned from his job, he might in-deed end-up in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking get back one's premises. For that matter, assuming the landlord was in RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 10/13 a job and had not resigned from it or assuming that pending long drawn litigation, he started some other temporary water business to sustain himself, that would not be an indication that the need for establishing a grocery shop was not a bonafide or a reasonable requirement or that it was motivated or was mere design to evict the tenant."
On the aspect of amount of salary earned by the son, it is the prerogative of the petitioner to decide if the amount earned is satisfactory for them or not, The tenant has n locus to decide if a certain amount is sufficient for living a desired life by the landlord. In Shamshed Vs M/s Shadi Ram Udhami Ram Page no. 11 of 20 Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (deceased), 152 (2008) DLT 301 (SC), the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court which was reversed by the HC, that "The requirement of section 14(1)(e) is 'bonafide requirement' and it has to be seen as per the requirement of the petitioner(landlord) , even if the petitioner is very rich and having other properties at different places that does not affect his requirement of the premises, as alleged in the petition." And the leave to defend application was dismissed."Thus, the tenant cannot dictate the living standard or the standard/ scale of business proposed to be carried out by the petitioners. The tenant cannot dictate the petitioners regarding which portion they should occupy and which portion they should not. Hence, the respondent cannot force the petitioners to survive on a limited money just for his own convenience. If the petitioner no.1 want a better life and living standard for her son by starting a business then this requirement cannot be said to be malafide. The tenant cannot tell the petitioners how they should otherwise adjust themselves. It is the petitioners' prerogative how they want to use their property. Hence, this ground does not raise any triable issue.
Hence, respondent is not able to raise any triable issue. On the contrary, starting a business by any person to earn a living is a bona fide requirement.
Availability Of The Alternate Accommodation It is settled position of law that landlord is the best judge of his requirements. The Supreme Court of India decision of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live.
RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 11/13At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs Union of India, 1998(2) RCR 533, wherein it was 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 bonafide. 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 bonafide. 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 bonafide. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of 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.
In Adarsh Electricals and others vs Dinesh Dayal, MANU/DE/2782/2010, it was held that " the concept of alternate accommodation means that accommodation which is reasonably suitable for the landlord, and the court would not expect the landlord to sacrifice on his own comforts and requirements merely on the ground that the premises is with a tenant . The problem had to be approached from the point of view of a reasonable man and not that of a whimsical landlord. 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."
In the judgment titled as Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary: AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 534 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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. Moreover, as has been held in a plethora of cases, neither the Court nor the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding the suitability of the premises or even the extent of the business proposed to be carried out.
It is stated in the application that the petitioners have more than sufficient property with them. Entire ground floor on the property bearing number B-3/18, Model Town, Delhi RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 12/13 comprising two offices and four shops at the ground floor. Out of these, both offices are lying vacant and two shops are with tenants and one shop is occupied by petitioner no.2 and one shop is lying vacant. As per the reply the property is only one side open. The three shops on the front are not suitable as two are already on rent and one is with the Petitioner no. 2. Site plan of the suit property is perused. The Petitioner no.1 requires the suit property to open a boutique. Hence, it is very natural that a site which is on the main road and not on the back side is more preferable because it will attract more customers and will be more beneficial for the business. The landlord cannot be expected to occupy the offices located on the backside so that the tenant can use and enjoy the better located property. Further, three shops are located on the front side and one is in the occupation of Petitioner no.2. Hence, neither of the said shops are available. Further, it is a settled law that once the landlord is able to establish the bonafide requirement, neither the Court nor the tenant can dictate which property the landlord should use. Hence, there is no availability of suitable alternate premises with the Petitioners to start her boutique.
As a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1) (e), DRC Act against the respondent regarding the tenanted premises i.e. private shop no.1, property no. B-3/18, Model Town, New Delhi measuring 8x9 sq. feet. as shown in red colour in site plan. However in light of Section 14 (7) DRC Act, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court On 12th July, 2023 (Niharika Kumar Sharma) ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North Rohini Court/12.07.2023 RC ARC No. 368/16 Maya Rani & Ors. Vs. Daljit Singh Date of order 12.07.2023 Page No. 13/13