Delhi District Court
Rajkumari vs Dev Anand on 23 December, 2023
No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand
In the Court of Ms. Neetu Nagar, JSCC cum Additional SCJ cum
Guardian Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
(the then Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi)
ARC No: 80299/16
E - 426/17/16
Smt. Raj Kumari
W/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam Dass,
R/o E-16/915, Gali No.3,
Ganesh Gali, Tank Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. .... Petitioner
VERSUS
Mr. Dev Anand
Prop M/s D.N. Garments
Shop No.4, E-16/915,
Ganesh Gali No.3,
Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. .... Respondent
Date of Filing of petition : 25.05.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 11.12.2023
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 23.12.2023
Decision of petition : Allowed
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of shop bearing No. 4, E-16/915, Ganesh Gali No.3, Tank Road, Karol (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.1 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand Bagh, New Delhi-110005 which is shown in red colour of the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted shop').
FACTS OF THE PETITION
2. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted shop which is being used by the Respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 860/- (Rupees Eight Hundred and Sixty only) exclusive of electricity charges for running a garment shop under the name and style of M/s. D.N. Garments since 1.08.1986, which was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- (Rupees Three Hundred and Fifty only). The respondent from 1.06.2013 till July, 2014, intermittently has been tendering rent to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 860/- (Rupees Eight Hundred and Sixty only) which was increased on 01.06.2013.
2.1 It is submitted that the petitioner is a widow and does not have any source of income and is dependent upon the rentals of the tenanted premises but still the respondent has failed to make the payment since July 2014. The petitioner cannot survive on the miniscule rentals and now needs the shop in question to start her own business from the said shop. It is averred that the petitioner on various occasions requested the respondent to vacate the tenanted shop but the respondent has neither tendered the rentals nor has vacated the property in question and already demand notice has been issued in that regard.
2.3 It is therefore prayed that an eviction order may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises.
FACTS OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. Notice of the eviction petition was sent to the respondent. In response to which, the respondent filed the detailed (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.2 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand leave to defend application which was allowed vide order dated 15.02.2018. Thereafter, the respondent was directed to file written statement. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent. 3.1 It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner is not the owner qua the tenanted shop, the land underneath the shop is acquired land by Union of India/DDA and is delivered to Ministry of Defence for installation of Wireless Experimental Centre. The Ministry of Defence is the owner of the land underneath the shop. 3.2 It is averred that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent has never paid the rent to the petitioner, or her husband Late Sh. Ghanshyam Dass or her father- in- law Late Sh. Charan Singh. The father-in-law and husband of the petitioner have never claimed themselves to be the owner or landlord qua the shop in question. It is submitted that the shop in question is part of Shiv Temple. The land underneath the shop is a part of Khasra No. 1422/662/364/2 of Village Sadora Khurd owned by one Santosh. The Union of India vide its Notification No.F-15 (III)/59/LSG dated 13.11.1959 acquired 34070 Acres of land of Village Sadora Khurd and Chokri Mubarkabad for planned development of Delhi. The award No.1235 was passed on 30.10.1961 and the land owners were compensated by paying award. In the year 1976, the occupants of the area were evicted by DDA and were allotted alternative plot towards village Nangla Sakrawati, Najafgarh, Delhi.The area was fenced with wire and was given to Ministry of Defence for installation of Wifeless Experimental Centre. When the Ministry of Defence did not use the land till 1979, the Sikh Residents with other Hindu Residents broke the fencing wire. The Sikh residents have constructed a Gurudwara and the Hindu residents have constructed one Barat Ghar and one Shiv Temple. Alongwith (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.3 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand Shiv Temple, six shops were also constructed. Sh. Charan Singh out of his influence got installed electricity connection for the supply of electricity in Barat Ghar and Shiv Temple as he was the head of Dhobi Samaj. The fact of acquisition of land by Union of India came to the knowledge of the respondent through status report filed by Admin. Officer, Land & Estate Department of MCD in suit No.423/97 titled as Tersem Singh versus Mangal Singh and further from the written statement filed by DDA in suit No.43/2000 titled as Mangal Singh versus Satender Pal Singh and from the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 22.8.2007 passed in WP (C) 12404/2006 titled as Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha Vs. DDA & ors.
3.3 It is submitted that the petitioner has her own houses bearing E - 16/687 - 688 , Bapa Nagar, Ganesh Gali, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is averred that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of Barat Ghar. The father- in- law of the petitioner Sh. Charan Singh shifted in the Barat Ghar during the renovation/ construction of his two houses, which are situated nearby bearing No. E- 16/687-688 and never vacated the same. Charan Singh was a very influential person, therefore, nobody could raise voice due to fear, for eviction of Barat Ghar from Charan Singh. After the death of Charan Singh, the husband of the petitioner Sh. Ghanshyam Dass raised some construction in Barat Ghar and after the death of Ghanshyam Dass, the petitioner raised the construction of two storey building in the Barat Ghar and also constructed 18 shops therein and let out the shops to the tenants on monthly rent of Rs.3000/- to Rs.5000/- . It is further submitted that on 1.10.1984, the respondent approached care taker Sultan Singh for taking the shop. Sultan Singh directed Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma, the priest of the temple to receive Rs.5000/- as cost of the shop prevalent at that time and put in the donation box (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.4 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand which was paid by the respondent in the donation box at the instance of Sultan Singh Care taker and no receipt was issued. In the same manner, the other occupants of the shop have also taken the shop and are running their business as an owner without title. The respondent was further putting Rs.50/- in the donation box for the maintenance of the temple and now days, the respondent is putting Rs.200/- in the do- nation box. The electricity is consumed from the one common electric meter installed in the temple.
3.4 It is averred that the the respondent is occupying the shop in question as a owner without title since the year 1984 by donating the cost of the shop amounting to Rs.5000/- through Pt. Kailash Chand Sharma in the donation box of the temple. It is submitted that the petitioner is getting rent more than Rs.60,000/- from 18 shops constructed in Barat Ghar, out of which shop No.P-7 is lying vacant and the petitioner can very well start her business from the said shop. Rest of the contentions of the petition have been denied in toto. It has been prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
REPLICATION
4. Replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the written statement of the respondents, wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondents in the written statement has been vehemently denied as false.
4.1 It is stated that the entire property bearing no. E-16/915, Ganesh Gali No.3, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 was owned by the late father-in-law (Late Sh. Charan singh) of the peti- tioner and after his death the property has been bequeathed onto the four sons of Late Sh. Charan Singh and the petitioner is the wife of (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.5 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand one his sons namely Late Sh. Ghyansham Dass. After the demise of her husband, the ownership of property devolved upon the petitioner and she has been paying the House Tax qua the said property. It is stated that if the defense of the respondent is to be believed then he should establish why is he paying rent to the deity and why not the Government for using the subject land/shop. It is further submitted that the averments made with regard to Gurudwara are of no relevance to the present dispute.
4.2 It stated that the entire construction of the Mandir, electricity etc all was all done by Late Shri Charan Singh out of his own funds. It is admitted that Kailash Chand Sharma did not have any title documents in respect of suit property because property belongs to father- in- law of the petitioner. It is submitted that so named Pandit Shri Kailash Chand Sharma or Pandit Hukuma Chand Sharma, as alleged in the application seeking leave to defend, or any other person never had any right to let out any property nor have any one else except the deceased husband of the Petitioner who had let out the subject property on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. It is submitted that complete electricity fittings were provided by the husband of the petitioner while giving the subject property on rent to the respondent and the electricity meter was installed by the deceased father -in- law of the petitioner and later on it was transferred to the name of the husband of the petitioner.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
5. The petitioner has examined Kailash Chand Sharma as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW- 1/A. (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.6 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand 5.1 The petitioner has also examined Pandit Sh. Hukam Chand Sharma as PW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. 5.2 The petitioner has examined herself as PW-3 and tendered the following documents;
Exhibit/Mark Document
Ex. PW-3/1 Site plan
Ex. PW-3/3 Photograph
Ex. PW-3/4 Copy of handwritten note showing rent having
been paid
Mark A Copy of house tax receipt
5.3 During her cross-examination, the petitioner placed on
record documents i.e. power of attorney dated 29.12.2017 executed in her name by Harkaur Devi and others vide Ex.PW3/X1, settlement dated 30.12.2013 vide Ex.PW3/X2, receipts of MCD in the name of Charan Singh, Ghanshyam and the petitioner qua property E-16/915 vide Ex.PW3/X3 and electricity meter vide Ex.PW3/X4. Vide order dated 23.10.2021, evidence on behalf of petitioner was closed.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT
6. The respondent examined himself as RW-1 and relied upon the following documents:-
Exhibit/Mark Document Ex. RW-1/1 Original site plan Mark A Copy of khasra khatoni (NEETU NAGAR)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.7 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand Mark B Copy of order dated 27.03.2022 passed by the Ld. Estate Officer Mark C Copy of written statement filed by MCD in case titled as Mangal Singh Vs. Satender Pal Singh in the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Civil Judge Mark D Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 22.08.2007 6.1 Thereafter, evidence of the respondent was closed vide order dated 07.07.2023.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard the arguments at length. I have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS
8. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce 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:
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.8 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand 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."
9. 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.
(iv) Landlord/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
10. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
I OWNERSHIP AND LANDLORDSHIP
11. Before proceeding further, let us first discuss the scope of ownership in eviction petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ex- plained the scope of the term 'ownership' in matters under rent control (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.9 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand in the decision of Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & ors 1987 AIR 2028, wherein it was observed that the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. Similarly, in the case of Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending evic- tion petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as fol- lows:
"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. Owner- ship is not to be proved in absolute terms."
12. In Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi 157 (2009) DLT 450, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under :
"...It is settled proposition 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 imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of 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 (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.10 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand 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..."
Even otherwise, in an eviction petition, what the petitioner is to prove is that he/she is more than the landlord and abso- lute ownership is not required to be proved.
13. In Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi 157 (2009) DLT 450, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it was held as under :
"...It is settled proposition 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 imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly..."
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.11 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand
14. Thus, the legal position is well established that in a proceeding under Rent Control Act, while the petitioner may not be able to establish a perfect title over the tenanted premises, what is required is that his title must reflect as better than that of the tenant. In simple terms, the title of the landlord must appear to be over and above the title of the tenant.
15. Having discussed the law, let us discuss the facts of the present case. It is contended by the petitioner that she is the owner of the property comprising of tenanted premises. By virtue of being an owner, she has exercised her right of eviction of the respondent being landlord thereof. These submissions of the petitioner have been refuted by the respondent.
16. In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner has placed on record receipts of MCD in the name of her father-in-law Late Sh. Charan Singh, her husband Late Sh. Ghanshyam and herself qua subject property bearing no.E-16/915 vide Ex.PW3/X3 and photocopy of electricity bill vide Ex.PW3/X4 in the name of Late Sh. Charan Singh. The said documents are not disputed by the respondent. It is also not disputed that Sh. Ghanshyam was the husband of petitioner and Late Sh. Charan Singh was the father-in-law of the petitioner. Whereas, there is nothing placed on record by the respondent to prove his title qua the subject matter except for marked documents which have remained unproved on record. It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent has changed his stand repeatedly. It has been stated by the respondent in his written statement that he took the tenanted premises from one priest namely Kailash Sharma at the cost of the shop to the tune of ₹5000 at the instance of care taker namely. Sh. Sultan. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that it is not the version of the respondent that he took the (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.12 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand tenanted shop from its owner but caretaker thereof. Hence, in these circumstances, no title could have ever passed to the respondent by any stretch of imagination as caretaker can not be assumed to be the owner thereof in the absence of any title documents in his favour. The respondent has then changed his stand and has deposed that the property in dispute belongs to the government and one Santosh Kumar. A perusal of the cross -examination of the respondent further clears the picture as he has deposed contrarily that he is the owner of the subject property. There is nothing placed on record by the respondent in order to prove his title qua the subject property. He has deposed very clearly that in the name of ownership of the shop he has only registration certificate of 1987. The original license issued under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1984 as deposed by him was never placed and proved on record. Then in contradiction to his earlier plea, he has testified that he has taken the tenanted shop from Shri Sultan Singh. Although it has been alleged by him that the subject shop is built on government land but he has not placed on record anything to prove the same. In fact, it has come in his deposition that he has not paid any money whatsoever till date to the government for occupation of the subject shop. Hence, the plea on behalf of the respondent that the subject property is a government land is totally meritless being contrary to his own case. Thereafter, the respondent has deposed that the Barat ghar is unauthorised as the land underneath it is unauthorized as the entire land was a military land and was occupied by various persons in parcels. He has deposed that the entire area of Bapa Nagar/Tank Road is unauthorised including the subject shop. But there is nothing on record to prove the same. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of Barat Ghar and father-in-law of the petitioner namely (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.13 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand Shri Charan Singh shifted to Bharat Ghar and failed to vacate the same but there is nothing on record to prove the same. Furthermore, it is also important to highlight one important contradiction of the respondent. The respondent in his written statement has submitted that he has taken the tenanted shop from one Kailash Chand Sharma whereas he has denied the same during his cross-examination and has voluntarily deposed that he has taken the same from Sultan Singh. It is also important to mention that the petitioner has also examined Kailash Chand Sharma as PW1 who has categorically deposed that he does not know any Sultan Singh and he has not given any shop on rent. Hence, the version of the respondent is falsified by the testimony of this witness. The petitioner also examined Pandit Hukam Chand as PW2 who has also deposed on similar lines and submitted that he has never accepted the rent from the respondent.
17. It is also surprising to note that RW1 has deposed that Pandit Kailash Sharma has come after he had started working from the shop in question whereas he has stated in his written statement that he has taken the disputed shop by making payment to Pandit Kailash Chand Sharma. Hence, it is amply clear that this witness is not speaking truth in this regard.
18. It is further clear that the testimony of the respondent that he has crossed all limits of speaking one lie after another. It is his case that the tenanted shop was taken for ₹5000 whereas, during his cross- examination he has deposed that he has paid ₹8000 to Shri Sultan Singh. No receipt was executed. Hence, there is nothing in writing to prove the said transaction. He has not even examined Shri Sultan Singh. Admittedly, the respondent has never paid any property tax with regard to the subject property and he has not even made any effort to get his name changed in the meter connection. The (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.14 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand respondent has admitted that there is only one electricity meter for the six shops. It has been admitted by him that the meter has been purchased in the name of Ghanshyam Das. Then he has deposited he did not ask Ghanshyam Das to get the meter in his name but he did on his own. He has deposed that he did not make any police complaint or any other complain with regard to Ghanshyam Das having got the electricity meter in his name then he has voluntarily deposed that the electricity meter was burnt by the sons of Ghanshyam Das hence, he did not make any complaint. Clearly, the respondent has come out with a new version regarding electricity meter burning which is also beyond his pleadings. Hence, it is indubitably clear that there is noth- ing on record to prove any title on behalf of the respondent. Whereas, the petitioner has proved that she has better claim than the respon- dent.
19. As far as the relationship of landlord or tenant is considered, same has been initially refused by the respondent but the truth has come in the cross- examination of the respondent as he has categorically admitted that there was no specific person who had collected the donation for the construction of Barat Ghar. Thereafter, Rajkumari, Ghanshyam and Rakesh, son of Rajkumari gave the shop on rent. Thereafter, they started taking rent and they all paid rent till long time and stopped paying the rent after the case was filed. Meaning thereby that the respondent was making the payment of rent to the petitioner prior to the filing of the present petition.
20. Hence, the petitioner has duly proved by preponderance of probabilities that she is the owner of the tenanted premises for the purpose of the present eviction petition and that there exists relationship of landlord and rennet between the parties to the present petition.
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.15 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand III. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT -
21. At this juncture, it is necessary to discuss law regarding bonafide need which has been made clear by Hon'ble Apex Court titled as "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 100", has held that :
".....The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself...".
22. It is a settled law that that while deciding the question about bonafide need, Court would look into the broad aspects of the need. In the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.16 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. Bona fide personal need was a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with.
23. The bonafide need must be seen by the whole set of circumstances. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth Viyas v. Ravi Nath Misra, decided on 25.11.2014 that the context of bonafide need, that Rent Control Acts must be interpreted in balanced manner keeping in mind the interest of the landlord also. It has also been held that tenants as a class cannot be treated to be weaker section (Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1987 SC 2117) hence sympathetic or equitable view in the favour of the respondent need not be taken.
24. It is trite law that the term 'need' or 'requirement' should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act.
25. In light of the references made above, it is clear that it is the prerogative of the landlord to utilize his premises the way he desires. He is entitled to assert that he requires the property for his own use or that of his family members.
26. Having discussed the legal position regarding bonafide need, let us revert back to the facts of the present case.
27. The petitioner has contended that she requires the ten- anted premises for herself to start her own business. Per contra, the bonafide need of the petitioner for has been contested by the respondent. It can not be assumed that the need of the petitioner is not (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.17 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand bonafide as nothing has been brought on record by the respondent to prove otherwise.
28. It was argued by learned counsel of the respondent that the present case is a classic case of self induced lack of suitable accommodation. In order to see the landlord's bona fide one has only to see whether the landlord is seeking to get eviction for an ulterior purpose i.e. to let out the property for higher rent to someone else. To my mind, there is no merit in the said arguments as it is well settled that if the landlord does not occupy the tenanted premises/shop and does not start her own business within three years, it is always open to the tenant to invoke Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for getting back the possession of the tenanted premises/shop.
29. Hence, the evidence adduced by the respondent is not sufficient to strike out the bonafide need of the petitioner. The facts in hand show that the petitioner genuinely requires the tenanted shop for her own business as discussed above and therefore the bonafide need stands duly established by the petitioner. Once it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that need is really bonafide then adverse inference cannot be drawn. Hence, this court is of the view that need of the petitioner is bonafide, which the petitioner has proved on record.
IV. AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATE REASONABLE SUIT- ABLE ACCOMMODATION WITH THE PETITIONERS.
30. It is well settled that the availability of alternative accommodation clause cannot be read literally and it does not mean that the landlord should have no other accommodation available. The need is to be seen with respect to the suitability of such accommodation for the said purpose of the tenant. The bar applies (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.18 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand only when the accommodation available to the landlord is suitable. Reference be made to the decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah v. Pushpa Trading Co., 1998 (5) SCC 572 and Rasik Auto Stores v. Navin V. Hantodkan, AIR 1999 SC 113. It was held in the case of in Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan (AIR 1979 SC 272 that the question as to whether in a given circumstance alternative accommodation is available or not is not a matter of which any judicial notice can be taken but is one which had to be proved by evidence as has been emphasized.
31. The burden lies on the respondent to prove the availability of an equally or more suitable premises. In the instant case, the respondent has put forth nothing to substantiate this plea. Even for the sake of argument it is assumed that the petitioner is having various other tenanted shop but that does not stop the petitioner from starting her own business. There is nothing on record to prove if there is another shop which is vacant and available to the petitioner but the petitioner has not availed the same for malafide reason. Mere contentions in this regard on behalf of the respondent is not sufficient without any iota evidence in this regard. Hence, these contentions on behalf of the respondent fails miserably being unsustainable.
32. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, in the light of above cited judgments, pleadings, evidence and the entire material placed on record, the respondent has miserably failed to prove on record that the petitioner has any other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation to satisfy bonafide need of the petitioner for her business. Therefore, it can be said that no other reasonable suitable alternate accommodation is available with the petitioner.
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.19 of 20 No. 80299/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Dev Anand CONCLUSION
33. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e., shop bearing No. 4, E-16/915, Ganesh Gali No.3, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
34. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
35. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court NEETU NAGAR
by NEETU
on 23rd December, 2023 NAGAR Date:
2023.12.23
(This judgment contains 20 pages) 17:40:33 +0530
(Neetu Nagar)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East
Saket Courts: New Delhi
(the then ARC-02, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi).
(NEETU NAGAR)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.20 of 20