Delhi District Court
Haji Malik Abdul Rehman (Sr. Citizen) vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar on 28 March, 2022
In the Court of CCJ cum ARC (Central District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Presided by: Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh
Case No. E-600/18
CNR No. DLCT03-004603-2018
In the matter of:-
Haji Malik Abdul Rehman (Sr. Citizen)
S/o Late Haji Mohd. Ramzan,
R/o 1773, Kucha Dakhni Rai,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. ............Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Mahesh Kumar
S/o Sh. K. R. Nair,
At Shop No. 1639, Kucha Dakhni Rai,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. ............Respondent
Date of institution : 21.07.2018
Date of reserved for judgment : 23.02.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.03.2022
Decision : Petition
Allowed
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER
SECTION 14 (1) (e) READ WITH SECTION 25B OF THE
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, AS AMENDED UPTO
DATE
JUDGMENT :-
1. This petition for eviction of tenant/respondent under clause
(e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') is preferred by the petitioner against the respondent for recovery of Shop no. 1639, Kucha Dakhni Rai, CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 1 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:21:40 +0500 Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises').
2. In nutshell, the facts are that the petitioner had purchased the property bearing no. 1635 to 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 from Smt. Sudarshana Malhotra & others vide Registered Sale Deed dated 31.07.1996. At the time of purchase of the said property, the respondent was already a tenant in the tenanted property and this fact can be ascertained from the Civil Suit bearing No. 373/2005 titled as 'Mahesh Kumar Vs. A.R. Malik & Ors.' filed by the respondent against the petitioner. Copy of plaint alongwith affidavit and documents collectively are on record.
At the time of purchase of the said property, the respondent was admittedly paying rent to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner at the rate of rent of Rs. 130/- per month and thereafter, the respondent is paying rent to the petitioner by means of Cheques/Bank Drafts. The respondent issued two notices dated 13.05.2009 and 18.10.2011 tendering rent to the petitioner (photocopies of Cheques and Bank Drafts issued by the respondent are on record). The respondent lastly paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 174/- per month till 31.03.2018 vide Cheque bearing No. 075829 dated 18.04.2018 for a sum of Rs. 1,268/- drawn on Bank of India, Indrapuram Branch, Delhi. Hence, there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The petitioner has a big family and all his family members are dependent upon him for accommodation, whether CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 2 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:21:52 +0500 commercial or residential. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his three sons, namely, (i) Mohd. Irfan, (ii) Mohd. Furqan and (iii) Mohd. Ghufran and four daughters, namely, (i) Ms. Musarrat Jahan (married), (ii) Ms. Ishrat Jahan (married),
(iii) Ms. Nusrat Jahan (married) and (iv) Ms. Rafat Jahan (unmarried) and their respective families. Petitioner is about 68 years of age and is residing in property bearing no. 1773, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 alongwith his two sons, namely, Furqan and Mohd. Ghufran and their respective families, which is exclusively used for residential purpose. The petitioner got the said property under the Registered Partnership Deed (photocopy is on record).
The family of Mohd. Irfan aged 43 years, first son of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife Nargis and four children, namely, Ms. Fatimah Zohra (daughter 19 years), Ms. Ayesha Siddhiqua (daughter 18 years), Ms. Asma Jahan (daughter 8 years) and Mohd. Abdullah (son 13 years). All are residing at H. No. 1638, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. His family is dependent upon the petitioner for accommodation, whether residential or commercial.
The family of Mohd. Furqan aged 41 years (second son of the petitioner) consists of himself, his wife Mst. Shahnaz and five children, namely, Mohd. Talha (son 16 years), Mohd. Zubair (son 4 years), Sarah Naaz (daughter 13 years), Uzma Sarah (daughter 10 years) Sarah Noor (daughter 1 year). His family is dependent upon the petitioner for accommodation, whether residential or commercial.
The family of Mohd. Ghufran aged 37 years, third son of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife Sharunnisa and three CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 3 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:22:11 +0500 children, namely, Mohd. Tayyab Dehelvi ( son 15 years), Ms. Tuba Nazz (daughter 13 years), Mariya (daughter 8 years). His family is dependent upon the petitioner for accommodation, whether residential or commercial.
Petitioner's three daughters Ms. Musarrat Jahan, Ms. Ishrat Jahan and Ms. Nusrat Jahan, are married and are residing in their respective matrimonial houses. However, the fourth daughter, namely, Rafat Jahan, aged 29 years is unmarried and is residing with the petitioner at H. No. 1773, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 and is a Graduate from Delhi University and is now pursuing her professional degree of Chartered Accountancy.
The petitioner is carrying on his business of Tour & Travel with his son Mohd. Ghufran in partnership from premises No. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. The petitioner is also carrying on business of Pharmacy, i.e, Chemist shop with his son Mohd. Irfan from premises No. 1635, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.
Third son Mohd. Furqan is looking after the jewellery business of the petitioner. The petitioner is running the said business as proprietor, carrying out from the shop at ground floor of property 1773/A, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002 under Name & Style M/s Fine Palace House of Jewellery.
Shop bearing no. 1640 & 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 are in the possession of tenants Satya Prakash and Abhinav Jain respectively. The sons and the daughters of the petitioner are all dependent upon him for commercial as well as residential accommodation and have no other suitable business accommodation with him/them in Delhi, CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 4 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:22:23 +0500 except tenanted premises. The petitioner has a big family to maintain, wants to expand his business activities and requires the suit premises bonafide for himself or for family members dependent upon him, so that the family of the petitioner can live harmoniously, happily and can sustain the rising cost of living in Delhi.
The son of the petitioner Mohd. Ghufran started his business of perfumes and fragance under the Name & Style of M/s Malik Perfumes from the premises Gali No. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, Delhi. However, this business could not pick up due to insufficient space.
In order to have some more space for running the business of Tour & Travel, being carried out from the premises no. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, this premises was merged with the premises no. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi in the year 2015 but that merger could not be found adequate, so this petition is preferred to have the tenanted premises for expansion of Tour & Travel business of the petitioner. It is stated that at the time of filing of the present petition and as of today, there is no independent premises bearing no. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
The petitioner and his family members, (i.e., sons and daughters) dependent upon him for accommodation are in possession and occupation of following properties :-
a) The ground floor of the Property bearing No. 1773/A, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is a shop where the petitioner is running his jewellery business alongwith his son Mohd. Furquan as detailed hereinabove.
b) Property bearing No. 1773, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 5 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:22:37 +0500
Ganj, New Delhi-110002, consisting of first floor, second floor and third floor, is in possession and occupation of the petitioner, his sons, namely, Mohd. Ghufran and Mohd.
Furquan, who are residing there alongwith their respective family members as detailed hereinabove. The daughter of the petitioner Mst. Rafat Jahan is also in possession and occupation of the said property. During the pendency of the present petition, Mst. Rafat Jahan got married to Mohd. Wasi in the month of October, 2018, however, she is continuously visiting the petitioner and her brothers in her pre-matrimonial home and occasionally stays overnight. The petitioner got the said property under the Registered Partnership Deed (photocopy is on record).
c) House No. 1638, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is in possession and occupation of Mohd. Irfan, son of the petitioner, who is residing there alongwith his family members as detailed hereinabove. The said property consist of two floors, i.e., first floor and second floor.
d) Premises No. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is a shop from where the petitioner is carrying on his business of Tours and Travels with his son, namely, Mohd. Ghufran in partnership. Shop no. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, was merged/amalgamated with premises no. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 in the manner as detailed hereinabove in the year 2015. Hence, there is no independent premises bearing Shop No. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.
CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 6 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:22:50 +0500
e) Premises No. 1635, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, is a shop from where the petitioner is carrying on business of Pharmacy (Chemist Shop) alongwith his son, namely, Mohd. Irfan.
f) Shop bearing No. 1640, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is in possession of the tenant, Shri Satya Prakash.
g) Shop No. 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is in possession of another tenant, namely, Shri. Abhinav Jain.
The petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafide for accommodating the growing Tour & Travel business and to expand the same. He also requires tenanted premises bonafide for his daughter Rafat Jahan, who is Graduate from Delhi University and is now pursuing her profession degree of Chartered Accountancy. The petitioner and any member of his family dependent upon him for accommodation have no other suitable accommodation in Delhi, except the tenanted premises from where they can carry out or expand the business of Tour & Travel and further, to accommodate Mst. Rafat Jahan. It is stated that G.D. Kapoor, tenant, who was occupying the premises bearing no. 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002, had vacated the premises about 05 years back and immediately thereafter, Sh. Abhinav Jain was inducted as tenant in this premises and is paying rent of Rs. 30,000/- per month to the petitioner.
Upon the above quoted facts, prayer is made for passing an eviction order against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner with respect to the tenanted premises.
CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 7 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:23:05 +0500
3. Summons were served upon the respondent, who filed the leave to defend application alongwith detailed affidavit, which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 08.07.2019, directing the respondent to file written statement by 07.08.2019.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that on 07.08.2019, the day when written statement was filed by the respondent, an application u/o 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment in the petition alongwith amended petition was filed by the petitioner. This application was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 20.08.2019, subject to cost directing the respondent to file amended written statement as well as directing the petitioner to file replication.
5. Amended written statement of defence was filed by the respondent citing the preliminary submissions that the petitioner has not turned up in the Court with clean hands. It is stated that the present eviction petition is not for bonafide requirement of the petitioner or for his family members but for additional accommodation to expand the business. However, it is not mentioned which business the petitioner wants to expand. The petitioner is the owner and in possession of properties bearing Municipal No. 2069 to 2077 (old) & 1635 to 1641 (New), Illaka XI, situated in Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002 and also of property bearing no. 1173, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 and has specifically not mentioned the accommodation available to him or his family members. The petitioner has filed the incorrect site plan of only CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 8 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:23:21 +0500 ground floor of property no. 1635 to 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 and has not shown the floors available. The petitioner and his family members have sufficient accommodation to run their business. It is stated that the petitioner has concealed the material facts in the petition and he is trying to show the requirement of married daughters and their respective families and also for unmarried daughter for carrying out professional and business activities of his family members and to expand his family businesses. It is stated that married daughters of the petitioners are not dependent upon him for running any business as their husbands' families are having their commercial business and are not dependent upon the petitioner for commercial accommodation. Admittedly, the petitioner has let out the shop bearing no. 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 to Sh. Abhinav Jain at the rate of rent of Rs. 30,000/- per month, after getting the same evicted from Sh. G. D. Kapoor. Had the need of the petitioner been bonafide, he would not have let out the same to Sh. Abhinav Jain. It is stated that the main intention of the petitioner is to get the tenanted premises vacated and to re-let it on exorbitant rate of rent or for selling the same at prevailing market rate. It is stated that the petitioner wants to pressurize the respondent to increase the rent from Rs. 174/- per month to Rs. 10,000/- per month, which is illegal. The respondent has no other commercial accommodation for running his business because the family members of the respondent are very well dependent upon him. It is stated that the petitioner and his family members have sufficient accommodation to run and to expand their business of Tour & Travel. It is stated that the petitioner wants the tenanted CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 9 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:23:35 +0500 premises for expansion of his Tour & Travel business but the petitioner has not filed any document in this regard. Nor has the petitioner filed any document showing that Tour & Travel business is being run from the property no. 1636-1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. The premises bearing no. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002 is very much independent in existence. The present petition is filed on false and concocted story only to evict the respondent from the premises.
On the abovesaid grounds, prayer is made for dismissal of the present petition.
6. Replication was filed by the petitioner to amended written statement of the respondent, wherein re-affirming and re-iterating the facts mentioned in the petition and denied the defences taken by the respondent.
7. In support of his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A relying upon several documents as follows :-
1) Copy of Sale Deed dated 31.07.1996 is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2) Copy of the plaint alongwith affidavit, documents and summons received from the Court of Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi is Ex. PW1/2 (colly.).
3) Notices dated 13.05.2009 and 18.10.2011 issued to the petitioner tendering the rent alongwith photocopies of cheques and bank drafts issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner towards rent is Ex. PW1/3 (colly.).CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 10 of 24 Digitally signed
SANTOSH by SANTOSH
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.03.28
SINGH 17:23:49 +0500
4) Site plan is Ex. PW1/4.
5) Copy of Partition Deed alongwith the site plan is Ex.
PW1/5 (colly.) (OSR).
6) Copy of rent receipts of property no. 1772, Kucha Dakhani Rai, Darya Ganj, Delhi is Ex. PW1/6 (colly.) (OSR).
7) Site plan of property no. 1772, Kucha Dakhani Rai,Darya Ganj, New Delhi is Ex. PW1/7.
8) Copy of Rent Note of Sh. Abhinav Jain pertaining to premises bearing no. 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi is Ex. PW1/8 (OSR).
9) Photographs pertaining to property no. 1635-1641 & property bearing no. 1770, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya, Ganj, Delhi is Ex. PW1/9 (colly.).
PW was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent and PE was closed vide order dated 07.02.2020.
8. In respondent's evidence, the respondent himself entered the witness box as RW1, tendering his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A. RW was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and RE was closed vide order dated 12.03.2020.
9. I have heard the arguments tendered by Sh. M. Salim, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Counsel for the petitioner has filed the written arguments alongwith judgments titled as 'Sunder Singh Talwar Vs. Kamal Chand Dugar', 2018 (3) CLJ 105 Delhi, 'Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors.', (2018) SCCR Page No. 247, CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 11 of 24 SANTOSH Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:24:09 +0500 'Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Muddasani Sarojana', (2016) 12 SCC 288, 'Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation Vs. Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd.' bearing R.C. REV. No. 132/2011 decided on 02.11.2011, M/s A.K. Woolen Industries & Ors. Vs. Sh. Narain Gupta, bearing R.C. REV. No. 495/2017 decided on 31.10.2017, 'Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh & Anr. Vs. Sudarshan Kumar & Anr.' bearing Civil Appeal No. 231-232 of 2021 decided on 27.01.2021, 'Hameeda Shahzad Vs. Shahjahan Khatoon & Ors.' bearing R.C. REV. No. 662/2015 decided on 31.01.2017, 'Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai & Ors.', IV (2002) SLT 250.
I have also gone through the entire material placed on record carefully.
10. In order to succeed in the case, the petitioner must establish:
(i) His ownership over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
(ii) The petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafide for himself or for the family members dependent upon him.
(iii) The petitioner doesn't have any other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation.
Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties :-
11. So far as the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 12 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:24:27 +0500 premises is concerned, it is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner had purchased the properties bearing no. 1635 to 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 vide Registered Sale Deed dated 31.07.1996 Ex. PW1/1 from its earlier owners, namely, Smt. Sudarshana Malthora & Ors. At that time, respondent was already tenant with respect to the tenanted premises and this fact can be ascertained from the Civil Suit bearing No. 373/2005 titled as 'Mahesh Kumar Vs. A.K. Malik & Ors.' filed by the respondent against the petitioner. Copy of plaint alongwith affidavit and documents are collectively Ex. PW1/2.
Although, ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises has not been disputed by the respondent and the respondent categorically admitted in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises.
12. It is a well settled law that in rent cases, the petitioner is not required to prove absolute ownership over the tenanted premises. Prima facie, it is sufficient for the petitioner to show by producing the document(s) that he or she is the owner of the tenanted premises for the purpose of the DRC Act.
13. In the present case, perusal of pleadings, evidence and the entire material placed on record suggest that the petitioner has proved his ownership qua the tenanted premises vide Ex. PW1/1.
14. So far as the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is concerned, as per the petitioner, the CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 13 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:24:40 +0500 respondent was already a tenant in the tenanted premises at the time of purchase of the suit property vide Registered Sale Deed dated 31.07.1996 and the respondent was paying rent to the erstwhile owners at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month. The petitioner states that the respondent had issued two notices dated 13.05.2009 and 18.10.2011 to the petitioner tendering the rent alongwith photocopies of Cheque and Bank Draft vide Ex. PW1/3 (colly.).
Per contra, the respondent has admitted in the written statement as well as in evidence that he is a tenant in the tenanted premises and he used to pay rent @ Rs. 130/- per month and after enhancement, he is paying Rs. 174/- per month to the petitioner. He has also admitted that the suit shop/tenanted premises is shown in 'red' colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/4.
15. In order to prove the relationship, the petitioner has relied upon Ex. PW1/3 (colly.) and Ex. PW1/4 and these exhibits have not been denied by the respondent. Moreover, the respondent has himself admitted in his evidence that he is a tenant in the tenanted premises and is paying rent to the petitioner. All these exhibits have been proved on record and there is a categorical admission by the respondent that he is a tenant of the petitioner.
16. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned discussion, in the light of pleadings, evidence and the entire material on record suggest that the petitioner has proved the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties for the purpose of the DRC Act.
CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 14 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.03.28
SINGH 17:24:54 +0500
Bonafide requirement :-
17. The next element of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is whether the need of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises is bonafide or not.
18. In this regard, it is stated in the petition that the petitioner is carrying on his business of Tour & Travel with his son Mohd. Ghufran in partnership from premises No. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. The petitioner has merged premises no. 1636 with 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 in the year 2015. But even then, the more space could not be achieved. It is stated that since this business of the petitioner is expanding, therefore, in order to meet the growing needs of business of Tour & Travel, the petitioner needs the tenanted premises for its expansion. It is stated that the petitioner has a big family to maintain and all his family members are dependent upon him. Therefore, in order to achieve the growing needs of the family, the expansion of Tour & Travel business is necessary. It is stated that petitioner also requires the tenanted premises bonafide for his daughter Rafat Jahan, who is Gradutate from Delhi University and now is pursuing her profession degree of Chartered Accountancy. Therefore, the tenanted premises is required bonafide for the expansion of Tour & Travel business and for his daughter, Rafat Jahan.
Per contra, it is stated by the respondent that the petitioner has not turned up in the Court with clean hands. The present eviction petition is not for bonafide requirement of the petitioner or his family members but the same is for additional CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 15 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:25:07 +0500 accommodation to expand the business. However, the petitioner has not mentioned which business he wants to expand. The family members of the petitioner are not dependent upon the petitioner. The petitioner has tried to show need for his unmarried daughter for carrying out professional and business activities. The petitioner wants the tenanted premises for expansion of his Tour & Travel business but the petitioner has not filed any document in this regard. Nor has the petitioner filed any document showing that Tour & Travel business is being run from the property no. 1636-1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. The need of the petitioner is only for additional accommodation for expansion of his Tour & Travel business, which cannot be said to be a bonafide need. The main intention of the petitioner is to get the respondent evicted from the tenanted premises and the petitioner would re-let/sell the same on exorbitant rent.
19. In order to prove the bonafide need, the petitioner has deposed that he is running the business of Tour & Travel with his son Mohd. Ghufran in partnership from premises no. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. He has also deposed that in the year 2015, he merged premises no. 1636 with 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 for getting more space for his business. However, even after this merger, sufficient space could not be obtained, so he needs the tenanted premises for expansion of his Tour & Travel business. He has deposed that he also needs the tenanted premises for his daughter Mst. Rafat Jahan.
In evidence, the respondent has admitted that the petitioner CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 16 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:25:23 +0500 is in the business of Tour & Travel and Perfume business from premises no. 1636-1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, as shown in Ex. PW1/4 at point 'D'.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment tiled as "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 100", has held that :
".....The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself....".
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Saroj Malik v. O.P. Gupta bearing RC. REV. No. 122/2013 and CM 5176/2013 dated 29.08.2014 has held that :-
"The landlord's need for a tenanted premises could be not only on one but on a number of grounds and all of them could well be taken as grounds for eviction. They cannot be treated as competing needs, but would only go to show urgency for the need of the premises on different counts. Insofar as the landlord has shown that need existed both for himself as well as for his grandson alongwith his mother, nothing further required to be seen in the matter. Hence, the petitioners are at liberty to use the premises for any of there bonafide requirements as mentioned in the petition."
After going through the abovesaid judgments, it can clearly be said that at no point of time or at any stage, the Court CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 17 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:25:39 +0500 shall doubt the bonafide need of the petitioner in any way, unless some strong/cogent evidence has been led by the respondent/tenant to rebut this presumption. Above judgments are very much categorical and clear which suggest that the Court shall act upon the presumption that the need of the petitioner/landlord is genuine and true. These judgments also suggest that number of grounds for bonafide need may be taken in a one eviction petition and such petition is absolutely within the ambit of law.
21. Therefore, in the light of the above-said judgment, and the discussion made above, the bonafide requirement of the petitioner qua tenanted premises stands duly proved.
22. The another point raised by the respondent is that the tenanted premises is required by the petitioner for additional accommodation/expansion of his Tour & Travel business.
23. The law regarding the expansion / additional accommodation is very much made clear by the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder K. Tandon, (1998) 4 SCC 49, Siddalingamma Vs. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC 561, Sh. Kishan Kumar Alag Vs. Jambu Prasad Jain, (2009) 161 DLT 511 and Vinod Arora Vs. Deepak Aggarwal, 2010 (119) DRJ 221, wherein it was held that:-
"Where the landlord wishes to occupy the comfort of his premises, law doesn't command or compel him to squeeze or dwell in lesser premises so as to protect the tenant's continue occupation in tenanted premises."CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 18 of 24 Digitally signed
SANTOSH by SANTOSH
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.03.28
SINGH 17:26:20 +0500
It was further held in case titled as Sh. Kishan Kumar Alag Vs. Jambu Prasad Jain (supra), that :-
"The plea of the tenant that since the landlord has sought additional accommodation then it was a good case of grant of leave to defend, must fail and it was held that once on accessing the requirement of the landlord and the accommodation already available with the landlord, it was found that the landlord requires additional accommodation, leave to defend has to be denied."
In case titled as Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajinder K. Tandon (supra), wherein it was held that:-
"The plea that the landlord was already in occupation of sufficient accommodation and was seeking additional accommodation by evicting the tenant, doesn't entitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises in question and upheld the order of refusal of leave to defend. The Court has to see whether the need of the petitioner is bonafide, then it becomes immaterial whether the accommodation regarding which the eviction petition is filed is required by the landlord either for expansion or for additional accommodation."
24. In the present matter also the petitioner has been able to establish his need as bonafide, therefore, it has now become immaterial whether the tenanted premises which he needs is for the expansion or addition to the already premises in landlord's possession and this fact will not dis-entitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises which is under the tendency of the respondent. The landlord being the best judge of his / her requirement has full choice with regard to the selection of accommodation / space. Rent Control Act does not make any difference between requirement of tenanted premises when the landlord is not in possession of any accommodation and the requirement of tenanted premises when the landlord is in possession of some accommodation and needs more or additional CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 19 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:26:42 +0500 accommodation. So, the requirement of the tenanted premises, whether it be on account of no accommodation or for additional accommodation have to be treated at par.
25. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, as also keeping in view the above judgments, the plea of additional accommodation of the respondent is unsustainable and hence, immaterial.
Availability of alternative reasonable suitable accommodation with the petitioner :-
26. The next element of 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is whether the petitioner possesses alternate reasonable suitable accommodation with him.
27. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner or his any family member doesn't have residential/commercial property(s) in Delhi, from where bonafide need may be satisfied. It is stated that the petitioner and his family members, i.e., sons and daughters dependent upon him for accommodation are in possession and occupation of following properties :-
a) The ground floor of the Property bearing No. 1773/A, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is a shop where the petitioner is running his jewellery business alongwith his son Mohd. Furquan as detailed hereinabove.
b) Property bearing No. 1773, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, consisting of first floor, second floor and third floor, is in possession and occupation of the CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 20 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:26:57 +0500 petitioner, his sons, namely, Mohd. Ghufran and Mohd.
Furquan, who are residing there alongwith their respective family members as detailed hereinabove. The daughter of the petitioner Mst. Rafat Jahan is also in possession and occupation of the said property. During the pendency of the present petition, Mst. Rafat Jahan got married to Mohd. Wasi in the month of October, 2018, however, she is continuously visiting the petitioner and her brothers in her pre-matrimonial home and occasionally stays overnight. The petitioner got the said property under the Registered Partnership Deed Ex. PW1/5(colly.) (photocopy is on record).
c) House No. 1638, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is in possession and occupation of Mohd. Irfan, son of the petitioner, who is residing there alongwith his family members as detailed hereinabove. The said property consist of two floors, i.e., first floor and second floor.
d) Premises No. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is a shop from where the petitioner is carrying on his business of Tours and Travels with his son, namely, Mohd. Ghufran in partnership. Shop no. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, was merged/amalgamated with premises no. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 in the manner as detailed hereinabove in the year 2015. Hence, there is no independent premises bearing Shop No. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.
e) Premises No. 1635, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 21 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:27:17 +0500 Delhi, is a shop from where the petitioner is carrying on business of Pharmacy (Chemist Shop) alongwith his son, namely, Mohd. Irfan.
f) Shop bearing No. 1640, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is in possession of the tenant, Shri Satya Prakash.
g) Shop No. 1641, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, is in possession of another tenant, namely, Shri. Abhinav Jain.
Apart from these properties, the petitioner doesn't have any commercial property, from where he can satisfy his bonafide need for expansion of his business of Tour & Travel or for his daughter Rafat Jahan.
Per contra, it has been deposed by the respondent that the petitioner and his family members have sufficient accommodation to run and to expand the business of Tour & Travel or for his daughter Rafat Jahan. It is stated that sufficient properties are available with the petitioner or with his family members in Delhi.
28. In the present matter, the petitioner has already given the details of properties available with him or his family members and the respondent has put only one objection with regard to shop no. 1637, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002 to the effect that this shop is independent and is never merged with 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002, from where the business of Tour & Travel is being done by the petitioner with his son in partnership. Nor has the petitioner filed any document of merger of property no. 1637, CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 22 of 24 Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:27:36 +0500 Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 with property no. 1636, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi- 110002. Moreover, the respondent has not filed any list the properties available with the petitioner as alternate one.
29. In case titled as 'Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. Vs. Smt. Prabha Khanna & Anr.' bearing RC REV. No. 44/2004 decided on 03.10.2008, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that :-
"The suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances, including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his need."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in another case titled as 'Om Prakash Bajaj Vs. Sh. Chander Shekhar', 102 (2003) DLT 746, wherein it was observed that :-
"Suitability of the alternate premises cannot be determined by mere counting the rooms. But it has to determine keeping in view the totality of facts, the nature of need pleaded by the landlord, his and his families standard and style of life and the purpose to which the landlord wants to actually put it after coming it into possession. The landlord has right to choose which of the accommodation is required by him for himself and for his family members."
30. 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 does have any other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation to satisfy bonafide need. Therefore, it can be said that no other reasonable suitable CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 23 of 24 Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.03.28 SINGH 17:27:57 +0500 alternate accommodation is available with the petitioner.
31. Another contention of the respondent is that the site plan Ex. PW1/4 is not correct. However, this objection/contention is not sustainable because no counter site plan has been filed by the respondent.
32. 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 respondent u/s 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e., Shop no. 1639, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, 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 possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
33. File be consigned to record room.
SANTOSH Digitally signed
by SANTOSH
KUMAR KUMAR SINGH
Date: 2022.03.28
SINGH 17:28:07 +0500
Pronounced in open Court (Santosh Kumar Singh)
th
on 28 Day of March, 2022 CCJ cum ARC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CIS No. E-600/18 Haji Malik Abdul Rehman Vs. Mahesh Kumar Page 24 of 24