Delhi District Court
Sh. Madan Lal vs Sh. Sunil Charla on 20 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No.- 25267/2016
1. Sh. Madan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Hari Chand
2. Sh. Mohan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Hari Chand
3. Sh. Jaswant Lal
S/o Late Sh. Hari Chand
All at:
R/o F-228, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092. ... Petitioners
VERSUS
Sh. Sunil Charla
S/o Late Sh. K.K. Charla
Grandson of Sh. J.D. Charla
At:
27/4, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
Also at:
112, Golf Links, New Delhi. .... Respondent
Date of Filing : 23.05.2013
Date of Judgment : 20.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Present case is a petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 1 of 19 eviction in favour of petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. one hall on the ground floor with common WC and a part of open space i.e. a part of property No. 5/15, Kirti Nagar, Small Industrial Area, Delhi, more specifically shown and marked in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
2. In the present petition, it is inter-alia averred by the petitioner that the tenanted premises was let out to late Sh. J.D. Charla through Lease Deed dated 10.11.1976. That father of petitioners late Sh. Hari Chand was the original owner of the property bearing No. 5/15, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi wherein tenanted premises is situated. And father of petitioners rented out the tenanted premises to the grandfather of respondent namely late Sh. J.D. Charla on a monthly rent of Rs. 1200/- per month which was enhanced to Rs. 1600/- per month which was being tendered to the present petitioners. That petitioners require the tenanted premises bonafidely as their children are grown up and the petitioners want to start their own business from the tenanted premises. That they do not own any other premises to satisfy the bonafide need except the tenanted premises. That present petitioners had earlier filed a petition for eviction of respondent but the same was withdrawn on 04.08.2012 with liberty to file afresh as it was non maintainable.
Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioners that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 2 of 193. Notice of the eviction petition was sent to the respondent. In response to which, the respondent filed detailed leave to defend application along with accompanied affidavit which was allowed ultimately and the respondent was given an opportunity to file Written Statement.
4. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia contended that petitioners had earlier filed a petition No. E- 205/2011 which was decided vide order dated 04.08.2012 as it was withdrawn only for the reasons as no grounds U/Sec. 14(1)
(e) of the D.R.C. Act were mentioned. That there was no averment in respect of bonafide requirement in the aforementioned petition. That the present eviction petition has been filed only after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court covering the commercial properties also for eviction U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act. That the tenanted premises are not required by the petitioners or their children and the petitioners are having other accommodation which they have not disclosed. That their children are well settled and even petitioners are already having sufficient accommodation and they are running business for the last many years. That petitioners have disputed the status of respondent as tenant hence, they are not entitled to seek eviction of the respondent. That tenanted premises is industrial in nature and not commercial.
It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioners have neither filed any document of ownership of the tenanted premises nor supplied any copy thereof. That tenanted premises was let out for manufacturing activities. That the alleged lease deed is inadmissible for want of registration and ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 3 of 19 proper stamps. That petitioner Sh. Madan Lal is a retired person and he has no intention to work. Moreover, both the sons of Sh. Madan Lal are gainfully working for the last more than two decades and not dependent upon the petitioners. That one of the sons of the petitioner i.e. Sh. Vipin is running his shop successfully for the last many years. Similar is the case of sons of Sh. Mohan Lal and Sh. Jaswant Lal. No document in respect of ownership of Sh. Hari Chand has been placed on record. The respondent has been accepted as tenant and the rent has been received from him.
Lastly, it is prayed by the respondent that present petition may be dismissed with costs.
5. Record reveals that replication has also been filed by the petitioners to the written statement filed by the respondent. The petitioners have denied all the allegations levelled by the respondent and reiterated and reasserted all the facts as stated in the petition.
6. Thereafter, after completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for Petitioner's Evidence/P.E. Petitioners examined petitioner no. 1 Sh. Madan Lal as PW-1 and petitioner no. 2 Sh. Mohan Lal as PW-2 and Sh. Jaswant Lal as PW-3.
On the other hand, evidence was also led by the respondent, who examined Sh. Lalit Kumar Handa as RW-1 and closed respondent's evidence and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have carefully gone through the testimonies, documents, material on record and case law relied upon.
ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 4 of 198. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be 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 should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
9. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 5 of 19(i) & (ii). Landlordship/Ownership:-
10. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the petitioners have claimed to be the landlord and owners of the tenanted premises on the ground of inheritance. On the other hand, the respondent has disputed the landlordship and ownership of the petitioners on the ground that they have not placed on record any proof of ownership of Sh. Hari Chand or themselves.
In case titled as 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 eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & ors 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :-
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
11. It is well settled that the petitioner/ landlord need to prove ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 6 of 19 the ownership in absolute terms. He has merely to show that he is more than the tenant and in the present case the petitioners have been able to prove that they are more than the tenant. Moreover, the respondent has not stated in the W.S., who is the owner of the tenanted premises if not Sh. Hari Chand or the petitioners. Moreover, in the present case, the respondent has admitted that the tenanted premises were let out and also admitted that the respondent was paying rent to the petitioners. Hence, indirectly the respondent has admitted the landlordship of the petitioners.
As such, in view of Sec. 116 of Indian Evidence Act, the respondent/ tenant cannot challenge the ownership of his landlord and if he wants to challenge it, he can do it but only after the discontinuous in the tenanted premises but he is still in the tenanted premises. Hence, he cannot challenge ownership of the landlord Sh. Hari Chand.
In the case titled as Sri Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagan Nath & Ors 1976 AIR 2335, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed :-
"the relationship between the parties being that of landlord and tenant,only the landlord could terminate the tenancy and institute the suit for eviction. The tenant in such a suit is estopped from questioning the title of the landlord Under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The tenant can not deny that the landlord had title to the premises at the commencement of the tenancy. Under the general law, in a suit between the landlord and tenant question of title to the leased property is irrelevant."
Furthermore, in the case titled as Subhash Jain vs. Ravi Sehgal in RC Rev. No. 292/2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under :-
ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 7 of 19"The other objection of the petitioner is also without any force that the sale deed dated 29th March, 1993 is a sham document. The petitioner cannot object the history of ownership of the suit property in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord as he has not a contender to the suit property."
In the case of Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and Shanti Sharma vs. Ved Prabha, 1987 RLR 526 SC, wherein it was held that it is not the concern of the tenant as to how the landlord acquired the property.
In the case of Bharat Bhushan Vij vs. Arti Techchandani, 2008 (153) DLT 247 in paras 4 and 5 it was held as under :
"4. The concept of ownership in a landlord- tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 8 of 19 the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner."
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent has no right to dispute the title or ownership of the landlords/ petitioners.
As such, these two ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act regarding landlordship and ownership are satisfied.
(iii) & (iv). Bonafide requirement and Alternative accommodation:-
13. It is expedient to discuss some case law on these ingredients which are as under:-
In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 9 of 19 requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come."
In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 10 of 19"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff- landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
The moral duty of a father/mother to help establish his/her son/daughter was also recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal" [AIR 2002 SC 2256] in the following words:
"24........Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 wherein it was held that:-
ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 11 of 19"It will be seen that the trial court and the appellate court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement" to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity". According to them, if the plaintiff had not permanently lost his job on account of the lockout or if he had not resigned his job, he could not be treated as a person without any means of livelihood, as contended by him and hence not entitled to an order for possession of the shop. This test, in our view, is not the proper test. A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. The manner in which the courts have gone into the meaning of "lockout" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 appears to us to be nothing but a perverse approach to the problem. One cannot imagine that a landlord who is in service should first resign his job and wait for the unknown and uncertain result of a long-drawn litigation. If he resigned his job, he might indeed end up in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the 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 bona fide or a reasonable requirement or that it was motivated or was a mere design to evict the tenant".
In the case titled as Ram Babu Agarwal vs. Jay Kishan Das 2009(2) RCR 455, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 12 of 19 sometimes they are successful in the new business also."
In the case titled as Lajpat Rai Vs Raman Jain 2012 Law suit (Del) 1439, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"The facts have been disclosed by the petitioners himself in the eviction petition; the petitioners also being a commerce graduate from the Shri Ram College of Commerce seeks an independent business of his own; thus this need to set up a business of his own cannot be in any manner be said to be imaginative or a need which is moonshine; it is a genuine need; the present petitioners having inherited this shop from his grandmother by virtue of the aforenoted Will wishes to set up his own business of rubber and latex which he was earlier carrying on with his father and in which he has gained expertise and knowledge. Thus in no manner can it be said that this need of the landlord is not a bonafide need. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement; it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to him; neither the Court tell him the manner he wishes to set up his business."
14. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the petitioners have sought the tenanted premises as they want to start their own entrepreneurship from the tenanted premises and have claimed that they do not own any other premises to cater this bonafide need.
On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that the petitioners do not have any bonafide requirement as they and their family are already settled and the respondent has also claimed that the petitioners are having other alternative accommodations.
I have carefully and minutely gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses and material on record.
Perusal of written statement filed by the respondent shows that although the respondent has claimed that the petitioners are having the ownership and possession of several ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 13 of 19 properties but he has not mentioned the details thereof in his written statement and has merely made the bald averments. Moreover, the respondent has also claimed the petitioners have concealed several properties owned by them but he has not stated even a single property which is owned by the petitioners and in possession of the petitioners.
15. It is well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of the property should be available to the petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. The property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be reasonably suitable property. If the petitioner/landlord has filed the eviction petition for commercial bonafide requirement but the property available with the petitioner is residential one, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation.
It is well settled whether the property available with the petitioner is convenient and suitable or not is to be determined from the point of view of the petitioner/landlord and not from the point of view of the tenant/respondent. The respondent/tenant cannot dictate the terms to the petitioner to use the property in the particular manner. The petitioner/landlord is the best judge of his requirement.
In case titled as "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta"
[2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi)], it has been held that the children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one.ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 14 of 19
16. In view of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court; it is well settled that a person is not supposed to remain unemployed till the disposal of the eviction petition. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing malafide if the petitioners want to start their businesses. Rather, the said requirement seems to be bonafide as they want to earn their livelihood and the tenant cannot stop the landlord/family member of landlord from starting any business for livelihood. The bonafide requirement of a landlord does not become malafide just because landlords want to run business for their livelihood from their own property. The consequent hardship to tenant from eviction order could also not convert otherwise bonafide requirement into malafide requirement. In my view, it is a right of every person to excel in his/her life and a person is not supposed to be remained in same position.
17. One of the contentions of the respondent is that one petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act was earlier filed by the petitioners was withdrawn by them which shows their malafide.
I have perused the eviction petition and the material on record. Eviction petition clearly shows that the petitioners have themselves mentioned this fact in column No. 19 of petition and has also given the reasons for such withdrawl.
In my considered view, nothing concrete has been placed on record which shows the malafide on the part of the petitioners in filing the present petition. It is well settled that the petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act can be filed any time when the bonafide need arises and there is no limitation of time. Moreover, it is undisputed fact that afore-mentioned petition was withdrawn by the petitioners themselves and it was not decided ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 15 of 19 on merit. Hence, in my view the withdrawal of such earlier petition itself does not show the malafide on the part of petitioners.
18. Another contention of the respondent is that present petition has been filed because of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
It is pertinent to note here that the scope of the Section 14(1)(e) D.R.C. Act has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India" [AIR 2008 SC 3148] so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes also within the scope and ambit of a petition under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
As such, this plea of the respondent does not have any substance.
19. One of the pleas of the respondent is that the tenanted premises is industrial in nature and not commercial.
In my considered view, for the purposes of U/Sec. 14(1)
(e) of the D.R.C. Act, there are only two categories; one residential and the second one is commercial and certainly industrial premises is also included in commercial premises.
As such, this plea of the respondent is also devoid of merit.
20. Next plea of the respondent is that Lease Deed is inadmissible for want of registration and proper stamping.
In my considered view, this plea also does not have any substance as the landlordship and ownership are already proved.
ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 16 of 1921. Another plea of the respondent is that petitioner Sh. Madan Lal is a retired person and he has no intention to work.
In considered view, even a retired person can do work or start the business even after the retirement and there is no embargo put by the law or anyone else. I have gone through all the contentions of the respondent which, in my considered view, have no merit.
22. It is well settled that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
It is well settled that the need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner should be bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.
Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in favour of the landlord also and the courts should not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their perception carried away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of eviction.
23. I have placed myself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 17 of 19 premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And I have also applied a practical approach instructed by the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement. In view of discussions as earlier and well settled proposition of law, I am of the considered view that the need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner in the present case is bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.
24. In my considered view, in view of the discussions earlier, the petitioner is not having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with them to satisfy the bonafide need as mentioned in present petition. Moreover, the respondent has not been able to prove on record that the petitioner is having malafide and alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with them.
25. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court.
I have gone through the case law relied upon by Ld. Counsels for the parties. The case law relied upon by the respondent do not assist the respondent in view of the exhaustive discussion as earlier, peculiar facts of the case, settled law and material on record.
CONCLUSION:-
26. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled position of law and the reasons as discussed earlier, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have been able to prove all the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. As such, the present eviction ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 18 of 19 petition is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. one hall on the ground floor with common WC and a part of open space i.e. a part of property No. 5/15, Kirti Nagar, Small Industrial Area, Delhi, more specifically shown and marked in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition Ex. PW-3/B.
27. However, this judgment shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
28. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY NAGAR
Announced in the open Court Date:
on 20th February, 2020
NAGAR 2020.02.20
17:03:15 +0530
(This judgment contains 19 pages)
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller,
West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 25267/16 Sh. Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Charla Page 19 of 19