Delhi District Court
Laxmi Devi vs Jai Ram on 23 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHRUTI CHAUDHARY
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
DLSH030012582017
RC ARC No : 310/2017
Laxmi Devi
Through LR Madhu Singh,
W/o Suraj Pal Singh,
R/o B-120A, 2nd Floor, B Block,
Pandav Nagar, Delhi.
........Petitioner
Versus
Jai Ram Gupta,
S/o Sohan Lal,
R/o D-825/25 (Near Jain Kirana Store)
Gali No.7B, Shiv Gali
Ashok Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110093
Also at:-
Jai Ram Gupta,
S/o Sohan Lal,
R/o D-1/769, Gali No. 7B,
Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-93.
........Respondent
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (a), (d)
& (e) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.06.2017
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 17.02.2024
DATE OF DECISION : 23.03.2024
RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the petition filed by the petitioner under section 14 (1) (a), (d) & (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, non-residence of the respondent or his family members at the premises for a period of six months immediately preceding the filing of present petition & on the ground of bona fide requirement of the petitioner.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner in respect of premises bearing no. D-825/25, Street No. 7B, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-93, which is shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises" in short). It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the demised premises measuring 104 square yards out of Khasra No. 825 situated at Village Gokalpuri Ilaka Abadi of Ashok Nagar in which the respondent is a tenant in respect of one room, Kacha Chhappar, toilet alongwith open space at monthly rate of Rs. 3,000/-. It is submitted that the demised premises were let out for the residential purposes, however, neither the respondent nor any family members of the respondent has been residing in the said premises and the respondent is using the said premises for the purpose of godown for his business of catering. It is submitted that respondent and his family members are already residing at D1/769, Gali No. 7B, Shiv Gali, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-93. Further, it is stated that petitioner is a senior citizen of 75 years age facing acute financial crises and hardship as the respondent has failed to pay the rent from February, 2015 and the petitioner has decided to keep her daughter namely Poonam with her to take care of her in her old age as she has no son. It is further stated that RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 2 of 21 the petitioner bonafidely requires the abovesaid premises for the work of running boutique by her daughter Poonam. It is also averred by the petitioner that she has time and again requested the respondent to pay the arrears of rent from February, 2015 but the respondent has extended the same for one reason or another and petitioner has already asked the respondent orally for vacating the premises but the respondent sought time for the same. It is also stated that the petitioner had approached police officials from SHO PS Jyoti Nagar on 23.07.2016 and thereafter it was amicably settled between the parties that two months would be provided for vacation of the tenanted premises and that the respondent would pay four months previous rent alongwith two months extension on or before 23.09.2016 but the respondent failed to either pay the rent or vacate the premises and thereafter a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in September, 2016 as a false case. It is also stated that the petitioner sent a legal demand-cum-quit notice dt. 18.02.2017 to the respondent, duly sent on 21.02.2017 and delivered on 25.02.2017. Therefore, the petitioner has sought eviction of the respondent from the demised premises as shown in red colour in the site plan.
3. Summons of the present petition was issued to the respondent on 08.06.2017 and WS was filed by the respondent on 25.08.2017. In their WS, the respondent has denied the case of the petitioner and has stated that the present petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and correct facts. He has stated that the petitioner has filed the present case as a counterblast to the suit for permanent injunction which was filed by the respondent and that the respondent is paying rent regularly but the petitioner never issued any rent receipt to the respondent at any time till date. the respondent has denied that the tenanted premises was left for residential purposes and has submitted that the tenanted premises was for godown or confectionery purposes and for preparing confectionery items since the date of inception of tenancy. It is also submitted that the respondent has been using the RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 3 of 21 demised premises for commercial purposes for go down and preparation of confectionery items since the date of inception of the tenancy and that the demise premises was let out to the respondent by the petitioner's husband namely Shri Megh Singh and after the death of Shri Megh Singh, the petitioner became the owner and respondent became the tenant under the petitioner. He has denied that the rate of rent was ₹3000/- per month and has submitted that initially the rate of rent was ₹800/- per month and currently the rate of rent was ₹1000/- per month, excluding electricity and water connection. He has further denied that the tenanted premises but let out to the respondent in January 2010 and has stated that he has been the tenant in the demise premises for more than 15 years before the filing of his reply on 25.08.2017. The respondent has denied that any settlement took place before police officials between him and the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner came to the respondent along with her associates on 24.09.2016 and asked him to vacate the suit premises but the respondent refused to vacate the same and on this, the petitioner tried to dispossess the respondent from the demised premises forcefully by throwing his goods but due to the intervention of the neighbours, the petitioner could not succeed and dispossessing the respondent. He has further stated that on 23.07.2016, the petitioner had called the police and the police took the respondent and the petitioner to the police station where the police got written from the respondent that he would vacate the suit premises on 23.09.2016 forcibly by threatening to send him to jail. Therefore, the respondent has denied all the averments made by the petitioner and has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
4. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 01.11.2017, reaffirming the contents of the petition and denying the contentions made by the respondent in his reply. During the pendency of the court proceedings, petitioner Lakshmi Devi had expired and the daughter of the deceased petitioner, namely Ms. RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 4 of 21 Madhu Singh, was substituted as petitioner being one of the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner wide order dated 04.03.2020.
5. After pleadings stood complete, matter was listed for evidence.
6. The daughter of petitioner namely Ms. Madhu Singh, appointed as SPA holder of petitioner, examined herself as PW1 and relied upon the following documents: -
1. Special Power of Attorney dated 01.09.2018 Ex. PW1/1
2. Copy of Aadhar Card of Smt. Laxmi Devi is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR)
3. Copies of property documents Ex. PW1/3(colly) (running into 6 pages)
4. Copy of legal notice dated 18.02.2017 alongwith its postal receipt dated 21.02.2017 and its delivery report dated 25.09.2017 Ex.
PW1/4(colly)
5. Copy of reply of legal notice dated 10.03.2017 Ex. PW1/5
6. Copy of police complaints dated 23.07.2016 and 24.09.2016 is Ex.
PW1/67. Copy of compromise between the parties marked as Mark X
8. Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent is Ex. PW1/7(OSR)
7. In her cross-examination, PW1 has testified that she has seven siblings, out of which one brother namely Harish and one sister namely Sharma had already expired. She has further stated that all the sisters are married and that Ms. Poonam was married in the year 2007, who is a homemaker having her matrimonial home at Mathura. She has further stated that Ms. Poonam was residing with the deceased petitioner as on 07.08.2019 in Bihari colony, where they have a house add measuring 50 square yards, having two rooms on each floor being constructed up to RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 5 of 21 3rd floor, being at the distance of 7-10 kms from the demised premises. She has denied that the respondent had paid rent up to 30.09.2016 to her father and that after his death she refused to receive the rent and the respondent has been depositing the same with the court since then. She has denied that any security of ₹50,000 was provided by the respondent to her father at the time of creation of tenancy and has further denied that the tenanted premises was provided to the respondent for being used as a godown instead of being used as residential premises. She has also denied that the respondent has been a tenant in the tenanted premises for the past 15 years. she has further denied that the compromise entered into between the parties was effected at the police station by exercising influence by the police upon the respondent and has further denied that the house of her mother was sufficient for commencing business by her sister Miss Poonam. She has further denied that the petitioner wished to sell the tenanted premises and had already taken earnest money for selling the plot. She has further denied that she is deposing falsely. Thereafter, vide separate statement of PW1, PE stood closed on 07.08.2019.
8. Thereafter, the respondent examined himself as RW1, relying upon his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. RW1/A and upon the following documents:
1. Application for deposit of rent from October 2016 to March 2017 vide DR No.156/2018 i.e. Ex. RW1/1
2. Application for deposit of rent from April 2017 to December 2017 vide DR No. 483/17 i.e. Ex. RW1/2
3. Application for deposit of rent from 01.01.2018 to 31.08.2018 vide DR No.256/2018 i.e. Ex. RW1/3
4. Application for deposit of rent from 01.09.2018 to 31.12.2018 vide DR No. 394/2018 i.e. Ex. RW1/4
5. Application for deposit of rent from 01.01.2019 to 30.04.2019 vide DR No. 25/2019 i.e. Ex. RW1/5 RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 6 of 21
6.Application for deposit of rent from 01.05.2019 to 31.07.2019 vide DR No. 227/2019 i.e. Ex. RW1/6
7. Copy of plaint vide suit no. 10818/2016 titled as "Jai Ram Gupta vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi" i.e. Ex. RW1/7
8. Copy of written statement filed by petitioner in the above suit i.e. Ex.
RW1/8.
9. In his cross-examination, the respondent has admitted that the deceased petitioner was aged 75 years as on 25.10.2019. he has denied that he had not tendered rent after February 2015 and has voluntarily stated that he was tendering went to the petitioner till September 2016 but he has not filed any documentary proof of payment of rent as he used to pay the same in cash. He has denied the suggestion that he had never visited the petitioner for tendering of rent and had filed frivolous petitions for deposition of rent before the court concerned. He has also denied that the monthly rent was ₹3000/- per month. He has reiterated that the police had pressurized him to write a compromise and fixing a date of eviction as 23.09.2016. he has admitted that he has not given any written complaint to any higher authority about the above stated pressure tactics by the police at the time of compromise. He has denied that he has purchased the shop two years back in front of his house in Ashok Nagar, Delhi. He has admitted that the suit property is not in a condition to habitat any person. He has further admitted that he has not vacated the suit premises on 23 September 2016 and filed a suit against the petitioner instead. He has admitted that he was having good relations with the family of the petitioner and that he had been working as a caterer in the family marriages of the petitioners family. He has stated that he did not remember when he had lastly visited the petitioner to tender rent. He has admitted that the suit premises are situated in a residential colony and has further admitted that the suit premises does not have any water or electricity connection. He has stated that he is not running any shop from RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 7 of 21 the suit premises. He has admitted that there was no written agreement between the parties and has denied that the suit premises were not given to him for commercial use. he has stated that he had not taken any permission from MCD for the work of catering business from his suit premises he has denied that he had not tendered monthly rent of ₹3000/- per month since February 2015 despite repeated requests on demand by the petitioner with the intention to grab the suit premises. He denied that he was deposing falsely. Thereafter, RE stood closed.
10. Arguments were advanced with equal vehemence on behalf of both the parties. I have heard the rival submissions and have perused the court record thoroughly.
11. Before dwelling into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law applicable in the present case: -
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 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 any court or 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 the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served of him by the landlord in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882);
...
(d) that the premises were let for use as a residence and RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 8 of 21 neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof;
(e) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence 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 residential accommodation;
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, "premises let for residential purposes" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;
...
Section 25B- Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement: -
(1) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A [or under section 14B or under section 14C or under section 14D] shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. (2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every application referred to in sub-section (1), in the form specified in the Third Schedule.
(3) (a) The Controller shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may ,if the circumstances of the case so require, also direct the publication of the summons in a RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 9 of 21 newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain .
(b) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article, the Controller may declare that there has been a valid service of summons.
(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files and affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.
(5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (c ) of the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A. (6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 37, the Controller shall, while holding and inquiry in a proceeding to which this Chapter applies, follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence.RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 10 of 21
(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section:
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. (9) Where no application has been made to the High Court on revision, the Controller may exercise the powers of review in accordance with the provisions of Order XLVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(10) Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A, shall be the same as the procedure for the disposal of applications by Controllers.
12. In order to bring an eviction petition under section 14(1)(a) DRC Act, the following requirements must be met-
a) there should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
b) there should be a non-payment or tendering of legally recoverable rent from tenant to landlord.
c) a notice of demand should be served on the tenant by the landlord.
d) the tenant should not have paid the arrears of rent within two months of service of such notice.
13. Coming to the facts of the present case, there is no dispute pertaining to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the same has been duly admitted by the respondent. Pertaining to the legally recoverable rent, the respondent RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 11 of 21 has challenged the appointment of the petitioner that the rate of rent was ₹3000/- per month, stating that earlier the rent was ₹800/- per month and currently the rent was ₹1000/- per month. The respondent has admitted that there was no written agreement between the parties pertaining to creation of tenancy and none of the parties have been able to prove before this court as to what was the actual rate of rent being charged by the petitioner from the respondent immediately before filing of the present petition. The petitioner has relied upon the legal notice dated 18.02.2017, Ex. PW1/4, by way of which the petitioners had demanded the areas of rent at the rate of ₹3000/- per month from the month of February 2015 till date from the respondent. The said notice was duly served upon the respondent and the reply dated 10.03.2017, Ex. PW1/5, was given by the respondent, in which the respondent had stated the then current rate of rent to be ₹1000/- per month and had also stated that he had paid rent up to 30.09.2016 but the petitioner had not issued any rent receipt to him till then. No explanation has been provided by the respondent as to why he did not take due recourse u/s 26 of DRC Act when the petitioner refused to issue rent receipts to him. For the sake of perusal, s. 26 DRC Act is being reproduced herein as follows:-
Section 26. Receipt to be given for rent paid.
(1) Every tenant shall pay rent within the time fixed by contract or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable 1[and where any default occurs in the payment of rent, the tenant shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent, per annum from the date on which such payment of rent is due to the date on which it is paid.] (2) Every tenant who makes a payment of rent to his landlord shall be entitled to obtain forthwith from the landlord or his authorised agent a written receipt for the amount paid to him, signed by the landlord or his authorised agent:
Provided that it shall be open to the tenant to remit the rent to his landlord by postal money order. (3) If the landlord or his authorised agent refuses or RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 12 of 21 neglects to deliver to the tenant a receipt referred to in sub-section (2), the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by the tenant within two months from the date of payment and after hearing the landlord or his authorised agent, by order direct the landlord or his authorised agent to pay to the tenant, by way of damages, such sum not exceeding double the amount of rent paid by the tenant and the costs of the application and shall also grant a certificate to the tenant in respect of the rent paid.
14. As such, a tenant is entitled under section 26 (2) of DRC Act to obtain forthwith, from the landlord, a written receipt duly signed for the amount paid to him now and it is evident that the legislation has provided safeguards in case the landlord refuses or neglects to deliver the rent receipt to the tenant as the tenant has a right to approach the controller by filing appropriate application under section 26(3) DRC Act within two months of the said payment. No such record has been produced by the respondent which reveals that such an application was filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller for redressal of his grievances when the rent receipt was refused or neglected by the petitioner. No explanation for said omission has been brought on record by the respondent and therefore, it is the considered opinion of this Court that the respondent cannot be allowed to take the defence of refusal of issuance of rent receipt by the petitioner as he himself had omitted to seek the remedy against such grievance. It is the duty of the tenant to refute the allegations of non-payment of arrears of rent made by the landlord by leading oral or documentary evidence. It is also well settled law that when the petitioner files a petition under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act for non-payment of rent, the onus is always upon the respondent public tenant to prove that he had paid the rent and there were no dues against him, however no such evidence has been led by the respondent. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent has failed to prove that he had tendered the rent to the petitioner for the period of February 2015 to September 2016, even at the admitted rate of rent of ₹1000/- per month.
RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 13 of 2115. The respondent has further averred in the said reply to the legal notice that he had sent the rent by money order until 31.03.2017 but the petitioner had refused to accept the same. He has further stated in his evidence that he has deposited the rent for the period of October 2016 to 31.07.2019 before the court concerned by way of various petitions under section 27 DRC Act, Ex. RW1/1 to Ex. RW1/6. It is clear that no steps were taken by the petitioner to withdraw the above stated rent deposited by the respondent, even during the pendency of the present trial. No explanation for this omission on part of the petitioner has been brought forward by Ld. counsel for petitioner before this Court. Even if the respondent had not admitted the entire rate of rent as alleged by the petitioner, the petitioner was at liberty to withdraw the rent already deposited by the respondent before the court concerned before pressing upon the present petition under section 14(1)(a) DRC Act. It cannot be said that the respondent had completely failed to make payment in terms of the legal notice served upon him by the petitioner. Therefore, it is the considered opinion of this court that the petitioner has been unable to satisfy all the ingredients of s. 14(1)(a) DRC Act.
16. Now, to prove their case under section 14(1)(d) DRC Act, it is the onus of the petitioner to prove that the demised premises were let out to the respondent for residential purposes, as alleged by the petitioner, and that the respondent or his family members have not resided in the demised premises for more than six months immediately preceding the filing of the present petition. It is the contention of the respondent that the demised premises were let out to him for commercial purposes to be used as a godown and confectionery and not for residential purposes. The respondent has admitted in his cross-examination that the demised premises were situated in a residential colony, however, has stated that the demised premises had no water or electricity condition. Ld. counsel for petitioner has himself suggested to the respondent, at the stage of his cross-examination, that the suit property was not in a condition to be habitable by any person. Petitioner has failed to show as to how the RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 14 of 21 demised premises could have been let out for residential purposes if the same were not suitable for residence. Both parties have admitted that there was no written agreement between the parties pertaining to the tenanted premises and the tenancy. No oral or documentary evidence has been brought forward by either of the parties pertaining to the purpose for which tenancy was created and therefore it is the considered opinion of this court that since none of the parties have been able to prove their stand, the petitioner has failed to prove their case u/s 14(1)(d) DRC Act.
17. It is a rather entrenched position of law that to bring a case within the contours of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, the following enumerated conditions must be squarely met, which are as follows:-
a) there exists a landlord - tenant relationship between the parties;
b) that the demised premises was let out for either residential or commercial purpose;
c) that the premises are required by the landlord for his bona fide need or for the need of his dependent family members;
d) that the landlord does not have any alternative suitable accommodation available to cater to his needs.
18. The legislature has carved out a special but summary procedure for addressing such contingencies for the larger interests of the landlords. The thresholds hereinabove are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
19. Guided by the foregoing legal tenets to the fact of the present case, it is profitable to note that the landlord - tenant relationship vis-à-vis demised premises is nowhere in dispute between the parties. Though the Act mentions only the RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 15 of 21 premises let out for residential purpose, however the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the celebrated case of Satyawati Sharma V. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 287 had obliterated the distinction between premises let out for residential and commercial use for the purpose of invoking provisions of section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. The better title of the petitioner qua demised premises is also not in dispute nor is the fact that the suit property was let out by him to the respondent for commercial use. Therefore, the first and second ingredient of section 14(1)(e) stands satisfied.
20. The third and the most important ingredient which needs to be satisfied before an order of eviction can be passed in favour of the petitioner is the existence of a bona fide need of the demised premises by the petitioner or any other family member who may be dependent upon him.
21. In order to evaluate whether the need of the petitioner is bona fide or not, an analysis of the legislative and judicial connotation of the term, "bona fide" is essential. In this context, it is relevant to recount the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100, wherein it was held that:
"...The crux of the ground envisaged in clause
(e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be 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 RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 16 of 21 the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself..."
22. It is apparent from the aforementioned observations that whenever a pe- tition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is scrutinised and the landlord is able to show a prima facie case of such requirement, it is open to the court to draw a presumption that the requirement is bona fide.
23. At the stage of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that he has proven his case on the scale of balance of probabilities inasmuch as he has established his bona fide requirement for securing eviction of the respondent from the demised premises. He has further argued that Laxmi Devi, now deceased, re- quired the premises for the boutique business of her daughter Poonam. The respon- dent has not raised any triable issue in his WS challenging said bona fide need of the deceased petitioner. The petitioner had deceased during the pendency of the proceedings, and still, no suggestion has been given by Ld. counsel for respondent that the bona fide need of the petitioner ended when she expired and that no such need existed anymore. Therefore, it is deemed to be admitted by the respondent that the bona fide need of Ms. Poonam to continue/start her boutique business in the demised premises survived the death of the petitioner Laxmi Devi.
24. Apropos thereof, reliance may be placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the matter of Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 17 of 21 landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfill the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use... 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 the 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."
25. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of Saeed ur Rehman Khairi v. Almas Arshai decided on 14.03.2023 wherein it has been ob- served by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that: -
"it is common knowledge that in a metropol- itan city like Delhi where the real estate prices are astronomical and rentals are high, grown up children are also dependent upon their parents for requirement of ac- commodation, whether commercial or resi- dential."
26. In this context reliance is also placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kirshan Kumar Gupta Vs. Krishan Shushan Gupta 152 (2008) DLT 556 wherein it was observed that:-
"In this country there is no social security system provided by State and the only social security is the security of the family. For RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 18 of 21 gaining this social security of the family by the aged parents, they have to provide their sons and daughters the living accommoda- tion, if available with them. The requirement of the landlord's sons and daughters and their families even if they are not financially dependent on him cannot be said to be un- justified or a mala fide requirement. If a daughter or son is taking care of the aged father/grandfather and his wife, it would be a bonafide necessity of the landlord, if he desires that his daughter or son should con- tinue to live with him so that he continues to take care of him and his wife. Similarly, when it becomes difficult, due to old age, to move out, a person may desire that his sons and daughters visit him frequently and stay with him and the requirement of the land- lord for this purpose cannot be said to be malafide but is a bonafide requirement."
27. The only defence taken by the respondent as against the claim of bona fide need by the petitioner, at the stage of arguments, is that suitable alternative ac- commodation and was available to the deceased petitioner and her daughter Poonam at Bihari Colony. It has been vehemently argued by Ld. counsel for respondent that Ms. Poonam can easily start/continue her boutique business in the 50 square yards property in which she is residing currently and that the demise premises or not re- quired for any bona fide need by the petitioner. No suggestion in this regard had been put to PW1 by Ld. Counsel for respondent at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. Therefore, it appears that the respondent has impliedly admitted that the said premises was not an alternative accommodation available for the requirement of Ms. Poonam.
28. It is a settled proposition of law that a tenant cannot dictate the manner in which landlord can use his available accommodation as it is the sole prerogative RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 19 of 21 of the landlord to decide as to which accommodation would be most suited for his intended purpose. In this context, reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors (2005) 8 SCC 252 wherein it was held that:
"It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use... It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business..."
29. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gulshera Khanam Vs. Aftab Ahmad decided on 27 September, 2016 spring to mind wherein, it was observed that:
"... The landlord is the sole judge to de- cide as to how much space is needed for him/her to start or expand any of his/her activity..."
30. In this regard reference may also made to a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble high court of Delhi in the matter of Manmohan Singh v. Arjun Uppal & Anr. decided on 29.11.2023 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court that: -
"Landlords cannot be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of their property. Further, the Court is not to sit in the arm chair of the landlords to dictate as to how the property should be utilized. It is the sole discretion of the landlords to get all the tenanted premises vacated and use as per their need."RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 20 of 21
31. Moreover, should the demised premises be not converted to use in the manner contended during trial, it shall always be open to the respondent to seek re- entry in the manner prescribed under the DRC Act itself. It is settled law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how else he can accommodate him- self so as not to inconvenience the tenant. Therefore, this court holds that the peti- tioner bonafidely requires the demised premises for the commercial use of Ms. Poonam.
32. Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the record and ap- preciated the relevant provisions of the law governing the field, this Court is of the con- sidered view that the petitioner has clearly established her bona fide requirement for seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises as all the requisite ingre- dients therefor have been satisfied in the present case. That said, the respondent Jai Ram is liable to be evicted from the demised premises bearing no. D-825/25, Gali No. 7B, Shiv Gali, Ashok Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-93, which is shown in red colour in the site plan.
33. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner under section 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of the DRC Act is hereby allowed, subject to provisions u/s 19 of the DRC Act. It is however made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execu- tion proceedings for recovery of possession of the demised premises before the expiry of six months from today in view of the legislative mandate envisaged in Section 14 (7) of the DRC Act. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open Court on 23.03.2024, this judgment consists of 21 Digitally signed by signed pages. SHRUTI SHRUTI CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date: 2024.03.23 16:31:47 +0530 (SHRUTI CHAUDHARY) ACJ-CCJ-ARC/Shahdara, KKD/Delhi RC ARC 310/2017 Laxmi Devi vs. Jai Ram Page 21 of 21