Delhi District Court
Savinder Kaur vs Rajesh Kumar on 13 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No: 64/2023
CNR No. DLWT-03-001887-2023
(1) Smt. Savinder Kaur
widow of late Shri Amrik Singh,
(2) Shri Gurdeep Singh
(3) Shri Charanpal Singh
Both sons of late Shri Amrik Singh
All R/o 19/12B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. ....Petitioners
Versus
Shri Rajesh Kumar
Son of Shri Kashmiri Lal
Shop No.10, Ground Floor,
Property Bearing No. E-20, Rewari Line,
Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi.
Also at: B-323, Hari Nagar,
Clock Tower, New Delhi. .....Respondent
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. The Petitioners filed the present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying for passing an order for eviction in favour of the Petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the One Shop bearing Private No. 10, measuring about 7x10 sq. ft., ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.1 of 34 situated on the ground floor of the property bearing No. E-20, Rewari Line, Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises" or premises in question).
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN THE PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioners, that the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest namely Shri Amrik Singh, was the owner of the property bearing No. E- 20, situated in the layout plan of Rewari Line, Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi, and the said property was purchased by him from the previous/erstwhile owners namely Sh. Amrik Singh and Sh. Manjeet Singh, who inducted the respondent as a tenant long ago at the rate of rent of Rs. 400/-, excluding other charges. However, no written rent agreement was entered between the said previous owner and the respondent.
3. It has been been further averred, that the petitioner's predecessor in interest during his life time had filed an eviction petition against some of the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and the orders were passed regarding the deposit of the rent and those petitions are still pending in the Court of Learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.
4. It has been been further averred, that the husband of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioners No. 2 & 3 namely Shri Amrik Singh was having no permanent business and he purchased the said property for the purpose of establishing himself along with his two sons, who are married and unemployed. It has been been further averred, that after the death of Shri Amrik Singh (husband of the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.2 of 34 petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioners no. 2 and 3), the petitioners became the owners/landlords in respect of the said property and they require the premises in possession of the respondent for their bonafide need as they have got no other reasonable, suitable commercial premises to run the business and as such, the present shop as well as the other adjoining shops are in the possession of the other tenants and the same are required by the petitioners. It has been further averred, that the petitioners decided to demolish the existing structure which is very old and is in dilapidated condition and after demolishing the existing structure of the present shop as well as the other shops which are in possession of the other tenants, the petitioners would construct a banquet hall and after constructing a banquet hall, the petitioners would run a banquet hall at the said premises for the purposes of arranging marriages and other functions etc.
5. It has been been further averred, that the place where the property in dispute is situated is on the commercial road and there are several banquet halls existing in the said area and the petitioners have also decided to construct a banquet hall and run the same in conformity with the rules and regulations of the local bodies. It has been been further averred, that the petitioners have got no other reasonable suitable commercial accommodation at their disposal and the petitioner No.2 & 3, who are the sons of petitioner no.1 are having no source of income and the rental income which is being received from the various shops, is wholly inadequate to meet the financial needs of the family because the petitioner No.2 & 3 are already married and they have children and the petitioner No.1 who is the mother of the petitioner ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.3 of 34 No.2 & 3 is also a house wife and has no source of income and after the construction of the banquet hall, a regular income would crop-in and the petitioners would be in a position to maintain themselves as well as their families with the said income.
6. It has been been further averred, that the area where the property is situated, is a commercial area and there is a great demand of the banquet hall as the said property is also situated on the main road and the people would be attracted towards the said banquet hall as there is a big road in front of the same and also there is no problem of parking of the vehicles. It has been been further averred, that the total area of the plot is 240 sq. yards and towards the eastern side of the said property, there is a road measuring 45 ft. and towards the western side, there exists plot No.21 and on the Northern side of the said plot, there is a service road and on the Southern side of the said plot, there is a road measuring 45 ft. It has been been further averred, that the petitioner is having sufficient space for constructing the banquet hall and also parking of the vehicles of the guests so invited in connection with the marriages and other functions at the said banquet hall and the persons who will book the said banquet hall, would have no problem either in ensuring the entry of the guests as well as other family members because huge space would be available at the said banquet hall and the said banquet hall would accommodate more than 1000 persons at one time and there will be no parking problem and even the location of the said area is very good and the banquet hall would flourish at the said site and in this way, the petitioners would be in a position to maintain their family members.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.4 of 34
7. It has been been further averred, that Late Amrik Singh, husband of the petitioner, also wanted to set up a banquet hall but unfortunately, on account of his demise, he could not fulfill his desire of setting up a banquet hall and consequently, the petitioners No.2 & 3 who are the sons, have also decided to fulfill the desire of their father for setting up a banquet hall at the said site which would give a peace of mind to the departed soul.
8. It has been been further averred, that the said property was purchased by the petitioner's predecessor in interest with the sole object that his children would help him in setting up a banquet hall at the said site but unfortunately, the father of the petitioner No.2 & 3 died in the prime time of his life and consequently, the petitioner No.2 & 3 have got no other commercial property except the property in dispute. Lastly, it is prayed that the an eviction order be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
PLEAS TAKEN IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND
9. In the leave to defend application, the respondent has inter-alia stated, that the respondent received the summons of the application along with copy of petition U/s 14(1)(e) D.R.C. Act and the present application for leave to defend was filed within the statutory days. The respondent has vehemently denied each and every statement, averment and submissions made therein as the same are false, frivolous and misconceived and are totally baseless except for which is admitted or a matter of judicial record.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.5 of 34
10. It has been further stated, that the present eviction petition is not maintainable and the respondent has several grounds to contest the Eviction Petition which constitutes triable issues. It has been contended, that the petitioners have not pleaded the entire ingredients U/s 14 (i) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control.
11. It has been contended, that the Petitioners have claimed themselves to be the landlord and owner of the property and further has pleaded that the petitioners needs the property in question for their bonafide requirement which is a vague plea taken by the petitioners just to achieve their ulterior motives and mislead this Court to evict the respondent for their own benefit. It has been contended, that the petitioners are already in possession of the 9 shops in the property bearing Plot no. E-20, Rewari Line, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi-110064 and have sufficient space. It has been further submitted, that the Petitioners have incorporated the false and mischievous facts in the petition as the petitioners are neither the owner of the property nor the land lords to the present tenant.
12. It has been further submitted, that Mr. Narender Singh is the owner of 16 shops situated upon the First Floor of the Property bearing Plot no. E-20, Rewari Line, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi-110064 along with the roof right. It has been further submitted, that when the present petitioners are not the owner of the entire property, how would they demolish the entire building.
13. It has been further submitted, that the original owner of the property ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.6 of 34 i.e. M/s A. Sons has already taken money from the respondent and had handed over the ownership rights to him and since last many years, the respondent is working for gain in the said property and the electricity meter is also installed in the name of the respondent and the house tax qua the property has also been paid/ deposited by the respondent and hence the present petitioners have no right or title in tenanted premises. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners are in habit of issuing false notices and filing the false cases so as to pressurize the tenants to increase the rent or to part with money in order to avoid any mischievous litigation. It has been further submitted, that the respondent has not received any notice from the petitioners. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners are in possession of the 9 shops in the property bearing no. Plot no. E-20, Rewari Line, Mayapuri, Phase- II. New Delhi-110064 and have sufficient space and source of income for their survival.
14. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners have not disclosed in the petition the fact regarding the non-availability of an alternative accommodation. It has been further submitted, that as per the amended CPC, if the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself and for the family members dependent upon him/her, if he/she is the owner thereof, or for any purpose and for whose benefit, the premises are required, he/she must disclose that such a person has no other alternative accommodation. It is submitted, that the petitioners have nowhere pleaded as to how they are claiming themselves to be the landlords and by virtue of which documents and in which manner, they are the owners of the premises.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.7 of 34
15. It has been further submitted, that the petition is also not maintainable for bonafide requirement as the petitioner has not pleaded necessary ingredients of Section 14(i)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, which reads as "that the premises let are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation 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".
16. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners have not pleaded necessary ingredients for bonafide requirement that the petitioners do not have any other alternate accommodation available to them. It is submitted, that the petitioners are in the possession of 9 shops at the ground floor of the suit property and further petitioners are the owner of the Properties bearing No. C-271 Maya Puri New Delhi, area measuring 400 Sq. Yds. and property bearing No. W-102, Maya Puri New Delhi area measuring 100 Sq. Yards. It has been further submitted, that both the properties are situated on main road. It is further submitted, that the Property bearing C-271, Maya Puri New Delhi is a big premises than the present suit property and good for constructing a banquet hall for the purpose of arranging marriages and other functions etc.
17. It has been further submitted, that the ingredients required to make a case under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of DRC Act are well established by the Apex Court and the Delhi High Court of Delhi in ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.8 of 34 their numerous landmark Judgments that the landlord only require to prove three ingredients in order to succeed in section 14 (1) (e) where as it is being held that the court is bound to see the broader aspect while deciding the application. In fact, the petitioners have miserably failed to prove the basic three ingredients, firstly - the petitioners are not the owner of the tenanted premises nor the landlord and secondly - the petitioner lacks bonafide requirement for themselves. This fact is well established that petitioners are the owner of the property bearing no. C-271, Maya Puri New Delhi, area measuring 400 Sq. Yds. and Property bearing No. W-102, Maya Puri New Delhi area measuring 100 Sq. Yards and also have source of income of the rental income which is being collected from 9 shops situated at basement of the property and the other property in the same locality. It is reiterated, that there are many shops in the said building and petitioner is collecting rent from all shops from the said building.
18. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners are suffering a loss and are facing hardship with regard to running their business is totally false and does not stand to any reasonable explanation as the respondent is only holding a small shop in the huge building and on the other end, the petitioners are collecting huge rent from commercial shop and rented residential accommodation, therefore, the petitioners have more than sufficient space to run the same and if the said shop is being taken from him, then it would would lead to the destruction of his family in his old age. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners are earning more than Rs. 10-15 Lac from the different- different properties let out by them in the same area and are of the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.9 of 34 worth of Rs 700 Cr.
19. It has been further submitted, that in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.
v. State of Haryana (Suraj Lamp 1), a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court declared "power of attorney" sales to be an invalid mode of property transfer. A three-Judge Bench issued clarificatory judgment substantiating this point in 2011 in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (Suraj Lamp II). The Court conclusively stated, that the parties could not effectuate a valid sale by executing a power of attorney, nor by entering into a sale agreement (SA) which was followed by a power of attorney (GPA) and will a transaction termed as SA/GPA/will transfer. It is submitted, that as per the Apex court Judgment, the buyer has to pay Stamp Duty to the Govt. at the time of transfer of the title of the property but in that case father of the petitioner no.2 & 3 and husband of the petitioner no.1 had not deposited any stamp duty to the Govt. and further as per the Apex Court ruling, the title of the property cannot transfer through the SA/GPAWill, therefore from the above ruling of the Apex Court it is clear, that Petitioners are neither the landlord or nor the owner of the suit property. It has been further submitted, that the Petitioners have no locus to file the present petition.
REPLY & COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS TO LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/TENANT
20. It has been stated, that the application seeking Leave to Defend is a vexatious, baseless and time-wasting activity carried out by the Respondent as the same is nothing but a counterblast to the genuine ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.10 of 34 and bonafide need of the "suit premises" by the Petitioners and his family members and the contents of the application for Leave to Defend has been denied in totality unless admitted specifically. It has been further stated, that the Respondent has raised no triable issue nad has merely asserted, that the 'tenanted premises' is not bonafidely required by the Petitioners without providing any cogent proof and/or completely deviating from the normal course of nature.
21. It has been contended, that the total area of the plot is 240 sq. yards and towards the eastern side of the said property, there is a road measuring about 45 ft. and towards the western side, there is a plot No.31 and on the Northern side, there is a service road and on the Southern side of the said plot, there is a road measuring 45 sq. ft. and keeping in view the location and surrounding circumstances, it is a fit place for setting up a good banquet hall at the said site and by setting up the banquet hall, the petitioners No.2 & 3 shall look after and maintain their families and also their mother i.e. petitioner No.1, who is a house wife and they have got no other source of income and the mother of the petitioners No.2 & 3 is a widow and she is totally depending upon petitioners No.2 & 3 because there is a joint family and they are living jointly. Various shops existing in the said property are in possession of the tenants and some of the shops are closed and no body is running any business and keeping in view the size of the shops as well as the area where the shops are situated and the said shops are to be demolished and a banquet hall is to be reconstructed at the said site and the petitioners have got all arrangement and funds etc, for the purposes of setting up a banquet hall. It is wrong and denied, ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.11 of 34 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has declared in Suraj Lamp case that the sale on the basis of the power of attorney is invalid. In fact, the Court has observed that the unregistered power of attorney along with the agreement to sell and other documents which are unregistered, the said unregistered documents do not confer any rights in any immovable property but in the present case admittedly, the power of attorney was duly registered before the Sub Registrar, Delhi and registered power of attorney amounts to a conveyance deed in respect of the said property and both the sons of Shri Amrik Singh, who inherited the said property appeared before the Court and made a statement that the said property had already been sold by them to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners herein namely Shri Amrik Singh and as such, the tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord howsoever the defective it may be, premises in dispute is required bonafide.
22. It has been contended, that the husband of the petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioners No.2 & 3 had purchased the said property from the previous owner. The petitioners have annexed the registered G.P.A. dated 07.09.2012 whereby Shri Amrik Singh and Shri Manjeet Singh executed a G.P.A. in favour of the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 & 3 and the said G.P.A. was duly registered and consequently, the registered G.P.A. amounts to a conveyance deed as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and even otherwise, the tenant is not competent to challenge the title of the landlord and the respondent has also failed to pay the rent in respect of the said premises for sufficient long time.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.12 of 34 REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER
23. The respondent has reiterated the pleas taken by him in the leave to defend application in the rejoinder filed by him. It has been prayed, that the requirement of the petitioners is not bonafide and that they are not the owners of the property in question and requested to allow the application for leave to defend.
24. I have heard detailed arguments advanced by Learned counsels for the parties and have further gone through the record carefully. My findings are as under :-
ANAYLYSIS AND FINDINGS
25. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same 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."
26. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.13 of 34 have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
27. These twin thresholds 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.
28. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled out from the discussion above :
(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.
29. It is a settled proposition of law, that burden placed on a tenant is limited and light, provided the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining the order for recovery of possession of premises on the ground specified in clause
(e) being good enough to grant leave to defend.
30. It is further well settled that at a stage, when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima-facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.14 of 34 eviction. Unless, the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would not suit the landlord, leave to defend should not be granted, when it is not the requirement of section 25 B (5). A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted on mere asking all in a routine manner as the same would defeat the very purpose and objective of special provisions entailed under Chapter III A of the Act.
31. It is further settled, that at the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of rival contentions. Assertions and counter-assertions made in affidavit may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at a affirmative conclusion in one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend were either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable.
32. It is further settled, that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a land lord has to establish his need which is genuine and real and not merely his desire.
33. In short and substance, wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend, but a triable issue is raised, a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by Statute itself to grant leave. When a tenant is denied leave to defend, although he had fair chance to prove his defence, he will suffer great hardship. Therefore, a balance view is to be taken having regards to the settled propositions of law and competing claims of the rival parties.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.15 of 34
34. The satisfaction of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus:-
"The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in sub-section (e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.16 of 34
35. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean "in good faith and genuine i.e. without fraud or deceit". Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide"
is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.
OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
36. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant is always a tenant, ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.17 of 34 unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
37. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
38. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.18 of 34 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."
39. 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."
It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
40. Now, in light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case in hand.
41. It is the case of the petitioners, that their predecessor-in-interest namely Sh. Amrik Singh was the owner of the tenanted premises vide virtue of registered GPA, Will along with receipt. The respondent, here, was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner Sh. Amrik Singh, from whom the petitioner's predecessor in interest had purchased the tenanted premises.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.19 of 34
42. Inter-alia, in their leave to defend, the respondent has denied the ownership as well as the landlord tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent and has further submitted that the original owner of the property was M/s. A. Sons and the latter had already taken money from the respondent and thereafter, had handed over the ownership rights to the respondent. It is apposite to note, that no document or any other evidentiary proof with regard to the alleged ownership of the respondent has been placed on record. But it is evident from the averment of the respondent itself, that M/s. A. Sons were the admitted owners to begin with. The petitioners have placed reliance on the statements of the sons of owners of M/s. A. Sons namely Sh. Amrik singh and Sh. Manjeet Singh in support of their contentions. The said statements have been tendered on oath before another Court, whereby it has been categorically stated, that after the death of their father i.e. Sh. Arjan Singh, the legal heirs executed a lease deed in their favour vide relinquishment dated 27.06.2012, whereby both the brothers became the owners of the said property. The said statements also speak loud about the transfer of ownership rights in respect of the property in question to the petitioner's predecessor in interest. The said statements are reproduced below in verbatum :-
"RC ARC No . 15/2017 & 16/17 18.07.2018 Statement of Sh. Amrik Singh, Slo Sh. Arjan Singh, Aged scout 64 years, Rio H. No. A-38, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, (Copy of ADHAAR Card retained on record (OSR)) ON SA My father was owner of the property beaning No. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.20 of 34 E-20, Phase-ll, Mayapuri, New Delhi and he was carrying on the business under the name and style of "A Sons" and after the death of my father the said property devolved upon me along with my brother Sh. Manjeet Singh along with my sisters namely Smt. Davinder Kaur, Smt. Kawaljeet Kaur and my mother Smt. Harbans Kaur and after the death of my father other Legal heirs executed a lease deed in our favour vide relinquishment dated 27.06.2012 and on the basis of relinquishment deed I along with my brother Sh. Manjeet Singh became the actual owner in respect of the said property. I along with my brother sold the said property to the petitioner and executed all relevant documents regarding, the transfer of ownership rights in respect of the said property and I along with my brother have got no concern are connection with respect of the said property and petitioner is the owner of the said property and entitled to deal with the tenant and realize the rent from the tenants in accordance with law.
RO & AC (Rajinder Singh)
SCJ/RC/West/Delhi
18.07.2018"
"RC ARC No. 15/2017 & 16/17
18.07.2018Statement of Sh. Manjit Singh, Slo Sh. Arjan Singh, Aged about 64 years, Rio H. No. A-38, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. (Copy of ADHAAR Card retained on record (OSR)) ON SA My father was owner of the property bearing No. E-20, Phase-II, Mayapuri, New Delhi and he was carrying on the business under the name and style of "A Sons" and after the death of my father the said property devolved upon me along with my brother Sh. Amrik Singh along with my sisters namely Smt. Davinder Kaur, Smt. Kawaljeet Kaur and my mother Smt. Harbans Kaur and after the death of my father other Legal heirs executed a lease deed in our lavour vide relinquishment dated 27.06.2012 and on the basis of relinquishment deed I along with my brother Sh. Amrik Singh became ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.21 of 34 the actual owner in respect of the said property. I along with my brother sold the said property to the petitioner and executed all relevant documents regarding the transfer of ownership rights in respect of the said property and I along with my brother have got no concern are connection with respect of the said property and petitioner is the owner of the said property and entitled to deal with the tenant and realize the rent from the tenants in accordance with law.
RO & AC (Rajinder Singh)
SCJ/RC/West/Delhi
18.07.2018"
43. Therefore, in lieu of the above said statements before the Court of Law, simplicitor denial of the respondent to the ownership and land-lordship of the petitioners does not suffice.
44.Another leg of argument harped upon by the respondent is in lieu of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps and Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, whereby GPA sales are invalidated. Relying upon the said judgment, it is argued that the petitioner's predecessor in interest could not be said to be the valid owners of the tenanted premises.
With respect to the plea of the absence of vesting of ownership in the predecessor in interest of the petitioners are concerned, this Court has no hesitation in stating that the law with regard to the right of the tenant to challenge the ownership of the landlord is fairly settled as well as limited. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of term "owner" vis a vis the tenant that is the owner should be something more than the tenant.
45. It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.22 of 34 right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondent herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title between than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
46.Therefore, in view thereof, the pleas taken by the respondent in the leave to defend challenging the landlordhsip and the ownership of the petitioners are not pleas which raise the triable issue which could disentitle the petitioner from obtaining the eviction order in their favour.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONERS IS BONAFIDE?
47.Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord, this Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term "bonafide" and the law settled in this regard.
48. The word "genuine" means "natural: not spurious: real: pure: sincere".
In Law Diction- ary, Mozley and Whitley define bona fide to mean ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.23 of 34 "good faith, without fraud or deceit". Thus the term bona fide refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The de- gree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bona fide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A require-ment in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra- distinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
49. The question to be asked for deciding the bona fide by a judge of facts, is by placing him- self in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on re- cord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer were in positive the need is bona fide.
50. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between the genuine re- quirement and the reasonable requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v. Nandram Deviram that:-
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is distinction between the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.24 of 34 two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Section 4 (g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was un- reliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."
51. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has in-evitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down". The words "reasonable requirement" undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.25 of 34 desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a land- lord/owner cannot be equated with bona fide need.
52. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words "required bona fide by the landlord" signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate a concept, which is both objec tive as well as subjective. The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be considered in the wider context of the socio-economic conditions obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
53.It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.26 of 34 "..... the crux of ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a primafacie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by the 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 requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself..."
54. On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in hands, it is the case of the petitioner, that their predecessor in interest namely Amrik Singh was the owner of the property bearing no. E-20, Rewari Line, Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi. The shop in question as well as the other adjoining shops in possession of the other tenants are required by the petitioners as they have decided to demolish the existing structure and to construct the banquet hall for the purpose of arranging marriage and other functions etc. over there. It is further contended, that the petitioners have got no other reasonable suitable commercial accommodation at their disposal and the petitioners no.2 and 3 who are the son of petitioner no1 are having no source of income and the rental income that is being received from the other is inadequate to meet the financial needs of the family as petitioners no. 2 and 3 are already married and have their children and petitioner no. 1 who is their mother and a widow is completely dependent upon petitioner no. 2 and 3 for her sustenance, as she has no source of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.27 of 34 income.
55. Per contra, it is stand of the respondent, that 16 shops situated upon the first floor of the property are under the ownership of one Sh. Narender Singh, and therefore it is not possible for the petitioners to demolish the entire property. Accordingly, it is argued that a doubt over the bonafide need of the petitioners arises.
56. It is writ large on record, that the respondents have not placed on record even a single document in support of the contention that 16 shops that are situated on the first floor of the property are under the ownership of one Sh. Narender Singh. The averment made by the respondent is a mere bald averment, not substantiated by any cogent proof. On the other hand, the petitioners have placed on record the copy of registered GPA, Will, etc. in favour of the petitioner's predecessor in interest qua the entire property. Thus, the averment of the respondent are nothing more than a mere averment and therefore, perse not tenable in the absence of any cogent proof to this effect.
It is also argued upon by the Learned Counsel for the respondent, that the entire property in question is a lease hold property under the ownership of DDA and thus the same cannot be demolished by the petitioners. Perse, the said line of argument is beyond the purview of leave to defend application and is primarily hovering around the issue of ownership but be that as it may, even if this contention of the respondent is taken into consideration, it cannot perse be presumed that the petitioners intend to construct the banquet hall ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.28 of 34 without following the parameters of law requiring for taking of adequate steps and measures for conversion of their property from leasehold to freehold for the purpose of construction.
57. Therefore, qua this aspect of bonafide need as well, it can be deduced that there is no triable issue that stands established by the respondent against the petitioners.
WHETHER THE SUITABLE ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATE IS AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS?
58. The respondent has averred in his leave to defend qua this aspect, that the petitioners are in possession of nine shops at the ground floor of the suit property and have sufficient space and means undertaking the construction of a banquet hall there. Further, it is argued, that the petitioner is the owner of proper bearing no. C-271, Mayapuri, Area measuring 400 sq yds and also of another property bearing no. W-102, Mayapuri, New Delhi, area measuring 100 sq yds. It is the plea of the respondent, that both the properties mentioned as above are situated on the main road. It is further averred, that the property bearing no. C-271 Mayapuri New Delhi is a bigger premises than the suit property and is good to construct a banquet hall and run a banquet hall for the purposes of arranging marriages and other functions.
59. Before delving into this aspect, Court deems it fit to discuss the law laid down vide plethora of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court in determining that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is at complete liberty to take this call. Law is well settled that it is the landlord who has to decide as to how and in what manner, he ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.29 of 34 should live and that he is the best judge of his requirement.
In the case of Om Prakash Singhal Vs. Shri Roshan Lal, 1969 RCR 391, it has been held that as a broad workable rule, the landlord must left to assess his requirement in the background of his possession, circumstance, status and life and social and other responsibilities, and other relevant factors.
In Parvati Devi Vs. P. V. Krishna, JT 1987 (1) SC 764 , it has been held as under :-
"The landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live and prescribe for him a standard of their own. There is no law that deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.
In Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja, MANU / SC / 0435 / 2014 : (2014) 15 SCC 610, it has been held as under :-
"It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property AIR 1999 SC 100 (1996) 5 SCC 353 (2014) 15 SCC 610, Neutral Citation Number : 2023 : DHC : 3199 belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business."
In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC / 0087 / 2021, it has been held as under :-
"It is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.30 of 34 with the landlord will be adequate."
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) MANU / SC / 0432 / 1999: (1999) 6 SCC 222, it has been held as under :-
"Once the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the Court."
60. On the basis of the law reproduced on this aspect, coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is the case of the petitioners, that the property in question is ideally situated for constructing a banquet hall as the total area of the plot is 250 sq yds and towards the eastern side of the said property there is a road measuring 45 feet. Towards the western side, there exists plot no. 21 and on the northern side of the said plot, there is a service plot. On the southern side of the said plot, there is a road measuring 45 ft and for setting up a good banquet hall, one requires sufficient space and with respect to the property in question, the petitioner is having sufficient space for constructing the banquet hall and for parking of vehicles of the guests so invited in connection with the marriages and other functions at the said banquet hall. It is further contended that the person who would book the said banquet hall, would have no problem, either in entertaining the guests and their family members as the huge space would be available at the said banquet hall and it would be able to accommodate more than 1000 persons at one time.
The other properties cited as an alternative ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.31 of 34 accommodation by the respondent does not specify as to what is the placement of the property and in context of the peripheral access from all the directions, how are the said properties in question better than the one qua which the present petition is filed. Further, there is no specification pleaded by the respondent qua the alternative properties being vacant and not in tenancy of any other person. Thus, the plea of the respondent not being clear and cogent does not give rise to any triable issue which may disentitle the petitioner for obtaining the eviction order in their favour.
61.The next plea of the respondent is that great hardship would be faced by the respondent in case the eviction order is passed against him.
62.In the considered view of this Court, undoubtedly, in case the eviction order is passed against the tenant, it would cause the hardship to the respondent but the requirement of the petitioners has more importance than the hardship to the respondent as being the owner of the tenanted premises, landlord can not be left suffering merely to save the tenancy of the respondent. Although, this Court has sympathy with the respondent. Moreover, it is well settled law that a Rent Controller is not supposed to weigh such plea of the tenant while deciding the petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
63.Next plea of the respondent is that petitioners want to get the tenanted premises vacated for the purpose of demolition of structure and construction of Banquet Hall.
64. In the considered view of the Court, Section 19 of the DRC Act is ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.32 of 34 already on statute and the respondent can always have recourse to such provision in case Section 19 of the DRC Act is not followed by the petitioners herein.
65.Next plea of the respondent is that the electricity connection is in his name and he has been paying the electricity charges to the Department concerned including property tax.
66.In the considered view of this Court, tenant remains tenant and he can not become owner of the tenanted premises by depositing such charges or taxes.
67. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has relied upon certain case law. In view of exhaustive discussion as earlier, peculiar facts of the case and well settled proposition of law, this case law does not assist the respondents.
Conclusion
68. Therefore, in the teeth of the above exhausted discussion and settled proposition of law, in the considered opinion of this Court, the undisputed conclusion is that the respondent has failed to raise any triable issue, which requires evidence to be proved. The petitioners, on the other hand, have clearly established their bonafide requirement regarding tenanted premises. The application for leave to defend filed by respondent is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, eviction order is liable to be passed against the respondent under Section 25 B (4) of the Act. In view of above, petitioners are held entitled for recovery of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.33 of 34 the tenanted premises, i.e. "One Shop bearing Private No. No. 10 measuring about 7x10 sq. ft., situated on the ground floor of the property bearing No. E-20, Rewari Line, Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan " as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioners 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, no order as to costs.
69. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.13 Announced in the open Court 16:11:35 +0530 on 13.01.2025. Richa Sharma SCJ-cum-RC (West) THC, Delhi / 13.01.2025 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.34 of 34