Delhi District Court
Sh. Raman Khanna vs Sh. L. R. Narang on 26 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No: 25441/2016
1. Sh. Raman Khanna
S/o Late Sh. J.L. Khanna
2. Smt. Anju Khanna
W/o Sh. Raman Khanna
Both R/o F-10 (Flat No.303)
Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027. ....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Sh. L. R. Narang,
S/o Not known
2. Sh. Parmod Narang
S/o Sh. L.R Narang
3. Sh. Vinay Narang
S/o Sh. L.R Narang
All residents of:-
B 3/130, Janakpuri
New Delhi.
And at Shop No. 2
(Facing Premises No. H-32),
Main Road, Situated at J-92,
Main Market, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi-110027. .... Respondents
Date of Filing : 12.07.2012
Date of Judgment : 26.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 12.07.2012, ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 1 /18 the petitioners filed the present petition Under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No. 2 (Facing Premises No. H-32), Main Road, situated at J-92, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
2. The case of the petitioners is that by virtue of sale deeds dated 24.06.1998 executed by the erstwhile owner/s in favour of petitioners, which were duly registered with the Office of Sub Registrar of Assurances, Janak Puri, Delhi, petitioners became lawful owners, jointly with other co-owners in respect of the property bearing no. J-92, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, including shop no.2, Ground Floor, forming part thereof which is surrounded by shops no. 1 and 3 on the either side and is facing premises no. H-32, Main Road, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 as shown in red colour in the accompanying site plan. That the respondents no.1 namely Sh. L.R Narang was inducted as a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises by the erstwhile owner/landlord for running shop. That arrears of rent in respect of above referred shop were lastly paid by all the respondents to all the then co-owners including the petitioners herein at the mutually increased rate of rent of Rs.165/- p.m. till 30.08.2001 against requisite receipt.
It is further averred by the petitioners that thereafter by virtue of registered Sale Deeds dated 12.01.2004 duly executed by other co-owners in favour of petitioners, petitioners acquired ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 2 /18 the remaining share of ownership in the above referred property and thus, became exclusive and absolute lawful owners of the property bearing No. J-92, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-11027, including shop no. 2, Ground floor, forming part thereof.
Petitioners have further averred that petitioner no. 1 requires bonafide the tenanted premises along with shop no. 4 (under erstwhile separate tenancy of respondent no. 1 & 3) situated adjacent to the tenanted premises, in the same property, for his use and occupation for expansion and better growth of his business of real estate, with the increased financial responsibilities, which is being operated by him from a rented shop situated on side road in property bearing No. J-83, with an inadequate and insufficient area of only 75 square feet and with an inappropriate location and under constant and perpetual uncertainty.
It is further averred by the petitioners that the location of the tenanted premises presently under occupation of the respondents is exactly in the heart of upscale and busy Rajouri Garden Market, situated on ground floor of the property i.e. J- 92, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, which is located on the main Road itself in the vicinity of Malls near the main Raja Garden crossing, surrounded by affluent localities/ colonies and is strategically and is ideally located for business of petitioner no. 1 of property dealers, brokers and estate agents for catering to the needs of affluent clients/ customers and consequently is most suitable for bonafide requirement of petitioner no. 1.
It is also averred by the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 has been continuing his business of real estate property dealers, brokers and estate agents in the name and style of ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 3 /18 Khanna Estate Agency for the last twenty years. That with the surge in transactions of sale, purchase and rent etc. in the locality and consequent growth in the business prospects of petitioner no. 1, the minimum requirement of the petitioner no. 1 for expanding his business after shifting to his own property is 400-450 square feet at present. The portion of ground floor comprising of the demised premises under occupation of respondents, along with shop No. 4, as shown in red colour and in green colour, respectively, in the accompanying site plan, is appropriate and the only alternative for the petitioner no.1, to meet his bonafide requirement. That the petitioner no.1 who otherwise has all the necessary resources and expertise, contacts and clients available at his disposal is thus unable to expand, increase, enhance and rejuvenate his business because of paucity/non-availability of accommodation with him. There is no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to the petitioner no.1. That besides the demised premises in question/tenanted premises, presently under occupation of the respondents, remaining portion of the ground floor of property i.e. J-92, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is presently under occupation of different tenants/occupants.
3. On the other hand, written statement was filed by the respondents in which they have stated that the petitioners have concealed from this Court the exact properties in their possession. The properties actually in possession of the petitioners are:-
i) The entire second floor and third floor of the property No. J-92, Main Road, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 constructed ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 4 /18 upon the land measuring 275.8 sq. yards;
ii) The property no. H-3, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, Delhi constructed upon a land measuring 200 sq. yards consisting of basement floor, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor.
iii) The property No. F-80, Industrial Pocket, Opposite TDI Para Goan Mall, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi constructing upon a land measuring 500 sq. yards.
It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioners have many more properties in their possession but the respondents have not been able to get the particulars of all of them. That the petitioner no. 1 has been running his above mentioned business from his office situated at F-80, Ground Floor, Industrial Pocket, Opposite TDI Para Goan Mall, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. The petitioners sold a shop, part of the property No. J-92 on the ground floor recently (two month's back) where the commercial activities are being run by the new owner. The petitioners have also sold another shop on the ground floor of the property No. J-92 which has now been purchased by the respondents and wife of the petitioner no.1 along with her children has been running the business of selling of gift items there. True copy of the sale deed is enclosed herewith. If the petitioners really had a bona- fide requirement for the premises, they would not have sold a shop, the part of the suit property which could be available to them for running their own business. Similarly, the petitioners have sold the first floor of the suit property by way of a sale deed and also a part of the ground floor portion of the suit ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 5 /18 property (now in possession of the respondents). The premises in question is only a commercial property and is not usable as a residential property. That on the alleged shops numbers are the presumption of the petitioner as no number has ever been assigned to any shop. That the contents of paras no. 2 to 7 of the petition need no comments. That all the respondents are the tenants. The petitioners may kindly be put to the strict proof of their ownership in respect of the suit premises. That the alleged copies of the sale deeds are forged and fabricated documents. The area of the property No. F-80, is sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the purposes of the business of the petitioner no.1. That the property no. F-80, Industrial Pocket, Opposite TDI Para Goan Mall, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is constructed upon a land measuring 500 sq. yards which is more than sufficient for the alleged needs of the petitioners.
4. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for Petitioners' Evidence. The petitioners have examined fifteen witnesses. PW1 Sh. Anand Sharma, House Tax Department, AZI, 59 Block, Ashok Nagar, Delhi brought the summoned record Ex.PW1/A (OSR).
PW2 Sh. Desh Bandhu Gosain, UDC, Office of Sub Registrar-II, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi brought the summoned record Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Sh. Mokhtar Mahto, Record Keeper, Office of Sub Registrar-II, Basai Dara Pur, Delhi brought the summoned records Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW3/2.
PW4 Sh. Sandeep Sabharwal, Clerk-cum-Cashier, Indian Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi brought the summoned records Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/4.
ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 6 /18PW5 Sh. Shivajit Yadav, Record Custodian, Department of Delhi Archives, 18 A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Special Institutional Area, New Delhi brought the summoned record Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/3.
PW6 Ms. Poonam Anand, Dy. Finance Officer, BSES, District Janak Puri, Hari Nagar, New Delhi brought the summoned record Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/5.
PW7 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Sales Officer, HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi brought the summoned record Ex.PW7/1 and Ex.PW7/2.
PW8 Sh. Sanjiv Narang, Chief Section Supervisor, MTNL, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi brought the summoned record Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/3.
PW9 Sh. Ramesh Khanna, President of Main Market Traders Association, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi brought the Directory Ex.PW9/1.
PW10 Sh. Ravinder Singh, PW11 Sh. Jeewal Aggarwal examined.
PW-11 Sh. Jeewan Aggarwal S/o Sh. T.N. Aggarwal, R/o B-37, CC Colony, Delhi was also examined.
PW12 Sh. Lakshman Singh, Draftsman came to witness box to prove the site plan Ex.PW12/1.
PW13 Sh. Kartik Taneja, Record Keeper, Office of SDMC, West Zone, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi brought the summoned record Ex.PW13/1.
PW14 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, JJA, Record Room Civil, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi brought the summoned record Ex.PW14/1 to Ex.PW14/4.
PW15 Sh. Raman Khanna, petitioner No. 1 examined himself by way of affidavit Ex.PW15/A and he relied upon the ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 7 /18 documents Ex.PW15/1 to Ex.PW15/28.
On the other hand, the respondents examined Sh. Pramod Narang/respondent no. 2 by way of affidavit as RW-1 and he relied upon the documents Ex.RW1/1 to Ex.RW1/5, written submissions and case law.
5. I have gone through the entire record and case law relied upon. I have also carefully gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses, documents, written submissions, case law relied upon and material on record.
6. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 8 /18(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
7. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) & (ii). Landlordship/Ownership:-
8. Perusal of record shows that the petitioners have claimed to be co-owners of the suit property as well as tenanted premises on the basis of registered sale deed dated 24.06.1998 executed by previous landlord/owner of the suit property and registered sale deed dated 12.01.2004 executed by other co- owners in favour of both the petitioners.
On the other hand, the respondents have not disputed the landlordship of the petitioner as they themselves have stated in their written statement that they paid and have been paying rent to the petitioners. Moreover, in reply to paragraph No. 2 to 7, the respondents have stated that contents of para No. 2 to 7 need no comments. And nothing other than this, has been mentioned therein.
As such, respondents themselves have impliedly admitted the landlordship of the petitioners. Besides, in ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 9 /18 paragraph No. 14 of the W.S., the respondents themselves have admitted that all the respondents are the tenants.
In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162 a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & ors 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :-
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
Moreover, the documents placed on record by the petitioners are sufficient to show that the petitioners are something more than the tenants. It is well settled that petitioners/landlords need not to prove their ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for them to show that they are something more than the tenants.
Keeping in view the material on record and the reasons as stated earlier, the petitioners have been able to show that they are something more than the respondents. Moreover, respondents have not disclosed the name of the actual owner of ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 10 /18 the tenanted premises, if the petitioners are not the owners thereof.
9. As such, ingredients in respect of landlordship and ownership are satisfied by the petitioners.
(iii) & (iv). Bonafide requirement and alternative accommodation:-
10. Perusal of record shows that petitioners have sought the tenanted premises for bonafide commercial requirement of himself as he wants to expand his business.
On the other hand, the respondents have claimed that there is no bonafide requirement of petitioners and they are having many properties such as, 2 nd floor, 3rd floor of property No. J-92, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, Delhi constructed upon 275 sq. yards, property No. H-3, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, constructed upon 200 sq. yards having basement, ground floor, first, second and third floor, and property No. F-80, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden constructed upon 500 sq. yards.
Now, the court has to determine whether properties i.e. J-92, Rajouri Garden, H-3, Rajouri Garden and F-80, Rajouri Garden are available to the petitioners and if so, whether these are reasonably suitable commercial accommodation for the purposes for which tenanted premises is required by the petitioners.
Perusal of replication to W.S. filed by petitioners shows that petitioners have not disputed the ownership of the property No. J-92, Rajouri Garden, Delhi but has contended that second floor was sold by the then co-owner including the petitioners in 2003 as there was no bonafide requirement by petitioners.
ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 11 /18As far as, third floor of J-92 is concerned, the stand of the petitioners is that it was never habitable and it is still not habitable as it was sealed by MCD after demolishing it partially.
As far as, property No. H-3, Rajouri Garden is concerned, the claim of the petitioners is that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the said property.
The stand of the petitioners in respect of F-80, Rajouri Garden is that F-80, Rajouri Garden is situated at Industrial Pocket, District Center, West Delhi near Vishal Cinema which is approximately two Kilometer away from the tenanted premises. Moreover, petitioners are not in actual possession thereof or any portion thereof.
It is further claimed by the petitioners that although petitioner no. 2 has undivided share only to the extent of 40% along with Smt. Meenakshi Aggarwal and Ms. Kusum Khurana yet none of the co-owners are able to physically occupy it due to grave differences amongst themselves. Moreover, F-80 is inhabitable.
11. I have carefully scrutinized the testimonies of all the witnesses on record including RW1/Respondent No.2.
It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence of RW-1 Sh. Parmod Narang which is as under:-
"It is correct that the date depicted in the photograph Ex.RW1/4 is 03.07.2018. It is correct that all the shops shown in the above referred photograph were closed at the time of taking the photograph....
....It is correct that the said broucher does not mention about the feature, depicting date, month or year in any photograph taken from the said camera. Vol. It is normally an ordinary feature and so it might not have been mentioned....
....It is correct that as recorded in the orders dated 20.07.2012 in Suit No. 110/2012 that the ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 12 /18 respondent had themselves mentioned number of one of the shops as Shop No. 2, which is also a subject matter of the present petition. Copy of the said order is Ex. RW-1/P-3.....
....It is correct that whole of the basement, portion of the ground floor and portion of the first floor of the property J-92, Rajouri Garden was purchased by one Sh. Rahul Kumar vide sale deed dated 07.01.2004. It is correct that the above referred portion was later purchased by my mother and my wife from said Sh. Rahul Kumar in the year 2004. It is further correct that the above referred portion is in possession of my mother and my wife. It is correct that remaining portion of the 1 st floor of J-92, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was sold by the then owners to Sh. Gurinder Singh Gulati in Feb. 2005. It is correct that whole of the 2nd floor of J-92, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi sold by the then owners to Smt. Renuka Bhardwaj on 30.12.2003.... ....One of the shops in possession of the respondent in property No. J-92, has been shown at point D in photograph Ex.RW1/P4. The portion shown at point E in photograph now Ex.RW1/P5 shows incomplete construction over the 3rd floor of the property bearing No.J-92, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Vol. Since there is a stay from MCD, again said there is an obstruction from the MCD and as such construction has not been completed over the 3rd floor. The portion shown at point F in photograph now Ex.RW1/P6 shows incomplete construction over the 3rd floor of the property bearing No.J-92, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is correct that I have neither placed on record, nor brought even today any document to show that the 3rd floor of J-92, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is being used or can be used. Vol. I can produced it....
....It is correct that I have neither placed on record, nor brought even today any document to show that any portion of the property bearing J-92, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi was sold at any time after the year 2006.
It is correct that I have neither placed on record, nor brought even today any document to show that any portion of the property bearing No.H-3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is under ownership of either of the petitioners or is in possession of the petitioners. Vol. A portion of the said property was being used by the petitioner as their office which has now been given on rent after closing the office.... ....It is correct that my contention that the petitioners were running office in a portion of H-3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi is not pleaded in my W.S. Vol. The petitioners had closed their office ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 13 /18 from the above property, during the pendency of the present petition. It is correct that I have neither placed on record, nor brought even today any document to show that the petitioners had, any point of time had been running their office from any portion of H-3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. It is further correct that I have neither placed on record, nor brought even today any document to show that the petitioners had closed their office and had rented out the said portion of H-3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi during the pendency of the petition. Vol. Since I did not have any access to the 2nd floor of H- 3, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi where the office of the petitioners was being run therefore I could not take any photographs of the same. The property bearing H-3, Rajouri Garden, N.D. is approximately 20-25 shops away from the shops, in respect whereof the present proceedings are continued. I am not aware that property bearing no.H-3, Rajouri Garden, N.D. was purchased by Sh. Raj Kumar Pahwa and Smt. Veena Pahwa vide sale deed dated 08.08.1994 from its then owners or that they continued to be its owners. I am also not aware that the property bearing H-3, Rajouri Garden, N.D. stands mutated in their names in the municipal records vide mutation letter dated 26.04.1995....
.....It is correct that Rajouri Garden Main Market where the shops in question are situated and Vishal Enclave are two different localities. Vol. However they are at a walking distance of two minutes. I have seen the photographs, already Exhibited PW15/DD and Ex.PW15/DC, which have been produced by me and show the property bearing F- 80, Industrial Pocket, opposite TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. It is correct that both the above mentioned photographs show that the property F-80, Industrial Pocket, opposite TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi has incomplete and unfinished structure. Vol. Owing to the pendency of the present proceedings, the structure of F-80, Industrial Pocket, opposite TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi has not deliberately been completed. In fact, I have met the petitioner in their office in F-80, Industrial Pocket, opposite TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. It is correct that the above mentioned photographs were taken by me, after the institution of the present proceedings and for the purpose of filing the W.S. I can not show from the above mentioned photographs, as to in which portion of F- 80, Industrial Pocket, opposite TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi, I claim the office of the petitioner to be existing. Vol. Since F-80, Industrial ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 14 /18 Pocket, opposite TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi is a corner plot, signs of removal of AC are visible from the side elevation of the said building, which are visible in the photograph now Ex.RW1/P9. It is correct that the photograph Ex.RW1/P9 was taken by me at the time of filing of my W.S. It is correct that no air conditions are visible from the photographs Ex.RW1/P9. It is correct that I have neither placed on record nor brought even today any document to show either that the property No. F-80, Industrial Pocket, opposite TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi, was at any time fit for being occupied or that it has ever been occupied, at any time since prior to the institution of the present proceedings, till date. It is correct that the address of the firm of petitioner no.1, I.e. Khanna Estate Agency, is shown as J-38, Rajouri Garden, N.D., in the photograph already Ex.PW15/DC. I do not have any personal knowledge as to whether property F-80, Industrial Pocket, opposite TDI Paragon Mall, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi, is owned by petitioner no.2, Ms. Meenakashi Aggarwal and Ms Kusum Khuarana in the ratio of 40%, 40% and 20% each or that the petitioner no.2 is not its absolute owner..... ....It is correct that the petitioner no.1 is carrying on his business of Khanna Estate Agency, from a rented shop situated in the property No.J-38, Rajouri Garden, N.D. Vol. A shop, 2/3 shops away from the above mentioned tenanted shop, is owned by the petitioners in J-1, Rajouri Garden, N.D. which has been let out by the petitioners.... ...I am not aware about any proceedings, which might have been initiated by the owners/landlords of J-38, Rajouri Garden, N.D. against the petitioners. Vol. Similar to the fact that the petitioners wants the shop in question to be vacated from the respondents, the owner/landlord of J-38, Rajouri Garden, N.D. might be interested in getting the said shop vacated....
I am not aware as to whether the ownership of a shop in property J-1, Rajouri Garden, N.D., claimed by me to be owned by the petitioners, is actually of Raman Khanna HUF, to the extent of 25% share along with Ms. Sarla Nagpal and Sh. Vikas Nagpal. Vol. Ms. Sarla Nagpal and Sh. Vikas Nagpal are in laws of Sh. Raman Khanna....
....I have placed on record, documents from MCD in respect of the shop in property J-1, Rajouri Garden, N.D. At this stage, the witness has gone through the judicial record and states that it is correct that he has not produced any document on record to show that either that the shop in property ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 15 /18 no. J-1, Rajouri Garden, N.D. is solely owned by the petitioners or that it has been available at any point of time for the occupation of the petitioners, since prior to the institution of the present proceedings. I can not say whether the petitioners require two shops involved in the present proceedings as also in the connected proceedings bonafide for commencing afresh and expansion of business of petitioner no.1."
As such, perusal of testimony of RW1 manifestly shows that respondent no.2/RW1 has admitted that J-92, second floor is not available to the petitioners as it has already been sold out in 2003 and third floor is not habitable.
12. As far as, J-92 is concerned, RW1 himself has admitted during the cross examination that they have not placed any documents to show that any portion on H-3, Rajouri Garden is owned by the petitioners and it is available to petitioners.
During the cross-examination, RW1 Sh. Parmod Narang admitted that Rajouri Garden, main market, where tenanted premises is situated and Vishal Enclave are two different localities and also admitted that F-80, is incomplete and unfinished structure. Moreover, during cross-examination, RW1 has not disputed that F-80 is shared by others co-owners also.
As far as, J-38, Rajouri Garden is concerned, the respondent no.2/RW1 has himself admitted that petitioner no. 1 is working from the rented premises i.e. J-38, Rajouri Garden. As far as, J-1, Rajouri Garden is concerned the respondent has disputed the fact that the property is co-owned by the other also such as, Smt. Sarla Nagpal and Sh. Vikas Nagpal and also admitted that he has not produced any document to show that J-1, Rajouri Garden is solely owned by the petitioners.
Even lastly, RW1 has not denied that the petitioners ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 16 /18 require the tenanted premises bonafide.
13. As such, record manifestly shows that the respondents have not been able to show the malafide on the part of the petitioners. Moreover, respondents have also not been able to show that petitioners are having alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with them which can be used by the petitioners to satisfy the bonafide requirement for which the present eviction petition has been filed.
14. As such, all the ingredients of 14(1) (e) of DRC Act are satisfied by the petitioners.
CONCLUSION:-
15. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled proposition of law and the reasons as discussed earlier, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have proved all the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)
(e) of D.R.C. Act. As such, the present eviction petition is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioners and against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No. 2 (Facing Premises No. H-32), Main Road, situated at J-92, Main Market, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
16. However, this judgment shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 17 /1817. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court AJAY Digitally signed
by AJAY NAGAR
on 26th November, 2019
(This judgment contains 18 pages)
NAGAR Date: 2019.11.26
16:51:04 +0530
(Ajay Nagar)
Additional Rent Controller,
West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No. 25441/16 Sh. Raman Khanna & Anr. Vs Sh. L.R. Narang & Ors. Page 18 /18