Delhi District Court
R/O 32 vs Mr. Devki Nandan Suyal @ Babloo on 30 April, 2016
1
In the Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
CCJ Cum Additional Rent Controller1 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Case No. E 175/15
Unique I.D. No. 02401C0413302015
In the matter of :
Rajeev Jain
S/o Lt. Sh. Tarsem Kumar Jain
R/o 32, Veer Nagar,
Jain Colony, Delhi110007. ..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Devki Nandan Suyal @ Babloo
2. Mr. Lalit Suyal @ Sonu
Both S/o late Sh. Harish Chander
Shop at: 50/9A, Sri Nagar,
Sidora Kalan, Delhi110052. ....... Respondents
ORDER
30.04.2016
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application moved by Page 1 of 8 E. No. 175/15 2 respondent for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner u/s 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [in short, 'the Act'].
2. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Rajeev Jain against the respondents for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., 50/9A, Sri Nagar Colony, Sidor Kalan, Delhi110052, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner / landlord of the suit premises. That originally the suit premises was let out by late Sh. T K Jain to late Sh. Harish Chander on month to month basis. That on the demise of Sh. T K Jain, his legal heirs, i.e., Sh. Rajeev Jain, Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Sh. Asheesh Jain and Mr. Neena Jain had relinquished all their rights, titles and interest in the suit premises in favour of Smt. Pushpa Jain vide registered Relinquishment Deed dated 23.09.1994 and subsequently Smt. Pushpa Jain gifted the suit premises to her elder son Sh. Rajeev Jain, i.e., petitioner herein vide gift deed dated 21.06.2007 and thus, the petitioner became the owner / landlord of the premises in question.
4. It is averred that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the Page 2 of 8 E. No. 175/15 3 petitioner for himself and his family members dependent upon him. That the family of the petitioner has since grown comprising of petitioner himself, his wife, his elder son Sh. Vaibhav Jain alongwith his wife and Sh. Chirag Jain, i.e., younger son of the petitioner. It is averred by the petitioner that both sons of the petitioner have now grown up and have become independent. That younger son of the petitioner Sh. Chirag Jain is presently carrying on his business under the name and style of M/s Sonam Enterprises from a rented premises situated at B40, Sector5, Bawana Industrial Area, New Delhi @ monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/. That the suit premises is situated on the main road in a commercial area which is more suitable and potential for the petitioner to adjust his younger's son firm, i.e., M/s Sonam Enterprises. That the petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for running a showroom and settling his younger son except the premises in question. The requirement is to move the business of his younger son to more suitable accommodation, i.e., the suit premises and run a showroom therein. That the present rented premises in Bawana Industrial Area is not at all suitable for opening and running a showroom there.
On the above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
5. Summons were served upon the respondent who filed the leave to defend application on the following grounds: Page 3 of 8 E. No. 175/15 4 ● That the petitioner is not the owner / landlord of the premises in question as the petitioner has not given any attornment letter to the respondent.
● That the alleged rent agreement dated 15.07.2013 is fabricated and false. That the petitioner has not stated as to what type of business is being done by him under the name and style of M/s Sonam Enterprises.
● That the petitioner is not the landlord of the property in question. That the respondent has been dealing with and paying rent to Mrs. Pushpa Jain who is the actual owner / landlord of the suit premises. ● That the petitioner already has a plot in a regular industrial area. In addition to that there is also vacant space of 150 sq. yards and 10 sq. yards adjoining to the tenanted premises which are lying vacant for the last so many years. Mrs. Pushpa Jain has not put the same to any use. Further the respondent has only 10 sq. yards of space in his possession which will be of no useful purpose to the petitioner.
6. Reply to the application for leave to defend has been filed wherein the petitioner has denied all the averments made by the respondent in his leave to defend application stating that the petitioner is the lawful owner of the suit premises as the suit premises was gifted by Smt. Pushpa Jain to the petitioner, vide Gift Deed dated 21.06.2007 and the suit premises was Page 4 of 8 E. No. 175/15 5 mutated in favour of the petitioner vide mutation letter dated 18.01.2010 and the house tax has since been deposited by the petitioner with the requisite authorities. It is submitted that a DR petition was filed by the respondent after the present eviction petition of the petitioner just to take an undue advantage of the same with malafide intention. It is averred that it is not the right of the respondent to dictate or question the bonafide requirement of the landlord / petitioner and that the petitioner has filed the present petition in as much as the suit premises is required boanfidely and urgently for his requirements, which are apparent and obvious. It is averred by the petitioner that he is not required to disclose any particulars of the business he wants to set up in the suit premises and there is no legal requirement that landlord must disclose in the eviction petition about the nature of the requirements and the required area for the same. It is submitted that in regard to plot in industrial area, the said plot is being used by the petitioner's elder son's firm M/s G T B Industries for manufacturing gas stove parts, for it being situated in Bawana Industrial area. It is further submitted that the said plot is admeasuring only 100 sq. meter which cannot accommodate both the businesses of the petitioner's sons. It is denied that the petitioner had entire vacant space in the said property except two shops, i.e., one small shop of the respondent and another shop of one doctor. That the suit premises is situated on the main road which is commercial and suitable and potential for the petitioner to adjust his younger son's firm M/s Sonam Enterprises and to run Page 5 of 8 E. No. 175/15 6 a showroom and the same cannot be done from godown which has backside entry and not appreciable for running a showroom. It is submitted that the petitioner needs the tenanted premises for himself and for his younger son Mr. Chirag Jain to run a assembling business cum showroom as the suit premises in situated on the main road in a commercial area and the petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for running a showroom. That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Mradul Construction Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (1) CLJ 363 Del, it has been laid down that "there is no legal requirement that the landlord must disclose in petition the nature of business he wants to start in tenanted premises and then seek eviction of the tenant. Further, it has been held that once the landlord company is carrying on its business from a premises which is not its own, then surely the landlord is entitled to carry on its business from a rented premises belonging to someone else and the landlord can require the suit / tenanted premises for its user as an office and also for the business activities of the landlord company".
7. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the documents. Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958. i. Petitioner is the owner in respect of the tenanted premises; ii. He require the premises bonafidely for himself or for family Page 6 of 8 E. No. 175/15 7 members dependent upon him;
iii. He has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
8. In the present case, ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship has not been disputed. The respondent has averred that he has been paying rent to Smt. Pushpa Jain who is actual owner of the premises in question. Per contra, petitioner has claimed his ownership by way of Relinquishment Deed and the Gift Deed executed by Smt. Pushpa Jain in his favour. However, the documents filed by the petitioner shows that these documents are not registered with the office of SubRegistrar. Hence, triable issue is raised with respect to the authenticity of Gift Deed as well as Relinquishment Deed by virtue of which petitioner is claiming his ownership over the premises in question. It is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted premises is required by him for settling his younger son Sh. Chirag Jain who is carrying on his business under the name and style of M/s Sonam Enterprises from a rented premises situated at B40, Sector5, Bawana Industrial Area, New Delhi @ monthly rent of Rs. 14,000/. On the other hand, it is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has a plot in industrial area and vacant space of 150 sq. yards and 10 sq. yards adjoining to the tenanted premises which are lying vacant for the last so many years. It is submitted by the petitioner that the adjoining space is a godown which is situated on the backside of the Page 7 of 8 E. No. 175/15 8 property in question and thus not suitable for opening of showroom by the younger son of the petitioner. I have gone through the site plan filed. Perusal of the site plan clearly shows that the property / said godown is much bigger in size than the tenanted premises adjoining to the tenanted premises which as per the contention of the petitioner himself is lying vacant. The said property even if has a entry from the other side then also the other side is already a road. Further, the said godown / shop also has opening on the main road and thus, triable issue is raised with respect to existence of alternative suitable accommodation with the petitioner in the premises adjoining to the tenanted premises which can be used by the petitioner for the alleged bonafide requirement.
9. Hence, the respondent is able to raise number of triable issues which require evidence to be proved. Accordingly, the leave to defend application filed by the respondent is allowed. Respondent is granted leave to contest the present eviction petition.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
on 30th Day of April, 2016 CCJ cum ARC1 (Central)
[This order contains 08 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Page 8 of 8 E. No. 175/15