Delhi District Court
Ram Rattan Singh vs Jyoti Handloom on 18 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA
JSCC-CUM-ASCJ-CUM-GJ-CUM-MM, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
RC ARC No.124/2016
In the matter of:
1. Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari
S/o Sh. Atma Singh Namdhari
2. Rattna Namdhari
W/o Sh. Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari
3. Prem Rattna Namdhari
D/o Sh. Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari
4. Nirmal Rassna Namdhari
D/o Sh. Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari
5. Gurmukh Singh Namdhari
S/o Sh. Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari
All R/o D-35, Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi-110007.
........petitionerss
Versus
1. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry, A partnership firm
C/o D-35, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007.
2. Sh. Satpal Singh S/o late Gurbax Singh, Partner of
M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry.
3. Sh. Satbir Sngh S/o late Gurbax Singh, Partner of
M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry.
4. Ms. Manjeet Kaur, W/o Sh. Balwant Singh
Partner of M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry,
RC ARC No.124/16
Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry &
Ors. Page No.1 of 31
C-56/A, Gali No.1, Bhajan Pura, Shahdara,
Delhi-53
5. M/s Navjyoti Dyeing and Bleaching House (Subtenant).
6. M/s Harinder Kaur W/o Satpal Singh Partner of
M/s Navjyoti Dyeing and Bleaching House (Subtenant).
7. Late Mr. Balwant Singh, Parnter of M/s Navjyoti Dyeing
and Bleaching House (Subtenant) Through LRs.
(a) Ms. Manjeet Kaur (Widow) (Respondent no.4).
(b) Sh. Gurvinder Singh (Son)
(c) Ms. Amrita (Married Daughter)
(d) Rani (Mentally retired daughter through Smt. Manjeet Kaur being mother and natural guardian).
(e) Baby (Mentally retired daughter through Smt. Manjeet Kaur being mother and natural guardian).
R/o C-56/A, Gali No.1, Bhajan Pura, Shahdara Delhi-53 .......Respondents ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TENANT UNDER SECTION 25(B) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
1. Order on application filed on behalf of respondents seeking grant of leave to contest the proceedings under Section 25-B (4) (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Relief sought - Respondent no.1 to 3 may be granted an unconditional leave to defend to defend the eviction petition.
3. Facts of the case - As per the petition the suit property is bearing Khasra No.876 / 634, D-35 (also known D1/1) Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007. The suit property comprises of one RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.2 of 31 big shed, two office rooms, one sleeping room, one dinning, two kitchen, sitting room, bath and WC on the ground floor with three unauthorized khokhas and one room on the first floor with two unauthorized rooms, four latrins and two rooms in the factory, one store total measuring about 1500 sq. yds. The premise was let out to Jyoti Handloom in the year 1964 @ Rs.135/- per month. The rent was increased to Rs.170/- in November, 1967 vide rent receipt no.1042 dated 05.01.1968. The rent was further increased to Rs.270/- vide rent receipt no.1408 dated 27.06.1969. The rent was further and lastly increased to Rs.359/-. The suit property is commercial in nature and shown in red colour in the site plan. It is being used for manufacturing handloom products.
4. That petitioners wants to start a commercial venture by becoming a CFA Agency / Distributor or start a School on the tenanted premises. The petitioners wants to do so for earning a livelihood for himself and his son who runs a small business upon which the entire family is dependent. Petitioners and his son have no other reasonable place to establish the aforesaid CFA Agency or School.
5. Grounds on defence -
(a) The present petition is filed with the sole purpose to evict the respondent tenant from the suit property and to re-let it on higher rates.
(b) The judgment of 'Satyawati Vs. Union of India' is not applicable in the present case and the petitioners has filed the RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.3 of 31 present petition only to take the benefit of the aforesaid judgment as the tenanted premises is of commercial nature.
(c) The premises in which the suit property is sitauted is over crowded and conjested with accute restrictions on traffic including parking of vehicles, hence, office of CFA cannot be located in this area.
(d) petitioners has ill-designed to convert the large area of the premises into small establishment / shop and then sale the same on the huge prevailing pugree.
(e) petitioners has impleaded certain parties who are not the tenants on the suit property.
(f) Certain area under tenancy is stated to be an unauthorized occupation of the respondent and eviction of the said areas cannot be decided by way of present petition.
(g) The site plan filed does not include the portion which is recently let out by the petitioners, hence, the site plan filed is incorrect.
(h) petitioners has failed to produce the communication from the agencies who have shown their interest in the CFA of the petitioners.
(i) No necessary sanction is obtained by the petitioners to establish the CFA / Distributorship or even a shcool.
(j) The petitoner has let out the open land admeasuring approximately 90 square metres alongwith covered shed of the size of 90 square metres approximately situated within the RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.4 of 31 estwhile Khasra No.876/634, Plot No.D-35 (also known as D- 1/1), Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110001 to M/s GMG Enterprises for use and occupation by the said firm as a godown for storing television.
(k) The petitioners has let out the another piece and parcel of land admeasuring 200 sq yards or thereabout having 3 pucca halls (one with an internal partition) constructed thereupon, situated within the property commonly known as D-35 (as also D-1/1), Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007 to (a) M/s Kapil Timber Store (one hall only); (b) M/s Rupa Coating (one hall only); and
(c) Shri Baldev Singh (two shops only).
(l) The petitionerss, jointly and / or severally, have let out the occupation of 120 square yards area in the Khasra No.876/634, Plot No.D-35 (also known as D-1/1), Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi- 110001 in which they are already running their business of clearing and forwarding agency as also distributorship.
(m) The petitioners has let out the occupation of one large hall admeasuring 86 / 90 square yards (approx.) at 'historical' gate on the first floor in the Khasra No.876/634, Plot No.D-35 (also known as D-1/1), Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110001 which is lying unoccupied, unused and locked.
(n) The petitioners has let out the occupation of 400 square yards covered area in these very premises and the same is also being used (albeit only at times i.e. only occasionally) by them for their business purposes.
RC ARC No.124/16Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.5 of 31
6. REQUIREMENTS- In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act the petitioners must establish that:
• He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
• That he requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him. • That he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation The scope of the section has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India: AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3148 so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes also within the scope and ambit of a petition under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
• In the case of Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand (1983)1SCC301 while dealing with the question in the matter of granting leave to defend to contest the eviction petition filed on the ground of personal requirement, in para 5 has stated thus: "5.
What should be the approach when leave to defend is sought for? There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that stage makes out such a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to defend cannot be granted. This approach is wholly improper. When leave to defend is sought for, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action (see Santosh Kumar v. Bhai RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.6 of 31 Mool Singh). At the stage of granting the leave parties rely in support of their rival contentions on affidavits and assertions and counter- assertions on affidavits may not afford such incontrovertible evidence to lead to an affirmative conclusion one way or the other. Conceding that when possession is sought for on the ground of personal requirement, an absolute need is not to be satisfied but a mere desire equally is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire. And being an enabling provision, the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. If as it appears in this case, the landlord is staying at Pathankot, that a house is purchased, may be in the name of his sons and daughters, but there may not be an apparent need to return to Delhi in his old age, a triable issue would come into existence and that was sufficient in our opinion to grant leave to defend in this case."
7. The present case is of admitted tenancy and therefore, no detailed findings are required in respect of the ownership of the petitionerss or the landlord tenant relationship as the same stand already established and have not been disputed.
8. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS • The petitioners no.1 passed away during the pendency of resent case and the LR s were impleded . Hence, the bona fide requirement discussed is that of the Lrs of the petitioners no.1 as well as they step into his shoes after his death.
RC ARC No.124/16Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.7 of 31 • The bona fide requiremnt is that petitioners wants to start a commercial venture by becoming a CFA Agency / Distributor or start a School on the tenanted premises. The petitioners wants to do so for earning a livelihood for himself and his son who runs a small business upon which the entire family is dependent. The settled law in this regard is the requirement must be genuine and reasonable and not just a mere desire of the landlord. Reliance is placed upon the case of G.C. Kapoor v. Nan Kumar Bhasin, (2002) 1 SCC 610,It is settled position of law that bonafide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde [1999] 2 SCR 912, the Court while considering the bonafide need of the landlord was of the view that when a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation, he has to prove it but there is no warrant for 'presuming that his need is not bonafide'. It was also held that while deciding this question. Court would look into the broad aspects and if the Courts feels any doubt about bonafide requirement, it is for the landlord to clear such doubt."Further in the case of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, the concept how the bona fide need is not a mere desire to be analysed was discussed. The court stated that , in a case when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire. The ground under Clause (e) of the RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.8 of 31 proviso to Sub- section (1) of Section 14 enables a landlord to recover possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement. This being an enabling provision, essentially the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. In short and substance wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend but when a triable issue is raised a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by the statute itself to grant leave. At the stage of granting leave the real test should be whether facts disclosed in the affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima facie show that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an order of eviction and not whether at the end defence may fail. It is well to remember that when a leave to defend is refused, serious consequences of eviction shall follow and the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments made in the eviction petition by cross-examination. It may also be noted that even in cases where leave is granted provisions are made in this very Chapter for expeditious disposal of eviction petitions.
Hence, the law is very clear that the bona fide need has to be genuine and not a mere requirement. Apart from the simple denial that the suit property is not required bona fidely, no other specific reason is stated to support this argument. It is no where stated in the application as to how and why the son of the petitioners does not require to open RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.9 of 31 business of Tours and Travels in the tenanted shop. It is a settled law that in petitioners being the father is obligated to settle his son and hence requirement of his son becomes his bona fide requirement. However, no such objection is taken by the respondent. Further, it is also a settled law that when the landlord requires the tenanted premises to start a business, no prior experience is required in the said field. It has been held in the case of Manika Rani Ghosh & Ors. vs Dharwinder Kaur: 197 (2013) DLT 18 that:"8. I subscribe to the view taken by the Ld. RC in deciding the eviction petition. It is often contended by the tenants that the landlord has no prior business experience, capacity or that the suit premises are not suitable for the business proposed by the landlord. In the present case, the petitioners wnts to start a business with his son. It os stated by the petitioners that he is already in a business but that is not sufficient. In the opinion of this court the petitioners has a right to expand or start a business to improve his current lifestlye. Hence, in the opinion of this court, bona fide requirement of the petitioners to start C and F agency/school is genuine.
• The present petition is filed with the sole purpose to evict the respondent tenant from the suit property and to re-let it on higher rates. Petitioners have ill-design to convert the large area of the premises into small establishment / shop and then sale the same on the huge prevailing pugree.
RC ARC No.124/16Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.10 of 31 It is stated in the reply that this ground is baseless and law provides adequate protection to the respondent in case they are able to prove that petitionerss got the suit property vacated to part with the possession to third person.
The law on this aspect is settled that mere assertion that the landlord intends to re-let the suit property on higer rent or sell the same will not become the triable issue as the tenant is protect by section 19 of the DRC . It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinod Kumar Bhalla Vs. Sh. Nanak Singh: 1982 (2) RCR (Rent) 715 that in all applications for leave to defend the common defence raised by almost all the tenants, is that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent or to sell the property after getting it vacated. It was observed by the High Court that such types of allegations are without any foundation and that after an order of eviction is passed under section 14 (1)(e), the tenant is granted six months time to vacate the premises and the landlord is required to occupy the same within two months and the landlord is further dis-entitled for re-letting or alienating the whole or any part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining possession from the tenant. Thus, the landlord is not in a position either to sell or re-let the tenanted premises for a period of three years and if a landlord does sell or re- let the premises within the said period then the tenant may proceed against the landlord for restoration of the possession under section 19 RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.11 of 31 of the Act.A similar observation was made in judgment titled Krishna Chopra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Raksha: 2000 Rajdhani Law Reporter 83. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid legal propositions the contention of the respondent is rejected as the same is a mere assertion without any substance. Moreover the contention of the respondent is not tenable because in such kind of cases protection/remedy available/provided for such tenants under the DRC Act itself as they can file petition for repossession if the premises are re-let or transferred by the landlords after evicting the tenant, but certainly the leave cannot be granted solely on this ground. For the same reason, the mere bald assertion of the respondent that the petitionerss have sold two shops cannot be relied upon as the same has been categorically denied by the petitionerss and is not supported or substantiated from any material on record.Hence, this ground does not raise any triable issue.
• The judgment of 'Satyawati Vs. Union of India' is not applicable in the present case and the petitioners has filed the present petition only to take the benefit of the aforesaid judgment as the tenanted premises is of commercial nature.The question as to whether court can or cannot amend the law is pending for refrence before the Apex court in the case if State of UP v. Jeet S Bisth and till then the respondents are entitiled for unconditional leave to defend.
RC ARC No.124/16Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.12 of 31 The petitioners has denied this ground in his reply stating that it is within the judicial powers of Hon'ble Apex Court to declare the portion of law as Ultra Vires wherein it is found to be violative of any provision of the constitution and it cannot be held as unconstitutional being against the Driective Principles of State Policy.Further it is stated that the court acted within its own powers of Judicial Review.The petitioners relied upon the case of Md. Ahmed v. Atma Ram Chauhan Civil Appeal No.4422/2011 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India. It is helad by the court that it is neither equitable nor just for the tenants of commercial premises to claim that they should be permitted to enjoy the tennated premises at the rentals which were established five decaded ago.It is further stated that issue pending before Apex court in the case if State of UP v. Jeet S Bisth have no implications to the present case.
In the case of Vinod Kumar vs. Ashok Kr. Gandhi (CA 3793 of 2013), delivered on 05.08.2019 this issue was discussed in detail and settled. The counsel for the appellant questioned the correctness of judgment of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. vs. Union of India and Another, (2008) 5 SCC 287(hereinafter referred as "the Sharma case"). It was the submission of the appellant that the Eviction Petitions have been filed under 14(1)(e) for eviction from non-residential premises on the projected bonafide need of landlord only on the basis of judgment of RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.13 of 31 the Sharma case, which had, in fact, re-written the provision of 14(1)(e).The divisional bench of the Apex Court answered the question whether the judgment delivered in the Sharma case said to be per incuriam or not. The division bench observed that in the Sharma case, it was held that Section 14(1) (e) of Act is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution in so far as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes, when the same are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the landlord's right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only. It also clarified that it is not totally striking down of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in its entirety but it has struck down only the discriminatory portion of Section 14(1)(e). The Apex Court examined the Sharma case with constitutional bench judgment Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 683 (hereinafter referred as "the Devi case"). The division bench noted that the Constitution Bench in the Devi case did not declare provisions of Section 14(1)(e) unconstitutional rather left it to the Legislature to amend the law. The Court noted that in Devi case the Constitution Bench was satisfied that a ground for eviction of tenant of commercial premises on bona fide requirement of landlord should also be provided in the section. The basis for what has been done in the Sharma case as clearly laid down in the Devi case for RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.14 of 31 striking down the unconstitutional part in Section 14(1)(e). The division bench further observed that the Constitution Bench observed the landlord who let out commercial premises, under changed circumstances, may need bona fide premises for his own use. The Constitution Bench suggested that Legislature may consider the advisability of making the bona fide requirement of the landlord a ground of eviction in respect of commercial premises as well.The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 (not enforced) itself noted the need for providing a ground for eviction to landlord on bona fide need with regard to residential as well as non- residential premises. Thus, what was said in the Devi case in paragraph was duly accepted by Legislature.
Hence, considering the discussion above, the present ground does not raise any triable issue.
• The petitioners has sold several properties prior to filing of the present suit. This ground is denied by the petitioners stating that no specific detail of any such property is stated in the application. Further, if any sale is done prior to filing of the present suit, the same is not releveant to the present case. It is futher stated that the Respondent has merely alleged that the petitioners did not disclosed some material facts but did not disclose it in the application for leave to defend.Hence, it is a bald allegations.
It is a settled law that in the application for leave to defend, in order to raise any triable issue, the respondent tenant is required to state the facts clearly. In the RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.15 of 31 application, no such fact is stated, hence this ground itself does not raise any traible issue.
• The premises in which the suit property is sitauted is over crowded and conjested with accute restrictions on traffic including parking of vehicles, hence, office of CFA cannot be located in this area.
Petitioners stated in the reply that the tenanted premises is not situated in the over-crowded area.
By way of this objection the respondnet is raising question on the suitability of the tenanted premises to the proposed business of the petitioners. It is settled position of law that in case where the landlord wants to start a business on the commercial premises, the landlord does not have any locus to question its suitilibility or profitibility.In the judgment titled as Raghavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery, AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 534 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Moreover, as has been held in a plethora of cases, neither the Court nor the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding the suitability of the premises or even the extent of the business proposed to be carried out.
It has been held in the case of Manika Rani Ghosh and Others v. Dharwinder Kaur,197 (2013) DLT 18 that RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.16 of 31 "8. I subscribe to the view taken by the Ld. RC in deciding the eviction petition. It is often contended by the tenants that the landlord has no prior business experience, capacity or that the suit premises are not suitable for the business proposed by the landlord. For instance, similar contentions were raised by the tenants before this Court in the case of Sashi Kant Jain v. Tilak Raj Salooja and otr R.C.Rev 167/2010 and have been refuted. Such allegations whereby the tenant tries to raise questions regarding the age of the landlord or lack of business experience or suitability of the suit shop for the business proposed by the landlord and which are invariably vague do not consist a triable issue. The tenants/petitionerss made assertions before the Ld. RC regarding the landlady possessing alternative properties, but were unable to furnish sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations. There is no dispute that the business cannot be profitably carried from the residential premises and thus, the plea that the landlady could start the business form her residence is untenable. Moreover, it is not for this Court to examine the viability of the business at the suit premises or assess if it may be a profitable venture for the landlady".
It has also been held in the case of Royal Nepal Airlines v. Shrishti Properties Pvt. Ltd 2012 RLR 28 that "19. The Apex Court has time and again noted that it is prerogative of the landlord to decide whether the premises are required for expansion of his business or not; in this RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.17 of 31 context the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Sait Nagjee Purushotam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalbai Prabhulal and Others (2005) 8 SCC 252 is relevant; it reads as under:-"It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business".
In the present case as well, it is the petitioner who decides how he wants to run his business on the suit proerpty. Landlord is the best judge of his requirements and use his property for his bona fide requirement. If the petitioners feels that he can run a CFA agency from the suit property, then whetehr or not it is possible does not becomes a triable issue. Hence, respondant tenat cannot opine how the suit proeprty is not suitable for the business of the petitioners.
• Petitioners has impleaded certain parties who are not the tenants on the suit property This ground is objected by the petitioners in the reply. It is further stated that there is no bar that sub- tenants cannot be impleaded in the application under RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.18 of 31 section 14(1)(e) of DRC espcially where the tenants are impleaded as the main parties.
In the petition it is stated that R7(A-E) are the sub- tenants however no relief is sought against them. That landlord tennat realtionship is not disputed by the respondentand the ground of eviction if a bona fide requirement and not sub-letting of the suit property. Hence, the sub-tenants are merely a pro forma party in the present case and this ground does not rasie any triable issue.
• Certain area under tenancy is stated to be an unauthorized occupation of the respondent and eviction of the said areas cannot be decided by way of present petition.In the petition the suit proeprty is described as comprising of one big shed, two office rooms, one sleeping room, one dinning, two kitchen, sitting room, bath and WC on the ground floor with three unauthorized khokhas and one room on the first floor with two unauthorized rooms, four latrins and two rooms in the factory, one store total measuring about 1500 sq. yds. There is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties for these unauthorised premises.
In the reply this ground is objected by the petitioenr.It is also denied that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the parties for these unauthorised constructed premises.As per the reply the unauthorised constructions are raised in the tenanted premises itself and part and parcel of the tenanted premises.
RC ARC No.124/16Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.19 of 31 The present case is filed on the ground of bona fide requirement and not for raising an unauthorised construction.Further the rented premises is around 1500 sq yards and not specific only to the constuctions on the premises.The respondent did not deny the tenancy on the tenant premisis of the entire area hence, this ground does not rasie any triable issue.
• The site plan filed does not include the portion which is recently let out by the petitioners, hence, the site plan filed is incorrect.
This fact is disputed by the petitioners in his reply.
The position of law on the aspect of tenant disputing the site plan filed by the petitioners landlord is settled. Since the counter site plan is not filed by the respondent, he admits the site plan filed by the petitioners. In the case of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat Ram (2014) 144 DRJ 633 it was held that when the tenant controverts the accuracy of the site plan filed by the landlord, he is required to file a copy of the site plan he believes to be correct so as to guide the Court in finding the discrepancies of the site plan filed by the landlord; without such site plan filed, mere contentions raised to this effect will be considered meritless. Similarly in another case before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satish Kumar Vs. Subhash Chand Agarwal 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4447 held that if a tenant does not file his site plan showing that the plan filed by the owner is incorrect, then, the site plan filed by the owner would be assumed to RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.20 of 31 be correct. References can also be made to R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargava ILR (1987) II Delhi 607 and Ghanshyam Vs. Vijender 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3983 to the same effect. Thus, the respondent tenant, without filing a site plan of his own, cannot dispute the site plan of the landlord. Hence, this ground does not raise any triable issue.
• Petitioners has failed to produce the communication from the agencies who have shown their interest in the CFA of the petitioners.No necessary sanction is obtained by the petitioners to establish the CFA / Distributorship or even a shcool.The letters placed on record by the petitoner are fake.
Petitioners has objected this ground in the reply. It is stated that while running a CFA or distritutership is withdrawn frm petitioners due to shortage of space how the the petitioners contact the other companies for the same purpose.
Position of law in this regard is settled. The petitioenr/landlord is not required to show any detilas and prove any prior preprations made to start the business. Further since the duration of litigation is not certain, it cannot be expected out of landlord to obtain all the permissions in advance and then file a suit for eviction. There are several case laws on this aspects which are stated and discussed. In Ram Bbabu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, MANU/SC/1719/2009MANU/SC/1719/2009: (2010) RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.21 of 31 1 SCC 164, it was observed that "A person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business that does not mean that his claim for starting new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business and sometimes they are successful in the new business also. Further in the case of Tarsem Singh v. Gurvinder Singh, MANU/DE/2640/2010:
173 (2010) DLT 379, it was observed that "If the landlord wants to start his own business in the premises owned by him then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the requirement of the landlord for the premises is neither bonafide nor genuine".In Balwant Singh Chawdhary and another v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2004 (1) RCR 487, it was held that "It is not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove the specific business he wants to set up, if the landlord wanted the premises for business purposes". In Gurcharan Lal Kumar v. Smt. Satyawati and others, MANU/DE/1078/2013: 2013 (2) RCR (Rent) 120 it was observed that "Merely because the exact nature of business has not been described would not take away their bonafide need to carry out a business (when admittedly both the sons are dependent upon petitioners for this need).
It was observed that if the business need is not disclosed this would not wipe away the bonafide need of the landlord as has been pressed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA, 1958". In fact the landlord is not even required to disclose the exact nature of the business as well which was RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.22 of 31 held in the case of Raj Kumar khaitan v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun & others, MANU/SC/0411/1995: AIR 1995 SC 576, it was observed that "It was not necessary for the appellants-landlords to indicate the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of business would have been indicated nobody would bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated".
Hence, the legal position is quite clear. The landlord need not to show evidence that he has experience of said business that he proposes to start. In fact, it is not necessary for landlord to indicate the precise nature of business which he intends to start in the premises or the preparation that are already made with respect to starting the business. Although in the present case the petitioners did place on record certain documents showing requirement of certain area which shows that there is a demand of such services offered by the petitioners. The respondent has questioned the genuineness of these documents but considering the position of law the letters are only supportive of the claim but the claim of starting the business can sustain without them as well. This ground does not raise any triable issue.
9. SUITABLE ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION (9.1) The petitioners has let out the another piece and parcel of land admeasuring 200 sq yards or thereabout having 3 pucca halls (one with an internal partition) RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.23 of 31 constructed thereupon, situated within the property commonly known as D-35 (as also D-1/1), Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007 to (a) M/s Kapil Timber Store (one hall only); (b) M/s Rupa Coating (one hall only); and (c) Shri Baldev Singh (two shops only). As per the petitioners the combined area of the aforesaid properties is around 710 sq. i.e. 79 sq yards, hence it is not sufficient to run the C and F agency since the space is not adequate. Further, the area properties were let out in the year 2009. The area required for the proposed business is way lesser than the tenanted premises . Further no documnet is filed by the respondent to show that it was rented out just prior to filing of the present suit. Hence, this is not an alternate suitable accomodation.
(9.2) The petitoner has let out the open land admeasuring approximately 90 square metres alongwith covered shed of the size of 90 square metres approximately situated within the estwhile Khasra No.876/634, Plot No.D-35 (also known as D-1/1), Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110001 to M/s GMG Enterprises for use and occupation by the said firm as a godown for storing television.This is objected by the petitioners. As per the petitioenr this is a proprietership concern run by the datghter in law of the petitioners no.1 and wife of petitioer no.5 and it covers only 53 sq. Yards, hence not suitable for the propersed business.he area required for the proposed business is way lesser than the tenanted premises . Further no documnet is filed by the RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.24 of 31 respondent to show that it was rented out just prior to filing of the present suit. Hcne, this is not an alternate suitable accomodation.
(9.3) The petitionerss, jointly and / or severally, have let out the occupation of 120 square yards area in the Khasra No.876/634, Plot No.D-35 (also known as D-1/1), Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110001 in which they are already running their business of clearing and forwarding agency as also distributorship.This is denied by the Petitoners in the reply. As per the reply the Cand F agency cannot be run in an area less than 15000-16000 sq. ft. Further a distributership is being run by the wife of Petitioenr no.5 in an area around 900 sq. ft. It is settled law that once the landlord is able to establish its bona fide requirement the tenant cannot dictate the lanlord as to which property is more suitable. In this case as well, the area of this property is not as per the requiremnets of the landlord, hence it is not an alternate suitable accomodation.
(9.4) The petitioners has let out the occupation of one large hall admeasuring 86 / 90 square yards (approx.) at 'historical' gate on the first floor in the Khasra No.876/634, Plot No.D-35 (also known as D-1/1), Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110001 which is lying unoccupied, unused and locked.This is denied by the Petitoners in the reply. As per the reply the Cand F agency cannot be run in an area less than 15000-16000 sq. ft. It is settled law that once the landlord is able to establish its bona fide requirement the RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.25 of 31 tenant cannot dictate the lanlord as to which property is more suitable. In this case as well, the area of this property is not as per the requiremnets of the landlord, hence it is not an alternate suitable accomodation.
(9.5) The petitioners has let out the occupation of 400 square yards covered area in these very premises and the same is also being used (albeit only at times i.e. only occasionally) by them for their business purposes.petitioners has denied the ownership of this property. The burden is upon the respondent to show that the Petitioenr is owner of this property. No documnet is filed by the Respondent in support of the same. Hence it is not an alternate suitable accomodation.
(9.6) Petitioenrs are in occupation of 5000 sq. Yards area in Khasara no. 876/634, D-35,Rana pratap Bagh, Delhi-07. Petitioenr stated that the correct total area is 5500 sq. Yards and respondnets are occupying 1500 sq. Yards . The opening area does not pertains to Khasra no 876/634 but 897/634-900/634. Petitioenr have claim over 3100 sq. Ayrds and construction on this land was demolished by DDA and stay has been granted in a civil suit. Since the property is under litigation and not readily available, same cannot be considered as an alternate available accommodation.
(9.7) Certain new facts were also brought on record which were stated to be subsequent events. These facts are stated RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.26 of 31 in the application dated 02.03.2023.As per the application there are three such facts and they raise triable issues.
Firstly, that after the death of the petitioners no.1peitioner no 2- 4 have shifted to new address i.e C2/10 Rana pratap bagh. This is a subsequent fact which has not come on record. In the opinion of this court, change of address of the petitionerss is not a triable issue in this case as the suit property is required for the commercial purpose. Hence, this fact does not raise any triable issue.
Secondly, in February 2023, petitionerss have acquired a premises adjacent to the suit property i.e. D-12, Rana pratap Bagh, New Delhi, comprising of 1750 sq yards. Thirdly, petitionerss have also acquired an adjacent property D1/1 around 325 sq. Yards.this is objected by the petitionerss in the written synopsis filed on 09.03.2023. As per the same, the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of D.Sasi Kumar v Soundrrajan passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. As per the same it was observed that the respondent cannot take benefit of any property falling vacant during pendency of the case since the litigations itself take a lot of time and if the benefit to the tenant is declined on this ground, it would encourage tenants to protract the litigation so as to defeat the rights of the landlord. As per the record the application for leave to defend was filed on 18.04.2011. it is quit natural that during this time if there is certain property owned by the petitioners it might fall vacant for some reason or RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.27 of 31 petitioners may acquire a new property . The respondent is required to show that how these properties are better suited to the bona fide requirement of the petitioners as compared to the tenanted premises. The status of these properties, whether they are vacant or rented is not clarified. As suggested by photographs, one is used for parking and some goods are stored on the other. The area is also sufficient. Hence these are not the alternate suitable properties.
(9.8) Another application dated 28.08.2019 for bringing on record the subsequent event is pending consideration. As per this application, on 01.05.2019, the petitionerss have let out around 3000 sq. Ft of accommodation of A-6, Rana Pratap Marg To M/S Madan Lal and sons at rent of Rs. 3,00,000/- per month. No reply to this application was filed. The dimensions of this property in sq. Yards is not stated. The property appears to be smaller in size than the actual requirement. Further since it is already rented out, it is not available as an alternate accommodation. Also , it is a settled law that tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to which property he should use for the bona fide requirement. Hence, this ground does not raise any triable issue.
(9.9) Another application for bringing on record the subsequent event is pending consideration. Vide order dated 17.05.2016, it is directed in another application moved for subsequent events. As per the application during RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.28 of 31 pendency of the proceedings, petitionerss have come into the possession of an additional accommodation consisting of three rooms, one kitchen , two toilets, two stores, one store on first floor, sheded verrandah, open large verrandah from tenant Ms. Usha . The petitionerss have obtained this possession in the litigation by way of eviction order dated 03.06.2014. The petitioners stated that this premises does not satisfys the bona fide needs of the petitionerss . It is settled position of law that landlord is the best judge of his requirements. The Supreme Court of India decision of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live.At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs Union of India, 1998(2) RCR 533, wherein it was held that the crux of the ground envisaged in clause(e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be 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 prima facie 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 Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms of the landlord as to how else he can RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.29 of 31 adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. In Adarsh Electricals and others vs Dinesh Dayal, MANU/DE/2782/2010, it was held that "
the concept of alternate accommodation means that accommodation which is reasonably suitable for the landlord, and the court would not expect the landlord to sacrifice on his own comforts and requirements merely on the ground that the premises is with a tenant . The problem had to be approached from the point of view of a reasonable man and not that of a whimsical landlord. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need". Applying the aforesaid case to the present facts, the petitioners cannot be forced by the respondents to use a particular space only and not the tenanted premises. Hence, this is also not an alternate accomodation.
10. FINAL ORDER As a consequence thereof, the application for leave to defend filed by the respondent no. 1-3 stands dismissed and an RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.30 of 31 eviction order is passed u/s 14(1)(e), DRC Act against the respondent regarding the tenanted premises i.e. Khasra No.876 / 634, D-35 (also known D1/1) Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi- 110007, comprises of one big shed, two office rooms, one sleeping room, one dinning, two kitchen, sitting room, bath and WC on the ground floor with three khokhas and one room on the first floor with two rooms, four latrins and two rooms in the factory, one store total measuring about 1500 sq. yds. (shown in red colour in the site plan) annexed with the eviction petition which is required bonafidely for the landlord and his family members dependent upon him. However in light of Section 14(7) DRC Act, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
11. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
12. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 18.09.2023 (Niharika Kumar Sharma) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ/MM/PHC/18.09.2023 The then ACJ/ARC/CCJ/North District, Rohini Court Complex RC ARC No.124/16 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari & Ors. Vs. M/s Jyoti Handloom Industry & Ors. Page No.31 of 31