Delhi District Court
Sh. Vineet Babbar vs Sh. Kuljeet Singh Bindra on 19 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER SINGH
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC/ARC. No. 26126/16
In the matter of:
Sh. Vineet Babbar
S/o Late Sh. Arjan Das Babbar
R/o A3/38, Janakpuri,
New Delhi. ..........Petitioner
Vs.
Sh. Kuljeet Singh Bindra
S/o Late Sh. Kuldev Singh
R/o 17/41A, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi. ........Respondent
Date of filing of the petition : 11.05.2016
Date of filing of application : 02.06.2016
Date of reserving order : 18.07.2018
Date of pronouncement : 19.12.2018*
*On 18.08.2018, no order was passed as I was giving dictation in another matter bearing
CS. No. 10073/17 titled as "Ram Mehar Kaushik Vs. Rajesh Goyal". On 22.09.2018, no time
was left for order as I had gone for meetings. On 12.11.2018, no order was passed as I was
passing Judgment in other matter bearing CS. No. 7367/16 titled as "Laxman Dass Vs. Ram
Partap"
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) R/w Section 25B of DRC Act.
2. The respondent is a tenant in one shop at ground floor of property bearing No. 17/41A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted shop). The rate of rent is Rs. 500/ per month excluding electricity charges. Order RC/ARC. No. 26126/16 Vineet Babbar Vs. Kuljeet Singh Bindra Page..... 1/8
3. Need of the petitioner: 3.1 Sh. Gautam Babbar son of the petitioner is a graduate. He is dependent upon the petitioner in matters of accommodation and finance. The petitioner is running his business of dry fruits at Khari Baoli in a shop measuring 10'x15' ft.. The petitioner along with his family is residing in a rented premises bearing property No. A3/38, Janakpuri, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/. Before shifting to Janakpuri, the petitioner was residing at a property in Tilak Nagar, New Delhi with his cousin brother.
3.2 Property bearing No. 17/41A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi is in a dilapidated condition. It requires extensive repairs and modifications. This property is built up to second floor. On the ground floor there is a kitchen and bathroom. There are two shops on the ground floor. One is occupied by the respondent and other one is lying vacant. The said vacant shop cannot be used without extensive repairs. The other floors are also not in a condition to be used. The entire property except for the tenanted shop is not in a habitable condition. After eviction of the respondent, the entire ground floor is to be used for commercial purposes for running the business of the son of the petitioner.
Order RC/ARC. No. 26126/16Vineet Babbar Vs. Kuljeet Singh Bindra Page..... 2/8 3.3 Petitioner's son is of marriageable age. After the marriage of petitioner's son, the entire first floor is to be used as residence for petitioner's son. The second floor will be used by the petitioner and his wife.
3.4 Petitioner's wife owns one vacant plot measuring 145 sq. yards bearing property No. 25/11, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Over there one small shop is constructed. The entire plot is otherwise vacant.
4. Application seeking leave to defend along with affidavit filed by the respondent. In the affidavit it is stated that the tenanted shop was taken on rent by the respondent from the father of the petitioner in the year 1985. The initial rent was Rs. 250/ per month. At the time of creation of tenancy a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid by the respondent as security to the father of the petitioner. It was agreed that the tenancy shall be in perpetuity. The rent was regularly paid to the father of the petitioner. After the death of the petitioner's father, the names of other legal heirs of the original landlord have not been disclosed.
4.1 Petitioner's son is controlling the entire business of the petitioner at Khari Baoli. The petitioner also owns another shop in the Order RC/ARC. No. 26126/16 Vineet Babbar Vs. Kuljeet Singh Bindra Page..... 3/8 said locality. The shop adjacent to the tenanted shop is also lying vacant. Accommodation is also available at the ground floor of the said property, behind the tenanted shop. There are also references to the upper floor of the said property.
4.2 The petitioner wants to increase the rent from Rs. 500/ to Rs. 10,000/ per month. The respondent offered Rs. 30 lakhs for purchasing the tenanted shop.
4.3 The petitioner could have used the vacant shop adjacent to the tenanted shop and if the said accommodation was not sufficient, the petitioner could have asked for the tenanted shop.
5. Reply to the application filed. It is admitted that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted shop by the father of the petitioner. The son of the petitioner was busy with his studies and there was no occasion for him to control the business of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has denied the case set up by the respondent.
6. Rejoinder on behalf of the respondent filed.
7. Arguments heard.
7.1 It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the tenanted shop is required for starting independent business for the son of Order RC/ARC. No. 26126/16 Vineet Babbar Vs. Kuljeet Singh Bindra Page..... 4/8 the petitioner. It was submitted that the landlord is not necessarily required to use the tenanted premises in the present condition. The landlord / petitioner can modify the tenanted premises to make it suitable for his needs. In this regard, the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment "Ajit Singh Vs. Inder Saran & Ors." 1979 (1) RCR decided on 22.11.1978 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 7.2 It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that one shop is lying vacant at the said property. The case of the petitioner would fall under Section 14(g) of the DRC Act. In the affidavit of the respondent details of the accommodation available to the petitioner are mentioned. The same is not denied by the petitioner. The petitioner should have used the vacant shop. If the same was not sufficient for the needs of the petitioner, the petitioner could have asked for the tenanted shop. The petitioner has admitted that his wife has a vacant plot measuring 145 sq. yards in Tilak Nagar. Except for the tenanted shop rest of the portion of the said property is lying vacant.
8. For deciding a petition Under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act following points are to be considered :
a. Landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner(s) and Order RC/ARC. No. 26126/16 Vineet Babbar Vs. Kuljeet Singh Bindra Page..... 5/8 the respondent(s).
b. Bonafide need of the petitioner(s) / family member(s)/ dependent(s).
c. Availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner(s) / family member(s)/ dependent(s).
(a). Landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner(s) and the respondent(s).
8(a)(i) It is the admitted case of the respondent that he was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted shop by the father of the petitioner. It is settled law that anyone of the LRs of the admitted landlord can file petition Under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. The respondent claims to have paid Rs. 2 lakhs as security to the father of the petitioner. However, it is also admitted that the respondent paid rent to the father of the petitioner. In view of this, it is clear that the respondent is only a tenant in the tenanted shop. Being one of the LR of the admitted landlord, petitioner is entitled to file the present eviction petition and he is the landlord of the respondent with regard to the tenanted shop for the Order RC/ARC. No. 26126/16 Vineet Babbar Vs. Kuljeet Singh Bindra Page..... 6/8 purpose of the present petition.
b. Bonafide need of the petitioner(s) / family member(s)/ dependent(s).
8(b)(i) It is the case of the petitioner that he is running a dry fruits business at Khari Baoli. The shop over there is measuring 10x15 ft.. The petitioner wants to set up an independent business for his son. For this purpose the entire ground floor of property bearing No. 17/41A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi is required. The tenanted shop is situated at the ground floor of the said property. The petitioner further claims that the vacant portion of the ground floor of the said property is not in a habitable condition. The same needs extensive repairs and renovation. 8(b)(ii) I have seen the photographs and the site plan filed by the petitioner. The front of the said property is 14.6 feet wide. The front is divided into two shops measuring 7 ft. wide each. One of these shops is the tenanted shop. The other shop adjacent to the tenanted shop is lying closed. The petitioner has not given any specific measurements etc. to assess the need for space for starting the business for his son. Even otherwise, the front gate of the shop for the proposed business of the petitioner's son can be made in the vacant shop and the entire area lying Order RC/ARC. No. 26126/16 Vineet Babbar Vs. Kuljeet Singh Bindra Page..... 7/8 vacant on the ground floor can be used as a shop. The petitioner has nowhere explained why the said vacant shop cannot be used as a front entrance for the proposed business / shop of his son. The petitioner has also not clarified why necessarily he needs the entire front portion of the said property as the main entrance gate of the said proposed shop / business. It is a triable issue whether the back portion of the ground floor of the said property can be used as a shop with entrance from the said vacant shop which is adjacent to the tenanted shop. c. Availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner(s) / family member(s)/ dependent(s).
8(c)(i) In view of discussion of this court on the above points, there is no need to discuss this point.
9. In view of the above, the application seeking leave to defend is allowed.
10. Written statement be filed within 30 days.
11. Put up on 24.01.2019 for further proceedings.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER SINGH)
COURT ON 19.12.2018 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI
Order RC/ARC. No. 26126/16
Vineet Babbar Vs. Kuljeet Singh Bindra Page..... 8/8