Delhi District Court
Vikram Tuli vs Nirmal Dutta on 18 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh
RC ARC No: 18/17
CNR No. DLWT-03-000285-2017
Sh. Vikram Tuli
S/o Sh. Jagat Jot Tuli
R/o 17/15A, Tilak Nagar,
Delhi-110018. ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Mrs. Nirmal Dutta
W/o. Mr. Hemant Dutta
R/o. 441, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018. ....Respondent
Date of Filing : 27.01.2017
Date of Judgment : 18.05.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying for passing an order for eviction in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the shop bearing Pvt. No. 11 on the lower ground floor in property bearing Municipal No. 17/15A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi - 110018, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises" or premises in question).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.1 of 53 AVERMENTS BY PETITIONER IN PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioner that Sh. Raghubir Singh Tuli was the grandfather of the petitioner, who was the erstwhile landlord and owner of the free hold property built on a plot measuring 100 sq yds. (15 X 60) bearing municipal no. 17/15A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi - 110018 and the said property was constructed in a manner / consisting of individual shops on each floor separated by partition walls with separate entrances through the common passage and is built upto four floors i.e. lower ground floor, upper ground floor, first floor and second floor. It has been further averred that the lower and upper ground floors consist of commercial shops; first floor consists of the offices and godown purposes only and the second / top floor is for residential purpose.
3. It is further averred that respondent was inducted as tenant in the shop bearing private number 11 measuring 8 X 12 (feet) on the lower ground floor in the year 1994 by Late Sh. Raghubir Singh Tuli and a lease deed dated 03.03.1990 was executed between Late Sh. Raghubir Singh Tuli and respondent.
4. It is further averred that after the death of Sh. Raghubir Singh Tuli in June 2005, the father of the petitioner namely Sh. Jagat Jot Tuli became the absolute owner of the aforesaid property by virtue of a Will dated 19.06.2000. It is stated that Sh. Jagat Jot Tuli died intestate on 13.08.2010 leaving behind his son Vikram Tuli i.e. petitioner and two daughters namely Ms. Ruchi Tuli and Ms. Pooja Kapoor as only legal ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.2 of 53 heirs. It is further stated that thereafter the petitioner became the sole and absolute owner of the aforementioned property by virtue of registered relinquishment deed executed by his sisters in his favour on 12.01.2011.
5. It is averred that after the death of Mr. Jagat Jot Tuli, the respondent/Tenant had paid the due rent to the petitioner and rent receipts for the rent paid are being issued and given by the petitioner to the respondent/tenants for each month whenever the respondent pay the rent, whereas the counterfoil receipt and rent receipt book is maintained with the petitioner and the respondents signed the counterfoil thereof. It is further stated that the petitioner's father was engaged in the business of property broker/commission agent in the name of "Tuli properties"
which was carried on from an office in the said property. It is stated that the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's death and having no expertise in the said business, the business partner of petitioner's father Mr. Ravi wholly managed the business and gave a share from the earnings from the business to the petitioner. The petitioner being a minor and inexperienced was not able to learn and carry on his father business and its intricacies. It is stated that the business partner of Petitioner's father Mr. Ravi also died in year 2014 leaving the business in the inexperienced hands of petitioner and the petitioner has no income from his father's business which the petitioner is reluctantly forced to engage in. The office in the name of "Tuli Properties" from where the above said property business was carried still exists but is for namesake only because the petitioner has no knowledge or experience about Property dealings.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.3 of 53
6. It is further averred that the petitioner has only passed till senior secondary level at school and has not been able to find himself a suitable job to sustain himself and therefore, the petitioner still tries to keep himself engaged in his father business, although without any income for the petitioner to sustain himself. It is stated that in the year 2013 the Petitioner had major kidney and liver surgeries as the petitioner suffers from chronic ailment of Nephrotic Syndrome and has to visit specialist doctor once every week for routine checkup and diagnosis. It is stated that the petitioner incurs a heavy cost of medication each week The petitioner is also required to get routine medical test every month. The petitioner has been medically treated many times due to lower immunity caused by Nephrotic Syndrome and serious liver condition of the petitioner, and was lastly hospitalized in the month of September, 2016.
7. It is further averred that the petitioner requires the premises in question to set up his business of retail cloth merchandising by opening ready-made garment multistory showroom for families by amalgamating the shops on the said property into a single showroom. It is stated that the petitioner has a keen interest in fashion himself and understands the dynamics of retail fashion being resident in a retail market. It is stated that the premises in question forming part of the said property of the petitioner is located on the "Mall Road" of the Tilak Nagar market and is prime location for retail cloth merchandising and the said market is one of the major fashion retail markets of Delhi. It is stated that the petitioner is in engagement with certain ready-made garments suppliers for selling their products with collaboration with the petitioner. It is stated that the ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.4 of 53 said business or of retail cloth merchandising and fashion store requires wide space not only for display of merchandise, storage and maintenance of stocks, advertisements, promotions of business but for ultimately ensuring success of business which is also evident from the fact that all major stores in the said market have a space of 1500 2000 sq.ft. including neighbouring showroom which has a space bigger than 2000 sq.ft It is stated that the petitioner requires wide space to open a multistory showroom, selling ready-made garments to the families. It is stated that the petitioner intends to remove the internal partition between the individual shops to amalgamate the shops into one single showroom. It is stated that the proposed plan for the said showroom is annexed with the petition and the petitioner has also obtained a structural stability certificate from S.D.M.C. empaneled structural engineer who inspected the said property to ensure that the said property was built on RCC columns and beams and the partition walls are mere separation and are not load bearing. It is stated that the partition walls can be removed so as to convert the whole property into intended showroom. It is stated that this alteration can be carried without seeking any permission from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (S.D.M.C.) as per Bye Law 2.14 (j) of the Unified Bye Laws for Delhi, 2016.
8. It is further averred that the petitioner requires the said premises to open a complete family garments showroom on the lower and upper ground floor of his property consisting of different sections for selling and storage of variety and range of cloth merchandize and also ensuring necessary visibility for the success of his business. It is stated that the petitioner requires the first/office floor for storage of stocks and thereby ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.5 of 53 requires a minimum space of 1600 sq.ft. wholly on the lower and upper ground floor of the said property for the showroom, of which the said premises is a part. It is stated that the petitioner also requires minimum area of 700sq.ft. for storage of stock on the office/first (151) floor of the said property. It is stated that the second floor of the property is purely residential where the petitioner himself resides, hence not viable for the petitioner's business. It is stated that the petitioner is in engagement with his relatives who are willing to provide financial assistance for infrastructural and business needs of petitioner. It is stated that the premises in tenancy of the Respondent form part of the intended showroom on the said property of the petitioner and which is most reasonable and suitable for the requirement of the petitioner to set up his separate and independent business. It is stated that the petitioner himself resides on the second floor of the said property. It is stated that the said property required by petitioner is suitable for him to conduct his business also with regard to his ailments and health condition.
9. It is further averred that the petitioner urgently requires the tenanted premises of the respondent to make necessary changes on his property as to make the showroom and start and run his own separate and independent business of Retail garments merchandising. It is stated that the petitioner continuing to engage in his father's business as before is no more suitable, desirable or financially viable as the income of the petitioner therefrom is not sufficient to maintain himself. It is stated that the petitioner cannot remain totally dependent for day to day requirement of himself upon his father's virtually non existent business and rent income from his property. It is stated that the petitioner needs ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.6 of 53 and requires to have his own independent and separate set up and due to impending marriage and his medical conditions and expenses, it is necessary in order that the petitioner can lead and maintain his life in a dignified decent and respectable manner, the petitioner needs to start his own separate and independent business urgently. It is stated that the petitioner does not own any other commercial Property in Delhi.
10. It is further averred that the suit property consists of four floors - Ground, upper ground, first and second floor. The entire property excluding the second floor consists of separate shops which are either occupied by tenants or are vacant and in possession of the petitioner or in permissive possession of others. The petitioner has served eviction notice to his new tenants which he inducted prior to the year 2016 for Shops bearing private No. "LG-B", Shop No.7 and Shop No.9. It is stated that the above referred Tenants are not protected under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is stated that since the year 2014, the Shop bearing private no.10 and No.11 on First/office floor of the said property are in permissive possession of his married sisters that is Mrs. Pooja Kapoor and Mrs. Ruchi Talwar respectively. It is stated that copies of the notices dated 07.01.2017 terminating the permissive possession and recovery of possession from Mrs. Pooja Kapoor and Mrs. Ruchi Talwar are annexed with the petition and photocopy of the Speed Post receipts of notice dated 07/01/2017 to Mrs. Pooja Kapoor and Mrs. Ruchi Talwar are also annexed. It is stated that the shop bearing private No.8 is in permissive possession of Mrs. Sunita Yadav. It is stated that shop on the office floor bearing private no "Office B" has been sold by father of the petitioner to one Mr. Rakesh Mahajan.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.7 of 53
11. It is further averred that the petitioner has filed present petition for eviction against respondent in respect of the tenanted premises, which is situated in the same premises.
12. After obtaining the leave to defend vide order dated 20.07.2018, written statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by the Petitioner under Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the D.R.C Act, 1958 praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with costs.
AVERMENTS BY RESPONDENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT
13. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean and has suppressed and concealed the material facts from this Court, only with the intention to get the eviction order in his favour and against the respondent. It is further contended that the petitioner has wrongly stated that he is the owner and premises has been let out to the respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question. The petitioner has not filed any document, pertaining to his ownership of the said property. It is further contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the petition. The premises in question was sold to the respondent / respondents by the predecessor--in
--interest of the petitioner and an agreement to sell was executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in favour of the respondent and ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.8 of 53 the possession was given in part performance of the said agreement . It is submitted that since the premises were leasehold premises and moreover Apartment Ownership Act was not available, therefore, instead of giving maintenance charges, receipt of rent was being executed by Respondent in favour of the the petitioner's grand-father. It is contended that the said rent was not enhanced for about seven years, which clearly shows that the said amount was not rent, but, maintenance charges.
14. It is further submitted that the respondent had received a notice from MCD dated 27.02.1999 to the effect that the Respondent may submit proof of owner as he has purchased the property. It is submitted that the petitioner's grand-father had executed agreement to sell in six cases, since it is very old document, the Respondent at present is in not in power and custody of the same and since all the documents of sale were entered into between petitioner and other persons, therefore it is presumed that all the persons had purchased the property from the petitioner's grand- father and are occupying as owner since the property was leasehold property, sale deed could not have been executed by the petitioner's grand-father, petitioner's father and also by the petitioner, therefore, the Respondent had not further acted to transfer the property in his favour. The petitioner has first time disclosed that the property has been converted from leasehold to freehold and now the Respondent has become entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour from the petitioner and the Respondent reserves his right to file a suit for specific performance against the petitioner.
15. It is further contended that since it was leasehold property, the ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.9 of 53 predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner was not in a position to execute and register the sale deed, therefore, it was agreed and understanding was made between the parties to the effect that instead of maintenance charges, the Respondent would pay some amount per month, which would be taken as rent because the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest was not in a position to issue any receipt towards maintenance and therefore amount was agreed to be paid per month and rent deed was executed between the parties for convenient sake, because the property was leasehold. It is stated that now the property has been converted from leasehold to freehold and the petitioner has not filed any document with respect to the same and the respondent reserves his right to file a Suit for Specific Performance against the petitioner.
16. It is stated that even otherwise the petitioner is claiming the possession of six shops and offices simultaneously without filing any Project Report to the effect that what type of work he may do and whether any license is required for the same or not. It is stated that the petitioner has categorically stated that he would amalgamate the property of the Respondent with other persons, but, has not produced on record, whether the competent authority can give permission to amalgamate the property or not. It is stated that about 10 (ten) shops and offices are lying vacant and the premises is not required by the petitioner bonafide and this is without prejudice to the right of the Respondent, as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is further stated that the petitioner has let out 2-3 properties recently and status of the property has not been changed. The petitioner has wrongly stated in para No.2 that the premises were let out to the Respondent. It is ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.10 of 53 submitted that the possession of the premises was given in part performance of agreement to predecessor-in-interest petitioner.
17. It is further contended that the petitioner has wrongly stated that he is the absolute and sole owner of the property by way of registered document. The rent receipts were given for convenience sake but it was maintenance charges. The petitioner has stated in para No.6 of the eviction petition to the effect that he has no income and wants to open a big show room, like a Mall, but, has not stated what experience he has in the said business and filed the present eviction petition in the air. Moreover, the petitioner is just 24 years of age and is not qualified to handle such big affairs. He is already having approximate income of Rs.1.5 Lacs per month from the property which he has rented out recently on the ground floor. The petitioner himself has stated in this petition that he has been suffering from various diseases but has failed to disclose how he would be in position to carry out such a large business. It is stated that the fact remains that he has no illness as stated or certified by the Government Hospital and he is perfectly fine and enjoying his life and creating nuisance to the respective owners of the property.
18. It is further contended that the petitioner wants to make the said property into a single show room, but, has not filed any project report permission from the authorities to the extent that the the premises be amalgamated in the manner as stated by the petitioner in the eviction petition. It is further stated that the petitioner has not filed the other eviction petitions against the other tenants deliberately which clearly ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.11 of 53 show that he had malafide intentions, whereas the fact remains that the petitioner has 22 shops in all and the eviction petitions have been filed against six occupants i.e. one on the ground floor, three on the upper ground floor and two on the ground floor. It is submitted that the petitioner is claiming amalgamation of some shops and offices, out of various shops in the same market and the amalgamation which amounts to removing the walls and changing the structure of the property cannot be done so without obtaining requisite permission sanction from the competent authority. It is further stated that the petitioner has stated that he has no income at all and he has been suffering from various diseases and on the other hand, he has been frequently going out of India in a very short period and his conduct can also be shown from the photographs submitted by the respondent.
19. It is further contended that the alleged need of the petitioner is not genuine, bonafide and has been created by the petitioner with the intention to get the suit premises vacated and the need is just whims and wish and is not actual requirement. It is stated that the petitioner has no bonafide need and requirement and he has filed the present petition only to fulfill his lust for money and he just want to evict the respondent to re-let the property on a higher rate of rent. It is further stated that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent to file the petition under Section 14(1)(e) and even otherwise, ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, as required under the Delhi Rent Control Act, have not been fulfilled, therefore, also the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner is estopped from alleging the respondent ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.12 of 53 as tenant, as the predecessor-in-interest already received amount towards sale consideration and possession has been delivered to the respondent in lieu of the agreement to sell, therefore, the respondent are protected under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act.
EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONER
20. The petitioner Mr. Vikram Tuli examined himself as PW1 to prove his case. PW1 tendered evidence by way of affidavit and relied upon several documents viz.
Ex.PW1/1 Conveyance Deed (OSR)
Ex.PW1/2 Site Plan
Ex.PW1/3 Certified copy of Will dated 19.06.2000
executed by Sh. Raghubir Singh Tuli
Ex.PW1/4 Death Certificate of Sh. Jagat Jot Tuli (OSR)
Ex.PW1/5 Copy of registered relinquishment deed dated
12.01.2011 (OSR)
Ex.PW1/6 Four rent receipts (colly)
Ex.PW1/7 Original proposed plan for showroom
Ex.PW1/8 Copy of Stability Certificate (OSR)
Ex.PW1/9 Office copy of notice dated 18.01.2017 to Sh.
Amit Narang
Ex.PW1/10 Office copy of notice dated 18.01.2017 to Ms.
Sushma Malhogra
Ex.PW1/11 Copy of speed post receipt dated 18.01.2017
(OSR)
Ex.PW1/12 Copy of speed post receipt dated 18.01.2017
(OSR)
Ex.PW1/13 Office copy of notice dated 07.01.2017 to Ms.
Pooja Kapoor
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.13 of 53 Ex.PW1/14 Office copy of notice dated 07.01.2017 to Ms. Ruchi Talwar Ex.PW1/15 Copy of speed post receipt dated 07.01.2017 (OSR) Ex.PW1/16 Copy of speed post receipt dated 07.01.2017 (OSR) Ex.PW1/17 Office copy of notice dated 18.01.2017 to Ms. Sunita Yadav Ex.PW1/18 Copy of speed post receipt dated 18.01.2017 (OSR) Mark A Copy of lease deed dated 22.03.1982 Mark B Photocopy of prescription of deponent's doctor for nephrotic syndrome (colly) Mark C Photocopy of medicine bills (colly) Mark D Copy of hospital bills of September 2016 Mark E Copy of Structural Engineer issued by SDMC to Mr. S. L. Dhir PW1 was cross examined at length by the Counsel for the respondents.
21. Sh. Suresh Jain, LDC from the Office of SDMC (West Zone), Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, was a summoned witness and was examined as PW2. He brought the original and copies of the record of RTI reply vide no. D-19/RTI.EE(B)-I/WZ/17 dated 20.01.2019 Ex.PW2/A (OSR) and copy of RTI vide diary entry no. 8452/P dated 06.01.2017 Ex.PW2/2 (OSR).
22. Sh. Narendera Kumar, Civil Defence Volunteer from the office of E-Sub Registrar Office, Basai Darapur, was also a summoned witness ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.14 of 53 and was examined as PW3. He exhibited the documents i.e. copy of Will dated 19.06.2000 registered vide Registration no. 36493 Book No. 3 Volume No. 5019 at pages 1 to 4 as Ex.PW3/1; Copy of relinquishment deed dated 12.01.2011 registered vide Registration no. 735 Book No. 1 Volume No. 18372 at pages 121 to 124 as Ex.PW3/2 and copy of conveyance deed dated 19.01.2000 registered vide Registration no. 580 Additional Book No. 1 Volume No. 9458 at pages 130 to 133 as Ex.PW3/3.
23. Sh. R. D. Yadav, Public Relation Inspector Postal, was examined as PW4 and he exhibited the copy of letter from Postmaster, Tilak Nagar, vide no. TNPO/COURTCASE/2018 dated 06.05.2019 along with record of weeded out postal receipts dated 28.09.2018 as Ex.PW4/1; copy of letter from Postmaster, Gr-III, Janakpuri, vide no. JKP/COURTCASE/2019 dated 06.05.2019 along with record of weeded out postal receipts dated 10.01.2018 as Ex.PW4/2 and copy of letter from Sr. Superintendent of POS New Delhi West Division dated 07.05.2019 vide no. L1/Misc./17/Courtcase/2019-20 as Ex.PW4/3.
24. Sh. Laxman Singh was examined as PW5 and he stated that he had drafted the site plan Ex.PW1/2 upon visiting and inspecting the site i.e. 17/15-A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, and he had also drafted the site plan Ex.PW1/7 and both the site plans bear his signature and stamp. He was cross examined at length by the Counsel for the respondent.
Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.15 of 53 EVIDENCE LED BY RESPONDENT
25. The respondent has also led evidence by examining herself as RW1 by tendering her affidavit Ex.RW1/A and she relied upon document Ex.RW1/1 that is site plan filed by the respondent (earlier exhibited as Ex.PW1/X) and document Ex.RW1/2 (Colly) that is receipt and agreement dated 30.11.1989. Both the said documents were objected by Learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of mode of proof. RW1 was cross examined at length by the petitioner.
26. Another respondent's witness Sh. Rajhinder Sehgal refused to give evidence and his separate statement was recorded to this effect by Learned Presiding Officer on 21.11.2022.
Thereafter, respondent evidence was closed.
27. I have heard the final arguments at length advanced by both the Learned Counsels for both the parties and have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents, case law relied upon and material on record.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
28. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal number 17/15A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and the said property consists of four floors that is Lower Ground Floor, Upper Ground Floor, First Floor and Second floor and all the floors except ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.16 of 53 second floor consist of multiple shops separated by Partition walls wherein each shop is given a private number/name and the second floor is used for residential purposes only.
29. It has been further argued that the grandfather of the petitioner was the sole and absolute owner of the aforesaid property of which the tenanted shops form a part, by virtue of conveyance deed dated 19.01.2000 Ex.PW-1/1 and who in turn had executed a duly registered Will dated 19.06.2000 Ex.PW-1/3 in favour the Petitioner's father. It has been further argued that the father of Petitioner died intestate on 13.08.2010 and upon the death of Petitioner's father, and subsequently by virtue of a registered Relinquishment Deed executed by the other legal heirs of the petitioner's father, registered on 12.01.2011 EX.PW- 1/5, the petitioner became the sole and absolute owner of the subject property.
30. It has been further argued that the respondent is tenants in respect of respective tenanted portion in the subject property by virtue of un- registered Rent agreement (marked as Mark-A and admitted by the Respondent). It has been further contended that upon demise of father of the petitioner, the respondent started paying rent in respect of the tenanted premises/shops to the Petitioner against due receipts and counter foils in respect thereof were maintained by the petitioner.
31. It has been contended that the petitioner is having no other reasonable, suitable alternative accommodation available to him and also the fact that Petitioner's father who was engaged in the business of ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.17 of 53 property broker/commission agent expired at a time when the petitioner was of a very young age and thus the Petitioner could not acquire any expertise in the said business and thus has no business/income therefrom; that the Petitioner with his limited education is not able to find any suitable job to sustain himself otherwise and that the petitioner otherwise, suffers from chronic ailment of Nephritic syndrome (Copy of the medical prescription and medical bills of the Petitioner is MARK-B, MARK-C & MARK-D), requiring heavy cost of medication and diagnosis on regular basis, due to which the Petitioner herein, intended to start a new business of retail cloth merchandizing in subject property containing the tenanted shop, as the same is situated and located in the heart of main market, Tilak Nagar which is one of the major fashion retail markets of Delhi and is at prime location for retail cloth merchandising, which was admitted fact by the Respondents. The Petitioner further intends to amalgamate the various shops into a single multilevel showroom by amalgamating all the shops on above- mentioned lower ground floor, upper ground floor and on the first floor, by removing their partition walls, and thereby creating a multilevel showroom, as per the proposed plan Ex.PW1/7 creating space for display of merchandise, storage and maintenance of stock therefor, advertisements for carrying on with the above said business, including for storage of the stock and other material. The tenanted shop forming part of the subject property is most suitable for the Petitioner as the Petitioner is himself residing at the 2 nd floor of the property and starting his business form the said property allows the Petitioner to not have much physical activity on account of his illness.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.18 of 53
32. It has been contended that all the major showrooms in the neighbouring area are occupying more than 2000 ft. of space and the petitioner would require a minimum area of 700 ft. for storage of stock on the first floor, a minimum of 1600 ft. area on lower and upper ground floor for carving a showroom, while the total area available with the petitioner at the time of filing of petition was only 1836 ft., with the collective area available with all the five tenants, who are being sought to be evicted, being around 400 ft.. It has been contended that the respondents have admitted to the fact that neighbouring showroom are large size showroom doing business of retail cloth merchandizing. It has been contended that in furtherance of Petitioner's intention to start his business and to check/verify the viability of his proposed structural changes in the subject property, the Petitioner obtained a Structural Stability Certificate in respect of the above property, from an impaneled Structural Engineer, to ensure the safety and stability of the structure existing on the above referred property Ex.PW-1/8, who certified that the property is raised on RCC pillars and beams and not partition wall, and therefore, the partition walls could be removed to amalgamate the showroom.
33. It has been contended that the Petitioner also received affirmation from the concerned Municipal Department i.e. SDMC, who, in response to an Application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, as preferred by the petitioner, have confirmed that no building permit is required by the petitioner, under bylaws 2.14 (j) of Unified Building Bylaws for Delhi, 2016, for "Erection or re-Erection of internal Partitions" for removal of partition walls. It has been contended that in ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.19 of 53 the site plan Ex.PW-1/2, the Petitioner has categorically and in details explained the shops available with the Petitioner (Shown in green colour) and the shops not in possession of the Petitioner, and a layout of the subject property, which inter alia shows that while the second floor of the above-referred property is being used for residence, seven shops on the lower Ground floor, six shops, on the upper Ground floor and six shops on the First floor were carved out by erecting partition walls; that while three shops on the lower Ground floor, three shops on the upper Ground floor and two shops on the First floor, are available to the petitioner for use and occupation, two shops on the lower Ground floor and another two shops on the First floor have been got vacated by the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition from its occupants; that the shop in question, along with other shops, separate eviction petitions in respect whereof, are also pending before this Honorable Court, besides, the shops already available with the petitioner for use and occupation, are required bona fide by the petitioner for commencing and carrying on his business. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present petition, one of the shops in respect of different eviction petition also got vacated and in the possession of the Petitioner.
34. It has been contended that in support of his submission/case, the Petitioner examined himself by way of affidavit and exhibited & relied upon the documents viz. Conveyance Deed dated 19.01.2000 (Ex. PW- 1/1(OSR)), Original Site plan (Ex. PW-1/2), Certified copy of WILL dated 19.06.2000 executed by Sh, Raghubir Singh Tuli (Ex, PW- 1/3). Death certificate of Sh. Jagat Jot Tuli (Ex, PW-1/4(OSR), Copy of registered relinquishment deed dated 12.01.2011. (Ex, PW-1/5 (OSR), ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.20 of 53 Original 04 rent receipts (EX.PW-1/6) (Colly), Original proposed plan for the showroom (EX.PW-1/7), Copy of stability certificate (EX.PW- 1/8(OSR)), Office copy of notice dated 18.01.2017 to Sh. Amit Narang. (EX.PW-1/9), Office copy of notice dated 18.01.2017 to Ms. Sushma Malhotra, (Ex.PW-1/10), Copy of speed post receipts dated 18.01.2017 (Ex.PW-1/11(OSR)), Copy of speed post receipts dated 18.01.2017 (Ex.PW-1/12(OSR)), Office copy of the notice dated 07.01.2017 to Ms. Pooja Kapoor. (Ex.PW-1/13), Office copy of the notice dated 07.01.2017 to Ms Ruchi Talwar (Ex.PW-1/14). Copy of speed post receipts dated 07.01.2017(Ex. PW-1/15(OSR)), Copy of speed post receipts dated 07.01.2017 (Ex.PW-1/16(OSR)). Office copy of the notice dated 18.01.2017 to Ms. Sunita Yadav (Ex. PW-1/17), Copy of speed post receipts dated 18.01.2017 (Ex.PW- 1/17(OSR)), Copy of lease deed dated 22.03.1992 (Mark-A). Photocopy of prescription of Petitioner for Nephritic Syndrome (Mark-B (collectively) (running into 09 pages)), Photocopy of medicine bills of deponent (Mark-C (collectively) (running into 03 pages)), Photocopy of hospital bills of deponent in September 2016 (Mark-D) and Copy of structural engineer issued by S.D.M.C. to Mr. S.L Dhir(Mark-E).
35. It has been contended that the petitioner further examined four independent witness including the concerned official from office of SDMC, West Zone, Rajouri Garden namely Sh. Suresh Jain (Ex.PW-2), who filed the copy of RTI reply vide No. D-19/RTI/EE(B)- 1/WZ/17 dated 20.01.2019 (Ex.PW-2/1(Colly) (OSR)) and copy of the RTI filed by the Petitioner vide diary entry No. 8452/P dated 06.01.2017 (Ex.PW- 2/2 (Colly) (OSR)), which proved the Petitioner had filed RTI to the ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.21 of 53 concerned building department to verify the legal position to remove partition walls on subject property. The Plaintiff also examined the official from the office E-sub Registrar, Basai Darapur, New Delhi namely Mr. Narendra Kumar (PW-3) who brought and filed the copy of will dated 19.06.2000(Ex.PW-3/1), copy of relinquishment deed dated 12.01.2011 (Ex.PW-3/2) and copy of the conveyance deed dated 19.01.2000(Ex.PW-3/3). It is contended that the said documents clearly proved that the Petitioner is the sole and absolute owner of the subject property in which the tenanted shop is situated. The plaintiff also examined official from Postal office Tilak Nagar Mr. R.S. Yadav, Public Relations Inspector Postal (PW-4), who filed copy of letter dated 06.05.2019 (Ex.PW-4/1 (Colly)) and letter dated 06.05.2019(Ex.PW-4/2 (Colly)) and letter dated 07.05.2019 (Ex.PW-4/3) which mentioned that the records of postal receipts have been weeded out. It has been contended that the postal receipts have not been disputed by the Respondent. The Petitioner further examined the Draftsman of the site plan Namely Sh Laxman Singh (PW-5) who deposed that he had seen the site plan (Ex.PW-1/2) and proposed site plan (Ex.PW-1/7) bearing his signature and stamp, and deposed he had prepared the same after visiting and inspecting the subject Property on 04.01/2017 at 4:00 p.m. It is contended that the deposition of the said witness proved the correctness of the site plan and the claims of the Petitioner regarding the status of subject property and tenanted shop therein.
36. It has been contended that the Respondent in defence has made bare allegation and taken up sham, false and contradictory pleas throughout pleadings, evidence and applications filed therein. The ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.22 of 53 respondent in defence took several defences including refusing to admit the petitioner to be the owner of the tenanted shop and further refuting Landlord Tenant relationship, and also alleged that the shop in question having allegedly been sold by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner to the respondent by virtue of some alleged Agreement to Sell, with the possession of the tenanted shop, having allegedly been handed over, in part performance thereof, and further challenging the bonafide need of the Petitioner, and also alleging availability of alternative accommodation. It is pertinent to mention that the Respondent did not file a single document to show or prove its defence. It is contended that the respondent's defence of non-existence of landlord-tenant relationship is demolished by the fact that the Respondent has admitted signing the counterfoil (Exhibited as EX.PW-1/6) and admitted to the execution and receipt of the said receipts and also admitted the fact that the said receipts contained the word 'Rent at the time of issuance of the same. It is contended that the Respondent also failed to prove as to how the same were maintenance charge slips.
37. It has been contended that the Respondent did not file any documents in support of claim of having purchased the tenanted shops by virtue of the execution alleged agreement-to- sell, and further admitted to not having executed any agreement to sell in respect of tenanted shop. It is contended that the allegation made by the respondent about having allegedly acquired possession of the tenanted shop, pursuant to or in part performance of an alleged Agreement to Sell, is even otherwise unsustainable in law, in view of the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in Suraj Lamps and Industrial Pvt. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.23 of 53 Ltd., vs State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656. The Respondent challenged the bonafide need of the petitioner on the various grounds including the ground that the Petitioner did not have prior experience to start the business nor had financial means for the same, and that the Petitioner could carry out his business from other shops, the Petitioner need not start his business from the whole property but from a single shop. It has been contended that it is trite law that is open for the landlord to choose more suitable premises for his business and the same cannot be dictated by the Tenant. (Reliance has been placed upon Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi (MANU/SC/1473/2016, Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan (MANU/SC/0002/2012), Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (MANU/SC/00101/2000). It is contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held in catena of judgments that prior experience is not necessary for the landlord for his business. Even otherwise, the Petitioner/landlord cannot be expected to start making preparation for his business prior to eviction petition (Reliance is placed on Mattulal Vs. Radhelal (MANU/SC/0685/1974). It has been contended that the Respondent also failed to allege as to what permissions and project report was required to be obtained by the Petitioner for starting his business of retail cloth merchandizing. It is contended that the Respondent is itself not aware of the business the Petitioner intends to open. The relevant portion of cross examination of RW-1 in RC ARC No. 18/17 dated 12.10.2021 is "I do not know the proposed business, the petitioner wants to start." It is contended that this court vide order dated 20.07.2018 granting the leave to defend to the Respondent, had observed as under :-
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.24 of 53 " ... 12(a)(iv) In view of the above, petitioner is the landlord of the respondents with regard to the tenanted shops. ...
12(c) (i) Respondents have failed to show that petitioner has reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for is said bonafide need. ..."
38. It has been contended that having failed to prove its defences, the Respondent preferred an application dated at the belated stage of final arguments for bringing on subsequent events and the same was allowed vide order dated 16.09.2023. It has been contended that the Respondent at belated stage for the first time raised the issue pertaining to subsequent event of parting off disposal of other shops in subject property by the Petitioner after filing of present petition. However, it is submitted that subsequent cannot be taken into consideration and only the facts/events at the time filing of eviction petition shall be taken into account especially where the case has been pending for many years, in view of the judicial pronouncement in Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivasatava (MANU/SC/0685/2001); Carola Ltd. Vs. Parvathy Swainathan & Sons (MANU/SC/3938/2207; Ansyuaben Kantilal Bhatt Vs. Rashiklal Manilal Shah (MANU/SC/2071/1997) and Dharampal Gupta Vs. Anand Prakash (MANU/DE/3006/2008). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments also, (1).
(1961) 1 SCR 884 : AIR 1961 SC 218 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 322 Padam Sen And Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2). I.L.R. 1996 KAR 443, Puttappa Vs. Ramappa, (3). 2008 (3) CTC 597 K.M.A Wahab & 5 Ors. Vs. Eswaran and Anr. (4). 2005 (4) CTC 680 P. Sivachandran and Anr. Vs. M. P. Purushottam.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.25 of 53 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
39. Per contra, it is contented by Learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner filed a petition for bonafide requirement and in para No. 18 (a) has mentioned about his bonafide requirement stating that he will amalgamate the properties under the tenancy of the respondent and other tenants and open a mall in the premises in question. It has been further averred that the petitioner filed two site plans i.e. one site plan is existing site plan and other after eviction of the property what he will do i.e. after demolishing the walls he would open a mall in the property. It has been further averred that the petitioner has also stated in his petition that some shops are readily available with him in the same premises for opening a mall and that during pendency of the petition, the petitioner has transferred most of the shops, which were in his possession wanted to open a mall. It has been further averred that the respondent moved an application under section 151 of CPC for bringing on record the fact to the effect that the petitioner has transferred on floor, upper ground floor and ground first floor most of the shops, which were to be used for opening a mall.
40. It has been further contended that now the petitioner has only the shops under the possession of tenants which are five in numbers and he cannot open a mall as per two site plans filed by him and that the application of the respondent for subsequent event was allowed on 16th September, 2023 and now there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner as he cannot open a mall and during pendency of petition, he has transferred eleven shops, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.26 of 53
41. It has been further contended by the Learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had filed six petitions for bonafide requirement and in para 18 (a) of the petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that he wants to amalgamate the 21 shops into one big showroom thereby removing the walls of the shops. The petitioner has filed two site plans, one is existing site plan and other is showing bonafide requirement for converting the shops into room) a showroom. It has been contended that the petitioner brought the witnesses and the purpose of calling the witness was only to the extent that petitioner wants to amalgamate the property and run one showroom. It has been contended that during the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, one person namely Shri Malik had surrendered the possession of the property in his possession. The petitioner besides other property had sold the property vacated by the said tenant to someone. It has been contended that when a banner was fixed by N.C. Footwear, the respondent moved an application to the effect that there are subsequent event and the petitioner has transferred/ sold some portion of the property. The petitioner while arguing the case raised objections to the effect that respondents have not filed any document and the petitioner has not transferred any property. The respondent thereafter contacted the office of Sub Registrar and found out that not only the property was transferred to N.C. Footwear but out 21 shops, 11 shops were already transferred by the petitioners to various persons and the respondent moved a fresh application whereby disclosing the particulars of deeds executed by petitioner in favour of various persons. The petitioner filed reply to the said application and did not dispute the facts stated by the respondent in ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.27 of 53 their application. It has been contended that the petitioner had not disputed the fact of transfer of property, registered documents and the court had accepted and admitted the application of the respondent u/s 151 CPC for bringing on record the subsequent event and taking into consideration the same. The said order was passed on16th September, 2023. It has been contended that since the aforesaid subsequent events were admitted by the petitioner and the court has specifically passed order for placing on record the subsequent event and the Court has also specifically stated that no evidence is required as the petitioner has not denied the registered documents. It has been contended that on the date of transferring the property, the petitioner had extinguished his requirement as now the property cannot be used for a showroom as most of the property on ground, upper ground and first floor have already been transferred and the petitioner has admitted the same.
42. The respondent has relied upon the judgments, (1). Nidhi vs Ram Kripal Sharma Through LRs Decided on 7.02.2017, AIR 2017 SC 814 (Para(s) No. 15 & 16); (2). Mohd. Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, Citation (2009) 10 SC 1937 (Para(s) No. 13 & 14); (3). Jai Prakash Gupta vs Riyaz Ahmed & another AIR 2009 10 SC 197 (Para(s) No. 25, 26, 27 & 28); (4). Inder Chand Jain vs Moti Lal Civil Appeal No. 4584 of 2009 (Para No. 26); (5). Ram Kumar Barnwal vs Ram Lakhan decided on 14 may 2007, civil Appeal No. 2480/2007 (Para(s) No. 4, 5 & 6).
ANAYLYSIS AND FINDINGS
43. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the Section ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.28 of 53 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."
44. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
45. The satisfaction of the two requirements of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.29 of 53 case Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus:-
"The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in sub-section (e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
46. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean "in good faith and genuine i.e. without fraud or deceit". Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide"
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.30 of 53 is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.
47. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
48. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.31 of 53 landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant is always a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
49. Learned Predecessor of this Court while granting leave to defend, adjudicated that the petitioner is the landlord with regard to the tenanted shops.
50. It is settled law that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioner has to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioner has to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.32 of 53 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
51. 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."
52. 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."
14. It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
53. The petitioner has relied upon the registered Will in his favour. In ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.33 of 53 the case titled as Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Teckchandani 153(2008)DLT 247 the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed as under:-
4. The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit.
If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner.
5. This Court in Ram Chander v. Ram Pyari 109 (2004) DLT 388 and Plashchemicals Company v.
Ashit Chadha & Anr. : 114(2004)DLT408 have laid down the law that it was not for the tenant to challenge the Will of the landlord and any such challenge made by the tenant is a baseless and ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.34 of 53 frivolous challenge. I, therefore, consider that even if the learned Additional Rent Controller did not dwell upon this point, such a challenge made by the tenant would not result into non suiting the landlord. Moreover, the evidence led by the landlady in this case makes it clear that she inherited the property, in question, on the basis of Will left by her father in law. There is no other person who has claimed ownership over the property and this objection was raised just for the sake of raising objection."
54. In the case titled as Plastic Chemicals Company Vs Ashit Chadha & Ors. 114 (2004) DLT 408, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi inter-alia observed as under:-
"4. I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully examined the judgment under challen12 ptge as also the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner challenging the Will, the law has since been crystalised by the Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma vs. Smt.Ved Prabha, as also in Sheela and others vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, . Once the landlord has been able to show that there is a testament in his favor, the landlord is deemed to have discharged his burden of ownership, vis-a-vis, the Rent Control Act. In the present case, the landlord has been able to prove that a testament has been made in his favor by the previous owner which, at best, could be challenged by the heirs of Smt. Saroj Mohan and certainly not by the tenant. In this view of the matter I hold that the objection of the petitioner herein to the maintainability of the eviction petition by the landlord is frivolous."
55. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically held that:-
"It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.35 of 53 the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
56. In view of the detailed discussion above and in light of settled law, the ownership in favour of the petitioner and the landlord - tenant relationship stands duly proved for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT AND AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION
57. It is the case of the petitioner that he is suffering from nephrotic syndrome and has to incur heavy medical expenditure and is required to get routine medical tests. It is stated that the petitioner is suffering from serious liver condition. The petition requires the premises in question to set up his business of retail cloth merchandizing by opening ready-made garment multi-storey showroom for families by amalgamating the shops on the said property into a single show room. It is stated that the ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.36 of 53 property is located on the 'Mall Road' of the Tilak Nagar Market and is prime location as the said market is one of the major fashion retail markets of Delhi. The petitioner claims to be in engagement with certain ready-made garments supplier for collaboration. The petitioner intends to remove the internal partition between the shops. The petitioner requires minimum space of 1600 sq. ft. on the lower and upper ground floor of the property. The petitioner also requires minimum area of 700 sq. ft. for storage of stock. The second floor of the property is stated to be residential in nature. It has been contended that at the time of filing of petition, the area available to the petitioner was 1836 sq ft and the petition also requires the further area of 400 sq ft from 5 shops against which petition for eviction has been filed, including the present property in question. The petitioner has stated that since he resides on the second floor and considering the ailments, the present property in question is most suitable for him to conduct business. The petitioner has stated that he cannot remain totally dependent for day to day requirement of himself upon his father's virtually non-existent income and the rent income from the property. The petitioner requires the present premises so that he can lead and maintain his life in a dignified and respectable manner.
58. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1. The petitioner was cross-examined at length. Nothing came out in the cross-examination of the petitioner which could cast doubt on his testimony.
59. The petitioner by leading evidence of empanelled structural ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.37 of 53 engineer proved that the subject property is raised on RCC pillars and the property can be amalgamated (Ex.PW1/8). The petitioner examined witnesses from MCD who proved copy of the RTI reply which proved the legal position with respect to the removal of partition walls. From the perusal of the documents, there appears to be no legal impediment proved on record by petitioner in amalgamating the area into one.
60. The petitioner examined witness from Sub Registrar Office, who proved the registered will dated 19.06.2000 (Ex.PW3/1), relinquishment deed dated 12.01.2011 and conveyance deed dated 19.01.2000. The petitioner also examined the draftsman, who prepared the site plan, as PW5.
61. The respondent denied that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property. In earlier discussion, the petitioner has already been held to be the landlord of the property and the landlord - tenant relationship stands proved. The respondent miserably failed to prove on record any document which could show that the respondent is the owner of the suit property.
62. The respondent has challenged the bonafide need of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not file any project report to this effect. The respondent has also stated that the petitioner does not have any experience in opening a big showroom. The respondent has denied the illness of the petitioner.
63. The respondent as RW1, deposed that the petitioner is not the ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.38 of 53 owner of the property and agreement to sell was executed by Predecessor in interest. However, the respondent could not produce the original agreement in court. The witness was confronted with document Mark A that is the rent deed in her cross-examination. The witness admitted the signatures on the rent deed. The witness also could not produce any receipt for the amount of Rs. 1.5 Lacs as claimed by her. The witness categorically deposed that no agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner or his predecessor in interest. The witness could not tell whether the suit property was lease hold or not. In the cross-examination, the witness admitted the signatures on receipt no. 448 dated 04.09.2016. The witness also admitted that no notice was ever received from the MCD as claimed in the affidavit. The witness admitted that respondent asked the petitioner or his father for the execution of the sale deed. The witness admitted that the walls between different shops in the property in question are partition walls and the property is raised on beams and columns. The witness admitted that there is no such law which makes it mandatory for the petitioner to have previous experience. The witness could not substantiate her allegations in the affidavit that the petitioner is not suffering from any illness and he is earning around Rs. 1.5 lacs per month. The witness also could not substantiate the allegations that the petitioner has been visiting many countries abroad. The witness also could not substantiate averments in para no. 24 of the affidavit regarding part performance of the agreement in respect of other shops. The witness also could not tell the amount of loan allegedly taken by the petitioner from respondent. The witness admitted that the petitioner is currently residing on the top floor of the property in question.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.39 of 53
64. Another limb of the respondent's argument is subsequent events which have been allowed to be taken on record by the Court. The respondent in the application for subsequent events had alleged that there are total 21 shops in the building. It has been alleged that during pendency of the petition, (a) the petitioner has sold shops no. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the upper ground floor to Smt. Chanchal Khurana and Sh. Narender Khurana, (b) the petitioner also transferred shop bearing no. 11 on the first floor to Smt. Ruchi Talwar by gift deed, (c) the petitioner transferred shop no. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the lower ground floor to Smt. Sarableen Kaur by gift deed dated 2302.2021, (d) petitioner transferred shop bearing no. 10 first floor by way of gift deed to Smt. Pooja Kapoor dated 11.05.2022. It has been further contended that the petitioner has also let out shop no. 8, lower ground floor, shop no. 1 on ground floor and shop no. 7 on ground floor to various tenants during the pendency of the petition.
65. The petitioner filed a detailed reply explaining the subsequent events. It has been contended that the petition was filed in the year 2017 and the subsequent events application is highly belated as having been filed in the year 2023. The petitioner stated that Ms. Sarableen Kaur is the wife of the petitioner and the shops were gifted to her by the petitioner. The petitioner further averred that Ms. Ruchi Talwar and Ms. Pooja Kapoor are real sisters of the petitioner and infact the status of possession of the concerned shops with the said person was also mentioned in the petition. Petitioner has submitted that all the shops are in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has acquired more ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.40 of 53 shops than at the date of filing of the petition.
66. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the case titled as Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi, MANU/SC/1473/2016, (2016) 10 SCC 209.
67. The petitioner has relied upon Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivasatava (MANU/SC/0685/2001), in which it was held that subsequent developments may also be taken into account in eviction proceedings, however the crucial date normally is the date of filing of petition. The Hon'ble Court held that "the subsequent events to overshadow the genuineness of the need must be of such nature and of such a dimension that the need propounded by the petitioning party should have been completely eclipsed by such subsequent events". In Para No. 15 and 17, the court noted as under "
"15. The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this long interval, many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to be the parties as the well as the subject matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused.
17. Considering all the aforesaid decisions, we are of the definite view that the subsequent events pleaded and highlighted by the appellant are too insufficient to overshadow the bonafide need concurrently found by the fact finding courts."
68. In Carola Ltd. Vs. Parvathy Swainathan & Sons (MANU/SC/3938/2207), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the basic ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.41 of 53 rule as under :-
"37. In our judgment, the law is fairly settled. The basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of institution of the suit. Thus, if the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of filing of the suit, ordinarily, he will not be allowed to take advantage of the cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the suit. Conversely, no relief will normally be denied to the plaintiff by reason of any subsequent event if at the date of the institution of the suit, he has a substantive right to claim such relief".
69. In Dharampal Gupta Vs. Anand Prakash (MANU/DE/3006/2008), in which it is held as under :-
"7. There is no doubt that the view of the Supreme Court earlier had been that subsequent events should be taken into account however, the way the litigation in eviction matters has been taking decades, this view has now changed and the Supreme Court in recent judgment Usha P. Kuvelkar v. Ravindra Subrai Dalvi, 2008 (1) RLR 63, has observed as under:
"It was tried to be argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that since the landlord had died, the need had expired with him and that the question will have to be examined again regarding the bona fide personal need of the landlord. The question is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of this Court in Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, (2004) 5 SCC 772. This Court has observed:
'...The bona fide need of the landlord has to be examined as on the date of institution of the proceedings and if a decree for eviction is passed, the death of the landlord during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the tenant will make no difference as his heirs are fully entitled to defend the estate.' In the same decision a contrary note expressed by this Court in P.V Papanna v. Padmanabhaiah, (1994) 2 SCC 316 was held to be in the nature of an obiter. This Court in Shakuntala Bai (supra) referred to the decision in Shantilal Thakordas v. Chimanial Maganlal Telwala, (1976) 4 SCC 417 and specifically observed that the ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.42 of 53 view expressed in Shantilal Thakordass case did not, in any manner, affect the view expressed in Phool Rani v.
Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, (1973) 1 SCC 688, to the effect that where the death of landlord occurs after the decree for possession has been passed in his favour, his legal heirs are entitled to defend the further proceedings like an appeal and the benefit accrued to them under the decree. Here in this case also it is obvious that the original landlord Prabhakar Govind Sinai Kuvelkar had expired only after the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller. This is apart from the fact that the landlord had sought the possession not only for himself but also for his family members. There is a clear reference in Section 23(1)(a)(i) of the Act regarding occupation of the family members of the landlord. In that view the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent must be rejected."
70. In Carom Ltd. V. Parvathy Swaminathan and Sons, 2007 (2) RLR 481, the Supreme Court considered the impact of subsequent events on the eviction decree and held as under:
"37. In our judgment, the law is fairly settled. The basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of institution of the suit. Thus, if the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the filing of the suit, ordinarily, he will not be allowed to take advantage of the cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the suit. Conversely, no relief will normally be denied to the plaintiff by reason of any subsequent event if at the date of the institution of the suit, he has a substantive right to claim such relief."
10. The span of 10-20 years, which is normally spent in eviction petitions, is long enough to change the circumstances in the life of anyone and with every change in circumstances, like growth in family or reduction in the family or death or marriage in the family, a new cause of action would arise during pendency of the Revision or Appeal and a de novo trial shall again start and in this manner no petition can come to an end during the lifetime of any person. I, therefore consider that the Court has only to look into the cause of action which was available at the time when eviction petition was instituted. Once the trial is over and ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.43 of 53 judgment is pronounced no new circumstance can be considered either during revision or appeal.
11. Taking into consideration the subsequent events in fact has encouraged parties to prolong the case on one or the other pretext waiting for something to happen. If the landlord is old and ill enough the tenant keeps on dragging the petition waiting for landlord to die so that the entire cause of action evaporates. The dragging of petition is so easy in the Court that the whole purpose of filing the petition gets frustrated. I, therefore, consider that the subsequent events in the eviction petitions cannot form basis of decision in the revision and the Court has to stick to the cause of action which was there at the time of filing the petition. The subsequent events highly prejudice only one side because the subsequent events of the other side are always in dark. The argument of the petitioner is not tenable. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed."
71. The respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgments, (1). Nidhi vs Ram Kripal Sharma Through LRs Decided on 7.02.2017, AIR 2017 SC 814 (Para(s) No. 15 & 16); (2). Mohd. Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, Citation (2009) 10 SC 1937 (Para(s) No. 13 & 14); (3). Jai Prakash Gupta vs Riyaz Ahmed & another AIR 2009 10 SC 197 (Para(s) No. 25, 26, 27 & 28); (4). Inder Chand Jain vs Moti Lal Civil Appeal No. 4584 of 2009 (Para No. 26) & (5). Ram Kumar Barnwal vs Ram Lakhan decided on 14 may 2007, civil Appeal No. 2480/2007 (Para(s) No. 4, 5 & 6).
72. In Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma Through LRs Decided on 7.02.2017, AIR 2017 SC 814, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court has the power to take note of the subsequent events and to mould the relief accordingly.
73. In Mohd. Ismail vs Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar, (2009) 10 SC ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.44 of 53 1937, it was held by the Hon'ble Court that the respondent can amend his pleadings in case of subsequent events.
74. In Jai Prakash Gupta vs Riyaz Ahmed & Another AIR 2009 10 SC 197, the following observations were made :-
25. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, it is therefore a settled proposition of law that subsequent developments of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court, even at any stage of the proceeding, is not precluded from taking a cautious cognizance of the subsequent developments of fact and law to mould the relief.
26. Keeping these principles in mind and considering the nature of subsequent developments as brought out by the parties during the pendency of the writ petition, we are of the view that we will have to find out a solution within the scope of this exception. Therefore, the test is whether the subsequent events of fact have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief awarded before consideration of such subsequent events.
27. In the present case, the death of the father of the appellant is taken as a valid excuse by the tenant to argue that since the present landlord had other options for accommodation and for starting an office as a chartered accountant, he could, without any hardship, forgo his claim to the shop in dispute. Again, if it is an admitted position that the present landlord has acquired a house behind the shop in dispute, then he has to prove by evidence that the said house available is not suitable for starting an office space for his chartered accountancy firm. In this connection, we have examined the factual findings of the appellate court and concluded that the recorded findings are insufficient to decide the matter in the light of the subsequent developments.
28. The occurrence of the subsequent developments has not been denied by the appellant, in fact, has been accepted by him. But the appellant landlord has also, by ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.45 of 53 his counter-affidavit, pleaded that in view of the long pendency of the proceeding for release, his requirement has increased as the two sons and a daughter have grown up and, therefore, the requirement of the appellant landlord has to be adjudged in the light of the statements made by him in the counter-affidavit.
75. In Inder Chand Jain vs Moti Lal Civil Appeal No. 4584 of 2009, the Hon'ble Court noted that the court may take into consideration (ofcourse on rare occasions) the subsequent events.
76. In Ram Kumar Barnwal vs Ram Lakhan decided on 14 may 2007, civil Appeal No. 2480/2007, the court noted that the courts can sometimes take notice of subsequent events, but the doctrine itself is of an exceptional character only to be used in very special circumstances.
77. The respondent has also relied upon the cases, that is, (1) Vishwanath Vs. Gurmeet Singh & Anr. RC Rev. No. 265/15 & CM Appeal No. 9862/15, 9864/15, 46207/16, 39374/17, 43581/19 Pages 1 to 4; (2). Gopal Krishan Vs. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr., RC Rev. No. 570/18 & CM Appls No. 50188/18, 50190/18, 1455/2024 pages 5 - 28; (3). Kuldeep Singh VS. Sanjay Aggarwal, 2018 SCC ONLINE DEL 8562; (2018) 2 RCR (RENT) 374 Pages 29-36; (4). Mallo Devi Vs. Naraini Devi Through LRs, 2012 SC ONLINE DEL 3084, (2012) 190 DLT 382 Pages 37-41; (5). Laxmi Narain And Ors. Vs. Vishal Moondhra And Ors., 2024 SCC ONLINE DEL 387, pages 42-51; (6). Hasmat Rai And Another Vs. Raghunath Prasad, (1981) 3 Supreme Court Cases 103, Pages 52-66; (7). Surinder Kumar And Ors. Vs. Smt. Kamla Wati And Ors. CR No. 7849/2010, pages 67-70; (8). Smt. Surekha Devi Vs. Rent Control Tribunal Anr. Civil Writ Petition No. 5083/13, Pages 71-73; (9). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.46 of 53 Iqbal Singh Vs. Anoop Singh, CR No. 2087 of 2017, Pages 74-75; (10). Amrik Singh Vs. Braham Prakash Yadav, 2018 SCC ONLINE DEL 8981, pages 76-78 and (11). Aggarwal Papers Vs. Mukesh Kumar, 2012 SCC ONLINE DERL 5459, Pages 79-86.
78. A perusal of the case laws only fortifies the law already discussed above. The law as it emerges is that although the court is competent to take into account the subsequent events, however the same is to be done in exceptional circumstances to do complete justice.
79. The petitioner has already clarified that the shops have been gifted to his spouse and sisters and therefore, he has the constructive possession of the properties. This court is of the considered view that the subsequent events are not of such a nature which can be allowed to defeat the claim of the petitioner for bonafide need.
80. In Savitri Sahay v. Sachidanand Prasad AIR 2003 SC 156, Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534 and The Punjab State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Amit Goel 204 (2013) DLT 63, it is held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and the tenant cannot dictate landlord to adjust as suitability would be seen from the convenience of landlord and other circumstances. Further it is well settled law that the owner/landlord can seek eviction of the tenant for expansion of his business, as has been held in M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal, (2005) 8 SCC; M/s. Bajaj Associates v. Vinod Kumar, 2008 (2) RCR 258 P & H; Rajan v. Poil Raghavan, 2009 (1) RCR 429 Kerala DB.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.47 of 53
81. The plea of the landlord of bonafide requirement is not to be judged by considering the possibility by which the tenant may be allowed to continue in the premises. The requirement is to be judged on the basis of the property as it stands and not by commanding the landlord to somehow or the other accommodate the tenant. The Supreme Court in Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561 held that the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life; an approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against.
82. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohan Singh & Anr., 2014 (140) DRJ 560, held as under :-
"No experience is required to start a new business and if a 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."
83. It is settled law that a landlord need not have know how or experience of the business sought to be started as held in Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manoher Lal Jain, AIR 2006 SC 1471, Ram Babu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Das, AIR 2010 SC 721 and Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak Raj Bajaj AIR 2008 SC 526.
84. Moreover, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , AIR 1999 SC100, 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 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.48 of 53 landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. 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 bona fide. 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 bona fide. It is often said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself...".
85. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 held that:-
"It will be seen that the trial court and the appellate court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement" to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity". According to them, if the plaintiff had not permanently lost his job on account of the lockout or if he had not resigned his job, he could not be treated as a person without any means of livelihood, as contended by him and hence not entitled to an order for possession of the shop. This test, in our view, is not the proper test. A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. The manner in which the courts have gone into the meaning of "lockout" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 appears to us to be nothing but a perverse approach to the problem. One cannot imagine that a landlord who is in service should first resign his job and wait for the unknown and uncertain result of a long-drawn litigation. If he resigned his job, he might indeed end up in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the long-drawn litigation he started some other temporary water business to sustain himself, that would not be an indication that the need for establishing a grocery shop was not a bona fide or a reasonable requirement or that it was motivated or was a mere design to evict the tenant".
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.49 of 53
86. In view of observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court; it is well settled that a person is not supposed to remain unemployed till the disposal of the eviction petition. Furthermore, this Court is of the view that there is nothing malafide if the petitioner wants to start his own business from the tenanted premises. Rather, the said requirement seems to be bonafide as he wants to earn his livelihood and the tenant cannot stop the landlord/family member of landlord from starting any business for livelihood. The bonafide requirement of a landlord does not become malafide just because he wants to run business for his livelihood from his own property. The consequent hardship to tenant from eviction order could also not convert otherwise bonafide requirement into malafide requirement. In my view, it is a right of every person to excel in his/her life and a person is not supposed to be remained in same position. As such, it is not a triable issue.
87. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.50 of 53 occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come."
88. In the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652, it was observed that:-
"24. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. hile deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
89. In Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay kishan Das, 2009(2) RCR 455, the Apex Court observed as under:-
"However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.51 of 53 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 the 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."
90. In the case titled as Lajpat Rai Vs Raman Jain 2012 Law suit (Del) 1439, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"The facts have been disclosed by the petitioner himself in the eviction petition; the petitioner also being a commerce graduate from the Shri Ram College of Commerce seeks an independent business of his own; thus this need to set up a business of his own cannot be in any manner be said to be imaginative or a need which is moonshine; it is a genuine need; the present petitioner having inherited this shop from his grandmother by virtue of the aforenoted Will wishes to set up his own business of rubber and latex which he was earlier carrying on with his father and in which he has gained expertise and knowledge. Thus in no manner can it be said that this need of the landlord is not a bonafide need.
10. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement; it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to him; neither the Court tell him the manner he wishes to set up his business."
91. This court is of the considered view that the need of the petitioner is bonafide and the same cannot be defeated by subsequent events as filed by respondent. The petitioner / landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant to chose a different place of business. The tenant cannot ask for a project report from the landlord. No previous experience is required for starting a business. The respondent has failed to place on record any document which could show that the petitioner has any suitable alternate accommodation.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.52 of 53
92. Thus, in totality of the discussions made above, the petitioner has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises i.e. shop bearing Pvt. No. 11 on the lower ground floor in property bearing Municipal No. 17/15A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi - 110018, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initial execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of the provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
93. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed HIMANSHU by HIMANSHU
RAMAN SINGH
RAMAN Date:
SINGH
Announced in the open Court 2024.05.18
16:17:57 +0530
on 18.05.2024. HIMANSHU RAMAN SINGH
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC, Delhi / 18.05.2024
______________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.18/17 Vikram Tuli Vs. Nirmal Dutta Page No.53 of 53