Delhi District Court
Sh. Pradeep Jain vs Sh. Raj Kishore Verma on 21 September, 2021
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR, ARC-1, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. E-688/14(New No. 78958/16)
Unique Case ID/CNR no. DLCT03-001408-2014
1. Sh. Pradeep Jain
S/o Sh. Prem Sagar Jain
R/o 4842, Bara Tuti,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Raj Kishore Verma
S/o Late Sh. Prem Kishore Verma
C/o Shop NO.5237, Bara Tuti Chowk,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006.
2. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh. Roop Kishore Verma,
C/o Shop NO.5237, Bara Tuti Chowk,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. ...Respondents
Date of Institution of Petition : 09.01.2014
Date on judgment reserved : 16.09.2021
Date of Judgment pronounced : 21.09.2021
Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 1 of 22
//2//
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioner against the respondents on the ground of bonafide requirement for the purpose of accommodating the business of the petitioner and his father. Petitioner's case
2. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the ground floor of the shop bearing no.5237, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi-110006, more specifically shown in red and green colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises'). It is stated that monthly rate of rent is Rs.21 /- excluding other charges. The father of the petitioner died on 09.02.2019.
3. It is stated by the petitioner that suit shop was earlier owned by Smt. Babita Jain from whom the petitioner purchased the same through registered sale dated dated 18.10.2004. As per the sale deed, one Durga Prasad S/o Sh. Ram Pratap was the original tenant on rent @ Rs.21/- per month. Late Sh. Prem Kishore Verma had illegally trespassed into the said shop and started using the same without the consent of the petitioner. It is further Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 2 of 22 //3// stated that late Prem Kishore Verma started claiming that he and his brother Roop Kishore Verma are joint tenants in the suit shops. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of possession wherein late Sh. Prem Kishore verma had claimed joint tenancy along-with Late Sh. Roop Kishore Verma. Petitioner further stated that in that suit, petitioner accepted their version and withdrawn the said suit. Thus, after the death of Prem Kishore Verma and Roop Kishore Verma, the said tenancy had devolved upon the respondents as respondent no.1 Raj Kishore Verma is the son of Late Prem Kishore Verma and respondent no.2 Dinesh Kumar Verma is the son of Late Roop Kishore Verma.
4. It is pleaded by the petitioner that he along-with his father are in the business of sale of Ferrous and non-Ferrous metals in the name and style of M/s. Daya Ram Prem Sagar Jain. The business is being run from premises no.4843, Ground Floor, Bara Tuti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. This shop and residential portion above the shop have been taken on rent from Delhi Waqf Board on an annual rent of Rs.20,400/-. The said tenancy is in the name of father of the petitioner namely Prem Sagar Jain.
5. It is pleaded by the petitioner that property bearing no.5237, 5238, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road and the godown situated behind these two properties Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 3 of 22 //4// has been purchased by the petitioner through sale deed dated 18.10.2004. The portion behind these shops bearing no.5237 & 5238 is a godown and is part of property no.5239, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road and the same is being used as godown by the petitioner and his father. This portion is marked as mark ABCD in the site plan.
6. It is pleaded that the father of the petitioner has also taken a godown on rent which is situated in the remaining portion of property no.5239, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi and is shown as EFGH in the site plan. The rate of rent is Rs.150/- per month and present landlords are Sandeep Chhabra & Ors. A suit for recovery of possession was filed by them against father of the petitioner which is pending before the Civil Court.
7. It is pleaded by the petitioner that he needs tenanted premises for his business. The petitioner and his father were running their business from a rented shop bearing no.4842, Bara Tuti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. The running of the business from the suit shop will be convenient as they need bigger shop which can easily be made available to them by removing the intervening wall between suit shop, shop no.5238 and the godown behind these two shops. Petitioner further pleaded that as their godown will also be close to their shop which would save cost of freight of loading and unloading Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 4 of 22 //5// of goods from godown from the suit shop.
8. It is pleaded that the petitioner and his father required the suit shop for the purposes of running their business so that they can run their business from their own shop instead of running it from the rented premises.
9. It is stated by the petitioner that they got evicted M/s. Heera Sons a tenant in the shop no.5238, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road on 22.07.2013 by the Court order. The size of the shop is around 50 Sq. Feet, so the need of the petitoner is not fulfilled as the petitioner required bigger area as the metal business require big showroom for display and the metal goods are heavy and bigger in size. The size of the rented shop at 4843, Ground floor, Bara Tuti Sadar Bazar is approximately 900 Sq. Feet.
10. It is averred that the tenanted premises is required bonafide by the petitioner for his business and he does not have any other suitable property for the stated requirement. He also relied upon the following judgments
(i) "Prativa Devi Vs. Krishna" 1991 (5) SCC 535 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(ii) M.L. Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singal, 2001 (1) AD (SC) 37 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(iii) Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta" JT 1999 (5) of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi .
(iv) Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja " 2014 VII AD (SC) 158 of Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 5 of 22 //6// Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
(v) Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co." JT 2000(1) SC 61 of Hon'ble High Court of Madya Pradesh.
11. It is on the basis of these facts that a prayer has been made by the petitioners to pass an eviction order in respect of the tenanted premises in their favour and against the respondents.
Respondent's case
12. Summons were served upon the respondents. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2014 on the limited ground that shop no.5238 which is adjacent to the suit shop 5237 and the godown behind these two shops got vacated by Court order in an earlier eviction petition and the same are not being put to use by the petitioner till date. The petitioner want to shift from a tenanted premises to his self owned premises, but no explanation furnished by the petitioner as to why he has not shifted into the said shop no.5238 till date.
13. The leave to defend was rejected qua the ownership of the property and the landlord tenant relationship. The Ld. Predecessor Court vide order Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 6 of 22 //7// dated 16.10.2014 categorically held that as far as the question of title of the petitioner as owner of the property is concerned, the mere fact that respondent has not been served with the notice qua the purchase of the property by the petitioner, the same does not dilute the said title of the petitioner in view of the registered documents placed on record. Similarly, mere denial on the part of the respondent qua the relationship of landlord and the tenant between the parties, in the absence of the detail as to who is the landlord qua the respondent, the said denial stands rejected.
14. Accordingly, the written statement was filed by the respondents. In the written statement, it is stated that petitioner has concealed the important and material facts from the Court as such he is guilty of suppressing the information which is relevant for the purpose of this case. It is further stated that petitioner has not disclosed that as to why he is not using the shop 5238, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi which got evicted on the similar grounds and the same is not yet put into use by the petitioner even after a lapse of more than one and a half years and the same is lying locked. The huge area behind the shop no.5237 and 5238, Bara Tuti Sadar Thana Road, Delhi is completely lying vacant and not used as godwon by the petitioner for his ferrous and non-ferrous metal storage purposes and as per the provisions of Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 7 of 22 //8// Delhi Rent Control Act, the shop no.5238 Bara Tuti Sadar Thana Road is required to be returned back to its original tenant M/s. Hira Sons. It is further stated that at no point of time, petitioner had any genuine or bonafide need of the space and just to show to the public, he has hanged recently a new brand Board of some other company or firm in front of his shop no.5238, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi which shop always remains closed and petitioner never sit or works from the said shop even for once and in order to misguide and mislead the Court, he put brand new board of some other company. It is further stated that petitioner claims to be the owner of only two shop no.5237, 5238, Bara Tuti Sadar Thana Road and the godown situated behind these two properties having purchased the same through sale deed dated 18.10.2004, but intentionally and purposely, petitioner has concealed this fact that he purchased half undivided share of three storeyed building out of property bearing no.5237 and 5238, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road, and petitioner has concealed as to when and to whom, he sold the upper storeys of the said property, which are also commercial properties, situated on 80 feet wide road and at present used by some Handicraft Business in the name of Ajit Handicraft. It is further stated that petition is not maintainable because there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as no rent is Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 8 of 22 //9// decided between the parties, mere accepting the respondents as tenant by making statement in the Court, does not create any relationship of landlord and tenant until or unless rent for the said shop is decided between the parties.
15. The respondent has also denied other averments of the eviction petition and prayed that eviction petition be dismissed. Petitioner's case as per Replication
16. Petitioner filed the replication wherein the averments of the eviction petition were reiterated and reaffirmed and those of the written statement were denied as false and incorrect. In particular, it is denied that shop no.5238 has not been put into use or that any area behind shop no.5237 and 5238 is lying vacant or that the same are shops and not godowns or that shop no.5238 is liable to be returned to M/s. Hira Sons as alleged. It is averred that there is no portion belonging to the petitioner and lying vacant. The respondents have made false allegations to gain time. It is also denied that petitioner has purchased half share of property no.5237 and 5238. Half share is of property no.5239 as this portion was converted into a passage and has been sold in two parts as passage by the previous owner. The upper portion Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 9 of 22 //10// was residential when the petitioner had purchased the same and it was sold long back.
Evidence led by the parties
17. In order to prove the case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. Following documents were relied upon and proved by PW-1:
(a) Ex.PW-1/1 is the photocopy of sale deed in favour of petitioner dated 18.10.2004.
(b) Ex.PW-1/2 is the photocopy of sale deed in favour of Smt. Babita.
(c) Ex.PW-1/3 is the certified copy of suit for possession.
(d) Ex.PW1/4 is the certified copy of written statement filed in the present suit.
(e) Ex.PW1/5 is the certified copy of withdrawal of suit.
(f) Ex.PW-1/6 is the site plan.
(g) Ex.PW1/7 to PW1/9 are the three rent receipts issued by Delhi
Wakf Board.
(h) Mark-A is the photocopy of plaint of suit of possession filed by
Sh. Sandeep Chhabra (referred as PW1/10 in the affidavit).
(i) Ex.PW1/11 is the copies of D-VAT returns.
(j) Ex.PW1/12 is the copy of form no.1.
(k) Mark-B is the copy of eviction petition filed by Smt. Kamya Jain
Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 10 of 22
//11//
(referred as PW1/13 in the affidavit).
(l) Ex.PW1/14 is the photocopy of sale deed in favour of Smt.
Kamya Jain.
(j) Ex.PW1/15 and Ex.PW1/16 are the two photographs showing
shop no.5239 as passage.
18. Respondent no.2 examined himself as RW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW-1/A. Following documents were relied upon and proved by RW-1 :
(a) Ex.RW1/A is the site plan.
(b) Ex.RW1/2 to RW1/7 and mark A are not on record and are
de-exhibited.
19. I have heard arguments and carefully gone through the record. In
order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
i. He is owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises; ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii. He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 11 of 22
//12// Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord-tenant between petitioner and respondent:
20. Petitioner deposed in Ex.PW1/A that he is the owner of suit shop having purchased the same through a registered sale deed from Smt. Babita Jain on 18.10.2004. The sale deed is Ex.PW1/1. The registered sale deed through which the said Smt. Babita Jain purchased the property from one Vikram Jain is exhibited as Ex.PW1/2.
21. Earlier, suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner against Prem Kishore Verma. Prem Kishore Verma is the father of Raj Kishore Verma (respondent no.1). In that suit, an amended written statement was filed by the respondent i.e. Prem Kishore Verma wherein he admitted that he along-with his brother Roop Kishore Verma are the tenants in suit shop under Vikram Kumar Jain. Roop Kishore Verma is the father of Dinesh Kumar Verma (respondent no.2 herein). The said written statement is exhibited as Ex.PW1/4. After the death of Prem Kishore Verma and Roop Kishore Verma, the tenancy devolved upon the respondent no.1 & 2 being their sons. Moreover, respondent/RW1 in his cross-examination stated that as per sale deed, the petitioner is the owner of the shop in question. He also admitted that they are the tenants @ Rs.21/- per month. Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 12 of 22
//13// He also admitted that rent was deposited in the Court in the name of earlier owner Vikram Jain who was the owner as per his knowledge.
22. Thus, the contention of the respondents that there is no relationship of landlord tenant between the parties as no rent is fixed and demanded by the petitioner and petitioner has not served any notice to the respondents after becoming owner of the property, has no legs to stand as law is well settled in this regard. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Sanjay Singh Vs. M/s. Corporation Warranties Pvt. Ltd." (2013) 204 DLT 12 relying on the earlier judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. Korikadan Sulaiman" (2002) 6 SCC 1 and "Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta Vs. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul" (1997) 5 SCC 329, held that "on transfer of the tenanted premises by the landlord, the transferee automatically becomes the landlord of the tenant by operation of law and the coming into being of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and the tenant is not dependent upon any overt act on the part of tenant". Further "When respondent is admittedly tenant under earlier owner and once sale deed is registered by the earlier owner in favour of petitioner any attornment by the tenant to the petitioner is not required".
23. Thus, in view of the above stated reasons and the decisions of Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 13 of 22 //14// the superior Courts, the petitioner has conclusively established that there is landlord tenant relationship between the parties and the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted shop.
Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioner no.1 for himself and non-availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
24. The main contention of the respondents is that the petitioner concealed the fact that shop no.5238 got evicted and he is not using the same for the last more than one and a half years at the time of filing written statement and same is lying locked. It is further contended that the petitioner concealed that he purchased the half undivided share of three storied building out of property no.5237 & 5238. It is further contended that petitioner concealed when and to whom he sold the upper storeys of said property which are commercial in nature. It is further contended that area behind shop no.5237 and 5238 is not being used as a godown rather that area behind these two shops is lying vacant. It is further contended that description of the property is incorrect in the site plan filed by the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner was neither the partner nor proprietor in the firm M/s. Daya Ram Prem Sagar Jain at the time of filing of the present petition. The father of the petitioner was not Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 14 of 22 //15// dependent upon the petitioner, so the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition for the family members not dependent upon him. In short, the respondents contended that the petitioner has no bonafide need for the shop bearing no. 5237 as petitioner has shop no.5234-5235, 5238, half portion of 5239 and also portion shown as EFGH in site plan Ex.PW1/6.
25. The petitioner is able to prove that he is the owner of the property and even at the time of filing of the petition, he along-with his father is engaged in the business of sale of Ferrous and non-Ferrous metals in the name & style of M/s. Daya Ram Prem Sagar Jain. The said submissions is clearly mentioned in para 18(a) (v) and (vi).
26. In cross-examination of PW1, he categorically stated that till the year 2015, the business was proprietorship firm thereafter it become a partnership firm. He deposed that he was the authorized signatory before 2015. Thus, there is nothing to show that petitioner was not engaged in the business of his father before the year 2015. The petition was filed for the bonafide need of the petitioner and his father. The father of the petitioner got expired during the pendency of the suit. So, there is no point in discussing the dependency of father of the petitioner on the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has the locus standi to file the petition.
Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 15 of 22
//16//
27. The petitioner argued that the business is being run from premises no.4843, Ground floor, Bara Tuti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. The shop and residential portion bearing no.4842-4843 have been taken on rent from Delhi Waqf Board on an annual rent of Rs.20,400/-. The tenancy is in the name of father of the petitioner. Petitioner proved the rent receipts issued by Delhi Waqf Board as Ex.PW1/7. Petitioner filed the D-VAT returns and copy of form-1. Both of these documents are exhibited as Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12 respectively. Perusal of these documents clearly shows that petitioner is running his business from a tenanted shop bearing no.4843, Bara Tuti, Sadar Bazar.
28. PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that he purchased the property no.5237, 5238 and half of 5239 in the year 2004. He owned the property upto 2nd floor. He does not remember when he sold the first and second floor of the properties. Petitioner also admitted that he is the joint owner of staircase in the property no.5236. The stairs in property no.5236 reaches to the first and second floor of property no.5237, 5238 and half of 5239. He also admitted that half of the shop no.5239 was occupied by a tenant and the name of tenant might be Hitkari Crockeries. He does not remember how much money he paid to the said tenant for getting the premises vacated. PW1 also Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 16 of 22 //17// deposed that he has sold the first floor above the suit property around 10-12 years back and in the year 2004, first floor was vacant. Petitioner admitted that his wife Kamya Jain sought eviction of shop no.5234-5235 under the tenancy of Nath Trading Co. for their requirement. PW1 admitted that shop no.5234-5235 are front shop adjoining to the suit property no.5237 and he will use both shop for storing goods. PW1 also deposed that Sandeep Chhabra is the landlord of premises shown as EFGH in site plan Ex.PW1/6 which is under the tenancy of the father of petitioner and used as a godown.
30. The respondent stated that portion EFGH purchased by the petitioner as he was in need of the same. Though, the respondent has not provided any document showing purchase of property EFGH, but somehow admitted that petitioner had need of additional space. RW1 also admitted that PW1 was running business from shop no.4843. However, he denied that same is on rent. RW1 does not remember who was residing on the upper floor. Respondent does not know when the petitioner sold the upper floor to one Naveen Jain. He admitted that presently the owner is one Ajeet Nath who is using the said floor as godown by the name of Ajit Nath Handicraft. However, respondent has not filed any document which supports their contentions as to whom and when the upper floor was sold to Ajit Nath. The respondent filed Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 17 of 22 //18// site plan Ex.RW1/A, but he categorically stated that construction at site as on date is not the same as shown in site plan Ex.RW1/A. He also specifically admitted that he does not know who got the site plan Ex.RW1/A. Thus, no reliance can be placed on such a site plan. RW1 specifically stated that he cannot provide the particulars of another alternative property available with the petitioner except property shown in Ex.PW1/1 and rented premise bearing no.4842.
31. The shop bearing no.5238 has recently been vacated by another tenant namely M/s. Hira Sons for a settlement amount of Rs.14 lacs and has an area of 50 Sq. Feet only and the same is being used as an office.
32. The petitioner is able to prove that area bearing no.5239 is a passage and not a shop as proved in the site plan Ex.PW1/6. The godowns bearing no.ABCD and EFGH are approachable through the passage bearing no.5239 only. The petitioner duly proved the photographs of the passage which is exhibited as Ex.PW1/15 and Ex.PW1/16.
33. The respondents took a plea that portion above property no.5237 and 5238 was commercial and has been sold by the petitioner. The respondent in his evidence clearly stated that those floors have been sold and he does not know the legal use of the said floor is for residents only. Thus, it is apparent Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 18 of 22 //19// that nothing has been brought by the respondent to show that the portion above shop no.5237 and 5238 were available to the petitioner at the time of filing of the petition and those were commercial in nature. Even otherwise, the business of the petitioner is of metals which require huge space and frequent loading & unloading of the same. Thus, the upper floors cannot be used for the business of the petitioner. The godown shown in the site plan Ex.PW1/6 as ABCD is the property of petitioner but being a godown, it cannot be used as a shop for the business of the petitioner. The portion EFGH in site plan Ex.PW1/6 is also a godown and the same is on rent. Thus, both these portion are on the backside of shops and cannot be used for the need of the petitioner.
34. The only available portions, even if the arguments of the respondents is taken at its face value, available to the petitioner is shop no.5234-5235 and 5238. The petitioner already using the shop no.5238 as office. The area of shop no.5234-5235 is approximately 25-30 Sq. Yards.
35. The respondent admitted that petitioner is running metal business from shop no.4842, Bara Tuti, Sadar Bazar. The petitioner duly proved the rent receipts Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/9 showing that shop no.4842 is on rent. The respondent admitted that business of petitoner is very good and 4-5 workers Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 19 of 22 //20// employed by the petitioner. The petitioner proved copies of D-VAT returns and form 1 as Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12 respectively. The petitioner during his cross-examination produced the balance sheet for the year 2016-17 wherein closing stock is mentioned as around one crore sixty three lakhs. Thus, perusal of these documents clearly establishes that petitioner has flourishing business.
36. Petitioner specifically stated that he will use shop no.5234-5235 and shop no.5237 for storing their goods. The respondent admitted that size of shop nos.5234-5235, 5237-5238 and of ABCDEFG & H is less than 900 Sq. Feet. He submitted that metal bars comes in the size of 4-5 foot. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the area of shop no.5234-5235, 5237-5238 comes around 396 Sq. Feets whereas the rented shop from where he is running his business is 900 Sq. Feets. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that huge space is required fo the use of the business of the petitioner. It is also duly proved that the back portion bearing no.ABCD belongs to the petitioner and used as a godown. So, running of business from front portion i.e. shops having godown at back would be of great use for the business of the petitioner.
Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 20 of 22
//21//
37. The defence of the respondent that building is old one and these shops cannot be joined as one unit has no relevance as it is for the petitioner to see how he can utilize his property in the best possible way. The law in this regard is well settled by the numerous judgment of the superior Courts.
38. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Dinesh Kumar Vs. Yusuf Ali" 2010 (1) RCR (Rent) 543 and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Simarjeet Singh Vs. Balbir Singh" 2018 (2) RCR (Rent) 656 wherein it was held that "landlord is the best judge of his own needs and cannot be mandated and dictated by the tenant as to in which portion of the property, he needs to run his own business."
39. In the case of "Vinod Gupta Vs. Kailash Aggarwal & Ors.", 2019(1) RLR 240 (Del.), the following was held :-
"Thus, the landlord being the best person to choose how much space is needed for him/her or his family member dependent upon him to start or expand any of his activity, is a sole Judge to decide qua the accommodation he intend to seek eviction for. The concealment of unavailable/unsuitable accommodation is not material and the suitability of accommodation is needed to be judged on the touchstone of the landlord and not of tenant. ."
40. In the case of "Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi" (2016) 10 SCC 209 and "Anil Bajaj & Ors. Vs. Vinod Ahuja" (2014) 15 SCC 610, the following Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 21 of 22 //22// was held :-
"A tenant cannot dictate as to who else a landlord can adjust himself. It is for the landlord to choose the place of business more suitable to him. He has complete freedom in the matter."
41. The net result is that petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted premises is required bonafide and he has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in his possession. The petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, the eviction petition is allowed and judgment is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents directing the respondents to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. ground floor of the shop bearing no.5237, Bara Tuti, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi-110006, Delhi more specifically shown in red and green colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner i.e. Ex. PW1/6, in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlord, however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the Digitally signed by date of this judgment. Manoj Manoj Kumar Kumar Date: (MANOJ KUMAR) 2021.09.21 ARC-I, Central District, 16:39:23 +0530 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(Announced in open court on 21.09.2021) Eviction petition bearing E No.688/14 (New No.-78958/16) Page 22 of 22