Delhi District Court
Pawan Kumar Verma vs Surinder Mohan Arora Ors on 2 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA JINDAL,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-COMMERCIAL
CASES JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW
DELHI.
DLSW030001992013
CNR No. DLSW03-000199-2013
RC ARC 4494/2016
1. Pawan Kumar Verma,
S/o Late Sh. Sheo Ram
R/o WZ-159, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028.
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma,
S/o Late Sh. Sheo Ram,
R/o WZ-159, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028.
3. Sh. Davinder Singh (Since deceased)
(Petition abated qua order dated
01.05.2019 of dismissal of LR Application)
4. Sh. Pritam Singh (deceased).
Through LRs vide order dated 26.11.2013.
(a) Ms. Rachna Verma
R/o WZ-13, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028.
5. Sh. Arvind Verma (deceased)
Through LRs vide order dated 02.11.2022
(i) Smt. Garima Verma,
(ii) Ms. Rakshita Verma
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 1 of 52
All R/o WZ-13 B, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028.
6. Sh. Vinay Kumar Verma,
S/o Late Sh. Ajit Singh,
R/o WZ-13, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028.
7. Sh. Anshul Verma,
S/o Late Sh. Yudhishter,
R/o WZ-13, Village Naraina,
New Delhi-110028. ......... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora,
2. Sh. Manmohan Arora,
M/s M.M. Paints,
CB-384/1 (Previously CB 44/4 and 44/5)
Near Indira Market,
Delhi Cantt, Naraina
New Delhi-110028. ........ Respondents
Date of Institution of petition : 09.04.2013.
Date of pronouncement of judgement : 02.09.2024
Petition u/s 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 B of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958.
JUDGEMENT
Case Context
1. In the protracted and intricate saga of property disputes governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the case at RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 2 of 52 hand represents a complex intersection of procedural adherence, substantive claims, and the overarching quest for justice. The judicial journey of the present matter spans several years and multiple layers of litigation, reflecting the meticulous and often contentious nature of legal proceedings in landlord-tenant disputes.
2. The genesis of the dispute traces back to a petition for eviction filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which sought to address the alleged need of the petitioners for the tenanted premises. This property, originally leased to Mr. Arur Chand Arora in 1980, became the focal point of contention following his death. The petitioners' assertion of a bona fide requirement for their family member's business led to a series of legal maneuvers and counterclaims by the respondents, challenging both the procedural and substantive aspects of the eviction petition.
3. Central to this legal saga are the orders and judgments rendered at various stages, from the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and ultimately, the Rent Tribunal. Each judicial decision has contributed to the evolving narrative of this case, from procedural rectifications to the contentious determination of the bona fide needs of the petitioners and the procedural rights of the respondents. The following passage delves into the chronological sequence of judicial orders, appellate decisions, and procedural nuances that have RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 3 of 52 shaped the trajectory of this case. It reflects the complexities inherent in legal adjudication, the challenges of procedural compliance, and the pursuit of a fair resolution amidst prolonged litigation.
Order dated 27.08.2016 of the Learned Additional Rent Controller
4. In this case, the court addressed an application under Section 25-B (4) and (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which sought permission for the respondents to defend against an eviction petition.
5. The petitioner's claim centers on the property located at CB 384/1 (formerly CB-44/4 and CB-44/5), near Indira Market, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi. This property was originally rented out by the petitioner's predecessors to Mr. Arur Chand Arora in 1980, who used it for his business, M/s M.M. Paints Industry. Following his death, his sons, the respondents, continued the business on the premises. The petitioners allege that rent payments ceased in 2008 and that the property is now needed for a new business venture for Mr. Arvind, the petitioner's fifth member, who is unemployed and responsible for supporting his family. They also claim the property was wrongfully partitioned by the respondents without consent.
6. The respondents contested the eviction petition by filing an application for leave to defend, supported by affidavits.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 4 of 52 They argue that Mr. Arvind Verma, for whom the eviction is sought, already operates a photostat business from his residence and does not require the tenanted premises. They also contend that the petitioners own other properties in the vicinity which could be used for the business. The respondents claim that the premises was rented for commercial purposes at Rs. 305 per month and that significant payments were made for security deposit and renovations, which were supposed to be refunded upon vacating the property. They assert that there was no agreement requiring the tenant to vacate under any specific circumstances.
7. The petitioners countered by refuting these claims, stating that Mr. Arvind's photostat business is conducted in a very small space and that the properties the respondents refer to are either sold or occupied by unauthorized squatters. The petitioners provided documentary evidence to support their claims, including a registered sale deed proving the sale of one of the properties and an affidavit confirming the occupation of another by a jhuggi cluster.
8. The court reviewed the arguments, emphasizing that under Section 25-B of the Act, the burden is on the landlord to prove the bonafide requirement of the premises. The court noted that the landlord's need should be genuine and not merely a wish. It also highlighted that the tenant must raise triable issues to warrant a defense. After considering the evidence and arguments, the court found that the RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 5 of 52 respondents had not raised sufficient triable issues. The claim that Mr. Arvind already runs a business and the existence of alternative properties were not substantiated convincingly. The court concluded that the petitioners' need for the premises for Mr. Arvind's business was genuine and that the leave to defend application by the respondents was without merit.
9. Thus, the court dismissed the respondents' application for leave to defend and allowed the eviction petition to proceed.
Order dated 31.05.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
10.In the matter before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, involving the respondents herein was called upon to address procedural deficiencies in an eviction petition filed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The proceedings revolved around an order dated 27.08.2016, issued by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), which the respondents sought to challenge on procedural grounds.
11.During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner herein conceded that the order in question should be set aside. This concession was based on the fact that the amended petition, which had been filed following the ARC's directive dated 25.04.2013, was procedurally deficient. Specifically, the amended petition lacked a proper verification clause--a critical procedural requirement RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 6 of 52 under the law. Additionally, it was noted that the eviction petition as originally presented, along with the unsigned amended petition, had been placed on record without fulfilling the necessary procedural requirements.
12.Acknowledging these deficiencies, the petitioner's counsel requested that the matter be remitted to the ARC, allowing the respondents to correct their procedural errors. The Hon'ble High Court granted this request, providing the respondents with the liberty to file a properly amended petition that included the necessary verification clause, duly supported by an affidavit.
13.With these considerations in mind, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 and remitted the matter back to the ARC. The Court instructed the ARC to reconsider the respondents' request for leave to contest, taking into account the amended petition and the corrected documentation. The Hon'ble High Court emphasized that the eviction petition was revived on the ARC's file, and directed the parties to appear before the ARC for further proceedings.
14.Finally, the High Court expressed its expectation that the ARC would handle the matter expeditiously, ensuring that the procedural lapses did not unduly delay the resolution of the case.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 7 of 52 The Proceedings: A Chronology
15.Pursuant to the order dated 02.05.2018 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the present suit is revived and restored to its original number. In accordance with the Hon'ble High Court's order, the petitioners were granted leave to file an amended petition. By order dated 03.07.2018, it is noted that the amended eviction petition was filed on 01.06.2018, and a copy thereof was furnished to the counsel for the respondents. The respondents were directed to file any application for leave to defend on or before the next date of hearing, serving an advance copy on the opposite party. By order dated 25.07.2018, it is noted that an application for leave to defend was filed by the respondents on 02.07.2018, and an objection thereto was filed by the petitioners.
16.On 05.09.2018, the Court noted that the respondent's counsel had filed a reply to the petitioner's objection regarding the application for leave to defend, and a copy was served on the opposing party. Additionally, the petitioner's counsel filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner No. 3, and a copy was furnished to the opposing party. By order dated 23.01.2019, the Court observed that separate replies to the petitioner's applications under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been filed on behalf of the respondents, but contrary to the RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 8 of 52 specific directions issued on 05.09.2018, advance copies of these replies were not supplied to the petitioners. Instead, copies were furnished only on the date of hearing. The petitioners' counsel sought permission to file rejoinders to these replies and advance arguments on the next date, citing non-compliance with the previous order. By order dated 26.03.2019, the Court noted that arguments on the petitioners' applications under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act had been heard.
17.On 01.05.2019, the court addressed two applications filed by the petitioners. The first application sought to implead the legal representatives (LRs) of a deceased petitioner who had died on 09.08.2017. The second application requested the condonation of the delay in filing the impleadment application, citing ignorance of the procedural requirements. The respondents opposed these applications on several grounds. They argued that the delay application was improperly filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, when Rule 9 of Order 22 CPC should have been applied. Additionally, they contended that the petition had abated due to the petitioner's death and that the amended petition was not signed by the deceased, rendering the impleadment application invalid.
18.The court examined the submissions and found that the petitioners' lack of awareness was not a valid excuse for the delay. It was observed that the right to sue continued RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 9 of 52 with the surviving petitioners, even after the death of petitioner no.3. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected due to the expiration of the limitation period (90 days from the date of death) and insufficient justification for the delay. As a result, both the condonation of delay application and the impleadment application were dismissed.
19.By order dated 03.06.2019, the Court heard arguments on the petitioners' objections to the respondents' fresh application for leave to defend. In the order dated 11.07.2019, the court was tasked with addressing the objections raised by the petitioners against a fresh application filed by the respondents. The Court observed that this case, which has been in the legal system for several years, initially began on 03.04.2013 when the petitioners filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioners sought to evict the respondents from the tenanted premises, claiming that the property was required for the business of one of the petitioners. Shortly after filing the petition, the petitioners sought to amend the rate of rent mentioned in their initial petition, an application that was granted on 25.04.2013. However, although the petitioners took steps to serve the amended petition to the respondents, they failed to formally file it on record. This oversight set the stage for the subsequent legal proceedings.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 10 of 52
20.The respondents, in response to the original petition, filed an application on 27.05.2013 seeking leave to defend. The petitioners replied to this application, and a rejoinder was filed by the respondents. The matter proceeded, and on 27.08.2016, the court dismissed the respondents' application and allowed the petitioners' eviction petition. This decision required the respondents to vacate the premises within six months.
21.Unwilling to accept this outcome, the respondents challenged the court's order in the Delhi High Court. The High Court, upon review, found a technical flaw in the proceedings--the petitioners had not filed the amended petition in accordance with the earlier court order. Consequently, on 02.05.2018, the High Court set aside the order dated 27.08.2016 and remitted the case back to the lower court. The High Court granted the petitioners the liberty to file an amended petition with a proper verification clause and supporting affidavits, while instructing the lower court to reconsider the contentions of both parties.
22.Following the High Court's directive, the petitioners filed the amended petition on 01.06.2018, and the respondents were duly served a copy. The respondents then filed a fresh application seeking leave to defend on 12.07.2018, believing that they had the right to do so in light of the amended petition. However, the petitioners objected to this fresh application, arguing that the High Court's order only RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 11 of 52 allowed for reconsideration of the original application filed in May 2013, not the filing of a new application.
23.The Court carefully reviewed the submissions from both sides and examined the Hon'ble High Court's order. It became clear that the High Court had not granted the respondents the liberty to file a new application. Instead, the order called for the reconsideration of the contentions based on the original application. The Court noted that while there was a technical flaw in the initial proceedings
--specifically, the failure to file the amended petition on time--the respondents' original application for leave to defend was still the relevant document under consideration.
24.The Court concluded that the objections raised by the petitioners were valid. The fresh application filed by the respondents on 12.07.2018 was rejected, as it attempted to introduce an entirely new case. The Court emphasized that the Court was required to reconsider the contentions based on the original application, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court.
25.With this decision, the court allowed the petitioners' objections and dismissed the respondents' fresh application. The matter was then scheduled for further arguments on the original application for leave to defend, filed by the respondents on 27.05.2013, to be heard on 07.08.2019.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 12 of 52
26.By Order dated 14.08.2019, it is noted that the respondents submitted another application seeking permission to introduce events that had occurred after the filing of an earlier application for leave to defend, referencing observations made in the court's order dated 11.07.19. This application was criticized for being filed over a month late and was deemed an attempt to delay the adjudication of the petition. Furthermore, the application lacked the proposed additional application for leave to defend with details of the subsequent events. As a result, this application was also dismissed.
Judgement dated 30.03.2021 of Ld. Rent Tribunal
27.The appeals numbered RCT 30/2019 and RCT 31/2019 were brought under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act"). These appeals challenged the orders passed by the Additional Rent Controller ("ARC") on 11.07.2019 and 14.08.2019, respectively.
28.The matter arose from an eviction petition initiated by the respondents/petitioners herein, who are the landlords, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the DRC Act, directed against the appellants/respondents herein, who are the tenants. Notably, prior to the service of notice upon the appellants, the respondents sought an amendment concerning the rate of rent. Although the amendment was allowed, the respondents did not formally file the amended petition before the court, though it was served upon the RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 13 of 52 appellants. Consequently, the appellants filed an application for leave to defend, which was dismissed by the ARC on 27.08.2016. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellants filed a revision petition, RC Rev. 46/2017, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 02.05.2018.
29.Following the High Court's decision, the eviction petition was revived before the ARC. The ARC issued a notice to both parties, allowing the amended petition to be filed on 31.05.2018. Subsequently, on 03.07.2018, the amended petition was officially filed, and the appellants were directed to file any application for leave to defend by the next date of hearing. Complying with this directive, the appellants submitted their application for leave to defend on 12.07.2018. However, the respondents raised objections to this application, which were sustained by the ARC in its order dated 11.07.2019. The ARC ruled that the appellants were not entitled to file a fresh application for leave to defend, forming the basis for the first appeal, RCT No. 30/2019.
30.In a parallel development, the ARC, by its order dated 14.08.2019, dismissed the appellants' request to introduce subsequent events that had transpired after the filing of the initial application for leave to defend. The appellants had also sought a waiver of costs and a stay of proceedings until the disposal of RCT No. 30/2019, which the ARC RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 14 of 52 denied. These issues gave rise to the second appeal, RCT No. 31/2019.
31.The appellants' counsel argued that under the DRC Act, the respondents were not entitled to file objections against the application for leave to defend, especially in light of the High Court's order. The appellants further contended that the eviction petition suffered from several procedural and substantive deficiencies, including the absence of requisite affidavits and the failure to file the amended petition within the prescribed timeframe. They argued that the subsequent events, including the sealing and de-sealing of the disputed premises, necessitated the filing of a fresh leave to defend.
32.Conversely, the respondents' counsel argued that the appeals were not maintainable under Section 38 of the DRC Act, as they did not raise any substantial questions of law, which is a prerequisite for such appeals following the 1988 amendments to the DRC Act. The respondents asserted that the appropriate remedy for the appellants was to seek revision before the High Court, rather than to pursue an appeal.
33.Upon careful consideration of the matter, the Court focused on the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 02.05.2018, which did not grant the appellants the liberty to file a fresh application for leave to defend. The amendments permitted by the High Court were confined to the addition of a verification clause. The Court held that RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 15 of 52 the ARC was correct in disallowing the appellants from filing a fresh application for leave to defend, as the ARC was bound by the directions of the High Court. The Court further observed that, although the filing of objections by the respondents is not typically mandated by the legislative framework, it was permissible in this instance to fulfill the High Court's order. It was also noted that the appellants/tenant may always raise factual developments at the time of arguments on the application for leave to defend.
34.In light of the foregoing, the Court dismissed both appeals, holding that they did not raise any substantial questions of law and were, therefore, not maintainable under the DRC Act. The judgment underscored the legislative intent to ensure a swift resolution in eviction cases based on bona fide requirements and highlighted the limited scope of the appellate tribunal in such matters.
35.On 02.11.2022, the court reviewed the applications filed by the legal representatives (LRs) of petitioner no. 5. The first application sought to implead the LRs into the ongoing proceedings under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC. The second application requested the condonation of the delay in filing the first application, pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
36.At the hearing, the proxy counsel for the petitioner informed the court that petitioner no. 5 had passed away on 09.08.2021, leaving behind two legal representatives, RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 16 of 52 Garima Verma and her minor daughter, Rakshita Verma. The counsel argued for the inclusion of the LRs in the proceedings, asserting that they had assumed the interests of the deceased petitioner. The delay in filing the application was explained by the counsel as being due to court closures and the unavailability of the main counsel due to illness.
37.The respondents' counsel opposed the applications, arguing that the cause of action had not survived the death of petitioner no. 5 and that the need for the tenanted premises, originally claimed by petitioner no. 5, was no longer valid.
38.After considering the arguments, the court found that the delay in filing the application was satisfactorily explained and did not prejudice the respondents. It was determined that the LRs' need for the tenanted premises was valid and compelling, even more so after the petitioner's death. Thus, the application to condone the delay was granted, and the application to implead the LRs was also allowed. As per order dated 29.03.2023, amended memo of parties was filed.
39.Subsequently, arguments were advanced on the leave to defend application by the Learned Counsel for both the Petitioner and the Respondent, and written submissions were duly filed. This Court has meticulously examined the judicial record, the written submissions, and the oral arguments presented. The Court will now proceed to RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 17 of 52 decide the leave to defend application. If the application is allowed, the defendant will have the opportunity to file a written statement and present evidence. However, if the leave to defend application is dismissed, the petitioner will be entitled to an order of eviction.
Amended Petition U/S 14(1)(e) Read With Section 25(B) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
40.The present petition pertains to the property located at CB- 384/1 (formerly CB-44/4 and 44/5), situated out of Khasra No. 1066, Naraina Vihar, Delhi. This property is a commercial space and falls within the same municipal ward and street division as mentioned.
41.The landlord in this case is identified as the same individual as the petitioners. The tenant, whose name and address align with the respondents listed, initially took possession of the premises in 1980. The property was let out to M/s M.M. Paint Industry, which was established by the tenant's father, Shri Arur Chand Arora. Following Shri Arora's death, his sons, Shri Surinder Mohan Arora and Shri Manmohan Arora, continued the business at this location. The rent paid by them was Rs. 130 per month until 2008.
42.The petitioners, who are the successors in interest of late Shri Ram Saran, now seek eviction of the tenant. The family, which includes petitioners like Shri Arvind s/o Shri Pritam Singh, is facing hardship. Shri Arvind, who has RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 18 of 52 been unemployed despite his efforts, has suffered from acute depression since 2009 and needs the property to start a new business to support himself and his family. The petitioners believe that the property is ideal for this purpose.
43.Moreover, it has come to the petitioners' attention that the respondents have illegally partitioned the property by constructing a wall without the petitioners' permission. There are concerns that the respondents are attempting to create third-party interests in the property by contacting local property dealers and politicians.
44.A legal notice was sent to the respondents on November 23, 2012, which was acknowledged and refused on November 26, 2012.
45.In summary, the petitioners assert that the suit property is needed for Shri Arvind's business and has been unlawfully altered by the respondents. They request an eviction order for the premises located at CB-384/1 (formerly CB-44/4 and 44/5), near Indira Market, out of Khasra No. 1066, Naraina Vihar, Delhi.
46.The petitioners also seek any additional relief deemed appropriate by the court in the interest of justice.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 19 of 52 Application under Section 25-B(4) and (5) r/w 14(1)(e) of The Delhi Rent Control Act for Grant of Leave to Contest and Defend the Amended Petition
47.The petitioners have filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking to evict the Respondents from the tenanted premises, alleging that the premises are required for the bona fide personal use of petitioner No. 5. Summons were issued on 07-05-2013, received by the Respondents on 14-05-2013 and 16-05-2013. In response, the Respondents have submitted their Affidavits requesting leave to contest and defend the petition, citing substantial and triable issues that necessitate a thorough examination.
48.The Respondents assert that the eviction petition is based on incorrect and misleading information. Petitioner No. 5, who is alleged to require the premises for starting a water dispenser business, already operates a Photostat business from his own premises at WZ-13, Village Naraina, New Delhi, alongside his wife. This claim is further undermined by the fact that petitioner No. 5 owns additional properties, including Khasra Nos. 1067 and 1071, which have ample vacant space that could be used for the alleged purpose. Additionally, petitioner No. 5's acute depression since 2009, while managing a Photostat business successfully, has not been disclosed, potentially misleading the Court regarding his actual need for the premises. Furthermore, RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 20 of 52 the tenanted premises, located in a paint and chemical market, are unsuitable for a water dispenser business.
49.The initial condition of the premises was poor when rented, and the Respondents' father paid a substantial security deposit of Rs. 10,00,000 and invested Rs. 12,00,000 in repairs. This expenditure was intended to be refundable upon vacating the premises, yet the petitioners have not acknowledged this fact. The petitioners have also misstated the rent amount, claiming it to be Rs. 130, whereas it is actually Rs. 305. The failure to provide rent receipts further highlights their malafide intentions. Additionally, the petitioners have not submitted any documents to substantiate their claim of a bona fide requirement, such as distributorship letters or affidavits from petitioner No. 5. The alleged requirement is vague and unsupported by evidence.
50.Given these facts, the Respondents respectfully request that this Hon'ble Court grant them leave to contest and defend the eviction petition. They seek to demonstrate that the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed. A fair trial will reveal the falsity of the petitioners' claims and justify a dismissal. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court grant the Respondents leave to contest and defend the petition and dismiss the petition with costs and any other relief deemed appropriate.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 21 of 52 Reply to the Application of the Respondents U/S 25-B (4) &(5) read with Section 14(1)(E) of The Delhi Rent Control Act by the Petitioners
51.The petitioners address the application filed by the respondents under Sections 25-B(4) & (5) and Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, arguing that the application is not maintainable. They contend that the respondents are not entitled to contest the eviction petition as they have not raised any triable issues that would prevent the petitioners from obtaining an order for the recovery of the suit property. The petitioners assert that the respondents' claims are unsupported and fail to establish any grounds that would prevent the recovery of possession. They argue that the respondents' application is based on falsehoods and that their claims do not warrant further investigation or adjudication. The petitioners dispute the respondents' assertion that the suit property is not needed by them. They emphasize that the property is required for Shri Arvind Verma, who intends to start a business in water dispensers. They provide evidence supporting their claim, including the need for the property to establish the business and the inadequacy of alternative spaces.
52.In response to the respondents' claims about the Photostat machine, the petitioners clarify that the machine is situated at the entrance of the residential premises and is operated by the ailing father of Petitioner No. 5. They provide medical records and photographs to substantiate this, and RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 22 of 52 they affirm that the ownership of the property lies with Shri Anshul Verma, as established by a registered will. The petitioners reject the respondents' claims about other properties, providing evidence that these properties were sold or are not in their possession. They emphasize that the property in question is necessary for Petitioner No. 5's business and address any misunderstandings or misinterpretations by the respondents.
53.The petitioners challenge the respondents' assertions about the rent and alleged security deposits, presenting evidence to refute these claims. They clarify that the rent mentioned covers multiple properties, and they provide documentation to support their position. They further refute any claims of harassment or blackmail, asserting that the eviction petition is based on genuine need and is not intended to exploit or intimidate the respondents. They argue that the respondents' affidavit contains no valid defense and is intended solely to obstruct the legal process. The petitioners request that the court dismiss the respondents' application for leave to defend and grant the eviction petition in their favor, as the respondents have failed to present any valid triable issues.
Rejoinder on Behalf of the Respondents to the Reply on Behalf of the Petitioners
54.The Respondents respectfully submit their rejoinder to the Petitioners' reply concerning the application for leave to defend under Section 25(B)(4) and (5) read with Section RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 23 of 52 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Respondents assert that their application for leave to contest the eviction petition is bona fide and raises significant triable issues that warrant detailed examination by this Court. Contrary to the Petitioners' claim that the application is not maintainable, the Respondents argue that the issues presented are substantial and, if proven, will demonstrate that the Petitioners' case lacks merit and is based on the concealment of material facts. The Respondents maintain that the petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs in their favor.
55.The Respondents deny the Petitioners' assertion that no triable issues have been raised. They emphasize that their application identifies multiple significant issues that, if substantiated, will prevent the Petitioners from obtaining possession of the suit premises. These issues, as outlined in the application, are valid and merit a full trial. Additionally, the Petitioners' claim that the grounds stated in the affidavit are fabricated or do not require investigation is contested. The Respondents argue that the issues raised are genuine and necessitate thorough investigation and adjudication.
56.The Respondents also refute the Petitioners' argument that their grounds are invalid or unsupported. They assert that their issues are not only valid but are supported by the Petitioners' own submissions, thereby entitling them to leave to defend. Furthermore, the Petitioners' attempt to RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 24 of 52 evict the Respondents from property No. 384/1, which actually belongs to Ms. Parvati Nirwal, instead of the tenanted property No. 384/41, is addressed. A copy of the House Tax receipt for property No. 384/1 is provided as evidence to clarify this discrepancy.
57.In response to the Petitioners' rejoinder, the Respondents deny the claim that no triable issues are presented. They argue that their affidavit highlights multiple significant issues that, if proven, will expose the Petitioners' case as baseless and an abuse of legal process. The affidavit challenges the Petitioners' assertion regarding Petitioner No. 5's need for the suit property for a new business venture, arguing that Petitioner No. 5 and his wife are already using the property. Evidence is provided showing that the Photostat shop, alleged to be run by Petitioner No. 5's father, is actually operated by Petitioner No. 5 and his wife, contradicting the Petitioners' claim of requiring the property for a new business.
58.The Respondents further allege that the Petitioners have concealed ownership of additional properties, such as one in Khasra No. 1071 near Indira Market, which is occupied by unauthorized clusters. This undermines their claim of needing the suit property. Discrepancies in rent receipts, including confusion over property numbers and rent amounts, are highlighted, with the assertion that the Petitioners are misrepresenting these facts. The Respondents also dispute the claim of Petitioner No. 5 RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 25 of 52 suffering from depression due to financial constraints, asserting that Petitioner No. 5 is actively running the Photostat shop. Typographical errors, such as the mention of "Mr. Ram Saran" instead of "Mr. Ram Narain," are clarified, and allegations of blackmail are denied. The Respondents argue that the Petitioners are misleading the court to cover up their concealments.
59.In conclusion, the Respondents request that this Court grant them leave to contest and defend the eviction petition. They contend that the petition lacks merit and is an attempt to deceive the court. The Respondents seek dismissal of the petition with costs and any further orders deemed appropriate by this Court.
Arguments on Leave to Defend Application
60.It was argued by the Learned Counsel for Petitioners' that the petitioners filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for property No. CB-384/1 in Nariana Vihar, Delhi, citing the bona fide requirement of Mr. Arvind Verma. The petition was amended to adjust the rent, and the respondents filed an application to contest it. After various legal exchanges, including the submission of affidavits and additional documents, the petitioners' eviction request was granted on 27.08.2016, while the respondents' leave to defend was dismissed.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 26 of 52
61.The respondents challenged this in the Delhi High Court, which set aside the eviction order and remanded the case on 02.05.2018, due to procedural errors with the amended petition. The petitioners then refiled the amended petition, prompting the respondents to submit a new leave to defend application. The court sustained objections raised by the petitioners on 11.07.2019, and dismissed the respondents' application regarding subsequent events on 14.08.2019. These rulings were later challenged in two appeals (RCT No. 30/2019 and 31/2019) before the Rent Control Tribunal, New Delhi.
62.It was argued that in paragraph 14 of their affidavit, the respondents assert that they have been ordinary tenants since 1972, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 305, exclusive of electricity and water charges. However, the petitioners have clearly stated in paragraph 18(ii) of the eviction petition that the property is required to support Mr. Arvind Verma's business of water dispenser distribution, for which the premises are ideally suited. The respondents have also referenced two alternative properties, CB-386, located in Khasra No. 1067, and another in Khasra No. 1071, Nariana, New Delhi. The petitioners have provided documentary evidence, including a registered sale deed dated 20.11.1967, showing that Khasra No. 1067 was sold, and further clarified that Khasra No. 1071 is occupied by JJ clusters and is not under their control. In compliance with the Court's directive dated 05.05.2016, the petitioners submitted a detailed affidavit on 25.05.2016, outlining RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 27 of 52 their property holdings and reaffirming their bona fide need for the suit property.
63.It was further argued that the respondents' application for leave to defend fails to raise any triable issues, as per established legal principles set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. The respondents' allegations--that Mr. Arvind Verma does not genuinely require the premises and that the petition is filed with malice--are unsubstantiated. Their assertion that Mr. Verma operates a photocopying business on the ground floor of his residence is misleading, as it refers merely to a small photocopy machine positioned at the entrance to his home. Additionally, the respondents' contentions regarding alternative accommodations and the condition of the suit property are baseless and unsupported by credible evidence, as acknowledged in previous rulings. The respondents have also made vague claims about rent payments and alleged discrepancies in the rent amount. The petitioners have clarified that the Rs. 305 rent is the total for multiple properties, not for the suit property alone. This clarification is supported by judicial precedents allowing for multiple tenancies to be addressed in a single eviction petition. The petitioners rely on key rulings to counter the respondents' extraneous arguments, which exceed the statutory grounds permitted for leave to defend. The Supreme Court's judgment in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (2010) 2 SCC 15 and the Delhi High Court's decision in Rakesh Talwar v. Sudesh Gulathi (2017) affirm RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 28 of 52 that leave to defend must be strictly based on the grounds raised within the prescribed statutory period. Learned Counsel for Petitioners has also relied upon the following case laws in support of their case:
o Manmohan Singh Vs Arjun Uppal & Anr. in RC. REV. 117/2011, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 29.11.2023 o Savitri Seth Vs Parshottam Dass in CRP NO. 736/1986 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 18.09.2014. o Sarwan Dass Bange vs Ram Prakash 167/(2010) DLT
80.
o Rakesh Talwar Vs Sudesh Gulathi in RC.REV.
2007/2016.
o 259/ (2019) DLT 26 Seth Sitaram Vs Sarita Aggarwal & Anr. in 259/ (2019) DLT 26.
o Faridabad manufacturing. (Engineering products pvt. Ltd. Vs Yashpal Arora.in RC. REV no 195/2011. o Puran Chand Aggarwal Vs Lekhraj 210 (2014) DLT 131 o Neelam Sharma vs Ekant Rekhan 256 (2019) DLT 750 o Vinod Gupta Vs Kailash Aggarwal 256 (2019 DLT 76 o Sardar Mahender Singh; Sardar Balbir Singh Vs Sukhwant Kaur. RC. REV 320/2016 o Urmil Vs Gaurav 258 (2019) DLT 317 o Vimal Chandok Vs Shiv Sharan Dass & Anr. RC. REV 290/2015 o Agya Ram Arora Vs Surjeet Mech. Tools decided by on 14.05.2015 in CM (M) 1041/2014 Arguments/Written Submissions by the Respondents on Leave to Defend Application
64.It was argued by the Learned Counsel for Respondents' that the petitioners initially filed an Eviction Petition stating a rent of Rs.150/- per month. This was RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 29 of 52 subsequently amended to Rs.130/- per month as allowed on 25.04.2013. Despite this, no amended petition was formally filed on record, but a copy of the amended petition was served with the process fee. An application by the petitioners to bring additional documents on record was allowed on 19.10.2015, without affording the respondents an opportunity to rebut. The petitioners were directed on 05.05.2016 to file an affidavit regarding their properties and their status. The affidavit filed on 25.05.2016 was not rebutted by the respondents. On 27.08.2016, the Leave to Defend application was dismissed, and an eviction order was passed. The respondents' revision petition resulted in the order being set aside on 02.05.2018, with a remand for the petitioners to file the amended petition and reconsideration of the leave to defend. The petitioners filed the amended petition on 01.06.2018. By order dated 03.07.2018, respondents were permitted to apply for leave to defend the amended petition. The petitioners' objections to the leave to defend application were upheld on 11.07.2019, and the respondents' application to place on record subsequent events was dismissed on 14.08.2019. Appeals against these orders were dismissed as not maintainable per the common judgment dated 30.03.2021. The judgment allowed respondents to address factual developments during arguments on the leave to defend application.
65.The respondents' counsel raised concerns over significant discrepancies in the petitioners' description of the tenanted RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 30 of 52 premises. Initially, the petitioners claimed the rent was Rs. 150 per month, later amended to Rs. 130 per month, for a property described as CB-384/1 (formerly CB-44/4 & 44/5), Khasra No. 1066, Naraina Vihar, Delhi. The petition characterized the property as a commercial shop or factory. However, inconsistencies in the site plans and rent receipts suggested multiple tenancies instead of a single premises, which casts doubt on the accuracy of the petition. Rent receipts revealed the following breakdown: CB-44/4 at Rs. 100 per month, CB-44/5 at Rs. 60 per month, and CB- 44/5A at Rs. 125 per month, totaling Rs. 305 per month. Such contradictions between the petition and supporting documents regarding rent and premises raised questions about the validity of the eviction petition.
66.It was argued that further ambiguity surrounded the ownership of the property. The petitioners failed to disclose the existence of the Will of Sh. Ram Narayan in the original petition, only filing it at a later stage. The legal status of the petitioners as heirs to the property was questioned, given that compensation and ownership had been specifically bequeathed to other individuals in the Will. The counsel also pointed out that the petition did not provide any clear chain of title explaining how the petitioners' predecessor acquired ownership of the property. Given that Khasra No. 1066 had been acquired by the government, and compensation was provided, the respondents challenged the petitioners' right to claim RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 31 of 52 ownership of the property without disclosing the full details of this acquisition and compensation. Additionally, petitioner no. 5's name was omitted from the notice dated 23.11.2012, further pointing to defects in the petition.
67.It was further argued that the respondents questioned the bona fide need asserted by the petitioners. The petition was vague about the business activities of petitioner no. 5 and failed to explain why other properties owned by the petitioners could not meet their needs. After the death of petitioner no. 5, the argument for the bona fide need weakened, as the widow, who survived him, was not competent to run the business. This change in circumstances critically undermined the petitioners' claim of bona fide requirement, further affecting the viability of the eviction petition.
68.The petition was also criticized for its lack of clarity on alternative accommodation. The respondents argued that the petitioners had not properly disclosed their other properties or provided an accurate account of their status, depriving the respondents of the opportunity to adequately address this issue. The concealment of alternative accommodations by the petitioners was described as an attempt to mislead the court, and the availability of such properties was a triable issue that cast doubt on the need for eviction. The failure to disclose these facts, the counsel contended, amounted to fraud and rendered the petition unsustainable. Learned Counsel for Respondents has also RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 32 of 52 relied upon the following case laws in support of their case:
o Prahald Rai Mittal Vs Rita Devi, 196(2013) DLT 703 o Charan Dass Duggal Vs Brahma Nand, (1983) 1 SCC 301 o Deepak Gupta Vs Sushma Aggarwal, RC REV 180/2013 o Mehar Ellahi Vs Sultana & Ors. 2012(2) CLJ 651 DEL o Umesh Kumar Batra Vs Mahendra Nath Singhal, 2012 (2) CLJ 654 DEL o Narender Kumar Manchanda & Anr. Vs Hemant Kr. Talwar, 197 (2013) DLT 171 o Rampat Vs Ganga Devi, 2015 AD (Delhi) 91 o Rakesh Kumar Vs Pawan Khanna, 195 (2012) DLT 341 o Khem Chand & Ors. Vs Arjun Jain & Ors., 202(2013) DLT 613 o Gurbachan Singh Sachdeva Vs Gurbachan Singh Puri, 207(2014) DL/T 641 o Dharam Veer Goel Vs Renu Jain & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 110 o Aniyeri Jayarajan Vs Valiya Kooleri Koorma Yesoda, 2002 SCC OnLine Ker 396 o Padmanabhan Vs Ulahannan 1982 SCC OnLine Ker 147 Analysis and Findings
69.Before addressing the question of whether leave to defend should be granted, it is pertinent to revisit the rationale for adopting the summary procedure under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the legal principles governing the grant of leave to defend. Section 25-B provides an expeditious and effective remedy for landlords who have a bona fide need for their property. The initial RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 33 of 52 burden lies with the landlord to demonstrate such bona fide requirement, a burden that becomes more stringent when alternative accommodations are available to the landlord. In such instances, the court may reasonably require the landlord to justify why the business must be conducted from the premises for which the tenant's eviction is sought.
70.While it is well-established that the landlord is typically the best judge of his own needs, neither the court nor the tenant can unduly impose their judgment upon the landlord's decision. However, the landlord's assertions cannot be accepted at face value without careful scrutiny. It is incumbent upon the landlord to establish that the requirement of the tenanted premises is genuine, substantial, and not a mere whim or desire. Were every landlord's assertion of need for business premises to be accepted unquestioningly, the statutory protections afforded to tenants would be rendered ineffective. Refusing the tenant a fair opportunity to present a defense at the very threshold would be contrary to the principles of natural justice.
71.The case laws cited by the parties elucidate established legal principles, though they are tailored to the specific facts of those cases. In the present matter, it is crucial to determine whether the tenant has raised triable issues. If such issues are identified, leave to defend must be granted. In seeking leave to defend, the tenant need only demonstrate a prima facie case by presenting issues that RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 34 of 52 merit judicial examination. The standard is not whether the tenant will ultimately prevail but whether the raised issues require judicial scrutiny. In petitions for eviction based on bona fide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, the court must examine three critical factors:
o The existence of a landlord-tenant relationship and whether the landlord is the lawful owner of the premises;
o Whether the landlord's requirement for the premises is bona fide and for his or his family's genuine need; and o Whether the landlord has alternative suitable accommodation available.
Landlord Tenant Relationship
72.The respondent has raised concerns about ambiguity regarding the tenanted premises, specifically focusing on the discrepancies in rent amounts, the identification of the property, and whether there are multiple tenancies. They assert that the petition is based on an inaccurate depiction of the tenancy and therefore argue that the eviction petition is not maintainable.
73.Addressing the first point, the respondent notes that the petition initially stated the rent to be Rs.150 per month, which was later amended to Rs.130 per month. The respondent claims this rent amount does not correspond to any existing tenancy. It is important to clarify that the RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 35 of 52 amendment of the rent from Rs.150 to Rs.130 was made following the Court's procedural allowance and does not affect the substance of the landlord-tenant relationship. Rent discrepancies often arise from administrative or clerical errors, and minor variations in the stated rent amount do not invalidate the relationship itself. The key fact remains that rent has been paid over the years, and the respondent's possession of the premises has been recognized as that of a tenant. Therefore, the issue of the precise rent amount, while relevant to the specifics of arrears or adjustments, does not disprove the existence of a valid tenancy.
74.Regarding the identification of the premises, the petition describes the tenanted premises as CB-384/1 (formerly CB-44/4 and 44/5) out of Khasra No. 1066, Naraina Vihar, Delhi. The respondent claims there are three separate tenancies relating to different shop numbers: CB-44/4, CB- 44/5, and CB-44/5A, each with distinct rent amounts.
75.In response to this, it is crucial to note that a composite rent receipt, even if it consolidates payments for multiple premises, does not necessarily indicate multiple independent tenancies. The issuance of a single rent receipt may reflect an operational or practical arrangement between the parties, streamlining payment while not necessarily altering the legal character of the tenancy. The petitioners have described the tenanted premises as one commercial shop/factory, and this description aligns with RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 36 of 52 the long-term understanding and conduct of both parties. The use of different property numbers in rent receipts may reflect administrative changes over time, such as changes in property numbering, without affecting the tenancy's legal continuity.
76.The respondent's contention that there are three distinct tenancies, rather than a single tenancy, is not supported by the overall conduct of the parties and the documentary evidence submitted. The issuance of composite rent receipts and the petitioners' consistent description of the premises as a single unit suggest that, over time, the relationship between the parties has been treated as one comprehensive tenancy rather than three separate ones. While the respondent argues for multiple tenancies, the consistent payment of rent as a single sum and the long- standing possession of the property as a whole point toward the existence of one tenancy.
77.The respondent further points out that the site plan provided by the petitioners does not indicate the portions in red color, as referred to in the petition, leading to further ambiguity about the precise nature of the tenanted premises. While this discrepancy may require clarification, it does not undermine the fact that the respondent has been in continuous possession of the premises since 1980, paying rent to the petitioners and their predecessors. These long-standing facts establish a clear landlord-tenant RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 37 of 52 relationship, even if the technical details of the property's description and rent need correction.
78.While there are allegations of some discrepancies in the rent amounts and the description of the tenanted premises, these do not affect the core issue of whether a landlord- tenant relationship exists. The facts of the case, including the long-term possession of the premises by the respondent and the payment of rent, confirm the existence of such a relationship. The discrepancies in the petition are matters of procedural clarification and do not invalidate the fundamental relationship between the parties. The petition remains maintainable based on the established facts of tenancy, notwithstanding the issues raised by the respondent.
79.The respondent's argument focuses on ownership disputes however, the critical distinction here is that the petition for eviction is grounded in the landlord-tenant relationship, not ownership. In landlord-tenant law, the ownership of the property is not necessarily dispositive of the landlord's right to seek eviction. The core issue in such proceedings is whether a valid tenancy exists, and whether the landlord is entitled to terminate that tenancy on permissible grounds as mandated by law.
80.The respondent argues that the petitioners have concealed the Will of Late Sh. Ram Narayan, which affects their claim to ownership. The Will bequeaths compensation RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 38 of 52 rights related to the acquired property, which does not affect the landlord-tenant relationship. The right to compensation due to acquisition proceedings is separate from the right to receive rent and maintain the landlord- tenant relationship. The tenants themselves have acknowledged paying rent to the petitioners, which affirms the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship regardless of the complexities surrounding ownership.
81.The respondent raises the issue of land acquisition and subsequent compensation by the government under the Land Acquisition Act. However, even though the land in question may have been acquired, the tenants have continued to occupy the premises and pay rent to the petitioners, which reinforces the landlord-tenant relationship. Constructive possession taken by the government does not automatically nullify the existing tenancies unless specific steps are taken to terminate the tenancies or remove the tenants. As such, the petitioners retain the right to act as landlords for eviction purposes unless and until the government takes action to formalize its possession and terminate the tenancy.
82.The respondent contends that the Court should take judicial notice of the land acquisition and argues that the petitioners are no longer the owners. While the acquisition might affect future ownership rights or compensation, it does not negate the existing landlord-tenant relationship unless the acquisition process specifically addresses RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 39 of 52 tenancy rights. Courts typically uphold the principle that until a tenant's possession is legally terminated, they remain tenants under the landlord, even if ownership is transferred or modified. The ownership dispute, therefore, does not preclude the petitioners from maintaining their eviction action as landlords.
83.The respondent further argues that some legal heirs of the original owner, Late Sh. Ram Narayan, have received compensation and not all heirs have been mentioned in the eviction petition. In landlord-tenant law, co-owners or heirs can jointly exercise their rights as landlords, and it is not mandatory for all legal heirs to be involved in an eviction proceeding, especially when the tenancy is acknowledged by the tenant. The tenancy remains valid as long as the tenant continues to pay rent and recognize the petitioners (whether legal heirs or co-owners) as landlords.
84.The respondent accuses the petitioners of fraud for allegedly concealing information about the acquisition and compensation. However, fraud in the context of ownership does not automatically invalidate the landlord's right to seek eviction if the tenancy and landlord-tenant relationship are undisputed. Even if certain facts related to ownership are in dispute, the tenancy and rental obligations remain valid, and the landlord can proceed with an eviction petition based on the tenant's obligations under the lease or tenancy agreement.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 40 of 52
85.The respondent's arguments regarding ownership, acquisition, and compensation are separate from the core issue of whether a valid landlord-tenant relationship exists. Ownership disputes, Will provisions, and land acquisition may affect compensation rights or future possession but do not directly negate the landlord-tenant relationship unless explicitly terminated by legal action. Therefore, the petitioners' right to seek eviction remains intact as long as the landlord-tenant relationship is valid, and the eviction petition is not dependent on ownership alone but on their status as landlords recognized by the tenant.
86.In addressing the contention of ownership raised by the respondent, it is crucial to clarify that while ownership plays a role in determining the identity of the landlord, the primary focus here is the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. However, the determination of ownership is not directly necessary for establishing the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship under the law.
87.In matters of tenancy, the key legal requirement is that the landlord demonstrates a right to receive rent and exercise control over the property vis-à-vis the tenant, regardless of absolute title ownership. The respondent's possession of the property since 1980, coupled with the lease arrangement between the respondent's late father's business, M/s M.M. Paint Industry, and the petitioner, provides clear evidence of a landlord-tenant relationship that has existed for several decades.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 41 of 52
88.Even if the respondent disputes the petitioner's ownership, that challenge alone does not negate the fact that the respondent has been occupying the property as a tenant, paying rent either regularly or irregularly, and recognizing the petitioner or their predecessors as the landlord. As such, the law recognizes the petitioner as the de facto landlord, entitled to bring eviction proceedings based on the established landlord-tenant relationship, without requiring an absolute resolution of ownership at this stage.
89.It is well-established in tenancy law that a tenant cannot challenge the title of their landlord, especially after years of accepting the landlord's right to receive rent. The respondent's contention over ownership, therefore, is insufficient to refute the core legal relationship of tenancy. Whether the petitioner holds the perfect legal title or not does not alter the fact that the respondent entered into possession as a tenant and has remained in that capacity, thus confirming the subsisting landlord-tenant relationship.
90.While ownership may be a contested issue, it does not undermine the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. The respondent's long-standing possession of the property, the payment of rent, and the absence of any challenge to the petitioner's status as landlord over many years confirm that the landlord-tenant relationship remains intact, irrespective of ownership disputes.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 42 of 52
91.The petitioner has successfully demonstrated the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The petitioner's claim of being the lawful owner of the property located at CB-384/1 (formerly CB-44/4 and CB- 44/5), out of Khasra No. 1066, Naraina Vihar, Delhi, is supported by relevant documents. However, the focus here is not on ownership, but on the landlord-tenant relationship, which is clearly established through the respondent's continued possession of the property since 1980, pursuant to a lease arrangement with M/s M.M. Paint Industry, founded by the respondent's late father, Shri Arur Chand Arora.
92.The respondent has acknowledged possession of the property under this arrangement, and despite discrepancies related to rent amounts and property condition, there is no substantive dispute over the existence of a tenancy. The initial rent amount of Rs. 150 per month, later amended to Rs. 130 per month, was done in accordance with legal procedures and with the permission of this Court. The respondent's contentions regarding this discrepancy, while noted, do not affect the validity of the landlord-tenant relationship itself. Such discrepancies may be relevant in determining specific issues, such as rent arrears, but do not invalidate the tenancy.
93.Additionally, the respondent's arguments concerning the absence of rent receipts and the condition of the property at the time of leasing do not negate the existence of the RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 43 of 52 tenancy. The respondent has not produced sufficient evidence to challenge the petitioner's status as the landlord or to disprove the long-standing tenancy. While the respondent claims to have incurred costs for repairs and paid a substantial security deposit at the commencement of the lease, these issues are related to the lease terms and financial adjustments but are irrelevant to the fundamental question of whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists.
94.In conclusion, the petitioner has successfully established the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The discrepancies raised by the respondent are procedural and financial in nature, and do not undermine the core legal relationship between the parties. Therefore, the court confirms the existence of a valid landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, and the proceedings can continue on this basis.
Bonafide Requirement
95.The Petitioners seek the eviction of the Respondents from the suit premises, asserting a bona fide requirement for the property. In accordance with Section 14(1)(e), a landlord can seek eviction if the premises are required for their bona fide personal use. The Petitioners argue that Petitioner No. 5 (now deceased) required the suit premises to start a water dispenser distribution business. They claim that this need is genuine and crucial for their livelihood.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 44 of 52
96.The Respondents argue that the death of Petitioner No. 5 invalidates the bona fide requirement, suggesting that his widow, Smt. Garima, is not capable of running the business. The Court acknowledges the death of Petitioner No. 5 but notes that Smt. Garima has assumed responsibility for the business and continues to need the premises. Thus, the bona fide requirement remains valid. The Court finds that the Petitioners have successfully demonstrated a genuine and sincere need for the premises, an immediate and pressing requirement for their business, and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation.
97.The Respondents claim that commercial activities are prohibited on the suit premises according to the DCB's actions. The premises were initially sealed by the DCB on January 3, 2018, but were de-sealed upon proof that they were used as an office and godown, not for commercial activities. This argument does not invalidate the Petitioners' claim. The Petitioners have demonstrated that the suit premises are appropriate for their specific business needs. The DCB's actions reflect regulatory compliance issues rather than the intrinsic suitability of the premises for the intended use.
98.The Respondents point out that Petitioner No. 5 has passed away and question the continued validity of the bona fide requirement for his widow, Smt. Garima. The Petitioners have provided evidence that Smt. Garima has taken over the responsibilities and intends to continue the business.
RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 45 of 52 The need articulated by Petitioner No. 5 does not become moot due to his death; rather, it has been reassigned to his widow, who has assumed the role of running the business. The bona fide requirement remains valid as it pertains to the continuity of the business, which is now under the management of Smt. Garima.
99.The Respondents challenge Smt. Garima's competence to manage the business, citing her background as a homemaker. The Petitioners, however, have demonstrated that Smt. Garima is actively involved in the business operations and has taken steps to ensure its continuation. The argument that she is not competent to run the business is unsupported by evidence and does not undermine the legitimacy of the bona fide requirement.
100. The Respondents' reference to Petitioner No. 5's previous Photostat shop, which is now managed by Smt. Garima through a hired person, does not negate the bona fide need for the suit premises. The necessity for the suit premises is based on specific business needs that are not fulfilled by the current operations of the Photostat shop.
101. While it is alleged that petitioner No. 5 currently operates a Photostat business from his residence at WZ-13, Naraina Village, this fact does not necessarily negate his bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises. The settled legal position is that a landlord can seek eviction for a different business venture, even if they are engaged in RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 46 of 52 another business. The desire to expand or start a new business, such as the proposed water dispenser distribution business in this case, is a valid reason for seeking possession of the premises, irrespective of current engagements.
102. The respondent's claim regarding petitioner No. 5's depression since 2009 does not undermine the bona fide requirement. It is plausible that despite managing the small Photostat business, petitioner No. 5 seeks to improve his financial and personal situation by pursuing a more viable and profitable business opportunity. The Court has recognized in numerous cases that the right to seek a higher standard of living is a legitimate ground for eviction.
103. The respondent's argument that the tenanted premises, located in a paint and chemical market, is unsuitable for a water dispenser business lacks merit. The suitability of a business location is subjective and is determined by the business owner's assessment. Moreover, the absence of other similar businesses in the area may work in favour of the petitioner, as it could indicate an untapped market for water dispensers, potentially increasing the viability of the proposed venture.
104. Furthermore, while the petitioner has not submitted distributorship letters or other formal documents to substantiate the proposed business, the lack of such RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 47 of 52 documents does not inherently disprove the genuineness of the need. The courts have consistently held that it is not necessary to have existing business infrastructure or formal documentation in place before seeking possession of a premises for starting a new business. The petitioner's bona fide intention to use the premises for the stated purpose is sufficient.
105. In conclusion, the respondents' contentions fail to raise any substantial triable issues that would negate the bona fide requirement of petitioner No. 5 for the tenanted premises. The petitioners are entitled to pursue the eviction based on their legitimate need to expand their business opportunities.
Availability of Alternate, Suitable Accommodation
106. In the context of an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, it is essential for the Petitioners to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternative accommodations available for their bona fide requirement. The Court must evaluate the Petitioners' claims regarding the availability and suitability of alternative properties. The burden of proof lies with the Petitioners to show that no other accommodation is adequate for their stated requirements.
107. The Petitioners assert ownership of properties but claim that these properties are either occupied or RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 48 of 52 unsuitable for their business needs. They argue that none of these properties can meet the specific requirements for their intended water dispenser distribution business.
108. On 05.05.2016, the Court directed the Petitioners to file an affidavit detailing all their properties. In compliance, the Petitioners submitted an affidavit on 25.05.2016, which outlined the status of their properties, including Khasra No. 1066 and Khasra No. 1071. They explained that Khasra No. 1067 had been sold, and Khasra No. 1071 was under unauthorized occupation. This disclosure was made to ensure transparency and to support their claim that these properties cannot be used for the intended business.
109. The Petitioners refute allegations of fraud by arguing that any perceived lack of detailed disclosure does not equate to intentional concealment. They assert that they have acted in good faith and provided all relevant information given the circumstances. Specifically, Khasra No. 1067 was sold and is no longer owned by them, while Khasra No. 1071, being under unauthorized occupation, is unavailable for their use.
110. The Respondents contend that the Petitioners have not fully disclosed information about their alternative properties, thereby questioning the genuineness of their eviction claim. They argue that discrepancies in the descriptions of the Petitioners' properties raise doubts RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 49 of 52 about the bona fides of their need for the tenanted premises. The Respondents specifically point to Khasra No. 1067 and Khasra No. 1071 as potential alternative accommodations that could meet the Petitioners' requirements, thereby questioning the necessity of the eviction.
111. In response, the Petitioners maintain that they have fully complied with the Court's directives by submitting a comprehensive affidavit detailing all their properties and their respective statuses. They argue that the properties in question--Khasra No. 1067, which was sold by registered deed, and Khasra No. 1071, which is under unauthorized occupation--are unsuitable for the intended use. The Petitioners assert that their submissions are sufficient and that the Respondents' claims regarding alternative accommodations are unsubstantiated.
112. The Court acknowledges the Petitioners' efforts in providing a comprehensive disclosure of their property holdings, specifically addressing the status of Khasra No. 1067 and Khasra No. 1071. The Petitioners have presented valid reasons for the unsuitability of these properties, including the sale of Khasra No. 1067 and the unauthorized occupation of Khasra No. 1071. After reviewing the Petitioners' submissions, including site plans, rent receipts, and affidavits, the Court finds that the Petitioners have provided a clear and credible account of their properties, which are either unsuitable for the water RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 50 of 52 dispenser business or are already occupied for other purposes.
113. The Court has also evaluated the suitability of the Petitioners' alternative properties for the proposed business and finds no substantial evidence to support the Respondents' claims of intentional concealment or fraud. The Petitioners have provided supporting documents, including a registered sale deed for Khasra No. 1067 and affidavits regarding the unauthorized occupation of Khasra No. 1071, demonstrating a reasonable effort to disclose all relevant information. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Petitioners have met the disclosure requirements and adequately addressed the Respondents' concerns about alternative accommodation.
114. The Respondents' arguments regarding discrepancies in the affidavit and alleged omissions do not outweigh the credible evidence presented by the Petitioners. After a comprehensive review, the Court is satisfied that the alternative properties suggested by the Respondents are either unsuitable or unavailable for the specific requirements of the water dispenser business.
Order
115. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the landlord/petitioner has successfully established a bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises. The respondent/tenant has failed to RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 51 of 52 raise any triable issue warranting further adjudication. Consequently, the tenanted premises i.e. property bearing CB-384/1 (previously CB-44/4 & 44/5) out of Khasra No. 1066, near Indira Market, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi- 110028 (as per amended petition), is directed to be vacated. The respondents/tenants are hereby ordered to be evicted from the said premises.
116. However, in accordance with the statutory mandate under Section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, this eviction order shall be executable only after the expiry of six months from the date of this order.
The file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA JINDAL JINDAL Date:
Pronounced in the Anuradha Jindal) 2024.09.03 16:29:54 +0530 open Court on 02.09.2024 ACJ-CCJ-ARC, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi RC ARC 4494/2016 Pawan Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Sh. Surinder Mohan Arora & Anr. Page no. 52 of 52