Delhi District Court
Smt. Premwati vs Sh. Ghanshyam on 29 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH :
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E170/13
Unique ID No : 02401C0557832012
In the matter of:
Smt. Premwati, aged 61 years,
D/o Late Sh. Jai Narain Sharma,
R/o 18/31 (Ground Floor)
Shakti Nagar,
Delhi110007. ....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Ghanshyam,
S/o Late Sh. Kacheru Mal,
R/o 18/31 (Ground Floor)
Shakti Nagar,
Delhi110007. .....Respondent
O R D E R:
Vide this order, I shall decide an application for leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 25B (4) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act, 1958) seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition.
2. The present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Premwati against the respondent Sh. Ghanshyam under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, 1958.
3. The version of the petitioner is that the respondent is a tenant in E170/13 Page 1/22 respect of one garage situated on the ground floor forming part of property no. 18/31, Shakti Nagar, Delhi as shown in red colour in the siteplan. The rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 500/ per month exclusive of other charges. The premises are nonresidential. The shop in tenancy of the respondent of which the petitioner is the owner & landlady is required bona fide by the petitioner for her son namely Sh. Nitin Sharma as well as for her husband Sh. Anand Verma and for whom neither the petitioner nor any member of her family has got any other alternative suitable business premises in Delhi or elsewhere. The premises in question which is a garage was let out by Late Jai Narain Sharma father of the petitioner, who was the owner and landlord of the property no. 18/31, Shakti Nagar, Delhi110007 to Sh. Kacheru Mal, father of the respondent. After the death of Sh. Jai Narain Sharma, the petitioner became the owner of the entire ground floor of said property in terms of a WILL dated 24.02.1989 of her late father which was duly registered. Sh. Kacheru Mal attorned in favour of the petitioner and started paying rent to her. However, after the death of Sh. Kacheru Mal, the respondent alone started using the premises and attorned in favour of the petitioner. The rent receipts are also being issued in the sole name of the respondent. The son of the petitioner Sh. Nitin is now aged about 32 years and is unmarried. He has completed his graduation and presently he is employed in a company at Gurgaon and is drawing a meager salary of Rs. 12,000/ to Rs. 13,000/ p.m. However, the said meager salary is insufficient to meet out the expenses of the entire family. Further, the said place of work of the son of the petitioner, is far away from the residence of the petitioner and it take at least four hours for the son of the petitioner in transit. The petitioner is ailing from various diseases and is also E170/13 Page 2/22 paralyzed. She cannot speak and not in a position to do any house hold work and requires constant medical help as well as physiotherapy. The son of the petitioner is also not getting suitable match on account of his meager salary. The son of the petitioner wants to start a general merchandise shop in the suit premises so that he may besides earning handsome amount would also be in a position to look after the petitioner who is now aged about 61 years. Sh. Nitin, son of the petitioner was born from the wedlock of the petitioner with Sh. Mahabir Pershad, however, in the year 1989 the marriage of the petitioner was dissolved. Sh. Nitin at that time was aged about eight years and the petitioner contracted second marriage with Sh. Anand Verma in the year 1990 who is living with the petitioner and is looking after her. Sh. Anand Verma is presently unemployed for the last about four years and he will also work with Sh. Nitin in the business intended to be carried out in the suit shop. It is further stated that presently the accommodation available with the petitioner consist of two bed rooms, one drawing room, kitchen, latrine and bath as well as a mezzanine over garage in question and the said accommodation has been shown in yellow colour in the site plan attached and is being used for residential purposes. The petitioner has thus got no alternative suitable shop for running the business by her son.
4. It is prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of one garage situated on the ground floor forming part of property no. 18/31, Shakti Nagar, Delhi as shown in red colour in the siteplan.
E170/13 Page 3/22
5. Summons in the prescribed form under Schedule III of DRC Act, 1958 were served upon the respondent and thereafter, respondent has filed application for leave to defend along with affidavit within the stipulated period from the date of service of summons.
6. It is the version of the respondent that the eviction petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the premises in question was let to the respondent's father Late Sh. Kacheri Mal by Late Sh. Jai Narain Sharma i.e. father of petitioner Smt. Premwati. The eviction petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as after the death of Sh. Jai Narain Sharma i.e. father of petitioner, all his legal heirs became the owners of the premises in question and the eviction petition is not maintainable without impleadment of all legal heirs of Late Sh. Jai Narain Sharma. The petitioner is not the owner of the suit property. The eviction petition filed by the petitioner is also liable to be dismissed as after the death of father of respondent Sh. Kacheri Mal, his all LRs are required to be impleaded in the array of memo of parties as Late Sh. Kacheri Mal expired on 29.02.2000 leaving behind his wife Smt. Krishna Devi i.e. mother of respondent, two sons i.e. respondent and one Sh. Satyapal and three daughters namely Smt. Santosh, Smt. Laxmi and Smt. Sunita and all the legal representatives are required to be impleaded as respondents in the array of memo of parties and in absence of same, eviction petition is not maintainable. The eviction petition is liable to be dismissed as the same has been filed merely to harass the respondent as there is no bona fide requirement of petitioner either for her husband or for her son as alleged in eviction petition. The eviction petition is liable to be dismissed as husband of petitioner is very well settled E170/13 Page 4/22 and working with Diwan Sahab at Karol Bagh. Besides this, the husband of petitioner is also engaged in the business of Gents Suiting and Shirting including Indo Western dresses and from all sources his income is more than Rs. 50,000/ per month. The eviction petition is also liable to be dismissed as the son of the petitioner is very well settled and working with one Company in Gurgaon and to the knowledge of respondent, his monthly salary is more than Rs. 35,000/ per month and thus the averments mentioned in eviction petition are false, frivolous and baseless. The eviction petition is further liable to be dismissed as the portion shown as store in the site plan filed and relied upon by the petitioner is not a store whereas the same can be used for commercial purpose. The said premises which is allegedly shown as store in the site plan was earlier in use and occupation of one tenant namely Sh. Tarun Kant Jha who has vacated the same approximately 69 months back and the said premises is very well available to the petitioner. The eviction petition is further liable to be dismissed in view of the fact that portion shown as drawing/dinning in the site plan filed and relied upon by the petitioner is not a room but the said portion falls on the main road and is much more bigger in size than the small garage which is in use and occupation of the respondent. The said portion allegedly to be shown as room/drawing/dinning is commercial space in use and occupation of petitioner which can be used by the petitioner for alleged need of her son if at all her requirement is genuine and bona fide. Even otherwise the area of the tenanted premises is too small i.e. 6' X 8' and the same cannot meet out the alleged requirement of the son of petitioner. The eviction petition is liable to be dismissed as to the knowledge of respondent, the petitioner is having other premises including commercial available to her in Shastri Nagar, Delhi which is E170/13 Page 5/22 available to the petitioner for the alleged requirement of her son. The eviction petition is liable to be dismissed as the respondent has paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ to the petitioner at the time of renovating the premises in question against which no receipt was issued to the respondent and now the petitioner with malafide intention to grab the hard earned money of respondent, has filed the instant eviction petition. The site plan filed by the petitioner does not depict the true and correct accommodation available to the petitioner. It is further prayed that application for leave to defend of the respondent may be allowed.
7. In reply to the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner, the allegations leveled by the respondent have been denied and the averments made in the petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed.
8. Respondent has filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the petitioner have been controverted and rebutted and the averments made in the application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed.
9. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
10. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1992 RLR 18, titled as "Rakeshwar Narain Vs. Sarla Sarin, 186 (2012) Delhi Law Times 669, titled as "Abdul Malik & Anr. Vs. Shashi Bhalla", (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 164, titled as "Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das", 174 (2010) Delhi Law Times 64, titled as "Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash", 2012 E170/13 Page 6/22 RLR 34 (Note), titled as "Ram Sharma Vs. Mohd. Sabir", 197 (2013) Delhi Law Times 18 (CN), titled as "Manika Rani Ghosh & Ors. Vs. Dharwinder Kaur", 1992 RLR 253, titled as "Sheela Sapra Vs. New India Elect. Ind. (P) Ltd., 191 (2012) Delhi Law Times 539, titled as "Parmanand Vs. Suman Sharma & Ors.", 2013 IV AD (Delhi) 369, titled as "Gita Gupta Vs. Kailash Chand Dhingra, 172 (2010) Delhi Law Times 551, titled as "Kharati Ram Khanna & Sons Vs. Krishna Luthra" and 2010 (173) Delhi Law Times 379.
11. Ld. counsel for the respondent has relied upon Civil Appeal No. 120/1990, titled as "S.M. Mehra Vs. D.D. Malik", decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court (para no.01), Civil Appeal No. 412/2000, titled as "Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran", decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court (para no.
03), Civil Appeal No. 179/1982, titled as "Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahma Nand", decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court (para no.07), AIR 1976 Delhi page 328 and AIR 1981 Delhi page 305.
12. While deciding the question whether leave to defend should be granted or refused, the Court is to address itself on following issues :
(a) That the petitioner is owner of the suit premises;
(b) Purpose of letting;
(c) That the premises is required bonafide by the petitioner; and
(d) That the petitioner has no other alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi.
E170/13 Page 7/22
13. In Precision Metal & Engg. Works Vs. Prema Deva, Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has been held that "while deciding the application for leave to contest, the controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub Section (4) and the reply if any. On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by the landlord, the controller has to pose to himself the only question, "Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in clause of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". The controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits."
The gist of the various decisions is that if any triable issue is raised in the application which can not be decided unless the parties lead evidence, leave to contest should be granted. In all other cases, the leave has to be refused.
14. In (2002) 7 SCC 614 titled as Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "If the Court is satisfied that though in the pleadings an issue is raised but that is not a triable issue then the Court is justified in refusing the leave to defend. A defence, which is practically moonshine, sham or illusory can not be held to be raising a triable issue. Else the whole purpose behind enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a contest unless leave was granted, would stand defeated."
E170/13 Page 8/22 Ownership
15. It is the version of the petitioner that she is owner of the tenanted premises by virtue of registered WILL dated 24.02.1989 of her late father. It is also the version of the petitioner that she is landlady qua the tenanted premises and has filed copy of rent receipt dated 24.02.2012. The petitioner has also filed copy of house tax receipt regarding the tenanted premises which shows that she is the owner of the tenanted premises. The respondent has denied that petitioner is owner of the tenanted premises. It is also the version of the respondent that after the death of father of the petitioner all his legal heirs became the owners of the premises in question and the eviction petition is not maintainable without impleadment of all the legal heirs of Late Jai Narain Sharma.
16. In Shanti Sharma Vs. Ved Prabha AJR 1987 SC 2028, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that for the purpose of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, "Ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant".
17. In Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than tenant."
18. In 157 (2009) DLT 450, Delhi High Court titled as Ramesh Chand E170/13 Page 9/22 Vs. Uganti Devi, it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide para No. 7 that "It is settled proposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever, imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises can not stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates a estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the tenanted premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly."
19. The respondent has not denied that petitioner is her landlady. The rent receipt is on record. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid authorities, by virtue of WILL dated 24.02.1989 and the copy of house tax receipt, the aspect of ownership goes in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has shown that she has better title than the respondent. The contention of the respondent that other owners were not impleaded is not having any force as it is settled law that any of the coowner can file the petition U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act (Reliance placed upon India Umbrella Manufacturing Company Vs. Bhagabandei E170/13 Page 10/22 Aggarwal (2004) 3 SCC 178, in which it was observed that "It is well settled that one of the coowners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant".). Similarly, the contention of the respondent that other legal heirs of Late Kacheri Mal (father of the respondent) have not been impleaded as respondents is not having any force as it is settled law that on death of a tenant, the tenancy devolves upon the legal heirs as joint tenancy. LRs are joint tenants and not tenant in common (Reliance placed upon AIR 1963 Supreme Court 468, titled as "Kanji Manji Vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay).
Purpose of Letting
20. Purpose of letting has become redundant as in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 705 Supreme Court, it has been held that the premises let out either for residential or for commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for bonafide requirements.
21. Let us consider the aspect of availability or nonavailability of alternative suitable accommodation with the petitioner in Delhi. It is the contention of the petitioner that neither she nor any member of her family has got any other alternative suitable business premises in Delhi whereas it is contention of the respondent that the portion shown as store in the site plan is not a store and the same can be used for commercial purpose. Earlier the same was in use and occupation of one tenant namely Sh. Taruni Kant Jha who has vacated the same approximately 69 months back and the said premises is very well available to the petitioner. On this point, it is the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid portion was always a store of very small size and E170/13 Page 11/22 was never rented to anybody. It is the contention of the respondent that the portion shown as drawing/dining in the site plan is not a room and the said portion falls on the main road and is much more bigger in size than a small garage which is in possession of the respondent. The said space is commercial which can be used by the petitioner for alleged need of her son.
22. It is further the version of the respondent that the area of the tenanted premises is too small i.e. 6' X 8' and the same cannot meet out the alleged requirement of the son of petitioner. It is also the contention of the respondent that petitioner is having other premises including commercial available to her in Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
23. In M/s. John Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Dr. Surinder Singh & Ors. 2007 (1) RCR 509, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the landlord is best judge of his requirement and tenant can not dictate the terms to which the landlord should live.
24. In 157 (2009) DLT 450 titled as Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed vide para (9) that "A tenant who alleges that the landlord has at his disposal other accommodation has to place before Ld. ARC some material to show that the landlord has a specific alternative accommodation at his disposal. Mere assertion that the landlady/landlord was the owner of various properties without placing on record even a single piece of document of the fact that such property was available to the landlord or landlady, no triable issue is raised. If these kinds E170/13 Page 12/22 of bald assertions are entertained by the Ld. ARC, then every tenant would assert about the ownership by the landlord of any property owned by a stranger and would go away with leave to defend. That is not the intent of Legislature. Only in those cases leave to defend can be granted where Ld. ARC finds some substance in the issues raised by the tenant, so find out if there was substance into the assertions made by the tenant, Ld. ARC has to scrutinize the material placed before him by both the parties and come to a conclusion."
25. In "Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Company", AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed by Hon'be Supreme Court that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter (reliance placed upon "Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353).
26. In AIR 2003 SC 156, it was observed that it is for the landlord to choose which one would be preferable to him or her and a tenant cannot question such preference.
27. In "Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Anr.", 153 (2008) DLT 652, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to landlord as to how he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premises. Suitability has to be seen from convenience of landlord and his family members and on basis of circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habit and background. E170/13 Page 13/22
28. As per WILL dated 24.02.1989, the petitioner is owner of ground floor of property no. 1813, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and she has filed site plan of ground floor of the property. The respondent has not filed any site plan and therefore, site plan filed by the petitioner is assumed to be correct (Reliance placed upon R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargav, 1986 RLR 232, in which it was observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "If a tenant does not file a siteplan showing that siteplan filed by the owner is incorrect, then owner's plan would be assumed to be correct".)
29. As per site plan, the tenanted premises is on front side. The drawing room/dining room measuring 9' X 12.4' is also on the front side. The store room is situated on the back side. The respondent cannot dictate the landlord/owner to use the drawing/dining room for the business purposes keeping in view the number of rooms available to the petitioner as per site plan at ground floor of the premises. On the same lines, the respondent cannot dictate the landlord to use the store room for business purposes because as per reply of the petitioner, store room is situated at the back side of the property and a layman can say that any room situated at back side of any premises is not suitable for business purposes. The contention of the respondent that area of tenanted premises is too small 6' X 8' and the same cannot meet out the alleged requirement of the son of the petitioner is also wrong because as per site plan filed by the petitioner, the size of tenanted premises is 8' X 12'.4''. The respondent has not even given any specific number/description of other premises including commercial properties available to the petitioner in Delhi. Therefore, in view of above discussion and in view of aforesaid authorities, I E170/13 Page 14/22 am of the view that the petitioner has been able to establish that she is not having any other reasonably suitable alternative business accommodation in Delhi.
Bonafide Requirement
30. The stand of the petitioner is that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required for setting up business of her son on the grounds which has already been mentioned in para no.03 of this order. The version of the respondent is that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide as son of the petitioner is very well settled and he is working with a company at Gurgaon, his monthly salary is more than Rs. 35,000/ per month. The husband of the petitioner is very well settled and is working with Diwan Saheb at Karol Bagh, Delhi. The husband of the petitioner is also engaged in the business of Gents Suiting and Shirting including Indo Western dresses and from all sources his income is more than Rs. 50,000/ per month.
31. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta VI (1999) SLT 163 = (1999) 6 SCC 222 wherein, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : "12. A perusal of Section 14 of the Act shows that the law has imposed restrictions on the recovery of possession, of any premises by landlord from a tenant notwithstanding any law or contract to the contrary. However, an order for recovery of possession is permissible on one or more of the specified ground. One such ground is the premises let for residential purposes being required E170/13 Page 15/22 bonafide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. What is a bonafide requirement is not defined in the Act. The words 'need' and 'require' both denote a certain degree of want with a thrust within demanding fulfilment. 'Need' or 'requirement' qualified by word 'bonafide' or 'genuine' preceding as an adjectiveis an expression often used in Rent Control Laws. 'Bonafide or genuine need' of the landlord or that the landlord 'genuinely requires' or "requires bonafide" an accommodation for occupation by or use for himself is an accepted ground for eviction and such expression is often employed by Rent Control legislation draftsman. The two expressions are interchangeable in practice and carry the same meaning."
13. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean "in good faith: genuine". The word 'genuine' means 'natural; not spurious; real" pure: sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley defines bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or E170/13 Page 16/22 pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bona fides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bona fide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bona fides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of E170/13 Page 17/22 the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against."
32. In "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta", 2011 (1) RCR (Rent) 231 (Delhi), it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one. If the respondent wished to settle her sons and grandsons, and she required accommodation for the same, it could not be said to be malafide on her part.
33. The right of landlord for possession of his/her property for setting up a business for his son has also been recognized by the Apex Court in "Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das", 2009 (2) RCR 455.
34. The moral duty of a parent to help, establish his/her son has also been recognized by the Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal", AIR 2002 SC 2256 in the following words:
"24.... Keeping in view the social or socioreligious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be a obligation of the landlord to settle a person E170/13 Page 18/22 closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the court shall with circumspection inquire: (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close interrelation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
35. In 2008. Rajdhani Law Reporter. 75 (SC) titled as Yadvendra Arya Vs. Mukesh Gupta, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that "If owner's son is sitting idle and he is able and needs tenanted premises, then it is a bonafide need. When Court is satisfied by objective assessment, it must leave the matter to subjective assessment of owner. Another vacant shop if unsuitable is irrelevant. Landlord is the best judge of his needs. Rent Act does not confer undeserved benefits on tenants. Court must not make short sighted parochial approach. Tenant should not be given undeserved benefits and preferences to avoid unconstitutional invalidity of Rent Act. When Rent Act allows eviction on some ground, Court must not stretch or strain language to deny relief to landlord. Law is heavily loaded in favour of tenants. As landlords are also E170/13 Page 19/22 weak, feeble and humble, Courts should not hesitate to lean in their favour. When landlord seek eviction, he looses rental income and Court must not hasten to imagine it to be a ruse. Protection to tenant stands lifted as landlord really needed premises."
36. Let us see the bonafide requirement of the petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid authorities. The contention of the respondent is that son and husband of the petitioner are well settled. The petitioner has filed copy of Relieving Letter dated 02.01.2013 with pay slip of her son on record to show that son has resigned from the company where he was working. The petitioner has also filed certificate dated 03.02.2013 given by Diwan Saheb Fashions Pvt. Ltd. to her husband to show that he worked in that company w.e.f. 01.04.1998 to 31.03.2004 as a salesman.
37. The respondent has contended that fact of resignation of petitioner's son and fact of living the job by her husband cannot be decided without grant of leave.
38. In Krishan Kumar Gupta v. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta, 152 (2008) DLT 556 Delhi High Court, in this case it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"Unless the learned ARC scrutinizes each of the objections raised by the tenant with the help of documents and the material placed on record, the entire purpose of providing summary proceedings in respect of the eviction proceedings fails. Thus, it is incumbent upon the ARC to scrutinize all E170/13 Page 20/22 objections carefully in the light of law laid down and in the light of the material placed on record. It cannot be argued that the learned ARC was not required to go into the details of the objections and come to a conclusion on the basis of affidavits and once objections are raised leave to defend must be granted. Leave to defend can be granted only in those cases where the tenant is able to show by material on record that the petition was filed by the landlord malafidely."
39. Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the respondent is rejected on the basis of scrutiny of aforesaid resignation letter and certificate. Even if, for the sake of argument, if it is assumed that son and husband of the petitioner are employed, that itself will be no ground to doubt the bonafide requirement of the petitioner (Reliance placed upon RCR No. 306/2012, titled as "Rattan Studio Vs. Ms. Raju Rani Jain", decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.08.2013 - para 07).
40. The authorities relied upon by the respondent i.e. Civil Appeal No. 120/1990, titled as "S.M. Mehra Vs. D.D. Malik", decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court (para no.01), Civil Appeal No. 412/2000, titled as "Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran", decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court (para no.
03) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case bonafide requirement of the petitioner is not based on additional accommodation. Her case is not that her son or husband are already doing any business from any premises.
E170/13 Page 21/22
41. Therefore, wish of the petitioner to settle her son including her husband so as to make them economically independent cannot be said to be unreasonable or unnatural. Rather, the requirement of the petitioner is bonafide and genuine.
42. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the respondent has failed to put forth any triable issue which requires investigation or requires recording of evidence. In other words, primafacie there is nothing on record which would disentitle the petitioner of the right of immediate possession of the tenanted premises.
43. With these observations, application of the respondent under Section 25B (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of one garage situated on the ground floor forming part of property no. 18/31, Shakti Nagar, Delhi as shown in red colour in the siteplan. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH )
on 29.10.2013 Administrative Civil JudgeCum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi
E170/13 Page 22/22
E170/2013
29.10.2013
Pr: Husband of the petitioner.
Vide separate order, application of the respondent for leave to defend is dismissed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of one garage situated on the ground floor forming part of property no. 18/31, Shakti Nagar, Delhi as shown in red colour in the siteplan. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sanjeev Kumar Singh) ACJ/ARC (Central)/Delhi 29.10.2013 E170/13 Page 23/22