Delhi High Court
M/S. Metro Bearings vs Mrs. Faizunnisa & Ors. on 31 October, 2018
Author: Vinod Goel
Bench: Vinod Goel
$~120
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 31.10.2018
+ RC. REV. 513/2018 CM No.45716-45717/2018
M/S. METRO BEARINGS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alamgir, Advocate.
versus
MRS. FAIZUNNISA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
CM No.45717/2018 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
RC. REV. 513/2018 & CM No.45716/2018
3. The impugned order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the Court of
the learned Additional Rent Controller (Central) Delhi (ARC)
allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondents against the
petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(DRC Act) is the subject matter of challenge in this revision petition
filed under Section 25-B (8) of DRC Act.
4. The respondents sought ejectment of the petitioner from the suit
property used as a godown on the ground floor bearing No.2190,
RC. Rev. No.513/2018 Page 1 of 6
Mohalla Rodgran, Lal Kuan, Delhi, as shown with red colour in the
site plan, for their bona fide requirement. In sub-para (viii) of para 19,
the respondents have given the detail of her family members. The
details of other accommodation available with the respondents and
their family members are set out in sub-para No.(ix) to para (xxiii) of
para 19 of the petition. The respondents pleaded that they have been
doing their business but due to paucity of accommodation they have
taken certain premises on rent and are facing difficulty in expanding
their business and required the tenanted premises for expansion of
their business. It is further pleaded by the respondent that the premises
in question is situated near to their accommodation and more suitably
located for expanding the business. It is made clear by them that apart
from the said property they do not possess any other reasonably
suitable non-residential accommodation for their own use and
occupation.
5. In its written statement, it is, inter alia, pleaded by the
petitioner/tenant that the premises in question is absolutely unfit for
commercial purposes being situated in a narrow gali far away from the
main road, and is too small to serve the purpose of the respondents;
the respondents are in possession of several additional accommodation
as stated in the petition and thus they do not require the tenanted
premises for any purpose; the respondents have even been allotted one
commercial property bearing F-407 measuring 600 square yards
situated at Road No.28, UPSIDC, Phase-1, Masoori, Dasna Road,
Ghaziabad, U.P; the sole motive of the respondent is to sell the suit
RC. Rev. No.513/2018 Page 2 of 6
property, and the premises in question being situated in a gali can only
be used for the purposes of a godown and not for commercial
purposes.
6. In support of their case, the respondent No.4 examined himself
as PW1. In his deposition, PW1 reiterated the averments made in the
petition and despite opportunity, the petitioner did not cross-examine
him and his testimony went unrebutted and unchallenged. The
petitioner has not adduced any evidence and their evidence was closed
on 09.02.2018. The petitioner thereafter stopped appearing and was
proceeded ex parte on 19.03.2018 by the Ld. ARC. As neither did the
petitioner cross-examine PW1 (petitioner No.4) nor did he adduce any
evidence, the learned ARC after referring to the relevant case law
passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and made it clear that
the order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months as
provided in Section 14 (7) of the DRC Act.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in-
fact the learned counsel for the petitioner has been negligent and
neither did he inform the petitioner about the date of hearing nor did
he cross-examine PW1. He urges that after the closing of the
petitioner's evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner did not
communicate to the petitioner that the matter is listed for their
evidence for a particular date and ultimately the case resulted in ex
parte proceedings against them on 19.03.2018. He submits that to
meet the ends of justice, the petitioner may be granted one more
RC. Rev. No.513/2018 Page 3 of 6
opportunity to cross-examine PW1 and a date to adduce their
evidence.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the material on record.
9. In Sarwan Dass Bange vs. Ram Prakash, 167 (2010) DLT 80
the Hon'ble Single judge of this court discussed the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh Bajwa v.
Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778, and interpreted the law laid down
by the Apex Court on the presumption of the bonafide requirement to
be drawn in the favour of the landlord and concluded that the
judgment of the Supreme Court applies not only to the cases of NRIs
but also extends to general cases. The Single Judge reiterated that "the
legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for
ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord
of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of
landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if
there is any breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of
restoration of possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the
ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the
premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same
for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and
conditions inculcate in built strong presumption that the need of the
landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the
landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the
RC. Rev. No.513/2018 Page 4 of 6
Court for ejectment of the tenant unless his need is bona fide - no
unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this section, would
approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the
onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this
inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the
landlord would approach the Court his requirement shall be presumed
to be genuine and bona fide. It was further held that a heavy burden
lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The
tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars
supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in
the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to
adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide
requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant
would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the
landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is
real and genuine."
10. It is thus clear from the above said position that whenever a
landlord seeks ejectment of the tenant for bona fide requirement, the
requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and bonafide. Though,
the burden lies upon the tenant to prove that the requirement is not
genuine, it is also, however, settled in law that it should be more than
just a mere assertion on the part of the tenant to rebut the strong
presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of
occupation of the premises is real and genuine.
RC. Rev. No.513/2018 Page 5 of 6
11. The testimony of PW1 (respondent No.4) went unrebutted and
unchallenged. Despite opportunity the petitioner did not adduce any
evidence in support of their contentions. So far as the negligence of
the lawyer for the petitioner before the learned ARC is concerned, the
petitioner has not even indicated the name of his lawyer in the grounds
of appeal. Even now during the course of the arguments the learned
counsel for the petitioner is not able to name the counsel for the
petitioner before the learned ARC. He admits that the petitioner has
not lodged any complaint against his counsel. Since the evidence of
PW1 (petitioner No.4), on bona fide requirement of the premises in
question and on the point that no other alternative suitable
accommodation is available to them, went unrebutted and
unchallenged, and in the absence of anything contrary, the respondents
have been able to prove their bona fide requirement for the property
in question.
12. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality in
the impugned order for ejectment and the same is in accordance with
law. The petition along with application bearing CM No.45716/2018
is dismissed.
VINOD GOEL, J.
OCTOBER 31, 2018 "sandeep"
RC. Rev. No.513/2018 Page 6 of 6