Delhi District Court
Courts vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta on 14 October, 2011
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
E203/10
14.10.2011
S. Kuldip Singh
Vs.
Smt. Veena Rani Gupta,
ORDER
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the property no. XV/2237, Rajguru Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi and the respondent is a tenant @ Rs. 7/ per month in respect of one room in the said property as shown red in the site plan. It is further stated that the said room was let out to Late Sh. Vasudev Gupta, father in law of the respondent, for residential purposes only but the respondent has changed the user to residential cum commercial purposes without consent of the petitioner and the respondent is running a tea shop in the name and style of 'Lovely Tea Stall'. Family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, one unmarried son and a married daughter. It is further stated that the petitioner is presently residing on the first floor of A271, Derawal Nagar, Delhi110033 and is in possession of two rooms with attached bathroomwc, one lounge, one drawing and dining room, three store rooms. The second floor of this property is also owned by the //2// petitioner and is comprised of one barsati and one covered latrinebath in the open courtyard overlooking the barsati. The ground floor of the said property is owned by the brother of the petitioner. It is further stated that out of the residential premises which is on the first floor one room with attached bathroom is required and is being used by the petitioner and his wife. The other room with attach bathroom is required for the married daughter as she frequently visits the petitioner alongwith her family members as well as for visiting guests. It is further stated that whenever the married daughter visits the petitioner, the son of the petitioner is forced to sleep in the lounge. The son of the petitioner is of marriageable age but due to shortage of accommodation he is not getting married. The drawing and dining area are being put to their respective uses. Out of three store rooms one room is being used as pooja room by the petitioner's wife while the other two rooms are being used as servant quarter as well as store rooms. The barsati located on the second floor is being used as a store for storage of household articles. It is further stated that the petitioner is also the owner of a commercial property bearing no. A18, Panchvati Azadpur, Delhi which is being used by the petitioner for running a guest house in the name and style of Shalimar Guest House. Petitioner is required the tenanted room for residence of his son as his son is advocate by profession and doing practice in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Patiala House Courts which //3// is at a distance of only 45 km from the tenanted premises. The front portion overlooking the road in which the tenanted premises is situated is comprised of five rooms. The room adjoining the tenanted premises on the left hand side as shown in the site plan has a front measuring only 4 feet and 8 inches while rear portion measure 9 feet and the room as such is very small room and is unfit for human habitation but the same is required by the landlord for converting the same into residence of his son alongwith other two adjacent room including the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises is required by the petitioner alongwith the room adjoining it on the right which is also in possession of the petitioner at present for setting up the residence of petitioner's son. These three rooms are required as one room for utilization as a bed room and the other rooms are required for kitchen and toilet and the petitioner wants to connect these rooms by installing doors in the walls separating these three rooms. Petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available with him. It is further stated that room on the right side of the stair case is although is in the possession of the petitioner but the same is required alongwith other room which is presently in occupation of tenant Ravinder Kumar for setting up Advocate's office for the son of the petitioner. Petitioner is also initiating eviction proceedings against Sh. Ravinder Kumar.
//4//
2. Leave to defend application alongwith affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent wherein she denied that the suit premises was let out for residential purposes. It is stated that the shop/suit premises was let out by the then landlord namely Sh. Shiv Kumar Khullar to the father in law of the respondent for commercial activities about 6061 years back before independence. After the independence of India the suit premises was taken over by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Govt. of India and thereafter the rent of the suit premises was being accepted by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and rent receipt were issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. It is further stated that the petitioner is in possession of a spacious house in a posh locality in Derawal Nagar i.e Kothi No. A271, Derawal Nagar, Delhi constructed on a plot of about 250 sq. yards. The said kothi consists of 3 floors and the petitioner is in possession of 1st and 2nd floor of the property consisting of 4 rooms alongwith drawing room, dining room and 2 kitchens and three bathrooms. It is further stated that the petitioner is also owner of the three storey residential property constructed over a plot of about 400 sq. yards at Azadpur bearing property no. A18, Panchvati Azadpur which consists of about 25 rooms alongwith toilet, bathrooms and kitchen. The petitioner is misusing the said property for commercial purposes and is running a hotel in the name and style of hotel Shalimar. The said property at Azadpur also consists of four shops in the front portion of the property. The //5// petitioner is also owner and in possession of the three storey property bearing no. 2232 (part), 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237 at Rajguru Road, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, Delhi total admeasuring about 466 sq. yards and the petitioner is in possession of 26 rooms alongwith several bathrooms and kitchen in the said property and the respondent is tenant in respect of one shop at ground floor of the property bearing no. 2237 admeasuring about 20 sq. yards. The petitioner is also in possession of three vacant shops in the front side of the property bearing no. 2232 (part), 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237 at Rajguru Road, Chuna Madni, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. The petitioner has got vacated 10 tenants till date and two tenants are still present in the said property including the respondent. Petitioner wants to vacate the respondent to build a luxurious hotel.
3. Reply to the leave to defend application alongwith counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein it is admitted that Late Sh. Vasudev Chander, father in law of the respondent was the original tenant and after his death the respondent is occupying the premises. It is stated that the tenancy of the respondent stands terminated vide notice dated 10.04.2001 issued by the petitioner and duly served upon the respondent. It is further stated that the rent receipts issued by the previous landlord Shiv Kumar Khullar, Smt. Trishla Jain as well as by Ministry of Rehabilitation and MCD //6// which were annexed by the respondent are forged and fabricated. It is denied that the property bearing no. A18 Panchvati is a residential property consisting of 25 rooms alongwith toilet bathrooms and kitchen. It is stated that the said property consists of 24 rooms and is being used by the petitioner for commercial purposes of running a duly licensed guest house in the name and style of Hotel Shalimar and is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner. It is further stated that the property is a commercial property and the petitioner has been granted a license to run a guest house by the MCD as well as by other govt. departments. All other averments made in the leave to defend application were denied.
4. Rejoinder to the reply of leave to defend application filed on behalf of the respondent. The averment made in the reply of the petitioner were denied and the averments made in the leave to defend application were reiterated and reaffirmed.
5. Arguments on leave to defend application heard from both the sides. Record perused and considered.
//7//
6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following rulings :
(i) Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507
(ii) T.B.Jain (Shri) Vs. Smt. Savita Ravi & Anr. 2008 VI AD Delhi (103)
(iii) R.K.Bhatnagar Vs Smt. Sushila Bhargava & Anr.AIR 1987 Delhi 363
(iv) S.K.Gupta and another Vs. R.C.Jain, AIR 1984, Delhi 187
(v) Anand Prasad Sharma Vs. Ram Singh & Ors., 2006 (91) DRJ 558
(vi) Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash, 174 (2010) DLT 64
(vii) Mahabir Parshad & Anr. Vs. Ved Wati Pathak & Ors., 135 (2006) DLT 453
(viii) Krishan Kumar Gupta Vs. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta, 152 (2008) DLT 556
(ix) Navneet Lal Vs. Deepak Sawhney, 173 (2010) DLT 189
(x) Hot Chand Vs. Dhanpat Rai, 2010 (1) RCR 267
(xi) Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta, 173 (2010) DLT 318
7. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove
(i) Ownership of the suit premises; (ii) Purpose of letting; (iii) Alternative accommodation; and (iv) Bona fide requirement;. Let the same be discussed in detail.
//8// Ownership and purpose of letting
8. The respondent contended that the suit premises was let out by Sh. Shiv Kumar Khullar to her father in law for non residential purposes about 6061 years back and after the independence of India the suit premises was taken over by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Govt. of India and thereafter the rent of the suit premises was being accepted by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioner is owner of the three storey property bearing no. 2232 (part), 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237 and she is a tenant in respect of only one shop at ground floor of the property bearing no. 2237 i.e the suit property. From the averments of the respondent it is clear that petitioner is owner of the suit premises. It is also important to mention here that the Ld. counsel for the respondent neither disputed the ownership of the petitioner nor the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties while addressing the arguments. The petitioner has also filed the copy of registered sale deed qua the suit property. Considering all these facts the ingredients of ownership is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
9. So far the purpose of letting is concerned, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union Of India III (2008) SLT 553, an eviction petition is maintainable on the ground of bona fide //9// requirement in respect of the property which were let our for commercial purpose.
Alternative accommodation & bonafide requirement
10. The respondent contended that the petitioner is in possession of a spacious house/kothi bearing no. A271, Derawal Nagar, Delhi and the same was constructed on a plot measuring about 250 sq. yards. The said house consists of three floors and petitioner is in possession of first and second floor consisting of four rooms alongwith drawing room, dining room, two kitchen and three bathroom. The respondent further contended that the pettiioner is having other residential property constructed over a plot of about 400 sq. yards bearing no. A18, Panchvati, Azadpur and the same is having about 25 rooms alongwith toilet, bathrooms and kitchen and the petitioner is running a hotel in the said property. The said property is also having four shops in its front portion. The respondent further contended that the petitoner is also owner of three storied properties bearing no. 2232 (part), 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237 at Rajguru Road, Chuna Madni, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. The petitioner has got vacated 10 tenants till date and two tenants are still present in the said property including the respondent. On the other hand the petitioner stated that the property at Derawal Nagar, Delhi has only two rooms with attached bathroom and WC, //10// one lounge, one drawing and dining room and three stores on the first floor and the second floor is comprised of one barsati, one covered latrine and bath. The petitioner further stated that he is running a hotel in the name of Shalimar Guest House at Panchvati, Azadpur and has also obtained license from the MCD. The petitioner denied that there are 26 rooms in the property no. 2232 (part), 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237 at Rajguru Road, Chuna Madni, Pahar Ganj, Delhi and the number of rooms have been shown in the site plan. According to the site plan of the petitioner himself 12 rooms have been shown on the ground floor portion of property bearing no. 2232 to 2237. Similarly there are other rooms on the first floors. I am of the considered view that it is a triable issue whether the rooms shown by the petitioner in the site plan of property bearing no. 2232 (part), 2233, 2234, 2235, 2236, 2237 at Rajguru Road, Chuna Madni, Pahar Ganj, Delhi are not sufficient for the petitioner to provide as residential accommodation to his son as the petitioner wants to provide separate residential accommodation to his son in the said property. Similarly according to the petitioner he has two bedrooms, drawing room, dining room, lobby and three store rooms on the first floor of the property no. A271, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Admittedly the family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, unmarried son who is advocate by profession and his married daughter. The married daughter is used to visit the petitioner and she needs one bedroom. It is again triable //11// issue whether the accommodation available with the petitioner in property no. A271 at Derawal Nagar is insufficient to provide residential accommodation to his son. It is held in "Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh"
that leave to defend cannot be refused when requirement may not be bonafide.
11. I am of the considered view that there are triable issue whether the petitioner has no alternate residential accommodation for his son. The bonafide need of the petitioner is also depend upon the question of alternate accommodation. The rulings relied upon by Ld. counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
12. In view of the above discussions leave to defend is granted to the respondent on the ground of alternative accommodation & bonafide requirement. The application of leave to defend of the respondent is allowed accordingly.
(Announced in the open court
on 14.10.2011) (Pritam Singh)
ARC/Central/Delhi