Delhi District Court
Padam Chand Jain vs Anil Kumar Narang on 7 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No: 03/2021
CNR No. DLWT-03-000132-2021
PADAM CHAND JAIN
S/O LATE SH. RAM RAKHA MAL
R/O C-32 AHINSA VIHAR,
SECTOR-9, ROHINI,
DELHI-110085 ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. ANIL KUMAR NARANG
S/O LATE SH. RAM NATH NARANG
R/O J-112, 1st FLOOR, SAKET
NEW DELHI-110017
MOBILE: 9350831520
ALSO AT: 52/3 C-1, RAMA ROAD
INDUSTRIAL AREA, NAJAFGARH ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110015.
2.LATE VIJAY KUMAR NARANG
S/O LATE SH. RAM NATH NARANG
R/O B/5-146, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE,
NEW DELHI,
THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR/SON
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.1 of 62
NAMELY MR. ANISH NARANG
MOBILE: 9810270284
ALSO AT: 52/3 C-1, RAMA ROAD
INDUSTRIAL AREA, NAJAFGARH ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110015 ...RESPONDENTS
Date of Filing : 18.01.2021
Date of Judgment : 07.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying for passing an order for eviction in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the one shed / shop measuring 483 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the property bearing no. 52/3C-1, Rama Road, Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi - 15, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises or premises in question").
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN THE PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioner, that petitioner is the absolute owner of premises bearing number 52/3, Rama Road Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015. The petitioner let out one shed/shop measuring 483 Sq. Ft. numbered as C-1, in the said premises number 52/3, Rama Road Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015 more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.2 of 62 annexed along with the petition to the respondents namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang and Sh. Anil Narang, both sons of Late Sh. Ram Nath Narang under their joint names vide Rent Deed dated 1 st November, 1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month which with the passage of time gradually increased to Rs. 650/- per month excluding electricity and water charges. Since the respondents were not regular in paying the rent on time and for that many a times the petitioner had to give them the reminders for the same. However, the last paid rent @ Rs. 650/- per month from the side of the respondents was till September, 2001 and since October, 2001 the rent was/is due from the side of the respondents which they had failed to pay to the petitioner despite various reminders. Subsequently, the petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice to the respondents for the demand of the arrears of rent and thereafter petition under section 14(1) (a) of DRC Act was filed against the respondents. The petitioner has come to know that Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang passed away and as such the present petition is initiated against him through his surviving son namely Mr. Anish Narang being legal heir.
3. It has been averred, that the respondent's tenancy month starts from 1 st day of each English Calendar Month and ends on the last day of the same English Calender Month. It has been averred, that with the passage of time the family of the petitioner has grown up and now the family of the petitioner consists of the petitioner himself, his wife namely Smt. Kanta Jain, his sons and grandsons namely Mr. Abhishek Jain and Mr. Aditya Jain, both aged about 23 years each (being twins). The grandsons of the petitioner have grown up and completed their ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.3 of 62 studies as such they both intend to start their own new business of manufacturing and trading of plastic goods and other household articles with the help and assistance of their father for which they want to install the necessary machines and as such require the larger/bigger space for the said business.
4. It is submitted, that since the year 1991, the petitioner started running his business of general merchant goods, electrical and household articles under the name and style of M/s Arihant Traders from the premises/shop no. 604, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006, which is under the ownership of the petitioner. The said shop is measuring 4'x 30'. With the passage of time, the petitioner's son namely Mr. Sanjay Jain after completing his studies joined the petitioner in the said business and at present both the petitioner and his son are looking after the said business. Since the shop is not so big and as such it is not possible for the petitioner and his son to accommodate both the grandsons in the said business from the said shop. Even the petitioner and his son were looking for the expansion of their business and they were just waiting for their grandsons to grow up and complete their studies, so that they both could be accommodated with them in the same business line. Now, when both the grandsons have completed their studies and both are of 23 years of age and in near future they both would become of marriageable age as such to make their grandsons stand on their own legs, the petitioner requires the present premises for the bonafide need, so that his grandsons could start their business from the said premises.
5. It has been averred, that the petitioner, his wife, son and daughter-in- ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.4 of 62 law has the following properties in their name, details of which are mentioned as under:-
I) Flat no. B-133, Ahinsa Vihar, Sector-9, Rohini Delhi. It is a residential property which was alloted by the DDA in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner is the exclusive owner of the said flat by virtue of Registered conveyance deed dated 08.02.2007. However the said flat is given on rent to Sh. Manoj Pangotra S/o Late Sh. Amar Nath Pangotra since 01.10.2014 vide Rent Agreement. Initially the said Agreement was for a period of 11 months but thereafter the same was extended orally on same terms and conditions of the Rent Agreement and as on date the said flat is under tenancy of Sh. Manoj Pangotra who is residing therein with his family.
ii) Flat No. C-32, Ahinsa Vihar, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi. It is again a residential property which is in the name of Smt. Kanta Jain being wife of the petitioner and same was purchased vide Sale Deed dated:
23.12.2005 vide registration no. 9986 in Addl. Book No. I, Volume No. 383 on pages No. 94 to 104 dated: 23.12.2005. Since it is a residential flat and the petitioner along with his wife is in use and occupation of the same and residing therein with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and both grandsons.
iii) Premises/shop no. 604, Sadar Bazar, Delhi situated on ground floor including part of basement with an area admeasuring (4' x 30') is under the ownership of the petitioner vide settlement decree dated 31.05.2013 from where the petitioner is running his business along with his son as already mentioned herein above.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.5 of 62
iv) 1/4th area in Premises/shop no. 597, Sadar Bazar, Delhi situated on ground floor including part of basement has fallen under the ownership of the petitioner vide Settlement Decree dated 31.05.2013 alongwith his three brother and the said shop is under the tenancy of M/s Oswal Spinning & Weaving Mills for the last about 50 years.
v) One hall measuring about 33' x 9' situated on the ground floor of the property no. 4411, Gali Jatan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-110006 in the name of Sh. Sanjay Jain son of the petitioner which was purchased vide Sale Deed dated 31.10.2001 registered at Serial No. 4778 Book no. I, Volume No 431, pages No. 99-104. The said hall is being used, by the petitioner and his son, as godown for storing the goods related to the business which they are running from the shop no. 604, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
vi) Two halls alongwith latrine, bathroom and kitchen situated on the first floor of property no. 4216, Gali Ahiran, Pahari Dheeraj, Delhi-110006 in the joint names of Smt. Kanta Jain and Smt. Sakshi Jain, being the wife and daughter-in-law respectively of the petitioner herein which was purchased vide Sale Deed dated 26.12.2003 registered at Serial No. 6654, Book No. I, Volume No. 932 on pages 36-45. Both the said halls are also being used by the petitioner and his son as godown for storing the goods related to the business which they are running from the shop no. 604, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
Vii) Room/Cabin situated on the second floor of property no. 4937-39, ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.6 of 62 Barar House, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 is taken on rent by the son of the petitioner in his name since 10.112013 vide Rent Deed of even date which is also being used by the petitioner and his son as godown for storing the goods related to the business which they are running from the shop no. 604, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
Viii) Part of plot measuring 515 sq. Yards situated at 52 Rama Road Industrial Area Najafgarh Road, New Delhi which is numbered as 52/3 fallen in the share of the petitioner in the family partition carried out between his father and brothers of the petitioner and the petitioner was declared the lawful owner of the same vide Judgement passed by the Hon'ble Court of Mohd. Shamim, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi.
The petitioner thereafter gave his above mentioned portion/area to different tenants details of which are mentioned herein below:
a) One hall numbered as 52/3 A (being numbered by the petitioner for the convenience and identification of the portion) measuring about 980 sq. feet was given to Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain partner of M/s Pearly Engineering Works on rent vide Rent Deed dated 14.08.1985 which has been peacefully vacated by the said tenant on 10 th February, 2020 and same is now under the possession of the petitioner.
b) One shed/shop numbered as 52/3 C-2 (being numbered by the petitioner for the convenience and identification of the portion) measuring about 425 sq. feet was given on rent to Sh. Rakesh Manchanda s/o late Om Prakash and Sh. Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Kishan ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.7 of 62 Lal in their joint names and the petitioner has preferred the eviction petition on bonafide ground against them and same is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court of Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
c) One shed/shop numbered as 52/3 C-3 (being numbered by the petitioner for the convenience and identification of the portion) measuring about 1150 sq. feet was given on rent to Mrs. Neelam Manchanda w/o Sh. Vijay Kumar and Sh. Vijay Kumar s/o Sh. Kishan Lal in their joint names and the petitioner has preferred the eviction petition on bonafide ground against them and same is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court of Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
d) One shed/shop numbered as 52/3 C-1 (being numbered by the petitioner for the convenience and identification of the portion) measuring about 483 sq. feet has been given on rent to the present respondents which is the subject matter of the present petition.
e) One shed/shop numbered as 52/3 C (being numbered by the petitioner for the convenience and identification of the portion) measuring about 1141 sq. feet has been given on rent to M/s Bharat Engineering Works through Sh. Ram Nath Narang, being father of the present respondents and the petitioner has preferred the eviction petition on bonafide ground against the said tenant along with the present petition.
f) However the remaining portion measuring 70 sq. feet was kept by the petitioner within himself which has now been merged with the hall measuring 980 sq. ft. which has been vacated by said Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain as mentioned herein above in para no. (a).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.8 of 62
6. It has been averred, that the accommodation under the occupation of the respondents ie. the suit property (as shown red in the site plan attached) is bonafide required by the petitioner for the business of their grandsons as already mentioned herein above in preceding paragraphs. Since the larger area for the opening of the business for the grandsons is required as such the petitioner and his son many a times had requested the respondents to vacate the tenanted premises as the same is required by them for the purpose as already mentioned but the respondents paid no heed to the request of the petitioner and his son. As the petitioner has given the details of the properties which are in his as well as in the name of other family members and out of the said properties the commercial properties are already occupied by the petitioner and his son for carrying on the present business and also for storing of the goods and none of the said properties are lying vacant except the one which has recently been got vacated as already mentioned above and same alone does not satisfy the purpose for which the petitioner requires the present tenanted premises which are under the occupation of the respondents. Except the accommodation, in question, no other accommodation is available with the petitioner for meeting his bonafide needs and requirements as explained above.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
7. After obtaining the leave to defend vide order dated 31.01.2019, written statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by the Petitioner under Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the D.R.C Act, 1958, praying to the court to ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.9 of 62 dismiss the present petition with costs.
AVERMENTS BY RESPONDENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia submitted, that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed and concealed the material facts from this Court, only with the intention to get the eviction order in his favour and against the respondent. It has been further stated, that the need of the petitioner / sons of the late petitioner is not bonafide.
9. It has been further stated, that the averments made in the petition that the petitioner wants to settle his grandsons for opening new business of manufacturing of plastic articles is contrary to the interest and inclination of his grandsons, who showed no such inclination when the grandsons of the petitioner namely Abhishek Jain and Aditya Jain met the applicant/Respondent Mr. Anil Kumar Narang in the first week of March 2020 along with petitioner's son Sanjay Jain at the tenanted premises. In fact at that time, they made a categorical submission that their first priority is to join Civil Services and second priority is to go for engineering jobs as they have done B.Arch. They also stated, that there is no future in manufacturing sector as one gets much cheaper stuff from China and other South Asian countries and it is foolishness to go for manufacturing in India. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to file affidavit of his grandsons with regard to their intention to start business. However, the petitioner himself admitted in his reply to the leave to defend that both his grandsons have completed study of B. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.10 of 62 Arch. Thus, any person who has done B. Arch. would not be languishing and spending his life in doing a sedate work of industry when he has neither any experience nor any person to guide him at such a young age as neither the petitioner nor anyone has experience of manufacturing line. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get the tenanted premises under the ground of bona fide requirement as a false plea has been raised to get the tenanted premises vacated by hook or by crook.
10.It has been contended, that when the petitioner himself admitted in his petition that the grandsons of the petitioner intend to start their own business with the help and assistance of their own father, therefore in such a scenario, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that he has no role to play in assigning them in any manner as his grandsons are not dependent upon the petitioner for starting any such business. Further, petitioner never pleaded in his petition that his grandsons are dependent upon him for the said commercial accommodation for starting their business.
11.It has been contended, that the present eviction petition has been filed for the bona fide need of grandsons of the petitioner, whereas the grandsons do not come under the term "family members' of the petitioner. The petitioner's son Sanjay Jain is alive and well established in his life and business and in any case during the lifetime of Sanjay Jain, the term family members cannot be extended to his sons as used under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act and hence the present petition is not covered under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.11 of 62
12. It has been contended, that petitioner has made false plea, that he has filed eviction petition under bona fide grounds against the tenant namely Rakesh Manchanda and Neelam Manchanda with respect to the property as mentioned in para no. 18(a)(4)(viii)(b)&(c) of the petition. It is submitted, that no such eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner against the said tenants at any point of time nor any alleged petitions are pending in any alleged court in the case name of "Padam Chand Jain Vs. Rakesh Manchanda" and " Padam Chand Jain Vs. Neelam Manchanda". It is further submitted, that the petitioner has claimed in his petition that he is owner of the property as mentioned in para no. 18(a)(4)(viii)(b)&(c) of the petition but concealed the fact that it is his wife Smt. Kanta Jain who has filed eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act vide case no. RC/ARC 144/2017 in the name of "Kanta Jain Vs. Rakesh Manchanda" and RC/ARC 145/2017 titled as " Kanta Jain Vs. Neelam Manchanda" under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act, which are pending in the Court of Ld. ARC, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which clearly establishes the fact that she is the owner of the property as mentioned in para no. 18(a)(4)(viii)
(b)&(c) of the present petition. On the other hand, the petitioner himself stated in para 18(a)(4)(viii)(b)&(c) of this petition, that he is owner of the property measuring 515 sq. yds under which the said property has fallen but on the other hand, his wife is also claiming ownership of the above said property. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is not the owner of the property in present case and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.12 of 62
13. It has been contended, that the son of the petitioner namely Mr. Sanjay Jain had filed eviction petition bearing No. E-637/06/04 under section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act against Mr. Anil Kr. Narang and Mr. Vijay Kumar Narang with respect to the property as mentioned in para no. 4(viii)(d)&(e) of the present petition by claiming himself owner and landlord of the said property despite rent deed with the petitioner. It is submitted, that the said petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Court of RC, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide judgment dated 22.01.2007 and granted benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act. Since then Mr. Anil Kumar Narang is depositing the rent every year under Section 27 of the DRC Act which was allowed by the Court but neither petitioner nor his son Mr. Sanjay Jain ever appeared before the Court in the said matter.
14. It has been further contended, that the premises in question is commercial in nature and as per Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, a petition for eviction on the basis of the bonafide requirements is not maintainable for the commercial premises as the same provision is applicable only with respect to residential property. It is submitted, that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble apex court in the matter Satyavati Sharma Vs. Union of India was applicable only on the facts of that case and the said judgment is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be applied in the present case. Further, the petitioner pleaded in his petition in para 4, that he is owner of the property bearing no. 515 sq. yds but deliberately did not disclose that he sold the property of 43 sq. yds. out of 515 sq. yds. to someone as recently as October 2020 when he has requirement for bona fide need of his grandsons. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.13 of 62
15.It has been further contended, that the present eviction petition is not maintainable for want of actual premises in question as the rent deed filed by the petitioner stated, that the tenanted premises is 52 but the petitioner claimed the premises 52/3C-1 and the site plan is also filed for eviction of premises bearing No.52/3C-1.
16.It has been contended, that the petitioner is not entitled to the premises in question as the respondent himself faces a comparative more hardship if the petitioner succeeds to evict the respondent from the premises in question. It is submitted, that the respondent has been running his business in the name & style of M/s Bharat Engineering Co. being sole proprietorship concern for manufacturing and packing of expellers parts/oil mills parts since 1981. The respondent and his family are solely dependent upon the said business for their livelihood. The respondent has one immovable property for his residence i.e.J-112, First Floor, Saket, New Delhi-110017 measuring 850 sq. ft. and beside this has no other immovable properties in the name of respondent or his family members either for residential or commercial purposes. The family of the respondent is consisting of his wife, one elder son, who is doing M. Tech and intends to engage in the same business of M/s Bharat Engineering Co. after completion of his study and younger son is doing job in Private Company and getting salary of Rs.50,000/- per month.
17. It has been contended, that the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the proper parties as the tenancy started in the name of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.14 of 62 respondent no.1 and father of the respondent no.2 under partnership concern. It is submitted, that after the death of Mr. Vijay Kumar Narang his all legal heirs have inherited the said business. Thus, all legal heirs of Mr. Vijay Kumar Narang are proper and necessary party to the present petition. However, all legal heirs of Mr. Vijay Kumar Narang exclusively handover the said business to respondent no.1 and since then the respondent no.1 is using the said premises being sole tenant of the Mr. Sanjay Jain and the said facts were duly informed to him and he allowed the respondent no.1 as tenant of the said premises. Hence, prayer is made for dismissal of the present petition.
REPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/TENANT
18. The petitioner has specifically denied all the preliminary objections raised by the respondent in the WS and has reiterated the facts mentioned in the petition.
EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONER
19. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, his son namely Sanjay Jain as PW-2 and his grandson namely Aditya Jain as PW-3 and the petitioner relied upon documents Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/11.
20. Thereafter, the petitioner's evidence was closed.
EVIDENCE LED BY RESPONDENT
21. The respondent has also led evidence by examining Sh. Anil Kumar ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.15 of 62 Narang as RW1, who tendered his affidavit as Ex.RW1/A. No documents were relied upon by the respondent. RW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
22. Thereafter, the respondent's evidence was closed and the matter was listed for the final arguments.
23. Written synopsis have been filed by both the parties.
24. I have heard detailed arguments advanced by Learned counsels for the parties and have further gone through the record carefully including the written submissions filed on record. My findings are as under :-
ANAYLYSIS AND FINDINGS
25. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction-
(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.16 of 62 family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
26. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
27. These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
28. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.17 of 62
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
(I) OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS (II) EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
29. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant always a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
30. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.18 of 62 AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
31. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
32. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.19 of 62 It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
33. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically held that:-
"It is settled preposition 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 cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. 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 estoppel against such 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 premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.20 of 62
34.It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondent herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
35.Now, in light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case in hand.
36.It is the case of the petitioner, that petitioner is the absolute owner of premises bearing number 52/3, Rama Road Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015. Petitioner has placed reliance on Ex.PW1/1 which is a sale deed, whereby DDA had executed a sale deed dated 22.02.1965 in favour of three brothers, petitioner Padam Chand Jain being one of them, thereby establishing the initial joint ownership of the petitioner and his two brothers qua the property in question. Thereafter, petitioner has further placed reliance on the document Ex.PW1/1A, which is a partition suit of which the certified copy of the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.21 of 62 judgment has been filed on record. Perusal of the same clearly reveals, that the petitioner was declared the owner of the plot measuring 515 sq yds, bearing no. 52, Najafgarh Road, Delhi.
Thus, the petitioner has clearly established his ownership as well as his landlordship qua the property in question. At the cost of brevity, it is being stated, that for a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, Court is not adjudicating upon the issue of ownership but the only thing which needs to be established by the petitioner is, that he is better placed than the respondent / tenant over the property in question.
37.The petitioner let out one shed/shop measuring 483 Sq. Ft. numbered as C-1, in the said premises number 52/3, Rama Road Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110015 more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed herewith along with the petition to the respondents namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang and Sh. Anil Narang both sons of Late Sh. Ram Nath Narang under their joint names vide Rent Deed dated 1st November, 1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- per month which with the passage of time gradually increased to Rs. 650/- per month excluding electricity and water charges.
38. Inter-alia, respondent has though vehemently denied the landlord-
tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents in its Written Statement, but in his cross-examination, he has deposed to the contrary and further went on to admit the existence of tenancy between the petitioner and the respondents. The relevant excerpts of the cross- examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : -
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.22 of 62 "The tenanted premises bearing no. 52/3/C-1 was taken on tenancy by me and my brother namely Vijay Kumar Narang (since deceased) in the year 1986. There is a rent agreement executed between me and my brother with a third party but I am not sure if the said third party was Mr. Padam Chand Jain.
At this stage, rent agreement Ex.PW1/3 is shown to the witness and is asked if the said document is a rent agreement that was executed by him and his brother with Mr. Padam Chand Narang. The witness admits to the said agreement being duly executed with Mr. Padam Chand Jain. Vol. The signatures at points A on all pages of the document Ex.PW1/3 is that of Mr. Sanjay Jain i.e. the son of Mr. Padam Chand Jain. It is correct that the signatures at points B on all pages of document Ex.PW1/3 belong to me. It is correct that vide the said rent agreement Ex.PW1/3, property bearing the address as 52/3C-1 was given on rent to us. "
39.He further admitted, that the highlighted portion in red in the site plan is the property that was given on rent to him and his brother vide agreement Ex.PW1/3. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : -
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.23 of 62 "At this stage, site plan Ex.PW1/2 is shown to the witness and is asked if highlighted portion in red of the site plan is the property that was given on rent vide agreement Ex.PW1/3. The witness replies in affirmative"
40.In view of the above categorical admission made by the RW1 in his cross-examination, it can fairly be stated, that there is an admitted existence of landlord - tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents.
41. In view of the discussion as above and in light of settled law, this Court has no hesitation in deducing, that the law with regard to the right of the tenant to challenge the ownership of the landlord is fairly settled as well as limited. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of term "owner" vis a vis the tenant is that the "owner" should be something more than the tenant.
42.Therefore, in view thereof, the landlord - tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents stands duly proved for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act and at the same time is also stands established that no material document is placed on record by the respondent to prove that the premises in question is still being used the erstwhile tenant i.e. their father with whom the tenancy agreement in the first place admittedly executed.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONER IS BONAFIDE & ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.24 of 62 WHETHER THE ALTERNATE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER ?
43.Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord, this Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term "bonafide" and the law settled in this regard.
44. The word "genuine" means "natural: not spurious: real: pure: sincere ".
In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean "good faith, without fraud or deceit". Thus, the term bonafide refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much 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 contra- distinction with a mere pretense or 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. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
45. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.25 of 62 given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer were in positive the need is bonafide.
46. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v. Nandram Deviram that:-
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is distinction between the two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Section 4 (g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."
47. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.26 of 62 need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has in-inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely "illusory or whittled down". The words "reasonable requirement"
undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a landlord/owner cannot be equated with bonafide need.
48. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words " required bonafide by the landlord" signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective. The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic conditions obtaining in the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.27 of 62 country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
49.It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
"..... the crux of ground envisaged in clause
(e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a primafacie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by the courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself..."
50.On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in hands, the principal averment made by the petitioner via present petition, is that the respondent is not using the premises which is ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.28 of 62 presently in his possession and is only harassing the petitioner by not handing over the possession of the premises in question to the petitioner of which he has a legitimate entitlement. It is the admitted fact, that the tenanted premises was taken on rent by the father of the respondent. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : -
The tenanted premises was taken by my father in the year 1981. It is correct that a rent agreement was executed. The said agreement was executed between my father namely Sh. Ram Nath Narang (since deceased) and petitioner. The said rent agreement is already Ex.PW1/3. I do not remember the date and month as to when in the year 1981 the premises was taken on rent by my father. I was 22 years old when the tenanted premises was taken on rent by my father.
51. Thus, from the above extract, it candidly stands admitted by RW1, that a rent agreement was duly executed between his father and the petitioner and he has further admitted, that the said rent deed is duly exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. Now, at this stage, it is imperative to appreciate the document Ex.PW1/3 and the same reveals that as per the said rent deed, the possession of one shed plan named as Annexure 1 52/3D as per the site plan enclosed situated on the part of the plot no. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.29 of 62 52, Rama Road, Industrial Area, Najafgarh, New Delhi - 15 at monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- was given from Sh. Padam Chand Jain (owner of the said plot) and further that the possession of the said plot was to be taken on 01.11.1980 and the rent for the month of November 1980 to Sh. Padam Chand Jain, the landlord. Further, the perusal of the said document clearly shows, that the same was executed on 24.10.1980.
It is crucial to note, that RW1 in his cross-examination stated, that the tenanted premises was taken by his father in the year 1981, which is in contravention to the averments of the petition, whereby it has been contended by the petitioner, that the premises in question was taken by the father of the respondent vide the rent agreement dated 24 th October 1980 and a specific question was also put to the respondent by the learned counsel for the petitioner during his cross-examination in this regard. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under:-
"Q. I put it to you that the tenanted premises was taken by your father vide rent agreement dated 24.10.1980. What you have to say? Ans. I am not aware as at that time I was in college.
It is correct that the tenanted premises was taken by my father in the year 24.10.1980 and not in the year 1981. It is correct that at the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.30 of 62 time the tenanted premises was taken on rent by my father, he was the proprietor of M/s Bharat Engineering Works."
52. Now, from the above cross-examination of the RW1 reproduced above, it categorically stands established, that the tenanted premises was given on rent by the petitioner on 24th October 1980 and not in the year 1981, as deposed by RW1 in his earlier cross-examination, the extract of which is also reproduced as above.
53. It is further deposed by RW1, that in the premises in question even in the year 1981, his father worked as the Proprietor of M/s Bharat Engineering Works and he was running the business of manufacturing and packing of expellers parts from the said tenanted premises under the name of M/s Bharat Engineering Works. He further deposed, that there is a firm by the name of M/s Bharat Engineering Company, which was run by RW1 as well as his brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang. The relevant excerpts of the cross examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
"Even in the year 1981, my father continued as Proprietor of M/s Bharat Engineering Works. My father was running the business of manufacturing and packing of expellers parts from the said tenanted premises under the name of M/s Bharat Engineering Works. There is a Firm by the name M/s Bharat ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.31 of 62 Engineering Company which was run by myself as well as my brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang."
54. Thereafter, it is pellucid to note, that a categorical question was put to RW1 with regard to the exact time since when the above named firm i.e. M/s. Bharat Engineering Company is being run by the respondent himself, however he replied to the said question stating, that he can not tell the exact time. The relevant except of his cross examination to this effect are reproduced as under:
"However, I can not tell since when the abovesaid firm is being run by me."
55. It is further apropos to note, that it has been deposed by RW 1 in his cross examination, that M/s. Bharat Engineering Company was being run from the same tenanted premises which was given on rent to M/s Bharat Engineering Works and that he is the sole proprietor of M/s Bharat Engineering Company since the day of inception. He further went on to depose, that he did not remember whether he had filed any document to show, that if he was running M/s Bharat Engineering Company as a proprietor of the said Firm, to which RW1 stated, that there is no such document on record with respect to the firm namely M/s Bharat Engineering Company. The relevant excerpts of the cross- examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
"The abovesaid firm is being run from the same tenanted premises which was given to M/s Bharat Engineering Works. I am the sole ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.32 of 62 proprietor of M/s Bharat Engineering Company since the day of inception. I do not remember whether I have filed any document on judicial record to show that I am running M/s Bharat Engineering Company as a proprietor of the said Firm. After looking at the judicial file, the witness states that there is no such document on record with respect to the firm namely M/s Bharat Engineering Company."
56.Thus, from the above extracts of the cross-examination of RW1, it categorically stands deduced, that the averments made by him with regard to the M/s. Bharat Engineering Company being operated by him from the said premises in question since the very inception stands unproved as the same is merely a bald averment not being supported by any cogent document. It is further material to note, that there are interse contradictions in the deposition of RW1 itself with regard to the origin and the proprietorship of M/s. Bharat Engineering Company, as in the above extracts of his cross-examination at one place he had deposed, that he had started Bharat Engineering Company along with his brother and thereafter, he has changed his stance and deposed, that M/s. Bharat Engineering Company is being run by him solely from the very inception and with regard to both these contradictory averments, there is no material document to substantiate the same.
57.It is pellucid to note, that RW1 deposed in his cross-examination, that ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.33 of 62 he started running his business in the year 1981. He further deposed, that he did not start his independent business in the year 1981. He further deposed, that he joined his father in the business in the year 1981 and at that time, his father was only running his business under the name and style of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works and there was no other firm being run by his father. The relevant excerpts of the cross- examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
"After completing my Post Graduation, I started running the business since the year 1981. I did not start my independent business in the year 1981, however, I joined my father in the business. When I joined my father in business in the year 1981 at that time my father was only running his business under the name and style of M/s Bharat Engineering Works and there was no other name with which any other firm was run by my father. I do not remember in which exact year, I started running a business with by brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang (since deceased) by the name M/s Bharat Engineering Company, however, it could be probably since the year 2000. It is correct that in the year 1981, I was not running any business by the name M/s Bharat Engineering Company as a ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.34 of 62 proprietor.'
58. It is material to note, that the above fact is in total contradiction to the averments made in the WS, whereby it has been stated, that since 1981, RW1 has been running the business in the capacity of Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering Company i.e. from the very inception. However, in his cross-examination he had deposed, that in the year 1981, he joined his father for running the business of the firm under the name and style of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works and he further deposed, that in the year 1981, he was not running any business under the name and style of M/s. Bharat Engineering company as a proprietor. From the above, it can safely be deduced, that there are material contradictions in the testimony of RW1 and no cogent explanation has been furnished to clear the contradistinction and the ambiguity that had surfaced in his deposition.
59. It is also pellucid to note, that RW1 had categorically stated in his cross-examination, that he did not remember exactly in which year, he started running the business with his brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang (since deceased) under the name M/s Bharat Engineering Company. He further deposed, that it could be probably in the year 2000. Therefore, it is material to note, that as per RW1 the premises in question was given in tenancy to the M/s. Bharat Engineering Works and thereafter as candidly admitted by the RW1 that he started running M/s. Bharat Engineer Company from there but there is no official document placed on record by the respondent to substantiate as to till which year the premises in question was being run by M/s. Bharat ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.35 of 62 Engineering Works and when the same was subsequently taken over by M/s. Bharat Engineering Company. There is also no document on record to establish, that M/s. Bharat Engineering Company was also being run by his deceased brother namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang along with the respondent i.e. RW1. The relevant excerpts of the cross- examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
"I do not remember in which exact year, I started running a business with my brother Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang (since deceased) by the name M/s Bharat Engineering Company, however, it could be probably since the year 2000. It is correct that in the year 1981, I was not running any business by the name M/s Bharat Engineering Company as a proprietor."
60. It is further material to note, that a specific question was put to RW1 with regard to it being stated by him in para no. 2 of evidence affidavit, that he was running a business in the name and style of M/s Bharat Engineering Company being sole proprietorship concern for manufacturing and packing of expellers parts/ oil mill parts since 1981 and to this, he replied that the said fact incorporated in his evidence affidavit is incorrect. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
"Q. I put it to you that in your evidence affidavit in paragraph no. 2, you have stated that you were running a business in the name and style of M/s Bharat Engineering Company being sole ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.36 of 62 proprietorship concerned for manufacturing and packing of expellers parts/ oil mills part since 1981. What you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect."
61. Thus, vide the above candid admissions regarding the contents of the affidavit being incorrect further a question mark arises with respect to the authenticity of the facts enunciated therein and the subsequent deposition made by the RW1 in the Court. From the above various extracts reproduced from the cross-examination of RW1, it safely stands deduced, that there are material contradictions and improvements in the story of RW1 and that the averments made in the WS by RW1 are not in sync with the deposition made by him before the Court in his cross-examination.
62. It is apposite to note, that as per the deposition of RW1, it candidly stands stated by him in his cross-examination, that M/s. Bharat Engineering Work had already been closed as on today, meaning thereby, that the initial tenancy that was executed between the father of the respondent and petitioner was primarily with regard to the M/s. Bharat Engineering works and the same stands closed, so the onus perse shifted upon the respondent to prove, that pursuant to the closure of the M/s Bharat Engineering Works, there was still continuation of the tenancy with the respondent for the running of the business under the name and style of M/s. Bharat Engineering company. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.37 of 62 "M/s Bharat Engineering Works has already been closed as on today, however, I cannot tell in which year the said firm was closed. As on today, I am running my firm by the name M/s Bharat Engineering Company from the said tenanted premises which was given to my father by the name M/s Bharat Engineering Works."
63. It is further material to note, that RW1 had categorically admitted, that he could not place on record any document regarding the closure of the M/s. Bharat Engineering Works and further cannot state since when M/s. Bharat Engineering Works stands closed.
64. It is further paramount to appreciate, that RW1 stated in his cross-
examination, that after the death of his father on 20.03.1987, he and his elder brother namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang continued with the firm namely M/s Bharat Engineering Works from the same tenanted premises. He further deposed, that he could not say whether he had filed any document on record to show that after the death of his father, M/s Bharat Engineering Works was continued by him and his brother. He voluntarily stated in his cross-examination, that he can produce the document to the said effect, however no such document had been produced. Further, he deposed, that he did not have any knowledge to the effect, that after the death of a proprietor in a proprietor ship firm, the proprietorship firm comes to an end. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.38 of 62 "After the death of my father on 20.03.1987, me and my elder brother namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang, continued with the firm namely M/s Bharat Engineering Works from the same tenanted premises. I can not say whether I have filed any document on record to show that after the death of my father M/s Bharat Engineering Works was continued by me and my brother. Volt. 1 can produce the document to the same effect. I do not have the knowledge to the effect that after the death of the proprietor in a proprietor ship firm, the proprietorship firm comes to an end."
65. It is even interesting to note, that there was subsequent change in the stance of the RW1 in his cross-examination, whereby he deposed that after the death of his father, his mother became the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works but there is no document on record to prove the said fact and it is material to note, that said fact does not find any mention in the WS of the respondent. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
"Q. I put it to you that after the death of your father under what capacity you and your brother continued to run the business under the name of M/s Bharat Engineering Works. What you have to say?
A. After the death of my father my mother ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.39 of 62 became the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works."
66. It is apropos to note, that RW1 admitted in his cross-examination, that he did not mention in his written statement, leave to defend application or in his evidence affidavit that after the death of his father, his mother became the proprietor of M/s Bharat Engineering Works. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under :-
"It is correct that I have not mentioned in my written statement, leave to defend application or in my evidence affidavit that after the death of my father my mother became the proprietor of M/s Bharat Engineering Works."
67. It is further not out of place to mention, that though in his deposition RW1 stated, that after the death of his father till the year 2000, the business was not being run in any other name except M/s Bharat Engineering Works from the tenanted premises, but the said deposition is in total contradiction to the averment made in the written statement whereby it is stated that M/s. Bharat Engineering Company came in operation in 1981 itself. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under:-
"It is is correct that after the death of my father till the year 2000, the business by any other name except M/s Bharat Engineering Works was not been run from the tenanted ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.40 of 62 premises."
68. He further admitted, that he has not filed on record any document to the effect, that his mother became the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works after the death of his father and after the death of his mother, he became the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works. He further stated, that he does not have any such document in his possession whereby it can be proved that the initial proprietor was his father and subsequently the chain relegated upon him through his mother as the documents were destroyed by the termites. But at the same time, he also said that no such documentary proof stands filed on record vide which it can be established that the documents were destroyed by the termites. He further deposed, that during the lifetime of his father, he was running the business and he was filling the income tax returns and after his death, the income tax returns was continued to be filed by his mother till her death. However, he further admitted that he has not filed any ITR on record to prove the same. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under:-
"I have not filed any said documents in the court record to the effect that my mother became the proprietor of M/s Bharat Engineering Works after the death of My father. After the death of my mother, I became the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works. I have not filed any documents to prove that I became the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.41 of 62 proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works after the death of my mother. Vol. Since all the documents were got damaged due to termite and that is the reason the said documents could not be filed. I do not have any documents to show that the said document was damaged due to above said reason. So long my father was running the business he was filling the income tax return and after his death the income tax return is continued to be filed by my mother till her death. It is correct that I have not filed the ITR on record to the same effect."
69. Thus, from erratic deposition of RW1 appreciated as above, it stands deduced, that RW1 has changed his stance continuously with regard to the premises in question being used for operating M/s. Bharat Engineering works by his father. Thereafter he deposed, that after the death of his father, M/s. Bharat Engineering works was jointly run by RW1 and his elder brother namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Narang. Thereafter, he deposed that M/s. Bharat Engineering works was being run solely by him in capacity of a proprietor. Again, he changed his stance and deposed that after the demise of his father, RW1 started running M/s. Bharat Engineering work as a sole proprietor. He again changed his stance by saying, that after the death of his father, his mother became the sole proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering works. Thus, all the averments made by RW1 in his cross-examination are ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.42 of 62 merely bald averments and are perse contradictory to each other, whereby his averments also do not have mentioning in the WS and many of the averments have surfaced for the first time in the cross- examination of RW1. Also, none of these averments stand supported by any cogent documentary evidence.
70. Thus, at the cost of brevity, it is being stated, that contradictory statements have been made by the respondent in his cross-examination pertaining to the running of the business and usage of tenanted premises after the death of the Proprietor of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works i.e. his father Sh. Ram Nath Narang, with whom the actual tenancy was entered into. No documentary evidence has been filed on record to show, that pursuant to the death of father of the respondent and closure of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works, the tenanted premises was being used for running of any business. Thus, the vital issue which ought to have been addressed primarily stands un-addressed by the respondent with regard to the usage of the tenanted premises after the death of proprietor i.e. Mr. Ram Nath Narang and closure of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works.
71. This aspect further stands intensified from the respondent's own averment, whereby though he deposed, that he had been depositing the rent since 2007 but he has miserably failed to prove the same as not even a single document has been filed to show, that the respondent had been paying / depositing the rent with the court since 2007.
72.At this stage, it is also imperative to appreciate some of the other ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.43 of 62 excerpts of cross-examination of "RW1 as he has merely made bald averments qua the continuation of the business at the tenanted premises till date without filing any cogent document to this effect, thereby resulting in a corollary that the tenanted premises is presently not being used by the tenant.
73.It is imperative to note, that though it is deposed by respondent no.1 in his cross-examination, that pursuant to taking of the said premises on rent, he and his brother started the business of manufacturing in the name of M/s Narang Brothers. But at the same time he also admitted, that the said fact has not been stated by him anywhere in his leave to defend application and evidence affidavit. Further, though he deposed in his cross-examination, that the said business was being carried out in the capacity of proprietorship firm and his brother namely Sh. Vijay Narang was the proprietor but he further went on to admit, that he had not placed on record any document to prove the said proprietorship. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under:-
"Pursuant to the taking of the said premises on rent, me and my brother started the business of manufacturing in the name of Narang Brothers. The said fact has not been stated by me anywhere in my leave to defend application and evidence affidavit. The said business was being carried out in the capacity of proprietorship firm and my brother namely Sh. Vijay Narang was the proprietor. It is correct that I have not placed on record any ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.44 of 62 document to prove the said proprietorship."
74. Thus, from the above extract, it categorically stands deduced, that nothing has been placed on record by the respondent to prove that any business of any kind was being carried out by him jointly along with his brother in the name of proprietorship firm from 1986 to 2016.
75.He further admitted in his cross-examination, that he has not placed on record any document to show, that he was working in capacity of Manager in the proprietorship firm of his brother. He further admitted, that he has not placed on record any document to show, that he was working in a partnership firm under the name and style M/s Narang Brothers and that he was operating the same from the tenanted premises. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"I was working in capacity of a manager in the proprietorship firm of my brother. I have not placed on record to show that I was working in capacity of a manager in the proprietorship firm of my brother. I have not placed on record any document to show that he proprietor ship firm by the name of Narang Brothers was being operated at the tenanted premises."
76.Thus, from the above two extracts, of cross-examination of RW-1 it stands established, that there is inter say contradiction between his own submissions as on one hand he had deposed, that he and his brother ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.45 of 62 started a manufacturing unit in the name and style of M/s Narang Brothers, thereby giving a reflection that it was a partnership firm but on the other hand he deposed, that he was working as a manager in the proprietorship firm of which his brother was the proprietor. But having said that, there is not even a single document on record to substantiate any of these averments.
77.Even otherwise, it is averred by RW-1 in his cross-examination, that pursuant to the death of his brothers, the proprietorship stood dissolved, meaning thereby, that post 2016 there was no firm operating at the tenanted premises and therefore once such an admission is made by RW-1 in his cross-examination, the entire onus shifted upon him to prove that how and under what capacity the business was still being operated from the tenanted premises in the capacity of a tenant to the petitioner pursuant to the death of brother of RW-1, as the proprietorship stood dissolved upon the death of his brother. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"Pursuant to the death of my brother, the proprietor ship stood dissolved. No legal heirs of my deceased brother ever approached me for using the tenanted premises for any purpose whatsoever. It is incorrect to suggest that post the death of my brother, the premises in lying vacant and is not being used. Vol. I am operating my business from there. I am using the said premises for manufacturing under the name of Bharat Engineering Company."
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.46 of 62
78. It is persuasive to note, that RW-1 also stated in his cross-examination that he and his brother had taken due permission for running a manufacturing unit from the said premises but admittedly there is no document on record to establish the same. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"I and my brother had taken the due permission for running the manufacturing unit from the said premises but I have not placed on record the permission on record."
79. It is apropos to note, that RW-1 deposed in his cross-examination, that the rent pertaining to the said property was being paid from the proprietorship firm i.e. M/s Narang Brothers by his brother till 2001 and after 2001 it was being deposited in the Court by Bharat Engineering Company. However, to this a Court question was put to the witness which is as under:
"The rent pertaining to the said property was being paid from the proprietorship firm I.e M/s. Narang Brothers by my brother till 2001 and after 2001, it was being deposited in the Court by Bharat Engineering Company.
Court Question : As per your earlier deposition, the premises was being operated and run by your brother under the name and style of Narang Brothers ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.47 of 62 being a proprietorship firm till 2016 and so being the case, how and under what circumstances, from 2001 the rent was being paid by Bharat Engineering Company which was not even in existence at that time?"
Answer : Narang Brother was paying the rent of the premises bearing the address as 52/3C-1 from 1986 to 2015 December. Bharat Engineering company was paying the rent of premises bearing address as 52/3-D from 1987 till date."
80. However, the witness further deposed by stating, that he had not made any mention with regard to the partnership firm being run by his brother under the name and style of Narang Brothers either in his petition under Section 14(1)(a) DRC nor he had filed any petition under Section 27 of DRC Act with regard to the deposition of rent in the Court filed his brother namely Vijay Narang.
81. Thus, the two primary and crucial aspects i.e.
(i) usage of the tenanted premises by RW1 as on date for running of the alleged business in the name and style of M/s. Bharat Engineering company, after the death of proprietor i.e. Mr. Ram Nath Narang with whom the tenancy agreement was entered into and after the closure of M/s. Bharat Engineering Works, of which Sh. Ram Nath Narang was the proprietor and
(ii) deposition or payment of rent to the petitioner or in the court, stands unproved as the respondent has faulted in adducing any cogent ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.48 of 62 evidence to establish both these aspects, which are the principal ingredients required to be proved for satisfying any claim made under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.
82. Further, the respondent has taken an objection to the effect, that the grandsons are not dependent upon the petitioner and that they do not come under the terms "family member" of the petitioner. However, the said objection is not tenable and the Court places reliance on the judgment of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohar Ram & Ors and Santosh Kumar Mehra Since Deceased through Lrs Vs. Om Prakash.
83. In the judgment titled as Rishal Singh Vs. Bohar Ram & Ors., RC.
Rev. No. 495 of 2012, it was held as under :-
"The landlord sought the eviction on the ground that his grandson required the property to start his own business and that the landlord had no property, other than the suit property from where he could run his business.
However, counsel for the respondent relied on another judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Bajaj v. Chander Shekhar (2003)1 RCR 332 wherein the Court included sons family of the landlord in the meaning of dependent. The Court held that the need of any member including the son; the wife, sons wife and children are to be treated as the need for the landlord. The impugned ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.49 of 62 order also relied on the same judicial pronouncement to arrive at a conclusion. This Court finds such a decision to be more at par with the intent of the Act that the judicial precedent mentioned by the counsel for the tenant. The law, on this point, has evolved to extent where it is accepted position that a grandson is included in dependents of the landlord."
84. Further, in the judgment titled as Santosh Kumar Mehra Since Deceased through Lrs Vs. Om Prakash, RC. Rev. No. 94/2015 and CM No. 3597/2015 decided on 30.06.2015, it was held as under :-
6. ............Regard has to be taken to the social fabric of the family and in a joint family all members including the grandchildren would be dependent on the grandparents. Reliance is also placed on Puran Chand Aggarwal Vs. Lekh Raj 2014 (210) DLT 131. Relying on M/s Khem Chand Ramesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Vijay Mehra & Ors. 2014 (10) AD (Delhi) 558 it is urged that merely because the children are financially independent would not mean that they are not family members or that they are not dependent for the purposes of accommodation on the parents. ......
10. In Joginder Pal (supra) the Supreme Court while construing who is the member dependent on the landlord held that keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region to which the landlord belongs, it may be the obligation of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.50 of 62 the landlord to settle a person 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 the landlord. The tests laid down to be applied are: (i) whether the requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as the landlord's own requirement, and
(ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case, actual occupation and user by a person other than the landlord would be deemed by the landlord as "his own" occupation or user. The answer would, in its turn, depend on (i) the nature and degree of relationship and/or dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement as "his own" and the person who actually would use the premises; (ii) the circumstances in which the claim arises and is put forward, and (iii) the intrinsic tenability of the claim. The Court on being satisfied of the reasonability and genuineness of the claim, as distinguished from a mere ruse to get rid of the tenant, will uphold the landlord's claim."
85. With respect to the bonafide requirement, it is contended by the petitioner in the present petition, that he needs the premises for starting up a business /manufacturing unit for his grandchildren / grandsons, but the objection taken by the respondent to the said bonafide requirement of the petitioner is completely vague and arbitrary as he has stated in his WS, that he met the grandchildren / grandsons of the petitioner and they expressed that, they do not want to enter into any ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.51 of 62 business. The said objection is a merely vague averment having no material standing. At this stage, it is perusive to reproduce the extracts of cross-examination of PW-3 i.e. Aditya Jain i.e. the grandson of the petitioner, whereby he had candidly stated, that he had placed the proposal of starting a business before his father as well as grandfather. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are as under:
" I used to visit the property in question in last 3-4 years. I had never met the tenant/respondent as and when I had visited in the property in question........I had kept the proposal of starting the business of manufacturing before my father in the last year of graduation.
The are of approximately 1050 Sq. feet is lying vacant, in the entire area of 515 Sq. yards in which the property in question is situated."
86. It is further not out of place to mention, that a specific question was put to PW-3 with regard to the assessment for the purpose of starting the business of manufacturing and the kind of manchinaries required for the same and to the said questions, the witness had given concrete and plausible answers. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are as under:
"Q. Kindly tell, have you taken any assessment for the purpose of starting a ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.52 of 62 business of manufacturing?
Ans. Yes, I have analysied basic requirement for staring of the manufacturing business for preliminary purposes.
Q. Kindly, tell the name of machinaries which you want to install for starting of manufacturing business and also tell the area required for the same?
Ans. The machineries which are required are namely sorting machine, hopper machine, heating equipment, injection moulding, CNG machine and packing machinery. The total area required for starting the manufacturing business must be above 5000-5500 Sq. feet."
87. Also, another objection of the respondent is with regard to the availability of 1050 sq ft of area vacant with the petitioner since February 2020. It is a matter of record, that the petitioner himself has admitted in para no. 4 (a) and (f) of his petition, that he has the said area available and same was acquired by him pursuant to the eviction of the premises falling within the said area by the tenants who were earlier occupying the said area. Having said that, it is a settled proposition of law, that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and has the complete discretion to use the premises ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.53 of 62 belonging to him to his wisdom. The principal averment of the petitioner behind seeking an eviction of the respondent of the area falling within his possession is to the effect, that the petitioner needs the entire area of 515 sq yds for setting up of a manufacturing unit for his grandsons and has further clearly established on record as to why he needs the entire are by way of space requirement lay out i.e. Ex.PW1/11 for setting up of the manufacturing unit.
88. Perusal of the document i.e. Estimate Ex.PW1/11 shows, that requirement of the petitioner for setting up a manufacturing unit for production of plastic made casserole, lunch box and water jug and the total requirement of the space has been divided into five parts reproduced as below :-
1. Shop Floor / Manufacturing operation - In this head, the petitioner requires 1800 sq. ft area for installation of machines like moulding machines, waste cutter grinder, preheat oven dryer, water colling tower etc.
2. Mould making unit / Tool room - In this head, the petitioner requires 800 sq ft area for installation of tool room machines i.e. vertical milling, mould surface grinder, drilling radial machine,k lathe machine, vice clamp, CNC turning machine, mould assembling table & tool grinds.
3. Assembling / Packing of finished products - In this head, the petitioner requires 1200 sq ft area for installing the packing labour / packing tables for packing of the finished products.
4. Storage Area - In this head, the petitioner requires 750 sq ft area for storing the raw material, finished products and maintenance ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.54 of 62 parts.
5. Admin. Office / Showcase / Common Facilities (Washroom etc.)/ Guard Room - In this head, the petitioner requires 600 sq ft area for building administrative office, showcase, common utilities room and guard room.
Thus, in total the petitioner requires 5150 sq ft of space for running / setting up the manufacturing unit / business.
89.At this stage, this Court deems it fit to discuss the law laid down vide plethora of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court in determining, that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is at complete liberty to take this call. Law is well settled that it is the landlord who has to decide as to how and in what manner, he should live and that he is the best judge of his requirement.
90. In the case of Om Prakash Singhal Vs. Shri Roshan Lal, 1969 RCR 391, it has been held that as a broad workable rule, the landlord must left to assess his requirement in the background of his possession, circumstance, status and life and social and other responsibilities, and other relevant factors.
91. In Parvati Devi Vs. P. V. Krishna, JT 1987 (1) SC 764 , it has been held as under :-
"The landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live and prescribe for him a standard of their own. There is no law that ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.55 of 62 deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.
92. In Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja, MANU / SC / 0435 / 2014 : (2014) 15 SCC 610, it has been held as under :-
"It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property AIR 1999 SC 100 (1996) 5 SCC 353 (2014) 15 SCC 610, Neutral Citation Number : 2023 : DHC : 3199 belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business."
93. In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC / 0087 / 2021 , it has been held as under :-
"It is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate."
94. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) MANU / SC / 0432 / 1999: (1999) 6 SCC 222, it has been held as under :-
"Once the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the 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."
95. It is material to note, that another objection taken by the respondent is that the petitioner has failed to file affidavit of his grandsons with regard to their intention to start business and has further averred, that any person who has done B. Arch (qualification of the grandsons of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.56 of 62 petitioner) would not be languishing and spending his life in doing a sedate work of industry, when he has neither any experience nor any person to guide him at such a young age as neither the petitioner nor anyone has experience of manufacturing line.
96. The said objection is meritless as there is no mandate of law that requires the grandson of the petitioner to file an affidavit that despite having a decree of B. Arch, they intend to start a business of manufacturing of plastic casserole, water jug, etc.
97. In this regard, Court seeks assistance from the judgment titled as Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das Civil Appeal No(s). 1388 of 2003 in which it was held as under :-
However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have gone deeper into the question of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.57 of 62 bona fide need and not rejected it only on the ground that Giriraj has no experience in foot wear business.
98. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it can safely be said that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business and the objection of the respondent is flatly discarded in view of the same.
99. It is material to note, that the petitioner through the documents Ex.PW-1/4 to PW-1/10 has duly proved on record, that he does not have any other vacant possession of any property and that he needs the entire area of 515 sq.yrds which was given on rent by the petitioner to different tenants including the present respondent as such the petitioner has filed eviction proceedings against all the tenants for the recovery of entire area of 515 sq.yrds., so that his grandsons could start the manufacturing and trading business from the complete area of 515 sq.yrds. It has been averred by the petitioner, that eviction order with respect to two tenanted premises of other tenants has already been passed. Further, in para no.12 & 13 of evidence affidavit, the petitioner has categorically explained, that the area which is available with him is not sufficient to start the manufacturing business for his grandsons and further as to how much total area he requires for starting the manufacturing unit for his grandsons through the document i.e. estimate Ex. PW-1/11.
100. It is apropos to note, that though Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued, that the tenanted premises is not sufficient for running a ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.58 of 62 manufacturing unit / business, but at the same time, it is an admitted case of the respondent, that he himself is running a manufacturing unit from the tenanted premises. Therefore, this Court fails to understand as to how and under what circumstances, the respondent has argued that the tenanted space required by the petitioner is not suitable for running a manufacturing unit, whereby he himself has alleged to have been operating one from the same premises.
101. Another objection taken by the respondent is with regard to the non-joinder of the other Legal Heirs of the respondent as party to the legal suit. It is material to note, that the respondent has himself admitted in his cross-examination, that no other LR of late Sh. Ram Nath Narang except him has been using / is in possession of the tenanted premises and all the LRs of late Sh. Ram Nath Narang have given their consent in this respect and therefore, primarily making of the LRs of Sh. Ram Nath Narang as party to the present suit was not mandated. Further, this Court takes assistance from the judgment of Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain , whereby the law stands settled that after the death of original tenant, its legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and all the legal heirs are not required to be impleaded as party. It has been held in the case titled as Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain CIVIL APPEAL No. 3996 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5489 OF 2014), as under :-
20) We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.59 of 62 of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants.
It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not. It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party.
There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.
102. It is well settled that, the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
103. Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.60 of 62 in favour of the landlord also and the courts should not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their perception carried away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of eviction.
104. I have placed myself in the place of petitioner to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and I have also applied a practical approach instructed by the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement.
105. In view of testimonies of the witnesses, it is clear, that the petitioner has been able to satisfy the Court, that no alternate reasonable suitable accommodate is available with the petitioner for setting up of the business unit for his grandsons and as such, the petitioner has succeeded in proving, that requirement as alleged by petitioner is bonafide. Further, the petitioner / landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant to chose a different place of business. The tenant cannot ask for a project report from the landlord. No previous experience is required for starting a business. The respondent has failed to place on record any document which could show that the petitioner has any suitable alternate accommodation.
Conclusion
106. Thus, in totality of the discussions made above, the petitioner has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of section 14 (1) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.61 of 62
(e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises i.e. one shed / shop measuring 483 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the property bearing no. 52/3C-1, Rama Road, Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi - 15 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initial execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of the provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
107. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
Announced in the open Court SHARMA Date: 2025.07.07
15:05:41 +0530
on 07.07.2025. Richa Sharma
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC / Delhi / 07.07.2025
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 03/21 Padam Chand Jain Vs. Anil Kumar Narang & Anr. Page No.62 of 62