Delhi District Court
Prithvi Raj Khanna vs Sumit Malhotra on 29 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No : 1203/2016
Sh. Prithvi Raj Khanna
S/o Late Sh. Kahan Chand Khanna
R/o E 4/12, Krishan Nagar, Delhi-110051 ........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Sumit Malhotra
S/o Sh. Gulshan Malhotra
R/o 1/3223, Ram Nagar, Extension
Shahdara, Delhi ........Respondent
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (e)
r/w SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 14.09.2016
DATE OF ARGUMENTS : 03.11.2023
DATE OF DECISION : 29.11.2023.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall adjudicate the petition filed by the petitioner under section 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25 (B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking eviction of the respondent on the ground of bona fide requirement.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner in respect of one shop bearing private no. II admeasuring 13 ½ width 8 feet and height 13 feet situated at property bearing no. E 4/12 Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 which is shown in red color in the site plan (Ex.PW1/1) (hereinafter referred to as "the demised premises" in short). It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the demised premises which was let out to the respondent Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /2/ vide written agreement dated 16.05.1999 (Ex.PW1/3) at a monthly rent of Rs.400/- (rupees four hundred only), excluding electricity and other charges, for commercial purpose. It has been further averred that the Respondent is running a business in the name of "Ajay Chemist" at the demised premises. It is claimed by the petitioner that the Respondent has extended the height of the shop in the demised premises sans his permission in contravention of the terms and conditions of the rent agreement, not to mention has ceased to operate his business as a chemist from the demised premises. It is the case of the petitioner that the demised premises is required by the petitioner for his son, namely Sh. Rohit Khanna, for running a big departmental store, who is currently running a General Store at Shop No.1 situated at property bearing no. E 4/12 Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. It is also averred in the petition that the son of the petitioner is in possession of shops bearing No. I and III and it is not possible to convert the General Store into a Departmental Store unless demised premises is also merged along with these two shops. The petitioner has claimed that due to unavailability of sufficient space, the son of the petitioner is constrained to store his stock in the residential premises thereby causing inconvenience to other family members. It is the case of the petitioner that he is constrained to approach this court as his personal requests made to the respondent seeking vacation of demised premises fell on deaf ears inasmuch as the respondent did not heed to them, much less vacated the demised premises in spite of himself owning several other properties, both residential as well as commercial. It is therefore, prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent vis-à-vis the demised premises.
3. The respondent was summoned vide order dated 14.09.2016 and vide order dated 05.09.2017, leave to defend the present petition u/s 25B of DRC Act, sought by the respondent was granted.
Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /3/
4. In his written statement, the respondent has questioned the bona fide need of the petitioner on the following grounds:
a) Firstly, that the petitioner does not have any bona fide need for the demised premises; rather it is only a desire of the petitioner to get the premises vacated as the son of the petitioner namely Sh. Rohit Khanna is well settled and is not dependent upon the petitioner.
b) Secondly, the petitioner has falsely averred that he wants to merge the shops no.1, 2 and 3 together to extend his business whereas, in reality the petitioner is only using half of the space in shop No.1 while the remainder half of the shop as a godown and insofar as the shop no. III is concerned, it has been lying locked for the past 10/12 years as it has not been used by the son of the petitioner for storing his stock even.
c) Thirdly, the son of the petitioner is running a business of selling cigarettes, Gutkha, Tobacco, Chips, Cold Drinks etc. in the shop in his possession and the same is not being used for the purpose of running a general store. Therefore, the question of converting the general store into a departmental store does not even arise.
d) Lastly, the petitioner is a retired government employee and has several other properties available whereas, the respondent and his family are dependent upon the demised premises for their livelihood and do not have any other properties available as claimed by the petitioner.
Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /4/
5. In order to prove his case, the petitioner chose to examine himself as the only witness as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein, he reiterated the contents of his petition and relied upon documents, namely; the site plan Ex.PW1/1, money order dated 31.08.2016 Ex. PW1/2, a copy of the rent deed dated 16.05.1999 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR), copy of electricity bills Ex. PW1/4 (OSR), copy of telephone bills in the name of respondent Ex. PW1/5, copy of business cards of other firms of the respondent situated at different properties Ex. PW1/6, copies of receipts of medical bills Ex. PW1/7 (OSR) (Colly.), copy of telephone bills of petitioner Ex. PW1/8 (OSR), copies of counter slip of rent receipts Ex. PW1/9 (OSR) (Colly) (eight pages), copy of retail invoice issued in favour of 'Khanna General Store' Ex. PW1/10 (OSR), photographs of property/business of respondent at other addresses Ex. PW1/11 (Colly) (three pages), photographs of the tenanted premises Ex. PW1/12, photographs of the stock of the petition's lying in the residential premises due to shortage of space in commercial premises Ex. PW1/13, copy of ID proof of the petitioner Ex. PW1/14 (OSR), and a copy of ID proof of son of the petitioner Ex. PW1/15 (OSR).
6. PW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. During the course of his cross examination, PW1 deposed that the property in which the demised premises is situated measures 150 square yards, a part of which is commercial, comprising of 3 shops, including the demised premises and the remaining part is being used by him and his family for residential purpose. PW1 testified that although one room has been constructed on the first floor however, owing to paucity of funds the remaining property could not be constructed. PW1 admitted that he is a retired government officer and that he has been receiving pension of Rs 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand only) per Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /5/ month, albeit pleaded ignorance as to the amount of funds received by him at the time of retirement. He conceded that there are separate entries to access the residential and the commercial portion of the property. He deposed that his son has studied up to 12th standard only as he was unable to complete his graduation and got married in the year 2017. He stated that both his daughters are married and residing in Delhi. PW1 denied the suggestion that the shop no.3 stays locked as no goods are lying there, instead volunteered that the shop was used to store goods and he opened the same as and when required. PW1 was confronted with the photographs Ex. PW1/13 to suggest that they were doctored only to create false evidence against the respondent which the witness unequivocally denied. PW1 categorically deposed that his son Rohit is running the store in shop No.1 since the past 20 years or so and at the time of filing the case, he was above the age of 25 years and married. PW1 claimed that the respondent was running his business in different names in different premises, including premises owned by his parents. The witness testified that the respondent is no longer operating his business from the demised premises which is evident from the fact that the landline connection in the premises has been disconnected. The witness denied the following suggestions put forth by Ld. Counsel for the respondent, namely:- that PW1 did not have any bona fide need/requirement to run a departmental store; or that shop no.3 was vacant and permanently locked since it is not even used for any purpose; or that the demised premises is both open and operational; or that he was deposing falsely.
7. The respondent, on the other hand, examined two witnesses in his favor, namely; himself and his brother Ajay Malhotra.
8. The respondent was examined as RW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A and relied upon documents, namely- the Site Plan Ex. RW1/2 Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /6/ and two photographs of shop No.1 belonging to the petitioner Ex. RW1/3 (Colly).
9. RW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. During his cross-examination, RW1 deposed that the agreed rate of rent was as per the rent deed was Rs. 400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) per month. He denied the suggestion that he has shut his medical store business operating from the demised premises. He deposed that no license from the Drugs Controller Authority was required for the sale and purchase of Ayurvedic medicines. The witness deposed that he does not have a GST number and could not produce any bills or invoices with respect to sale/purchase of medicines from the demised premises. He admitted that he has not obtained a license from the MCD or any other competent authority for operating the ayurvedic medicines store at the demised premises. He claimed that he was paying the electricity bills of the tenanted premises regularly however, conceded that the electricity consumption for the last one year was zero or one unit. He conceded that the Petitioner intended to use the area for running a departmental store. RW1 however denied that he was running different businesses out of other premises taken on rent. The witness denied the following suggestions put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, namely- that the demised premises are not being used for any business purpose anymore; or that the son of petitioner was running a general store adjoining the demised premises; that he was holding on to the demised premises only to harass the petitioner; or that he was deposing falsely.
10. Sh. Ajay Malhotra, brother of the respondent, was examined as RW2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW2/A, wherein he deposed that his brother is running only one shop and does not have any other source of income besides, the said shop located at the demised premises. In his cross-examination, RW2 admitted that he had never visited the shop of his brother however Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /7/ categorically denied the suggestion that no business of medicine was being run by his brother from the tenanted premises and that the shop is locked since the past several years. RW2 also denied that his brother was running other businesses besides the one operated from the demised premises or that he owned other properties.
11. Arguments were advanced with equal vehemence on behalf of both the parties.
12. Before dwelling into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of law applicable in the present case:-
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Section 14 (1) (e)] 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 and court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenat :
(e) That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;
(Section 25B) Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement:-
Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /8/ (1) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A [or under section 14B or under section 14C or under section 14D] shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. (2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every application referred to in sub-section (1), in the form specified in the Third Schedule.
(3) (a) The Controller shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may ,if the circumstances of the case so require, also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain .
(b) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article, the Controller may declare that there has been a valid service of summons.
(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files and affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /9/ the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.
(5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (c ) of the proviso to sub- section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A. (6) Where leave is granted to the tenant to contest the application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 37, the Controller shall, while holding and inquiry in a proceeding to which this Chapter applies, follow the practice and procedure of a Court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence. (8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section:
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. (9) Where no application has been made to the High Court on revision, the Controller may exercise the powers of review in accordance with the provisions of Order XLVII of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(10) Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A, shall be the same as the procedure for the disposal of applications by Controllers.
Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /10/
13. It is a rather entrenched position of law that to bring a case within the contours of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, the following enumerated conditions must be squarely met, to wit;-
a) there exists a landlord - tenant relationship between the parties;
b) that the demised premises was let out for either residential or commercial purpose;
c) that the premises are required by the landlord for his bona fide need or for the need of his dependent family members;
d) that the landlord does not have an alternative suitable accommodation available to cater to his needs.
14. The legislature has carved out a special but summary procedure for addressing such contingencies for the larger interests of the landlords. The thresholds hereinabove 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.
15. Guided by the foregoing legal tenets to the fact of the present case, it is profitable to note that the landlord - tenant relationship vis-à-vis demised premises is nowhere in dispute between the parties. The ownership of the petitioner qua demised premises is also not in dispute nor is the fact that the property was let out by him to the respondent for commercial use at a monthly rent of Rs 400/- (Rupees Four Hundred only) vide rent agreement dated 16.05.1999. Therefore, the first ingredient of section 14(1)(e) stands satisfied.
Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /11/
16. The second ingredient required to bring a case within the purview of section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is that the demised premises were let out for residential or commercial purpose. Though the act mentions only the premises let out for residential purpose however the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the celebrated case of " Satyawati Sharma V. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 287 : 2008 SCC OnLine SC 677" had obliterated the distinction between premises let out for residential and commercial use for the purpose of invoking provisions of section 14 (1)
(e) of the DRC Act. In the present case, the purpose for which the demised premises were let out is not contentious as the rent agreement itself spells out that the premises were let out for commercial use. That said, the applicability of the provisions of section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act to the commercial nature of tenancy in question admits of no objection no more.
17. The third and the most important ingredient which needs to be satisfied before an order of eviction can be passed in favour of the petitioner is the existence of a bona fide need of the demised premises by the petitioner or any other family member who may be dependent upon him. In order to evaluate whether the need of the petitioner is bona fide or not, an analysis of the legislative and judicial connotation of the term, 'bona fide' is essential. In this context, it is germane to recount the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd ., reported as AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 100", wherein it was held that:
".....The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. 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 bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /12/ requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by 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 the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself....".
18. It is apparent from the aforementioned observations that whenever a petition for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement is scrutinised and the landlord is able to show a prima facie case of such requirement, it is open to the court to draw a presumption that the requirement is bona fide.
19. In the present case, the petitioner has contended that he has proven his case on the scales of balance of probabilities inasmuch as established his bona fide requirement in securing eviction of the respondent from the demised premises. By the by, the petitioner has also contended that the demised premises have been lying locked and is not even being used by the respondent for the purpose of running his business, which is apparent from the fact that the electricity consumption in the past one year was a farthing 0/1 (Zero to one) unit only. The averment regarding the electricity consumption has also been admitted by RW1 in his cross examination. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent is running several businesses from different premises therefore, he is not dependent upon the demised premises for his livelihood. Even though, the fact of other businesses of the respondent being operated from other premises has not been proven on record, nevertheless, suffices it to say that this plea of the petitioner is rather inconsequential and outside the realm of DRC Act inasmuch as it does not have any bearing whatsoever on the question of bona fide requirement of the landlord which he must establish regardless of whether or not the tenant has an alternative suitable accommodation.
Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /13/
20. On the other hand, the respondent has contended that the requirement of the landlord is not bona fide but only a desire to get the premises vacated. In support of his contention, the respondent has contended that the Petitioner's son is not dependent upon him for his livelihood as he has been running his shop and maintaining his family for the last 10 years or so. It is contended by the respondent that the son of the petitioner has been married for almost 10 years now and had the shop been required by him to run his business then the eviction should have been sought at the time when he got married and not when he is already settled and earning his livelihood. In this regard, it is further contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner is himself a retired government employee who is receiving pension and other benefits, his daughters are already married and his needs as well as responsibilities must have decreased over time rather than increased which fact would only disentitle him to the reliefs claimed in the present eviction petition. Furthermore, there is no change in circumstances or situation of the son of the petitioner which would give rise to a sudden bona fide need to expand his business and convert the shop into a departmental store.
21. The submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent does not appeal to the judicial mind of this Court inasmuch as law does not countenance that the respondent arrogates to himself the role of an adjudicator of the petitioner's needs who goes on to pontificate whether they should increase or decrease over time since the date of his retirement. The contention of the respondent that merely because the Petitioner's son is running the shop no.I and III independently, the petition on the ground of his bona fide requirement would not lie is misconceived, for it is a settled position of law that even if a son is independent, married and settled, he could still be dependent upon his father/mother for securing much needed commercial premises till the time he manages to buy one of his own. In this context reliance is Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /14/ placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kirshan Kumar Gupta Vs. Krishan Shushan Gupta reported as 152 (2008) DLT 556 wherein it was observed that:-
"In this country there is no social security system provided by State and the only social security is the security of the family. For gaining this social security of the family by the aged parents, they have to provide their sons and daughters the living accommodation, if available with them. The requirement of the landlord's sons and daughters and their families even if they are not financially dependent on him cannot be said to be unjustified or a mala fide requirement. If a daughter or son is taking care of the aged father/grandfather and his wife, it would be a bonafide necessity of the landlord, if he desires that his daughter or son should continue to live with him so that he continues to take care of him and his wife. Similarly, when it become difficult, due to old age, to move out, a person may desire that his sons and daughters visit him frequently and stay with him and the requirement of the landlord for this purpose cannot be said to be malafide but is a bonafide requirement."
22. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of Saeed ur Rehman Khairi v. Almas Arshai decided on 14.03.2023 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble high court of Delhi that:-
"it is common knowledge that in a metropolitan city like Delhi where the real estate prices are astronomical and rentals are high, grown up children are also dependent upon their parents for requirement of accommodation, whether commercial or residential."
23. It is apparent from the aforementioned observations that the bona fide requirement may be of the landlord himself or of any other person who may be dependent upon him. In the instant case, it is the admitted case of the parties that the entire property of which the shops are merely a part is owned by the petitioner out of which the shop no.I and III are being used by the petitioner's son whereas, the shop no.II is the demised premises in possession of the respondent. Therefore, it Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /15/ cannot by any stretch of imagination be contended that the petitioner's son is altogether independent, for his livelihood is predicated on the continued existence of shops no.I and III in his possession which is further predicated on the whims or needs and necessities of none other than the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is well within his right to seek eviction of the respondent from the demised premises as the requirement, whether of his son or for his son as the case may be, is intertwined with his personal bona fide requirement. Apropos thereof, reliance may be placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the matter of Joginder Pal vs Naval Kishore Behal reported as (2002) 5 SCC 397, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfill the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use......... 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 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."
24. The aforesaid observations are rather reinforced in the wake of the fact that it has nowhere been contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner's son has any other source of income besides the shops being run at the premise owned by the petitioner and since, it is undisputedly the only source of livelihood, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to question either the dependency of the Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /16/ petitioner's son upon the petitioner or their bona fide requirement.
25. Insofar as the plea of the respondent that since the petitioner's son is not even running a general store at the shop instead, only a paan shop from which he is selling chips, cold drinks and toffees etc., therefore the question of merging the three shops including the demised premises to convert them into one departmental store does not arise is concerned, although nothing has come on record that would establish said fact nevertheless even if it this submission is taken on its face value and it is hypothesised that the petitioner's son is not running a general store but only a paan shop yet it does not hold much water inasmuch as this Court sees no legal impediment in converting a so-called paan shop into a general store and further expanding it into a tad big departmental store, especially when law proscribes the respondent from dictating the manner in which the petitioner should put the demised premises to his use. In this context, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Gulshera Khanam Vs. Aftab Ahmad decided on 27 September, 2016 spring to mind wherein, it was observed that:
"... The landlord is the sole judge to decide as to how much space is needed for him/her to start or expand any of his/her activity..."
26. Moreover, should the demised premises be not converted to use in the manner contended during trial, it shall always be open to the respondent to seek re-entry in the manner prescribed under the DRC Act itself.
27. Insofar as the fourth ingredient regarding the availability of an alternate suitable accommodation is concerned, the respondent has not claimed that the petitioner has any other accommodation available where his son can Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /17/ carry on his business, he has only claimed that the Shop No. III which is in possession of the petitioner is also lying vacant and the same is not being used by the petitioner for any purpose. This contention of the respondent has been refuted by the petitioner on the ground that the said shop is being used for the purpose of storing stocks as and when required, however, the mere presence / availability of that shop is no substitute for intended object in mind, i.e. merging three shops, including the demised premises, to convert them into a big departmental store.
28. It is a settled proposition of law that a tenant cannot dictate the manner in which landlord can use his available accommodation as it is the sole prerogative of the landlord to decide as to which accommodation would be most suited for his intended purpose. In this context, reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors reported as (2005) 8 SCC 252 wherein it was held that:
"It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business..... "
29. This position of law was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Anil Bajaj & Anr. vs. Vinod Ahuja , reported as (2014) 15 SCC 610 where it was observed that:-
Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /18/ "What the tenant contends is that the landlord has several other shop houses from which he is carrying on different businesses and further that the landlord has other premises from where the business proposed from the tenanted premises can be effectively carried out. 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 belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business . .... "
30. In this regard reference may also made to a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble high court of Delhi in the matter of Manmohan Singh v. Arjun Uppal & Anr. decided on 29.11.2023 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble high Court that:-
" Landlords cannot be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of their property. Further, the Court is not to sit in the arm chair of the landlords to dictate as to how the property should be utilized. It is the sole discretion of the landlords to get all the tenanted premises vacated and use as per their need."
31. Having heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties, perused the record and appreciated the relevant provisions of the law governing the field, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has clearly established his bona fide requirement for seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises as all the requisite ingredients therefor have been satisfied in the present case. That said, the respondent Sh. Sumit Malhotra is liable to be evicted from the demised premises, i.e. shop bearing private No. II admeasuring 13 ½ width 8 feet and height 13 feet situated at property bearing No. E 4/12 Krishna Nagar, Delhi- 110051 which is shown in red color in the site plan Ex.PW1/1.
32. Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner under section 14 (1) (e) Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016 /19/ r/w section 25B of the DRC Act is hereby allowed, subject to provisions u/s 19 of the DRC Act. It is however made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the demised premises before the expiry of six months from today in view of the legislative mandate envisaged in Section 14 (7) of the DRC Act. No order as to costs.
Announced in the open Court (AKRITI MAHENDRU)
on 29.11.2023. ACJ-CCJ-ARC/Shahdara,
KKD/Delhi/29.11.2023
Prithvi Raj Khanna Vs. Sumit Malhotra RC ARC No. 1203/2016