Delhi District Court
Sh. Sidhant Gupta vs Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni on 22 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH
SCJCUMRC, CENTRAL DISTT. TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Old Number : E 103/2015
New Number : 77864/16
Sh. Sidhant Gupta,
S/o Late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta,
R/o 8339, 03rd Floor,
Roshanara Road,
Delhi ........ Petitioner.
VERSUS
Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni,
Care: M/s. Sahni Benz Pvt. Ltd.,
Shop No. 3887, Roshnara Road,
Delhi. ...... Respondent.
Date of Institution of case : 16.12.2015
Date on which judgment was reserved : 22.07.2016
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 22.07.2016
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner Sh. Sidhant Gupta has filed eviction petition under section 14 (1)(e) read with section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as DRC Act) for eviction of respondent Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni from shop no. 3887, Roshanara Road, Delhi measuring about 10 ft (front) x 34 ft (depth) more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan.
1.1 Respondent is averred as single tenant carrying whole sale / retail business of motor parts under the name and style of M/s. Sahni Benz Pvt. Ltd. from tenanted shop let out by erstwhile owners Sh. Krishna Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 1 of 12 Avtar Gupta and Sh. Vishnu Avtar Gupta vide rent deed dated 01.01.1974 upon monthly rent @ Rs.100/ which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 600/ per month and was lastly tendered to petitioner's father late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta till December 2012.
1.2 Petitioner claims himself as owner / landlord of premises comprising tenanted shop by adverting to compromise decree dated 16.05.1974 passed by Sh. Sadhu Ram Goel, Ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in suit no. 148/74 whereby his grandfather late Sh. Krishan Avtar Gupta became sole / absolute owner of property. After death of his grandfather on 13.05.1986, his other LRs executed relinquishment deed dated 16.11.2011 in favour of petitioner's father late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta who accordingly became the owner and landlord of tenanted premises which fact is also admitted by respondent by claiming about cheques issued towards monthly rent which were refused by petitioner's father late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta.
1.3 However, despite admitting late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta as his landlord and monthly rent of tenanted shop @ Rs. 600/, respondent nonetheless, has raised contentions demanding compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/ for construction of pillars from tenanted shop for building first floor of property which was earlier used as residence but is presently lying demolished in his reply dated 02.11.2015 to legal notice dated 19.10.2015. Further, respondent is also averred to have sent an email dated 01.06.2015 through his son for seeking Rs. 10,50,000/ as consideration in addition to execution of lease rights in perpetuity for allowing petitioner to raise pillars / RCC columns from the ground floor which amounts to blackmailing and extortion.
Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 2 of 121.4 Respondent's eviction from tenanted shop is sought by petitioner by asserting that he along with his sisters is residing on rent since February 2013 and is in dire need of shop for earning livelihood for sustaining himself and performing his moral obligations. Moreover, petitioner also claims to have graduated as B. Tech in Mechanical and Automation Engineering from I. P. Engineering, Delhi having no vocation or job in hand and is forced to depend upon the earnings of his two unmarried sisters for his daily needs, rentals, food, clothing, medicines, etc. as the terminal benefits including gratuity, PF, etc. of his deceased father would be exhausted to quite an extent upon marriage of her sister scheduled in last week of January 2016. Furthermore, petitioner has also averred about residential premises no. 3889, Roshanara Road, Delhi on the first floor of property which is lying demolished and cannot be re constructed as municipal authority has categorically stated that building needs to be erected from ground floor but respondent is not allowing him to raise pillars / RCC columns for construction of first floor and onwards and is unnecessarily harassing under the garb of frivolous compensation and consideration for extorting money.
1.5 Finally, petitioner has also disclosed about ownership of 50% (undivided) share in adjacent shop no. 3888, Roshanara Road, Delhi measuring 10 ft. x 34 ft. under tenancy of Sh. Arvinder Singh for which he would seek partition and separate eviction in case of need but tenanted premises being the largest shop on the ground floor is best suited for commencing business of machineries, etc in the area which is primarily an auto parts market and petitioner having graduated in the same field wants to have his own shop for starting his business.
Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 3 of 122. Notice of eviction petition in prescribed form as per Third Schedule was served upon respondent who has filed his application under section 25 B (4) of DRC Act for seeking leave to defend inter alia upon following grounds : 2.1 That no legal notice dated 03.07.2013 issued by late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta was ever received by him and no eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act was filed earlier which amply demonstrates that alleged bonafide requirement of petitioner is not bonafide. 2.2 That as evident from his reply dated 02.11.2015, negotiations were under way for reconstruction of first floor and petitioner's father late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta had in principle agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ as compensation for damage caused due to demolition of roof of the shop without his consent.
2.3 That no discussion for vacating tenanted shop on account of bonafide personal need of any family member of late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta took place throughout the course of negotiations rather petitioner's father had even agreed to let out the shop to respondent by executing fresh lease deed at market rate.
2.4 That draft agreement was sent to late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta via email on 01.06.2015 which demonstrates that negotiations were aimed at permitting respondent to continue in tenanted shop and in return he would not object to putting up pillars inside the shop for commencing construction on the first floor which would not have been possible in case of actual and bonafide need of either late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta or any of his family member to use the shop for earning their livelihood. 2.5 That allegations of blackmail and harassment are wrong and Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 4 of 12 denied as negotiations between respondent and petitioner's father took place to give consent for putting up pillars inside the shop to reconstruct the first floor on payment of compensation for damage caused to his goods stored in the shop.
2.6 That petitioner's averment about residing on rent alongwith his sisters since February 2013 has no relevance as shop being commercial in nature cannot be used for residence and petitioner can invoke separate legal remedies in case he is aggrieved by respondent's action preventing reconstruction of the first floor. 2.7 That petitioner has falsely stated about no vocation or job in hand whereas other averments about depending upon his unmarried sisters for daily expenses, etc. and marriage of one sister to be solemnized in January 2016 are denied for want of knowledge. 2.8 That petitioner's case of bonafide requirement of shop for earning livelihood for meeting his expenses and obligations is false as petitioner wants to evict him for making profit by selling the premises and had earlier demanded Rs. 30,00,000/ for selling the property but respondent in turn offered to purchase the property for Rs. 20,00,000/. 2.9 That petitioner has admitted about 50 % undivided share in adjacent shop no. 3888 under tenancy of Sh. Arvinder Singh having same dimensions which is equally well suited for petitioner' purpose yet he has chosen to proceed against respondent for reasons best known to him. 2.10 That alleged bonafide requirement of petitioner is blatantly false and not sustainable as business in the area of Roshanara Road has declined since last two decades which is no longer suitable for conducting business of auto parts and business has shifted to other parts of city such Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 5 of 12 as Kashmiri Gate and Karol Bagh.
3. Petitioner has filed his reply alongwith affidavit for disputing respondent's averments and for seeking dismissal of his application for leave to defend. Respondent, thereafter, has filed his rejoinder for reiterating the grounds raised in his leave to defend application.
4. Advocate Sh. Manmeet Singh for petitioner and Advocate Sh. Rohan Thawani for respondent have addressed their submissions by relying upon judgments in support of their respective contentions.
5. Having heard their submissions, it would be apt to allude to well settled principle of law that leave to defend is granted to tenant only in cases where triable issues are raised by respondent in his affidavit which can be adjudicated through additional evidence or else the whole purpose and import of summary procedure under section 25 B of DRC Act would be defeated.
6. It would, therefore, be apt to allude to dichotomy in respondent's application for leave to defend in as much as petitioner's averments at the very outset have been denied by respondent in para no. 2 of the application notwithstanding the fact that averments in paras no. 1 to 16 have been subsequently admitted in his parawise reply on merits.
7. Further, it is evident from respondent's reply to para no. 18
(a) (i) of the petition which were reiterated in his rejoinder to petitioner's reply for asserting about cheques issued towards monthly rent read alongwith his averments about negotiations with petitioner's father which amply establishes the fact of landlordtenant relationship between the parties.
8. Respondent's plea disputing petitioner's bonafide requirement Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 6 of 12 of tenanted shop by alluding to negotiations with petitioner's father for permitting him to continue in tenanted shop upon fresh lease deed at market rate in return for not objecting to putting up pillars inside the shop does not constitute any triable issue as negotiations were under way for reconstruction of first floor in lieu of compensation and not for vacating the tenanted shop on account of bonafide need of any family member of late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta. Respondent's claim for compensation, if any, is not relevant in the present context and he can seek his legal remedy through separate legal proceedings.
9. Petitioner on the other hand claims to be sitting idle having no job and is forced to depend upon the earnings of his unmarried sisters for his daily expenses, food, clothing, medicines and monthly rentals of premises used for residence since February 2013. Further, it is also significant to note that respondent has disputed petitioner's averments for want of knowledge and has not produced any document or material for verifying his contention disputing petitioner's averment of having no vocation or job.
10. Therefore, petitioner's bonafide requirement for tenanted shop for starting business of auto parts for earning his livelihood and for meeting his daily expenses and moral obligations after death of his father late Sh. Ajit Kumar Gupta gets reinforced as he cannot be expected to remain idle and dependent upon earnings of his unmarried sisters despite being a B. Tech in Mechanical and Automation Engineering from I. P. Engineering, Delhi.
11. Further, petitioner's contention that tenanted shop is required for putting pillars / RCB columns for reconstruction of first floor and Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 7 of 12 onwards which is presently lying in rubbles / demolished state forcing him and his sisters to stay in rented accommodation since February 2013 cannot be neglected either.
12. As regards respondent's contention disputing petitioner's bonafide requirement for tenanted shop by claiming that no discussion for vacating the shop took place throughout the course of negotiations with petitioner's father and no eviction petition was filed earlier after alleged notice dated 03.07.2013, it would be apt to allude to para no. 21 of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled "Rajesh Jain Vs. Qazi Shamim Ahmed & Ors" 2015 (2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 438 holding : "Life does not come to a standstill and its enjoyment cannot be mortgaged to the prosecution of an eviction petition. Bonafide need for tenanted premises can arise with due passage of time or even overnight due to sudden change in circumstances. All that the landlord would then need to show is that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation to satisfy his need."
13. Petitioner's counsel has relied upon judgments titled "Sharifuddin Vs. Babuddin and Anr." 2009 (107) DRJ 253 ;
"Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co."
(1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1 and "AeroTraders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Singh & Anr." 2014 (140) DRJ 560 for asserting petitioner's bonafide requirement for tenanted shop for starting his independent business.
Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 8 of 1214. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para no. 13 of its judgment in case titled "Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Ramesh Chand Gupta" (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 222 has held : "A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any settings of the fact and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. The judge of facts should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself - whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide."
15. Similarly, respondents' plea disputing petitioner's requirement by claiming that petitioner wants to evict him for making profit by selling the property does not constitute any triable issue as section 19 of the Act ensures his interest to reenter the tenanted shop in case the premises are not occupied by petitioner within two months of obtaining possession Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 9 of 12 or are relet to any person other than the tenant within a period of three years without obtaining permission of the Controller.
16. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in para no. 8 of its judgment tilted "Sh. Vinod Kumar Bhalla Vs. Sh. Nanak Singh" AIR 1982 (2) 715 has held : "The allegations regarding the intention of the respondent to sell or relet the property are also vague. Experience has shown in that all applications for leave to defend the common defence raised by almost all the tenants, is that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent or to sell the property after getting it vacated. Such type of allegations are generally without any foundation. When an order of eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act is passed, the tenant is granted six month's time to vacate the premises under Section 14 (7) of the Act. After getting the premises vacated the landlord is required to occupy the same within two months under Section 19 of the Act and he is not entitled to relet or alienate the whole or any part of the tenancy premises within three years from the date of obtaining possession from the tenant. In other words, it would mean that the landlord is required to keep the premises for a period of three years with him. He would thus be not in a position either to sell the house or to relet the same. The allegations of the alleged intention to sell or relet Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 10 of 12 do not require consideration at this stage. If the landlord sells the property or relets the same after obtaining possession, the tenant may proceed against the landlord for restoration of possession under Section 19 of the Act. This section is sufficient protection to the tenant against the alleged sale or re letting of the premises by the landlord".
17. Similar finding was returned by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled "Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Sunil Gupta & Ors" 211 (2014) Delhi Law Times 11 (CL) by holding that tenant's apprehension that landlord was motivated by desire to release it only for higher rent would be taken care by section 19 of DRC Act and hence no triable issue was made out.
18. Finally, respondent's plea with respect to shop no. 3888 under tenancy of Sh. Arvinder Singh having same dimensions does not constitute any triable ground as petitioner has categorically averred about 50 % undivided share in the adjacent shop and further it is well settled principle of law that tenant cannot dictate terms to his landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises.
19. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment titled "Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd." (1998) 8 SCC 1919 has held : "That the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlord's requirement is not bonafide. When the landlord shows a prima facie Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 11 of 12 case a presumption that the requirement is bonafide is available to be drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite necessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
20. Hence, in the absence of any triable issue, respondent's application filed under section 25 B (4) of DRC Act is dismissed and eviction order is accordingly passed against him in respect shop no. 3887, Roshanara Road, Delhi measuring about 10 ft (front) x 34 ft (depth) approx. more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed by petitioner.
This order shall however not be executed within a period of six months from today as per section 14 (7) of DRC Act.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Tarun Yogesh)
Dated 22nd July, 2016 SCJCumRC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.
Sh. Sidhant Gupta Vs. Sh. Harjit Singh Sahni Page 12 of 12