Delhi District Court
Mohit Arora vs Komal Garg on 8 January, 2024
RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
In the Court of Ms. Neetu Nagar, JSCC cum Additional SCJ cum
Guardian Judge, South East District, Saket District Court, Delhi
(the then Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi)
E-114/19
RC ARC 737/19
Mohit Arora
S/o Late Rajinder Prasad
R/o House No. 287,
Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk,
Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006. ... Petitioner
Versus
1 Smt. Komal Garg (since deceased)
through her legal representatives
1A-Sh. Devender Singh (Husband)
1B-Sh. Vedant (Son)
1C- Baby Bani (represented through her father Sh.
Devender Singh being a minor)
2. Smt. Shruti Gupta
W/o Shri Ankit Gupta
D/o Late Kailash Devi
All R/o D-143, Prashant Vihar, Delhi-110085
3. Neetu Aggarwal
w/o Shri Ajay Aggarwal
D/o Late Kailash Devi
4. Smt. Ritu Aggarwal
w/o Shri Deepak Aggarwal
D/o Late Kailash Devi
5. Smt. Jyoti Gupta
(NEETU NAGAR)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts
(the then ARC-02, Central District, THC)
Page no.1 of 22
RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
w/o Shri Jitender Gupta
D/o Late Kailash Devi
All R/o II/165 to 166 and 203 to 232,
Private No. 32B, First Floor,
Om Bhawan, Coronation Building,
Fateh Puri, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006. ... Respondents
******
ORDER
1. This order of mine shall dispose off an application under Section 25(B)(4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "DRC Act") for seeking leave to defend filed by the respondents.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of leave to defend application can be enunciated as follows:
2.1 The present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of DRC Act in respect of premises (in short "tenanted premises") consisting of one room at first floor of property (in short 'subject property') bearing private number 32-B First Floor, 165 to 166 and 203 to 232, Om Bhawan, Corporation Building, Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 in Ward No.II, measuring 25.08 sq. meter of 18'×15' as shown in red colour in site plan(s) annexed with the petition.
2.2 It is averred by the petitioner that after the death of his father, the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises which was let out for residential purposes on monthly rent of Rs.300/ - per month but now same is lying locked as the mother of respondents namely Smt. Kailash Devi died and after her death, the tenancy devolved on the present respondents.
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.2 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
2.3 It is averred that in respect of one room, the respondents built up illegally one chajja and has put extra load towards the road which has caused serious risk to building and passerby. It is submitted that the respondents shifted to Shahdara somewhere and have not disclosed their whereabouts.
2.4 It is stated that the subject property was purchased by the father of petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 26.03.2008 who had also sent a legal notice dated 09.12.2009 vide which rent was demanded from the date of the purchase of property and ownership was claimed by him but the respondent neither respondent to the said notice and nor paid rent to the petitioner inspite of repeated requests and demands of the petitioner.
2.5 It is stated that the father of petitioner filed a petition before the Slum Authority under section 19 (1) (a) of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance), Act 1956 which was allowed on 13.01.2012 granting the permission to file eviction petition.
2.6 It is averred that the petitioner is running his business in the name of M/s Arora Electrical Co. for sale/resale of battery as well as repair of all electrical appliances and also used to take contract for electricity work/fitting etc. from kiosk (Wooden Khokha) at 27, Coronation Building, Om Bhawan, Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006 having size 10' x10'. The petitioner is also having 2-3 labours who are working under him. It is claimed that the said premises is very small and the petitioner has no place, where he can keep his equipments/tools as well as other articles. It is averred that the tenanted property is situated nearby the present working place of the (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.3 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
petitioner and thus required bonafide for running the business. Hence, the instant petition for eviction of the tenanted premises.
3. Summons were served upon the respondents. No leave to defend application has been filed by respondent no. 3 and the same was jointly filed by respondents no. 1,2, 4 and 5 with document (s) alongwith separate detailed affidavit, by taking following grounds inter alia which can be outlined as follows.
4. It is claimed that the answering respondents/tenants have not attorned in favour of the petitioner. Infact, M/s Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. was the owner of the property in question under which the mother of the answering respondents was the tenant under the name and style of Goyal Agencies of which late Smt. Kailash Devi was the sole Proprietor.
4.1 It is claimed that the sale deed dated 25.3.2008 is under challenge in one suit bearing No.C.S.(O.S.) 3164/2014 filed by M/s.Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. against its directors and others in which the sale of the shop bearing NO.44A- 44B, Coronation Building has been challenged as there is no resolution passed in favour of Sh. Kailash Nath by M/s.Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. and the answering respondents are trying to find out whether any suit has been filed by M/s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. challenging the present sale deed also.
4.2 It is submitted that the petitioner has concealed the material facts to the effect that the premises in question was let out by M/s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. for commercial purposes and not for residential purpose.
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.4 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
4.3 It is claimed that the present petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the other legal heirs of Late Sh. Rajender Prasad Arora have not been impleaded in the present petition.
4.3 It is averred that the petitioner has concealed the facts that he is having various properties in Chandni Chowk Area as detailed in the application and also inherited various properties from his father late Shri Rajendra Prasad but has not mentioned the same.
4.4 It is averred that the petition filed before the Slum Authority was illegal as mother of the answering respondents had already expired in the year 2005. Therefore, the said order dated 13.1.2012 is nullity in law.
4.5 It is denied that the petitioner is having small space for running his business. It is claimed that the petitioner has also got vacant possession of so many properties and let out w.e.f. 2017 to 2019. It was submitted that the value of the tenanted premises has been increased manifold in respect of rent and therefore, the petitioner will let out again the same to get a handsome rent.
4.6 It is claimed that the petitioner has also purchased number of other properties in the name of his wife namely Smt.Preeti Arora in and around Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
4.7 It is averred that the petitioner has given wrong area 25x8 sq. meters. It is stated that the correct name is Coronation Hotel and correct municipal number of the tenanted premises is 206/32, First Floor and not third floor. Rest of the contentions of the petition have been denied in toto. It has been prayed that the application for leave to defend be allowed.
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.5 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
5. The application is contested by the petitioners by way of a written reply and counter affidavit, wherein the contents of the petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed and the same need not be reproduced for the sake of brevity.
5.1 Additionally, it is submitted that the litigations filed by M/s Om Oil Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. were withdrawn, hence there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the petitioner.
5.2 It is specifically submitted that the property in question was let out to the mother of the answering respondents for residential purpose only but later on it was commercialized, as the area of subject property falls under residential as well as commercial area. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, the petitioner became absolute owner of the subject property, as there is no other legal heirs of his father except the petitioner herein.
5.3 It is next submitted that the petitioner is having only some properties which have been detailed in the reply and has no concern with the rest of the properties as mentioned in the application for leave to defend.
5.4 It is specifically submitted that the order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the Slum Authority has not been challenged by the answering respondents .
5.5 It is stated that the wife of the petitioner is self-employed lady and having her own properties as her stridhen and the petitioner has no concern at all with the same. It has been submitted that in the place of third floor, same be read as first floor. It is stated that no triable issue/issues has/have been raised by the respondents in their leave to defend application, hence, the same is required to be (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.6 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
dismissed. Consequently, eviction order be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
6. Rejoinder was filed by the respondents to the reply of leave to defend application of petitioners reaffirming and reaverring the facts which he stated in the leave to defend application alongwith his detailed affidavit. Additionally, it was submitted that the site plan of the petitioner is incorrect.
7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the material on record carefully. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of both the parties.
8. The present petition for eviction is under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India", on 16.04.2008 reads as under :-
14.(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 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 the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
* * *
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation 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 that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation :
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.7 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
9. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioners must establish the following ingredients:-
(i) That he is the owner of the tenanted shop and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent.
(ii) That tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(iii) Petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
10. It is now well settled that while deciding the question of the grant of leave to contest under the provisions of section 25B of Act 59 of 1958, the Rent Controller should see the affidavit filed by the tenant and the counter affidavit filed by the landlord. The Controller is not required to conduct a full fledged trial and should only see that if the affidavit of the tenant raise any triable point the decision on which may disentitle the landlord from recovering possession of the premises. At the time of the decision on the question of leave, the Controller is not required to seek the proof of the defence of the tenant. The tenant should only disclose such facts in his affidavit that would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession of the disputed premises. At the stage of granting the leave to defend, the Rent Controller should confine himself to the affidavit and reply, if any. The controller does not have the task of testing the veracity of the issues raised by the tenant, since that stage of the case will arise only after a leave to defend application has been allowed . The level of proof at this stage is that of a prima facie case. Reference at this point can be made to the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.8 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
"Precision Steel Engineering Works and Anr. Versus v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, 1982 (2) RCR 544: AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1518", wherein it was held that:-
"If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown."
11. Further, the above cited case also poses a statutory duty on the Controller to grant leave to defend, if the tenant is able to disclose certain facts which would have to be tested at a later stage. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under:
"Statutory duty is cast on the Controller to give leave as the legislature uses the expression 'the Controller shall give' to the tenant leave to contest if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord for an order for recovery of possession. The Controller has to look at the affidavit of the tenant seeking leave to contest. Browsing through the affidavit if there emerges averment - of facts which on a trial, if believed, would non-suit the landlord, leave ought to be granted. Let it be made clear that the statute is not cast in a negative form by enacting that the Controller shall refuse to give to the tenant leave to contest the application unless the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.9 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
etc.... The language of sub-section 5 of section 25B casts a statutory duty on the Controller to give to the tenant leave to contest the application, the only precondition for exercise of jurisdiction being that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of 13; possession of the premises on the ground mentioned in section 14(1) (e)."
12. Let us now discuss the facts and circumstances of the present case keeping the principle of law as discussed above.
I. Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is the sole owner of the subject property having inherited the same from his father late Shri Rajendra Prasad. Same is disputed by the respondents. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the respondents have not attorned in favour of petitioner. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner has relied on the certified copy of the sale deed executed on 25.03.2008 and registered on 26.03.2008 in respect of the subject property comprising of tenanted premises wherein the name of the vendor has been clearly mentioned as Shri Rajendra Prasad son of late Shri Bhagwan Das (father of the petitioner ) and the name of vendee is M/s Om Oil Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd who is admittedly the landlord of the respondents. Hence, by operation of law, the transferee gets into the shoes of the erstwhile owner and the respondents have become tenants under the transferee and no attornment is thus required. Reliance in this regard is placed on case law titled as Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman (2002) (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.10 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
6 SCC 1, Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta Vs. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul (1997) 5 SCC 329 and Mohar Singh Vs. Devi Charan (1988) 3 SCC 63 that on transfer of tenanted premises by the landlord, the transferee automatically becomes the landlord of the tenant by operation of law and the coming into being of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the transferee and tenant is not dependent upon any overt act on the part of the tenant. Hence, contention of the respondents in this regard totally fails.
13. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner is the son of late Shri Rajendra Prasad. Hence, the subject property is owned by the father of the petitioner meaning thereby that the ownership has devolved upon the petitioner due to inheritance. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that there are other legal heirs of late Shri Rajendra Prasad but the names of the other legal heirs have not been divulged by the respondents. Even if for the sake of arguments it is assumed that there are other co-owners qua subject property even in that scenario the present petition is maintainable as it is settled law that even a co-owner can maintain an eviction petition.
14. In the rent control matters, the proceedings are summary in nature and only landlord-tenant relationship is to be seen. Thus, the law as applicable in a case of co-owner in rent control and eviction proceedings will prevail. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain, 2006 (2)SCC 724, para 10 and 11, relevant extract of which are quoted as under:
"10. This question now stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Indian Umbrella Mfg. Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla, 2004 (3) SCC 178 wherein this Court opined (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.11 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
(SCC p.183 para 6):
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co- owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement. In the present case, the suit was filed by both the co-owners. One of the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway the suit so as to prejudice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the suit and the entitlement of the co- owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of institution of the suit; the only exception being when by virtue of a subsequent event the entitlement of the body of co-owners to eject the tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation of law."
A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, is maintainable in law. It is not necessary for the co- owner to show before initiating the eviction proceeding before the Rent Controller that he had taken option or consent of the other co-owners. However, in the event, a co-owner objects thereto, the same may be a relevant fact."
15. No objection has been filed during the pendency of the present eviction petition by other other legal heirs, if any. Much reliance was placed upon suit filed by M/s Om Oil Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. but the same has been withdrawn and documents relating thereto has been placed on record by the petitioner and there is no rebuttal to the same in the rejoinder. Hence, it seems that the dispute regarding ownership and landlord -tenant relationship has (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.12 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
been raised by the respondents only for namesake.
16. Hence, it has transpired that the petitioner is the legal heir of the the owner of the subject property which devolved upon him after the death of his father Late Sh. Rajinder Prashad and there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the present petition by operation of law. Hence, there is no triable issues regarding the same.
II. Bonafide need and availability of alternate reasonable accommodation
17. As far as bona fide need of the petitioner is concerned, it has been stated that the petitioner is running his business in the name of M/s Arora Electrical Co. for sale/resale of battery as well as repair of all electrical appliances having size 10' x 10' and also having 2-3 labours who are working under him. From the size of the said premises, it is amply clear that it is small. There is nothing on record that the petitioner has any other suitable place of business, where he can keep his equipments/tools as well as other articles. Moreover, the tenanted premises is situated nearby the present working place of the petitioner and thus, the bonafide requirement for running the business by the petitioner can not be doubted. In this regard, reliance can be placed on case tiled as Balwant P. Doshi Vs Shantaben Dhirailal Shah &Ar 2003 (2) Bom CR 190, wherein the coordinate bench has held that the Courts cannot ordinarily doubt the bonafide need of the landlord nor the Courts can dictate to the landlord as to how the premise owned by him should be used. It is sufficient for the landlord to express his desire to occupy the premises owned by him. It is not necessary for the landlord to establish the dire (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.13 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
necessity but it is enough to show that some need exists.
18. It has been next argued that the petitioner is having various other properties in his name and that of his wife but there is nothing on record to prove the same. No counter site plan has been brought on record by the respondents to show any vacant portions, if any in the said alleged properties. Mere vague pleas has been raised by the respondents in this regard. Merely mentioning the details of the properties is not sufficient. It was required to be stated by the respondent that said properties despite availability is not occupied by the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner has given detail of three properties in his ownership other than the subject property. One property is under the tenancy of tenant namely Shyam Lal and the case is pending against the said property and the said facts are not disputed. Another property is in the occupation of another tenant namely Mohit. Hence, the said properties are not available being tenanted. Then there is another property which has been detailed by the petitioner as Mustail no. Tin Shade No. 2/3 and 2A/3, property no. II/165 to 156 and 203/232, Coronation Hotel Building, third floor, Chandni Chowk. It has been stated that it is in inhabitable condition on third floor. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the said third floor is available, the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for storing his articles and the same being on third floor is not only inconvenient but unsuitable from every corner hence, the said property cannot be treated as sufficient and alternate accommodation. Hence, there is no triable issue regarding the same.
19. Moreover, the properties in the name of his wife can not be treated as being owned or available to the petitioner in the absence (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.14 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
of any details pertaining to the same. Besides making self-serving assertions in the application for leave to detend, no credible material which can be believed by the Court has come on record for the Court to even have a prima facie opinion that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodation. If such oral assertions are believed and on its basis, leave to defend is granted, in all cases, the respondents will be successful in obtaining leave to defend the case by merely alleging that the landlord has other properties available. No material has been placed on record by the respondents to establish that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodations available for use by the petitioner.
20. In the case of Rajender Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Leela Wati 155 (2008) DLT 383, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the respondents tenants have to place on record some material in support of the assertions made in the application for leave to defend. In this context, the following was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 161 (2010) DLT 80:
"However, merely because the tenant so disputes and controverts the pleas of the landlord does not imply that the provision of summary procedure introduced in the Act with respect to ground of eviction on the ground of requirement is to be set at naught... The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bonafide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.15 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
genuine."
21. In the case of K.K. Sarin Vs. M/s Pigott Chapman & Co. 46 (1992) DLT 352, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held the following:
"Due to paucity of accommodation in Delhi the tenants are likely to plead facts and if they are held to be raising triable issue in every case, hardly any application seeking leave to defend would fail. This certainly is not the idea behind this provision. While deciding the application seeking leave, what is required of the Rent Controller is to observe the rules of natural justice and to give opportunity to both the parties to produce the affidavits and material on which they rely. When leave to defend is sought, the tenant must make out a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge."
22. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the case of Mohd. Naseer Vs. Mohd. Zaheer and Anr. RC Rev. No. 267/2016 dated 03.11.2016 in which the following was held:
«19. ...Mere raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a ground for being granted leave to defend to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the petitioners have given facts or particulars which require to be established by way of evidence. The petitioners have merely made allegations for the sake of making allegation. There is no merit in the said plea of the petitioner.
20. The trial court has rightly concluded that the petitioners have failed to place on record any material to raise a suspicion that the respondents are having a vacant space on the ground floor of the suit property which can be used by them to open his workshop for industrial tools."
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.16 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
23. At the cost of repetition, bald assertions have been made by the respondents in the present case that the petitioner has other accommodation available for use for his requirement. In view of the aforementioned decisions, it was for the respondents to place on record material to establish that the petitioner has other accommodations which are indeed vacant and available with them. Having failed to do so, there is no reason to disbelieve that the petitioner do not have alternative suitable accommodations his commercial need. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has other premises available for his requirements as stated in the petition, even then the choice is left to the landlords / petitioner to decide as to which of the said premises he should use for his requirement and the tenants do not have any say in this matter. In the case of Ravichandran and Ors. Vs Natrajan Nadar and Ors. (2004) 1 MLJ 458, the following was held:
"Even assuming that other premises are available, then the choice is left to the landlord to decide as to which non-residential premises he should occupy, and the tenant cannot have any say in the matter. If the landlord is able to show the bonafide, then the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord that he should occupy some other building and not the one mentioned in the petition."
24. In the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, it was held as under:
"The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonable suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.17 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
accommodation, the entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonable suitable, obviously in comparison with the suitable accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safely of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come..."
25. Hence, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has concealed material facts and properties and has not come to the court with clean hands totally fails in the absence of any material in this regard. It was next averred on behalf of the respondents that wrong dimension of the tenanted premises has been mentioned in the site plan. Meaning thereby that the respondents do not seem to controvert the remaining site plan. Hence, even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the dimensions of the tenanted shop as stated by petitioner is incorrect, the same will not come to the rescue of the respondents as the petitioner needs the tenanted premises for storage purposes and hence, the size thereof will have much bearing if the need of the petitioner is satisfied therefrom.
26. In Balwant Singh @ Bant singh V Sudarshan Kumar, 2021 SCC Online SC 114, it was held that 'the adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate'.
27. It is well settled law that it is the petitioner himself/ herself, who is the best person to explain as to what is his/ her bona- fide necessity. As per the petitioner, in the case in hand, the tenanted (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.18 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
premises is required bonafidely as he is not having any other suitable and reasonable accommodation available with him throughout Delhi for his commercial need. It does not make any difference if the tenanted premises were let out for residential or commercial purposes. Moreover, it is not necessary to take permission from the Slum Authority as the present case is for eviction on the basis of bonafide need under section 14 (1)(e) DRC Act and hence, even if the permission has been obtained illegally, the same is totally immaterial being unnecessary to file the present eviction petition. Hence, there is no merit in the said contentions and the same is unsustainable.
28. Hence, in these circumstances, the need of the petitioner not only seems to be genuine but greater than the respondents.
29. It is well settled that once the petitioner is able to show that he is the owner and landlord of the demised premises and the premises in question are required for his bonafide necessity, the court shall not view the bonafide necessity of the petitioner with suspicion. In so far as the question of necessity is concerned, the law is well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his necessity and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Therefore, a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord regarding his necessity. Reliance in this regard can be placed on case law titled as Balwant Singh alias Bant Singh and Anr. V. Sudarshan Kumar and Anr., 2021 SCC Online SC 114, it has been held as under:-
"11. On the above aspect, 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...."
30. Similarly, in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v.
(NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.19 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
Vimalabai Prabhulal, (2005) 8SCC 252, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"4. 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."
31. In Sudesh Kumari Soni v. Prabha Khanna, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1128, inter alia, it held as under:-
"25. 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 bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
26. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. In view of well settled law, I hold that accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient as against total family members. Hence the petitioner has made out a case under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act and is entitled for relief claimed."
32. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anita Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain 2023/DHC/000068 held as under (relevant paras 12-15):
"12. Even otherwise, it is not for the petitioner/tenant to insist that the respondent/landlord must seek to occupy/ carry out business from the adjacent shop in preference over the tenanted premises. The law is well settled that it is not for the tenant to (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.20 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
dictate terms to the landlord as to how he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises.
33. It was next contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner wants to sell/let out the tenanted premises. Here it would be relevant to state that the said apprehension is already taken care of in the DRC Act itself by our legislative forefathers while enacting the laws who have already considered possibility of misuse in the hands of unscrupulous landlords and thereby inserted Section 19 of DRC Act which reads as follows:-
"Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the premises having been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, relet to any person than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller such tenant can be put back to the premises or can be paid such compensation as the Controller thinks fit."
34. Hence, if the requirement of landlord is not bonafide and if a landlord abuses the process of the court, obtains an order of eviction, subsequently lets out the property or sells the same, the tenant can always apply for restitution under section 19 of the DRC Act. Merely stating in the affidavit that the application for eviction has been made with mala fide intention is not sufficient to sustain the contention of the respondents.
35. In view of above discussion and the documents filed by the parties, this court is of the considered view that there is no triable issue between the parties which entitles the respondents for leave to (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.21 of 22 RC ARC 737/19 Mohit Arora Vs. Komal Garg & Ors.
contest the present application for eviction. The application for leave to contest is without merit and the same is dismissed.
36. In view of the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958, this order for recovery of possession of premises shall not be executed before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
37. Hence, the present petition for eviction is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises consisting of one room at first floor of subject property bearing private number 32-B First Floor, 165 to 166 and 203 to 232, Om Bhawan, Corporation Building, Fatehpuri, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 in Ward No.II, measuring 25.08 sq. meter of 18'×15' as shown in red colour in site plan(s) annexed with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
38. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
39. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by NEETUAnnounced in the open Court NEETU NAGAR
Date:
on 08.01.2023 NAGAR 2024.01.08
17:31:45
+0530
(This judgment contains 22 pages)
(Neetu Nagar)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East
Saket Courts: New Delhi
(the then ARC-02, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi).
(NEETU NAGAR)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) Page no.22 of 22