Delhi District Court
Sh. Santosh Kumar (Son) vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh on 28 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No.- 25290/2016
Sh. Niranjan Lal
Through his LR.s
1. Sh. Santosh Kumar (son)
S/o Late Niranjan Lal
2. Sh. Jai Kishan (Grandson)
S/o Sh. Munshi Ram
3. Sh. Punit Sharma (Grandson)
S/o Late Mohan Lal
All R/o A-143, Hari Nagar,
Clock Tower, New Delhi-110064. ...... Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Paramjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh
Shop At:A-143, Hari Nagar
Clock Tower,
New Delhi-110064.
Also at: B-137, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi-18.
..... Respondent
Date of Filing : 20.07.2012
Date of Judgment : 28.01.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Present case is a petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises, i.e. a shop bearing No. A-143, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, New ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 1 of 19 Delhi, as shown in red in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
2. In the present petition, it is averred by the petitioner that the respondent was inducted as tenant in respect of one shop in the premises bearing No.A-143, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, New Delhi by the petitioner. That the petitioner has no other commercial accommodation anywhere in Delhi or in India except the tenanted premises. That the family of the petitioner is comprising three sons and three grandsons. One grandson of the petitioner has just completed a course from Industrial Training Institute and is of marriageable age and wants to start his own shop/business as he is jobless and the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for his grandson to start his own business. That even, another grandson of the petitioner is doing photo lamination work having no shop for the said business and is doing the said work from residential accommodation/house. That the petitioner also wants to give some space in the tenanted premises to the said grandson in order to establish himself and to increase his business and earnings. That the petitioner being the owner of the tenanted shop needs the same bonafidely for his grandsons, who want to start their shop/business from the tenanted premises.
Lastly, it is prayed by the petitioner that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
3. Notice of the eviction petition was sent to the respondent. In response to which, the respondent filed detailed leave to defend application along with accompanied affidavit which was ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 2 of 19 allowed ultimately and the respondent was given an opportunity to file Written Statement.
4. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia contended that respondent is not a resident of A-143, Hari Nagar, New Delhi as stated in the memo of parties but only a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. A-143, Hari Nagar, New Delhi since 1983. That the Petitioner has rented out his premises to A-143, Hari Nagar to two firms M/s J.K. Engineering Works and M/s Ashoka Mechanical Works having its office at A-143, GF, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, New Delhi. That M/s J.K. Engineering Works has a bank account bearing no. 17295 in United Bank of India Gopal/Fateh Nagar, New Delhi wherein the address mentioned is of the tenanted premises. That earlier, there was another shop adjacent to the tenanted premises and next to entrance gate as shown in the site plan which was dismantled before filing of the present case in order to show false bonafide U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. That the aforesaid firm i.e. M/s Ashoka Mechanical Works was in fact operating out of the shop which was dismantled before filing of the present case to carve out grounds of bonafide requirement and this fact can be seen from the ledger of M/s Partap Finance (an old firm of the respondent) from whom M/s Ashoka Mechanical had obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2007 vide cheque nos. 723795 and 723796 for running business on the guarantee of the petitioner as landlord as well as of Ms. Anita Sharma, daughter-in-law of the petitioner. That Sh. Yash Pal Sharma and Sh. Puneet Sharma both along with Sh. Mohan Lal (now deceased) are contractors and are in the business of repairs of Army trucks at 505, Delhi Cantonment. That Sh.
ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 3 of 19Puneet is actively involved in business and is doing business in the name and style of M/s J.K. Engineering Works from A-143, G.F, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
It is further averred by the respondent that Sh. Yash Pal Sharma is also a contractor and is running M/s Yash Engineering Works and is also in the business of repair of Army trucks at 505, Delhi Cantonment. That the petitioner owns a house in Rewari (Haryana) and has a plot also in Rewari. That Sh. Yash Pal Sharma and Sh. Puneet Sharma both along with Sh. Mohan Lal (now deceased) and Ms. Anita Sharma (daughter in law of the petitioner) are contractors and are in the business of repairs of Army trucks at 505, Delhi Cantonment. That the petitioner has another shop, from which he is earning rent as can be seen from the rent receipts. That the rent receipt issued bearing no.142 was issued for a sum of Rs.5,000/- in favour of another tenant i.e. M/s Ashoka Mechanical Works which was personally seen by the respondent.
Lastly, it is prayed by the respondent that present petition may be dismissed with costs.
5. Thereafter, after completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for Petitioner's Evidence/P.E. Petitioner examined PW1 Sh. Puneet Sharma by way of affidavit and he relied upon the photocopy of Will dated 11.03.2013 Mark-A and site plan of the suit property bearing No. A-143, Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, New Delhi-64 Ex.PW1/A. Petitioner also examined Sh. Jai Kishan who also relied upon the site plan already Ex.PW1/A.
6. Evidence was also led by the respondent, who examined himself as RW-1, Smt. Anita Sharma as RW-2, Sh. Vijay Grover ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 4 of 19 as RW-3, Sh. Deepak Kumar Barnwal as RW-4, Sh. Puneet, LDC from Sales Tax Department as RW-5 and Sh. C.J.L Bangar as RW-6.All the witnesses were also cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Thereafter, Respondent's Evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have carefully gone through the testimonies, documents, material on record and case law relied upon.
8. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his 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."
As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 5 of 19
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
9. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) & (ii). Landlordship/Ownership:-
10. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the petitioner has claimed to be owner and landlord of the tenanted premises. On the other hand, the respondent has not disputed the landlordship and ownership of the petitioner qua tenanted premises.
As such, these two ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act are satisfied.
(iii) & (iv). Bonafide requirement and Alternative accommodation:-
11. It is expedient to discuss some case law on these ingredients which are as under:-
In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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 ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 6 of 19 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 requirement of the landlord in 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 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."
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. 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 ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 7 of 19 they come."
In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC
353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
The moral duty of a father/mother to help establish his/her son/daughter was also recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal" [AIR 2002 SC 2256] in the following words:
"24........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 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. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
In case titled as "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta"
[2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi)], it has been held that the children are very much dependent on the landlord for the ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 8 of 19 purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one.
In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 wherein it was held that:-
"It will be seen that the trial court and the appellate court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement" to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity". According to them, if the plaintiff had not permanently lost his job on account of the lockout or if he had not resigned his job, he could not be treated as a person without any means of livelihood, as contended by him and hence not entitled to an order for possession of the shop. This test, in our view, is not the proper test. A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. The manner in which the courts have gone into the meaning of "lockout" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 appears to us to be nothing but a perverse approach to the problem. One cannot imagine that a landlord who is in service should first resign his job and wait for the unknown and uncertain result of a long-drawn litigation. If he resigned his job, he might indeed end up in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the long-drawn litigation he started some other temporary water business to sustain himself, that would not be an indication that the need for establishing a grocery shop was not a bona fide or a reasonable requirement or that it was motivated or was a mere design to evict the tenant".
In the case titled as Ram Babu Agarwal vs. Jay Kishan Das 2009(2) RCR 455, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 9 of 19"However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also."
In the case titled as Lajpat Rai Vs Raman Jain 2012 Law suit (Del) 1439, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"The facts have been disclosed by the petitioners himself in the eviction petition; the petitioners also being a commerce graduate from the Shri Ram College of Commerce seeks an independent business of his own; thus this need to set up a business of his own cannot be in any manner be said to be imaginative or a need which is moonshine; it is a genuine need; the present petitioners having inherited this shop from his grandmother by virtue of the aforenoted Will wishes to set up his own business of rubber and latex which he was earlier carrying on with his father and in which he has gained expertise and knowledge. Thus in no manner can it be said that this need of the landlord is not a bonafide need. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement; it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to him; neither the Court tell him the manner he wishes to set up his business."
12. Perusal of record shows that in the present case, the petitioner has sought the tenanted premises for bonafide ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 10 of 19 commercial requirement of his grandsons Sh. Yashpal Sharma and Sh. Puneet Sharma and particularly for Sh. Puneet Sharma.
On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that the petitioner has rented out premises No. A-143, Hari Nagar to two firms M/s J.K. Engineerings and M/s Ashoka Mechanical works having its office at A-143, Ground Gloor, Hari Nagar, Delhi. The further claim of the respondent is that M/s J.K. Engineerings has a bank account wherein address mentioned is of the tenanted premises.
The another claim of the respondent is that earlier there was another shop adjacent to the tenanted premises which was dismantled before filing of present petition to show false bonafide. That Ashok Mechanical Works was operating out of the shop which was dismantled and this can be seen from the Ledger of M/s Pratap Finance (An old firm of the respondent) from whom M/s Ashok Mechanicals had obtained loan in the year 2007.
The next contention of the respondent is that Sh. Yashpal Sharma and Sh. Puneet Sharma are contractors and are in business of repairs of Army Trucks at 505, Delhi Cantt. That Sh. Puneet Sharma is doing business in the name and style of M/s J.K. Engineerings from A-143, Ground floor, Hari Nagar, Delhi and Sh. Yashpal Sharma is also running M/s Yashpal Engineerings Works and in business of repairs Army Trucks at 505, Delhi Cantt.
The another claim of the respondent is that the petitioner is having another tenanted shop i.e. in favour of Ashok Engineerings Work.
ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 11 of 1913. As such, the perusal of the record clearly shows that respondent has claimed that all the grandsons i.e. Sh. Sanjay, Sh. Yashpal and Sh. Puneet Sharma are already doing business and work and they are not unemployed.
14. On the other hand, the petitioner has himself has stated in his eviction petition that one of the grandsons i.e. Sh. Sanjay is already doing the work of photo lamination from residential accommodation as he has no shop for doing that work.
15. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has sought the tenanted premises basically for satisfying the commercial bonafide requirement of his grandson Sh. Puneet Shama, who has completed ITI Course but jobless and is of marriageable age.
The claim of the petitioner is that petitioner wants the tenanted premises for Sh. Puneet Sharma for starting his own business.
I have perused the replication filed by the petitioner which shows that in the replication to the W.S., the petitioner has claimed that his daughter in law Smt. Anita Sharma wife of Sh. Mohan Lal is doing business in the name of M/s J.K. Engineerings and put a Board on the outer wall of house A-143, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
16. As far as M/s Ashoka Mechanical is concerned, the stand of the petitioner in the replication is that Sh. Rajeev Sharma son of brother in law of the petitioner who was running a firm in the name of M/s Ashoka Mechanicals was to open a bank account at Fateh Nagar. So, the petitioner allowed his relative Sh.
ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 12 of 19Rajeev Sharma to use his address i.e. A-143, for correspondence of his firm and to open the bank account and issued a rent receipt of bearing No. 142 but no space was provided to Sh. Rajeev Sharma or his firm M/s Ashoka Mechanical Works and the rent receipt was issued merely to get bank account opened by Sh. Rajeev Sharma.
Moreover, the stand of the petitioner is that Sh. Yashpal Sharma under compelling circumstances was to get an office on rent to run his business of Contractorship at BE-Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi as Sh. Yashpal is petty supplier and supplied in 505 Base Army. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner is that mother of Sh. Puneet Sharma is running M/s J.K. Engineerings and Sh. Puneet Sharma is assisting his mother Smt. Anita Sharma.
It is reiterated in his replication by the petitioner which was filed on 15.01.2016 that Sh. Puneet is not doing any business and is jobless.
17. I have carefully and minutely gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence of PW-1 Sh. Puneet Sharma which is as under:-
"I can read and write English language. I am fully conversant with the facts of this case. At present I am running business in the name of M/s J.K. Engineering Works as proprietor since 2013 or 2014. I have been filing my income tax returns since 2014-2015. I am maintaining accounts books, bills, correspondence etc. Before me, Ms. Anita Sharma was the proprietor of this firm. Ms. Anita Sharma is not related to me in any manner. She was brought by my father. It is wrong to suggest that Ms. Anita Sharma is my step mother. It is correct that I along with my uncle Sh. Santosh Kumar and cousin brother Sh. Jai Kishan have filed several cases pending in different courts at Tis ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 13 of 19 Hazari Courts. I am no longer assisting Ms. Anita Sharma in the business. I used to assist Ms. Anita Sharma by maintaining correspondence and purchasing goods from outside and supplying the goods to other parties including 505, Delhi Cantt. It is wrong to suggest that Late Sh. Niranjan Lal had not executed any Will in my favour and in favour of Sh. Santosh Kumar and Sh. Jai Kishan. It is wrong to suggest that under the board of M/s J.K. Engineering Works in Ex.PW2/D1 and D2 there existed another shop which was dismantled prior to filing of this case. I have no idea about Ex.PW1/D1 as I was very young in 2007. At this stage, witness is shown ledger maintained by M/s Pratap Finance Co. which was earlier run by the respondent and witness was shown at point A some signatures of Sh. Niranjan Lal to which the witness shows his inability. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the signatures of Late Sh. Niranjan Lal. It is correct that Ex.PW1/D3 bears my writing and signature. At this stage, Ex.PW1/D4 has been shown and asked whether it is the certificate issued by United Bank of India in favour of Ashoka Mechanical which is a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- given by respondent and his wife to Ashoka Mechanical. Witness replied that he has no knowledge. ....
.....I do not know who formed/started M/s J.K. Engineering Works. Vol. Sh. Babu Lal who is father in law of my cousin Ms. Neeru Sharma may have formed it. My father Late Sh. Mohan Lal generally remained at home and used to attend business calls of M/s J.K. Engineering Works. I do not know in which capacity my father used to attend business of M/s J.K. Engineering Works. It is wrong to suggest that Late Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma was a proprietor of M/s J.K. Engineering works.....
.....I maintained regular books of accounts, bill books etc. of M/s J.K. Engineering Works. I have not brought the records today. I can bring the above said documents from the date I took over as proprietor. I was aged about 3/4 years when Ms. Anita was brought by my father. I do not want to say anything whether the petitioner has admitted that Ms. Anita is wife of Late Sh. Mohan Lal and daughter in law of the petitioner in the present case. Ms. Anita Sharma used to run this firm from outside but premises bearing No.A-143, Hari Nagar, Delhi was being used for correspondence and registration with sales tax department. It is correct that the same address A-143, Hari Nagar, Delhi is registered with 505, Delhi Cantt, Indian Army. I and Ms. Anita both reside in separate rooms on ground floor. It is wrong to suggest that respondent is ready to make ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 14 of 19 payment of rent but I along with Sh. Santosh and Sh. Jai Kishan have refused to accept the same. I have completed my course from ITI. I have not produced any document showing completion. I can produced the same on the next date. It is wrong to suggest that there is another commercial space from where I am running the business of M/s J.K. Engineering Works. I can not identify the signature of my late grand father on Ex.PW1/D5 (colly) (two pages). I have no idea whether the receipts Ex.PW1/D5 issued by the petitioner/late grand father. I do not have the receipt book bearing receipts no. 140 to 144. It is wrong to suggest that I am in possession of the receipt book bearing no.
140 to 144.....
....At this stage, the witness is shown the document Mark-A2 and asks is it correct that on the document Mark-A2, the name of firm M/s J.K. Engg. Works is registered with Sale Tax Department having its address at F-338, Gali No. 22, Sadh Nagar Part-II, Palam Colony, Delhi.
The witness replies that I have purchased the said firm on 11.06.2013, so I can tell only after that period and before this period, I cannot tell or comment on the same.
At this stage, the witness is shown the site plan Ex. PW-1/A and the witness admits that in between the room and the tenanted premises, there is a small toilet at point X, which is not reflected in the site plan.
I know Sh. Rajiv Sharma only by name. I do not know whether Sh. Rajiv Sharma was running a firm in the name of M/s Ashoka Mechanical Firm from A- 143, Hari Nagar, New Delhi....
....It is correct that I along with Sh. Santosh Kumar and Sh. Jai Kishan refused to accept the rent for the period from January 2018 till date. I do not know whether the rent receipt bearing No. 142 issued by my grandfather in the year 2009 in favour of M/s Ashoka Mechanical Works for Rs. 5,000/-. I have no knowledge whether the document Mark-A3 has been issued to my grandfather by United bank of India, Fateh Nagar Branch."
18. Perusal of testimony of Sh. Puneet Sharma, PW-1 manifestly shows that he himself has admitted during the cross examination that he is running business in the name of M/s J.K. Engineerings Works since 2013 or 2014.
ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 15 of 19As such, the claim of the petitioner made in the replication which was filed in the year 2016 has become false claim, as to the unemployment of Sh. Puneet Sharma in the year 2016. Moreover, PW-1 has also admitted that Smt. Anita Sharma was the proprietor of M/S J.K. Engineerings Works before him. In addition to this, he has also admitted that he has been involved in assisting Smt. Anita Sharma in 505, Delhi Cantt.
19. Perusal of testimony clearly shows that he has stated the specific date i.e. 11.06.2013 of the purchase of J.K. Engineerings Works. As far as stand of the petitioner as to using the address of A-143, Hari Nagar for opening the bank account in the name of Ashoka Mechanicals is concerned, PW-1 Sh. Puneet Sharma has not denied during the cross examination that Sh. Rajeev Sharma has not run a firm in the name of Ashoka Mechanical from A-143, Hari Nagar.
As such. PW-1 has impliedly admitted this fact of running Ashoka Mechanical by Sh. Rajiv Sharma. Moreover, in the replication itself, the petitioner has admitted to have issued rent receipt to Sh. Rajeev Sharma. Although, the petitioner has claimed to have issued such rent receipt to Sh. Rajiv Sharma to use this address i.e. A-143, only for the purposes of opening the bank account but nothing cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record to prove this fact.
As far as the course from ITI completed by Sh. Puneet Sharma is concerned, although the petitioner has claimed it in his petition but he has not placed any document to substantiate this fact. Moreover, during cross examination, PW-1 Sh. Puneet Sharma himself has deposed that he has not produced any document to show completion of such course.
ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 16 of 1920. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has claimed that petitioner is having a plot and accommodation in Rewari. But in my considered view, this court is not required to consider whether the petitioner is having accommodation or not. This court is required to consider whether the petitioner is having alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation in Delhi or not.
Perusal of record clearly shows that Sh. Puneet Sharma is already having alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation as he is already running J.K. Engineerings from the suit property itself and that too exclusively. It is not the case of Sh. Puneet Sharma that he is running the business with some other persons and wants to run it exclusively on his own. Moreover, it is not the case of petitioner that Sh. Puneet Sharma wants to expand his business.
Perusal of eviction petition shows that petitioner has sought the tenanted premises to satisfy the bonafide commercial requirement of his grandson Sh. Puneet Sharma and has claimed that he is jobless. The petitioner has not sought the tenanted premises for Sh. Sanjay and Sh. Yashpal Sharma. Moreover, the petitioner himself has stated in his replication that Sh. Sanjay and Yashpal are already doing the job/business.
21. It is well settled that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And the concept of bonafide need or genuine ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 17 of 19 requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
It is well settled that the need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner should be bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.
Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in favour of the landlord also and the courts should not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their perception carried away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of eviction.
22. I have placed myself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And I have also applied a practical approach instructed by the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement. But, in view of discussions as earlier and well settled proposition of law, I am of the considered view that the need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner in the present case is not bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.
23. In my view, the choice and the proclaimed need is whimsical and merely fanciful. As such, it is clear that the purpose of petitioner is merely to get the tenanted premises vacated and not to use it commercially.
ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 18 of 19CONCLUSION:-
24. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled position of law and the reasons as discussed earlier, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to prove all the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)
(e) of D.R.C. Act. As such, the present eviction petition stands dismissed.
25. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed Announced in the open Court AJAY by AJAY NAGAR on 28th January, 2020 Date: (This judgment contains 19 pages) NAGAR 2020.01.28 16:24:13 +0530 (Ajay Nagar) Additional Rent Controller, West District, THC, Delhi. ARC No. 25290/2016 Sh. Niranjan Lal through LRs Vs Sh. Paramjeet Singh Page 19 of 19