Delhi District Court
Sh. B. S. Grover vs Sh. Rinku Gupta on 3 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER SINGH,
SCJ-CUM-RC (NORTH), ROHINI COURT,
DELHI
In the matter of :-
1. Sh. B. S. Grover
S/o Sh. Chaman Lal Grover
R/o F - 7/2, Model Town - II,
Delhi - 110009.
2. Smt. Sharad Rekha Grover
W/o Sh. Chaman Lal Grover
R/o F - 7/2, Model Town - II,
Delhi - 110009.
Through Sh. Sanjay Grover
S/o Sh. B. S. Grover,
R/o F - 7/2, Model Town - II,
Delhi - 110009.
....Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Rinku Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta
R/o R - 34, Model Town - II,
Delhi - 110009.
2. Sh. Manish Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta
R/o R - 34, Model Town - II,
Delhi - 110009.
3. Smt. Rukmani Devi
W/o Late Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta
R/o R - 34, Model Town - II,
Delhi - 110009.
4. Smt. Ritu Gupta
D/o Late Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta
R/o R - 34, Model Town - II,
Delhi - 110009.
....Respondents
RC ARC 10-22 1 of 18
B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNT 0300 0847 2022
RC ARC No. 10-22
Eviction of tenant U/s 14 (1)(e) r/w Under Section Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Date of institution 29/04/2022 Date of reserving 31/01/2023 for order Date of final order 03/04/2023 Eviction petition is allowed / Final order Leave to defend application is dismissed.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the Leave to Defend Application filed by the respondents against the present eviction petition filed by the petitioners under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (herein referred as DRC Act 1958).
PLEADINGS OF THE PARTIES Petition
2. It is the case of petitioners that they are owners of one shop on ground floor shown in Pink Colour in the Site Plan at property bearing No. F - 7/2, RC ARC 10-22 2 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others Model Town - II, Delhi - 110009 ad measuring 81.14 Sq. Yards (herein after referred as suit property). The suit property was rented out by its erstwhile owner to Sh. Ishwar Chand Gupta in the year, 1965 for running a paper plate factory which has already been shut down on 23/01/2013 in consequence of proceedings under Section 133 Cr. P. C. by the North MCD. Since then, the property is being used by the respondents i.e. the LRs of earlier tenant for dumping and storage and no employees of respondents are working at the suit property.
The suit property is comprised of one shop in front side of Ganpati Market, F - 7/2, Model Town - II, Dehi - 110009. The per month rent excluding electricity charges and property tax is Rs. 175/- per month since the year 1965. The respondents are not paying the rent since April, 2011.
The petitioners have two married sons namely Sh. Sanjay Grover and Sh. Vivek Grover. They have one married daughter namely Smt. Archana. The elder son Sh. Sanjay Grover is a freelance photographer. He has one son namely Diwakar Grover who is pursuing graduation from correspondence.
Earlier the elder son Sh. Sanjay Grover was doing the work of photographer with his father Sh. B. S. Grover in the name and style "Grover Movies" but due to old age now Sh. B. S. Grover has stopped working as he is 86 years of age and suffering RC ARC 10-22 3 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others with various old age ailments including heart disease. He had also been in contact with COVID - 19 and due to this, he was admitted in Delhi Heart & Lung Institute for several days. Due to COVID and owing to poor demand compounded by the problems and restrictions, the business of elder son of petitioners came to halt.
During COVID times, the petitioners were able to sustain themselves from the rent received by them from their godowns and the adjacent shop to the suit property. The adjacent shop to the suit property has been rented out for more than 10 years. The godowns have also been given on rent on regular basis and it is the sole source of income to petitioners to cater their needs at the old age.
The younger son of petitioners namely Sh. Vivek Grover has been operating office from a small mezzanine above the shop having size 8-9 ft. X 11.6 ft. The elder son Sh. Sanjay Grover is entirely into a different field of work therefore it is not possible to work from the said mezzanine floor. Now, the elder son Sh. Sanjay Grover alongwith his son Sh. Diwakar Grover wants to open a digital photo studio in the market. The elder son Sh. Sanjay Grover possess vast and rich experience of photography and videography, therefore he requires the suit property which is situated in the main Ganpati Marker, New Delhi for opening new photo studio alongwith his son.
RC ARC 10-22 4 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others There is no vacant shop either of the petitioners or of Sh. Sanjay Grover himself from where he can operate his own business.
The respondents are not paying rent since April, 2011. They have also changed the purpose of using the suit premises without intimation and permission of petitioners as they have converted the suit property into a warehouse / godown / dumping place and using it merely as a store room.
The respondents have been running the business under the name and style of Delhi Paper Products and have several other properties of their own. The right adjacent shop of the suit property belongs to the respondents and they have used the same for their purpose.
The godowns on the rear side of the suit property are not suitable for opening photo studio as the rear portion is residential one and the front portion where the suit property is situated is commercial property. The son of Sh. Sanjay Grover is tech savy and wants to initiate the work of corporate team photography, product photography, commercial photography, event photography, photo lamination and many more.
The adjacent shop of the petitioners is on rent to a salon for the last more than 10 years. The small godown on the back side of the suit property has a poor location and the same cannot be considered as a RC ARC 10-22 5 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others suitable alternative accommodation. The another small godown on the back side of the suit property is also on rent and it also cannot be suitably used for opening photo studio. On the other hand,the suit property has potential to seek customers and the business of son and grand son of petitioners can flourish there. In view of abovesaid, the petitioners have prayed for getting vacate the suit property.
The respondents were served and leave to defend application has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 with detailed affidavits having the grounds for allowing leave to defend application. No leave to defend application was filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 - Ritu Gupta.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
3. The respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 have challenged the Eviction Petition on following grounds :-
1. That the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands.
2. The petitioners since purchase of the suit property in question are trying to get it vacate.
3. Another petition for bonafide requirement for residential purpose was also filed by the petitioners for the purpose of their another son namely Sh. Vivek Grover which was later on dismissed by the then RC ARC 10-22 6 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others Ld. Senior Civil Judge / Rent Controller Sh. Manish Gupta vide order dated 16/05/2013. In that case in cross-examination, the petitioner no. 1 had admitted that the said petition was filed for the requirement of Sh. Sanjay Grover i.e. the elder son for whose requirement the present petition is filed.
The petitioners have got vacated various portions of the suit property since the year 2001 till the year 2021 and they have let out the same at enhanced rent. Had there been any bonafide requirement of petitioners, then they would have not let out various portions to various tenants from time to time on enhanced rent. Thus, according to them, the requirement of petitioners is not bonafide. They have also contended that Sh. Sanjay Grover is not a duly constituted Power of Attorney holder of petitioners. With these contentions, the respondents have prayed for allowing the leave to defend application.
Reply to Leave to Defend Application
4. Detailed reply has been filed on behalf of petitioners. They have denied each and every contention of the respondents and reiterated the facts of their petition in the reply.
RC ARC 10-22 7 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others Rejoinder to Reply
5. Rejoinder to reply has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and they have also reiterated the facts of leave to defend application and further denied the contentions of petitioners.
6. The petitioners have relied upon following judgments :-
1. Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397,
2. Mohammed Sadiq Vs. Deepak Manglani, CA 8028 of 2022,
3. Antl Bajaj &Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja [(2014) 15 SCC 610],
4. Smt. Viran Wali Vs. Sh. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar [2010 (2) RCR (Rent) 571],
5. M/s John Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Dr. Surinder Singh & Ors. 135 (2006) Delhi Law Times 265 and
6. Siddalingamma & Anr. Vs. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 431.
7. The respondents have relied upon the following judgments :-
1. Electric Constructions & Equ. Co. Vs. Jagjit Electric Works decided on 03/04/1984.
RC ARC 10-22 8 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others Findings of the Court
8. I have gone through the judicial file and considered the arguments of both parties.
9. That for proving the case under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act 1958, the petitioners have to prove three facts which are as under :-
i) That there is landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and respondents.
ii) The petitioners require the tenanted premises bonafidely for their son Sanjay Grover & grandson Diwakar Grover who are dependent upon them.
iii) That, there is no other suitable accommodation for the purpose required by the petitioners with them.1.
That there is landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and respondents.
10. The respondents have admitted the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners and them.
RC ARC 10-22 9 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others 2. The petitioners require the tenanted premises bonafidely for their son Sanjay Grover & Grand Son Diwakar Grover who are dependent upon them.
11. The respondents have not challenged the fact that the son Sanjay Grover and grandson Diwakar Grover are dependent upon the petitioners. They have contended that the son Sanjay Grover is about 60 years old, therefore it cannot be assumed that he is sitting idle at home or that he is not settled till date. They have also contended that the grandson Diwakar Grover is still studying, therefore there is no requirement of petitioners as alleged by them by way of present petition.
It is the case of petitioners that earlier the son Sanjay Grover was working with petitioner no. 1 as photographer but now as the petitioner no. 1 is not in a condition to run a photographer shop, therefore the son Sanjay Grover is working as a free lancer without any office. Now, the son Sanjay Grover requires the tenanted premises to open a photo studio. The grandson Diwakar Grover though studying through correspondence but he has interest in photography and videography. He has great vision to flourish his business by pursuing the profession of photography, videography, mixing etc. The son Sanjay Grover and grandson Diwakar Grover can run their shop / photo RC ARC 10-22 10 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others studio from the tenanted premises very conveniently, therefore the petitioners require the tenanted premises bonafidely for the purpose of opening photo studio for their son and grandson.
According to them, the other portion available in the suit premises are on the back side of the suit property. The back portion is a residential area, however the front portion where the tenanted premises is situated is a market namely Ganpati Market.
The respondents have their own shop in the same market, which is adjacent to the shop of petitioners.
After careful perusal of the judicial file it is observed that the respondents have not denied this fact in their rejoinder to reply to leave to defend application or at any stage during the Court proceedings.
The respondents have failed to disclose any reason to doubt the requirement of petitioners. They have also failed to cast any doubt on the fact that the son Sanjay Grover and grandson Diwakar Grover are dependent upon petitioners.
Per contra, the petitioners have proved that the son and grandson are dependent upon them for the purpose of opening photo studio.
In "Surender Singh Vs Kamal Chand", 2018 VII Delhi 600 it is held that "requirement of RC ARC 10-22 11 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others member of family dependent upon the land-lord is the requirement of petitioner. Considering the social fabric the family may also include wife, husband, sister, children, married daughter, widowed daughter, her son, nephew, co-parcerners and their kith and kin".
In Section 14 (1) (e), DRC Act itself, it is mentioned that, "the premises let out for residential purposes are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family, dependent upon him, if he is the owner thereof." thus in the Act itself, the premises / suit property can be required by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family, dependent upon him. Considering the social conditions in our society it can not be said that the son and grandson are not dependent on Father / Grandfather. Therefore, the term family should be given a practical meaning and the need of family members is the need of the Landlord. Thus, these contentions of Ld. Counsel for respondents are rejected being merit-less.
3.That the need of petitioners is of additional accommodation only.
12. It has been argued on behalf of respondents that the case of the petitioners is of additional accommodation. According to them, there RC ARC 10-22 12 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others are various other portions in the same suit property which can be used by the petitioners for opening Photo Studio of their son as well as grandson.
Ld. Counsel for petitioners has vehemently opposed the contentions of Ld. Counsel for respondents. He argued that even though, the respondents do not have any right to dictate terms to petitioners to use their property in any particular manner but, then also according to him, the other portions of the suit property are not suitable / available with petitioners to accommodate their son and grandson to open the Photo Studio.
According to him, one shop on the ground floor, adjacent to suit property is already rented to a Salon for last about 10 years and the petitioners are able to survive from the rental income generated from the shop.
He has further contended that the small godown in the back side of the suit property is also rented and it is being used as godown. Further, it has a poor location and the same cannot be regarded as a suitable alternative accommodation for opening Photo Studio.
He has further contended that the another small godown in back side of the suit property is a store / godown and it has also been rented out and the same is also not suitable for opening Photo Studio which needs a proper front opening to attract the RC ARC 10-22 13 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others customers. Since the demised shop is in the main market, therefore it has much better potential than a godown on back side to attract customers.
Firstly, the petitioners have satisfactorily explained that the other portions in the suit premises are either not available or not suitable for the purpose required by the son and grandson of petitioners.
Secondly, the respondents have failed to disclose any other property in possession of petitioners, his son Sanjay Grover or in the possession of grandson Diwakar Grover for opening a Photo Studio. Rather they have conceded that they have their own shop in the same market which is adjacent to the demised shop.
Thirdly, it is purely the choice of the petitioners to choose as to which of the available properties is suitable for their need and they cannot be dictated in this regard by the tenant. The choice and suitability of the property, as pleaded by the petitioners, has to be believed and respected. Reliance can be placed on "Veeran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai", 2010 (2) RCR (Rent) 571, "Asiya Jamil Vs. Canara Bank", 2017 IX AD Delhi 499, "Manika Rani Ghosh Vs. Dharwinder Kaur", 2013 (I) AD Delhi 146, "M/s Sait Nagjee Purushottam Vs. Vimla Bai Prabhulal"
(2005) SCC 8 and "Dinesh Kumar Yusuf Ali", 2010 XI AD (SC) 585, wherein, it is held that the landlord has choice to choose place of business suitable for him and has complete freedom in this matter. The Court is RC ARC 10-22 14 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others not to examine viability of business from the tenanted premises to assess its profitability. It is not open to the Court or tenant as to how and what for, he should use the premises. Need of the petitioner is presumed to be genuine and bonafide. Tenant cannot dictate other property for use. It is the prerogative of the landlord as to in which location, he prefers to run business and Law should not and cannot prevent such preference by landlord to meet his requirement. Thus, the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for petitioners are found more convincible than the arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for respondents. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioners have malafidely filed present petition only to get evict the respondents and to get additional property or that the petitioners will sale or further hand over the suit property to someone else on enhanced rent.
CONCLUSION
13. The petitioners have categorically taken the plea that they do not have any other suitable premises for opening Photo Studio for their son and grandson. In "Mohd. Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand (2012) 2 SCC 155 the Hon'ble Apex Court" held as under :-
"That the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer RC ARC 10-22 15 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others by having moved out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that the respondent is in occupation of the premises for time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstances can not be sole determinative factor."
Further, in "Vidhya Dhari Bhagat Vs M/s Allahbad Law Journal Co. Ltd.", the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "If the tenant is evicted under section 14 (1) (e) 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 the possession, re-let to any person other than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller under sub section (1) of section 19 of the DRC Act or the possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the Controller to be bonafide, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit under Section 19(2) of DRC Act.
RC ARC 10-22 16 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others Thus, if the respondents are doing business in the rented premises for long time then the petitioners cannot be forced to remain out of their own premises even when they have genuine need of the same for starting business of their son and grandson who are dependent on them.
14. In view of aforesaid considerations, facts and circumstances, the petitioners have succeeded in proving that they are landlords and the respondents are their tenants in respect of the demised shop in suit property i.e. F - 7/2, Model Town - II, Delhi - 110009, specifically shown in Pink Colour in the Site Plan. They have also proved that the suit property is required for the bonafide requirement of their son Sh. Sanjay Grover & grandson Diwakar Grover, as alleged by them in the petition. They have also proved that their son and grandson are dependent upon them and there is no other suitable property to fulfill the requirements of petitioners / their son and grandson.
On the other hand, the respondents have failed to put forth any triable issues so that they are entitled to allow the leave to defend application, therefore the application under Section 25 B (4) i.e. the Leave to Defend Application of respondents is hereby dismissed and the petition of the petitioners is allowed.
RC ARC 10-22 17 of 18 B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others
15. In consequence of the same the respondents are directed to vacate the demised shop i.e. i.e. F - 7/2, Model Town - II, Delhi - 110009, specifically shown in Pink Colour in the Site Plan. It is hereby clarified that the Landlord / Petitioners shall not be entitled to obtain possession of the rented premises / suit property before the expiration of six months from the date of this order as per section 19(7) of DRC Act.
Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record-Room after compliance of order.
Announced in the open Court On this 03rd Day of April, 2023 (VIRENDER SINGH) SCJ-CUM-RC NORTH DISTRICT ROHINI COURT, DELHI It is certified that this order contains 18 pages and every page is signed by me.
(VIRENDER SINGH)
SCJ-CUM-RC
NORTH DISTRICT
ROHINI COURT, DELHI
RC ARC 10-22 18 of 18
B. S. Grover & Anr. Vs. Rinkoo Gupta & Others