Delhi District Court
Mohd. Anees vs Mohinder Kaur Grover on 22 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN, ARC-1,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Eviction Petition No. 99/2021
RC ARC NO. 517/2021
CNR NO. DLCT03-005702-2021
MOHD. ANEES,
S/o Late Sh. Abdul Hameed
R/o H. No. XIII/741-742,
Sheesh Mahal, Teliwara,
Azad Market, Delhi- 110006.
............Petitioner
Versus
MOHINDER KAUR GROVER
W/o Late Gurcharan Singh Grover,
R/o 23, Ishwar Colony,
Delhi - 110009.
Also at:
H. No. XIII/741-742, Ground Floor,
Sheesh Mahal, Teliwara,
Bahadurgarh Road,
Azad Market, Delhi - 110006. .........Respondent
Date of Institution of the case : 15.12.2021
Date of Judgment reserved : 06.11.2024
Date of Judgment pronounced : 22.11.2024
Under Section : 14 (1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act
JUDGMENT
This is an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (or in short "DRCA") filed by the petitioner against the respondent RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 1 of 21 PETITION
1. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner/landlord of property bearing no. 741-742, Ward No. XIII, situated at Sheesh Mahal, Teliwara Azad Market, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the "property in question"). It is pleaded that the erstwhile owner of property in question was Sh. Hakim Chand, who had purchased it from the Custodian Department. It is stated that petitioner has purchased the property in question from the sons of said Sh. Hakim Chand namely Sh. Mangat Ram and Sh. Tirath Ram. It is further averred that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the in respect of two rooms, measuring about 21'.0'' x 14'.9'' and 15'.6'' x 9'.0'' at the ground floor of property bearing no. 741-742, Ward No. XIII situated at Sheesh Mahal, Teliwara, Azad Market, Delhi. The same is shown with red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition(hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises") by the aforesaid Sh. Hakim Chand. The said tenanted premises was let out for residential purpose, however, the respondent is using it for commercial purpose. It is alleged that the petitioner's family consists of 14 members including himself. It is pleaded that petitioner has seven sons, out of which two sons are married. He also has two daughters out of which one daughter is married. Further, it is pleaded that the relatives of wife of the petitioner, relatives of the married daughter of the petitioner and relatives of the daughters-in-law of the petitioner visit the petitioner in the property in question and want to stay there on RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 2 of 21 festivals and other occasions but the petitioner is unable to accommodate them due to paucity of accommodation. Further, petitioner could not get married his five unmarried sons and one unmarried daughter because of paucity of accommodation. As such, family members of the petitioner are dependent upon him for residential purpose.
2. It is stated that presently the petitioner is in possession of one room with toilet, bathroom, store and a shop on the ground floor; three rooms with a store, one attached toilet and kitchen on the first floor and one room with toilet, kitchen and open space on the second floor of the property in question. Further, it is stated that another old tenant namely Mohd. Yunus is in possession of two rooms on first floor and a tin shed with open space on the second floor, of the property in question. Hence, it is pleaded that the aforesaid accommodation is not sufficient for meeting the requirements of the petitioner and his family members. Therefore, the petitioner requires at least two rooms for himself and for his wife and two rooms each for his two married sons and their families. Similary, he requires two rooms each for his other five unmarried sons and one unmarried daughter and one room is required for his married daughter. Further, there is no guest room, drawing room, worship room, dinning room, study room for children in the property in question. It is also pleaded that that the petitioner also owns a plot admeasuring about 50 sq. yards having one room and one tin shed on the ground floor only which is situated in khasra no. 335, abadi RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 3 of 21 of Sonia Vihar in Village Sadatpur, in the illaqa of Shahdara, Delhi, now known as Plot No. A-1056, Zero Pusta, Mangal Bazar Road, Sonia Vihar, Delhi but the said property is not reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. Thus, the petitioner is in genuine and bonafide need of the tenanted premises. Hence, this petition.
LEAVE TO DEFEND
3. After service of summons, leave to defend was filed on behalf of the respondent on 21.01.2022. In it, respondent averred that Sh. Mangat Ram and Sh. Tirath Ram (sons of Hakim Chand) are the joint owners of the property in question and the respondent has been making payment of rent to them. However, they have not issued any rent receipt in favour of the respondent despite his repeated requests and demands. Further, it was pleaded that the petitioner has claimed ownership on the basis of GPA/Agreement to Sell etc. but the said documents do not confer the title of ownership upon any person. Also, it was pleaded that petitioner has already got alternative accommodation in property in question itself since he has got vacated first floor in the property in question and the same is now lying vacant . Further, it was stated that the petitioner has raised illegal construction of three rooms on the second floor of the property in question which are also lying vacant and so the petitioner does not require the tenanted premises bonafidely. It was also pleaded that the petitioner himself has admitted that he is also the owner of another plot of land measuring 50 sq. yards forming part of Khasra No. 335, situated in the abadi RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 4 of 21 of Sonia Vihar in Village Sadatpur in illaqa Shahdara, Delhi and so he can construct four floors in the said property in collaboration with a builder in order to meet the bonafide requirement as alleged by him. Hence, there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner .
4. Thereafter, reply to the leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner wherein it was pleaded that that the respondent has admitted himself to be a tenant of previous owners Sh. Mangat Ram and Sh. Tirath Ram, both sons of late Sh. Hakim Chand and as such, now the respondent is estopped from denying the title of the petitioner who has purchased the property in question from Sh. Mangat Ram and Sh. Tirath Ram. Further, the averments of leave to defend application were denied and the averments of petition were re-affirmed.
5. After hearing arguments on both the parties, leave to defend application of the respondent was allowed vide order dt. 01.04.2024. Respondent was directed to file written statement within 30 days.
Written Statement
6. However, no written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent within 30 days. Further, respondent did not appear before the court as well. Hence, right of the respondent to file written statement was closed vide order dt. 19.07.2023.
RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 5 of 21TRIAL Petitioners' Evidence
7. In order to prove his case, petitioner Sh. Mohd. Anees examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex.PW1/1 (certified copy seen and returned) is photocopy of notice of the court issued from the court of Sh. Jitender Pratap Singh, Civil Judge to the petitioner.
2. Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) (certified copy seen and returned) are the photocopy of certified copy of plaint with affidavit and application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure with affidavit all dated 28.02.2013.
3. Ex. PW-1/3 (colly) (certified copy seen and returned) is the photocopy of certified copy of ordersheet dated 11.03.2013, 02.04.2013, 06.05.2013, 05.06.2013 and 13.08.2013.
4. Ex. PW-1/4 (colly) (certified copy seen and returned) is the photocopy of certified true copy of registered certificate of sale registered on 04.10.1961.
5. Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of GPA registered with consideration, agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit, possession letter, deed of will, another deed of Will executed by Mangat Ram & Tirath Ram in favour of petitioner all dated 30.11.2009 attested on 01.12.2009 and photocopy of relinquishment deed dated 16.11.1998.
6. Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) is photocopy of receipt of property/house tax dated 02.03.2021.
7. Ex. PW-1/7 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of GPA, RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 6 of 21 agreement to sell, receipt, registered deed of Will all dated 22.01.1996.
8. Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of petitioner.
9. Ex. PW-1/9 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Ameer Bano.
10. Ex. PW-1/10 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Mohd. Shahzad.
11. Ex. PW-1/11 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Nadra.
12. Ex. PW-1/12 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Khursheed Alam.
13. Ex. PW-1/13 (OSR) is photocopy of marriage invitation card of Khursheed Alam.
14. Ex. PW-1/14 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Faiz Alam.
15. Ex. PW-1/15 (OSR) is photocopy of result card of VIII class for the year 2002-2003 of Shabana.
16. Ex. PW-1/16 (OSR) is photocopy of Nikahnama of Shabana dated 31.08.2014.
17. Ex. PW-1/17 (OSR) is photocopy of translation of nikahnama from Urdu to English.
18. Ex. PW-1/18 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Mohd. Saqib.
19. Ex. PW-1/19 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Gulshan.
20. Ex. PW-1/20 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Abdul Qadir.
21. Ex. PW-1/21 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Mohd. Arbaaz.
22. Ex. PW-1/22 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Mohd. Sultan.
23. Ex. PW-1/23 (OSR) is photocopy of adhar card of Vareesha Ansari.RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 7 of 21
24. Ex. PW-1/24 (OSR) is photocopy of birth certificate of Vareesha Ansari.
25. Mark A is photocopy of legal notice dated 22.06.2021 (The document is de-exhibited as Ex. PW-1/25 and now marked as Mark A).
26. Ex. PW-1/26 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of postal receipt no. 6968811231801IN dated 23.05.2021 with tracking report dated 24.06.2021. The date of this postal receipt is written as 23.05.2021 in place of 23.06.2021 in my affidavit by typographical error.
27. Ex. PW-1/27 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of postal receipt no. 6968811231792IN dated 23.06.2021 with tracking report dated 24.06.2021.
28. Ex. PW-1/28 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of postal receipt no. 6968811231639IN dated 23.06.2021 with tracking report dated 24.06.2021.
29. Ex. PW-1/29 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of postal receipt no. 6968811231608IN dated 23.06.2021 with tracking report dated 24.06.2021.
30. Mark B is photocopy of another notice dated 22.06.2021. (The said document is de-exhibited as Ex. PW-1/30 and now marked as Mark B).
31. Ex. PW-1/31 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of postal receipt no. 6968811231585IN dated 23.06.2021 with tracking report dated 24.06.2021.
32. Ex. PW-1/32 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of postal receipt no.6968811231599IN dated 23.06.2021 with tracking report dated 24.06.2021.
33. Mark C is photocopy of corrigendum supplementary registered notice dated 29.06.2021. (The said document is de-exhibited as Ex. PW-1/33 and now marked as Mark C).
34. Ex. PW-1/34 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of postal receipt no. 6968811289832IN dated 01.07.2021 with RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 8 of 21 tracking report dated 02.07.2021.
35. Ex. PW-1/35 (colly) (OSR) is photocopy of postal receipt no. 6968811289846IN dated 01.07.2021 with tracking report dated 02.07.2021.
36. Ex. PW-1/36 is site plan of the tenanted premises in suit no. 741-742, Teliwara, Sheesh Mahal, Azad Market, Delhi.
37. Ex. PW-1/37 is the site plan of other plot /property no. 1056, Khasra No. 33, Zero Pushta, Mangal Bazaar, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
8. Since none was appearing on behalf of the respondent since 06.09.2022, respondent was proceeded ex-parte vide order dt. 07.03.2024 and hence no cross-examination of the petitioner was done.
9. Matter was then listed for ex-parte final arguments. Sh. M. Mohtram addressed submissions on behalf of the petitioner. But none appeared on behalf of respondent to advance arguments. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records carefully.
FINDINGS
10. In an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRCA, the petitioner/ landlord is required to show that :-
(i) He/she is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises
(ii) He/she requires the premises bonafide &
(iii) He/she has no other suitable alternative accommodation for this purpose.RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 9 of 21
Landlord-tenant relationship
11. As far as the landlord-tenant relationship is concerned, it has been submitted by the petitioner, that he purchased the property in question from the sons of erstwhile owner Hakim Chand who had purchased the same from the custodian department. In this regard, PW1 has relied upon Ex. PW1/4 i.e. certificate of sale in favour of erstwhile owner Hakim Chand who had purchased the same from Custodian Department. He has also relied upon Ex. PW1/5 (colly) i.e. registered GPA for consideration, agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit, possession letter, deeds of Will executed by the sons of Hakim Chand namely Mangat Ram and Tirath Ram in favour of petitioner, all dt. 30.11.2009 along with copy of relinquishment deed dt., 16.11.1998 executed by the daughters of Hakim Chand in favour of Mangat Ram and Tirath Ram. The respondent in the leave to defend application, has admitted that she is tenant in the premises. She has further admitted that Mangat Ram and Tirath Ram were the joint owners of the property and they were her landlords. She disputed the ownership of the present petitioner and objection was raised in the leave to defend that no ownership right is transferred in favour of the petitioner by way of documents Ex. PW1/5. But no written statement was filed by the respondent. Hence, the testimony of the petitioner has gone unchallenged. Further, in Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi reported as 157 (2009) DLT 450 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held:
".......... The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 10 of 21 can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent acts dishonestly.........".
12. The respondent has admitted in the leave to defend application that she was in possession of the premises in question as a tenant. By virtue of the documents Ex. PW1/5, ownership of the tenanted premises was transferred to the petitioner. Neither has the said documents been rebutted by way of any documents filed by the respondent nor is there any averment that the said documents have been cancelled. Besides if there was any dispute between the erstwhile owner and the petitioner, the same could have been decided in separate proceedings by the erstwhile owner taking recourse to appropriate remedies. It is not for the tenant to generate such issues between the erstwhile owner and the petitioner in the present proceedings, where the court is not to go into the issue of title. In this regard it is important to bear in mind the principle laid down in the case of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Teckchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 which is as follows:-
"The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 11 of 21 has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner.''
13. Hence, as held above, in case the tenant had any doubt regarding ownership, he could have filed an interpleader suit. Simply by denying petitioner's ownership without producing any contrary material, is not sufficient to rebutt the testimony of PW-1. Cases u/s 14(1)(e) DRC Act are not title cases involving disputes of title. Hence, ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the ownership of premises. She admittedly is only a tenant. Thus a tenant is estopped from challenging the ownership or denying the title of the landlord. Petitioner only has to show that he has a better title than that of the tenant. The contention that petitioner did not become aboslute owner by way of documents Ex. PW1/5 is of no assistance to the respondent as even an imperfect title is sufficient to maintain eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. It is well settled that a transferee of the landlord's rights, steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. Attornment in favour of the new landlord is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the landlord's rights and there is no such statutory requirement.
RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 12 of 21Reference may be made to the case of Hajee K. Assainar vs. Chacku Joseph AIR 1984 Ker 113. Further, it has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta Vs. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogulm, AIR 1997 SC 2437, that attornment by tenant is not necessary though desirable. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J.C. Mehra Vs. Smt. Kusum Gupta, 2004 7 AD (Delhi) 473. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that she never paid any rent to the petitioner and has never attorned to the petitioner is devoid of any merit.
14. Accordingly, it can be stated that the petitioner was the owner /landlord of the tenanted premises and the respondent was the tenant in the said premises and thus, the first ingredient of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in the present case, stands established.
Bonafide requirement
15. Moving forward, in order to succeed in his petition, petitioner was required to establish his bonafide need. In order to prove his case, he entered the witness box as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the petition. He deposed that he requires the tenanted premises for the residential purpose of his family consisting of fourteen members. Having gone through the testimony of PW1, I find the same to be consistent and reliable. No major contradictions have emerged therein. Petitioner was therefore able to discharge the initial onus placed upon him. It was for respondent to prove otherwise.
RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 13 of 2116. As far as the contention of the respondent is concerned that the requirement of landlord is not bonafide but fanciful for additional accommodation, it is a well settled principle that the tenant cannot dictate to the landlord how much space is adequate for landlord or how best to use the tenanted premises or even to adjust in some other premises. In this regard, reliance is to be placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Praveen & Anr. Vs. Mulak Raj & Ors. RC Rev. 417/2016 in which it was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that "the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and is the best person to decide which property is to be utilized in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilize his property. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises.
Essentially, the courts refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord's choices (residential or commercial)".
17. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Balwant Singh v.
Sudarshan Kumar" [(2021) 15 SCC 75] has held that "it is not for RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 14 of 21 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". Besides in Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Prem Machinery & Company (2000) 1 SCC 679, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.
18. The main defence of the respondent on the basis of which respondent had contested the case is that the petitioner already has sufficient accommodation available with him and he has concealed in the petition the fact that he has already got vacant possession of two rooms on the first floor and a tin shed on open space on the second floor of the property in question, indicating his lack of bonafide. However, vaguely pleading that petitioner has other properties available with him and that his need is not bonafide without producing any evidence in support thereof is not sufficient to dislodge the case of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme court in Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 has held that whenever a landlord seeks eviction of the tenant for bonafide need, the controller shall presume the need as genuine and bonfide. Additionally, the burden to refute the said presumption squarely lies on the tenant and mere assertion on the part of tenant is insufficient. The testimony of the petitioner that the aforesaid portion is in the possession of another tenant namely Mohd. Yusuf has gone unrebutted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said testimony of PW1. Hence, the said contention of the RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 15 of 21 respondent remains unproved.
19. Another contention which was raised by the respondent in the leave to defend application was that the petitioner has raised illegal construction of three rooms on the second floor of the property in question and the same are also lying vacant. Therefore, it was contended that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide. However, no counter site plan was filed by the respondent in this regard. Even the testimony of the petitioner has gone unrebutted as the respondent stopped appearing and did not file any written statement after the grant of leave to defend. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble High High Court in case titled as R. K. Bhatnagar vs. Sushila Bhargava & Ors., AIR 1987 DELHI 363 wherein it is held that when the party has not filed any counter site plan, the party cannot be entitled to challenge the correctness of the site plan on record. The basic dictum of law is that one who asserts must prove. Except for making bald averments, the respondent did not produce even an iota of evidence to prove her case. She never entered the witness box nor examined any witness. She also could not impeach the credibility of PW1 as the same has gone un-rebutted. No photographs of the second floor of the property nor any counter site plan was filed. Even otherwise, the provision of Section 19 (2) of DRC Act is to be emphasized which protects a tenant in case the 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 having obtained the RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 16 of 21 possession, the same are re-let to any other person within three years from the date of obtaining the possession. Hence, I find that, thus the petitioner has been able to establish their bonafide requirement for the tenanted premises.
Alternate Accommodation
20. With regard to the plea of alternative accommodation, it was pleaded by the respondent in the leave to defend application that the petitioner has another premises at Sonia Vihar. However, petitioner has categorically deposed that the said property at Sonia Vihar consists of only one room and one tin shed on the ground floor only and is therefore, not sufficient to meet the needs of the petitioner. In order to substantiate his averments that the property at Sonia Vihar is suitable alternative accommodation, the respondent has not filed anything on record. The respondent could have filed some evidence in the form of photographs etc to show that sufficient space/rooms are available in the property at Sonia Vihar and that they are lying vacant, however, that has not been done by the respondent. Nothing has been filed on behalf of the respondent, to show that the said property at Sonia Vihar would be more suited for the requirement of the petitioner and his family members rather than property in question. In M M Quasim vs/ Manohar Lal Sharma, (1981) 3 SCC 36, the Apex Court has that the landlord does not have an unfettered right to choose the premises but merely showing that the landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession may not be sufficient to negative the landlord's RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 17 of 21 claim if the vacant premises were not suitable for the purpose for which he required the premises. It is trite to state that an alternative accommodation, to entail denial of claim of landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with tenanted premises, wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. For this, convenience and safety of landlord and his family members would be relevant factor. In the present case, since the landlord is already residing in another part of subject premises, therefore, the tenanted premises would be most suitable for needs of family members of petitioner/landlord. Per contra, no material is there on record in order to substantiate the contentions of the respondent that property at Sonia Vihar is more suitable for the petitioner.
21. With respect to the contention of the respondent that the petitioner can construct four floors in the said property at Sonia Vihar in collaboration with the builder in order to meet the bonafide requirement as alleged by the petitioner, it is trite to state that the tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how he must use his property and therefore he cannot direct the landlord to carry out construction in the the alternative property in order to make it suitable. It is pertinent to note here the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abid-ul-Islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua, Civil Appeal No. 9444 of 2016 where it was stated by the Hon'ble court that requirement is the existence of bona fide need, when there is no other "reasonably suitable accommodation". Therefore, there has to be satisfaction on two grounds, namely, (i) the requirement being RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 18 of 21 bona fide and (ii) the non-availability of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Such reasonableness along with suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant.
22. In a society like ours, parents often see it as their moral obligation to settle even their adult children and make them economically independent. To discharge such obligation, if tenanted premises are required by the landlord, such requirement would be considered as the requirement of landlord. Present petition is for the bonafide need of petitioner for his residence as well as that of his family members. Petitioner/PW1 has categorically deposed that he does not have any alternative suitable accommodation where the family members can reside together. Further, the petitioner along with his family is already residing in the property in question and the tenant therefore, cannot dictate to the landlord to shift to another property and that too, when the said property admittedly is not sufficient to accommodate the family of the petitioner. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner can enter into collaboration agreement with builder for construction of four floors to meet the requirement of his family, itself results in the inference/admission on the part of respondent that the property at Sonia Vihar at present is not suitable alternative accommodation.
23. It is a well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of the property should be available to the RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 19 of 21 petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. The property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be reasonably suitable property. Respondent has not been able to disprove the case of landlord/petitioner. Being the landlord, it is petitioner's discretion to choose which premises would suit his overall requirements and if he feels that the tenanted premises is his best option, there is no reason to interfere with such choice. Landlord being the best judge of his requirements, is already a settled principle of law. Thus, I find that the said property at Sonia Vihar cannot be stated to be an alternative suitable accommodation available to the petitioner, where he cannot be compelled to satisfy his requirement.
24. In view of aforementioned observations, I hold that the petitioner has been able to prove his case whereas respondent has not been able to establish his defence.
RELIEF
25. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and an eviction order u/s 14(1)(e), DRCA is passed in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent with respect to the tenanted premises i.e. two rooms, measuring about 21'.0'' x 14'.9'' and 15'.6'' x 9'.0'' at the ground floor of property bearing no. 741-742, Ward No. XIII situated at Sheesh Mahal, Teliwara, Azad Market, Delhi more specifically shown in red color in the site plan Ex. PW-1/36 annexed with the petition. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to obtain RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 20 of 21 possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order in terms of Section 14 (7) Delhi Rent Control Act.
No order as to cost.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RUPINDER RUPINDER SINGH
SINGH DHIMAN
Date: 2024.11.22
DHIMAN 11:07:08 +0530
(Announced in the Open Court) (RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN)
ARC-01, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
22.11.2024
RC ARC NO. 517/21 Mohd Amees Vs Mohinder Kaur Grover Page 21 of 21