Delhi District Court
Shri Raj Kumar vs Shri Gajraj Singh on 30 March, 2022
In the Court of SCJcumRC, (West District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by: Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar
RC ARC 25634/16
CNR Number: DLWT030005122013
In the matter of:
1. Shri Raj Kumar
2. Shri Rajesh
3. Shri Raju
4. Shri Amit
All S/o late Babu Ram
@ Iqbal Singh
5. Smt. Kaushalya Devi
W/o Late Hari Chand
6. Shri Rahul
7. Shri Ankur
Both sons of late Hari Chand
All R/o A1, Gali No. 10,
Sidharth Enclave,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi110059. ...........Petitioners
Versus
Shri Gajraj Singh
(Now Deceased)
Through Legal Heirs
1. Kamaljeet Singh (son)
S/o Late Gajraj Singh
R/o 46A/52, West Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi.
2. Tajinder Pal Singh Dhingra (Son
S/o Late Gajraj Singh
R/o 46A/52, West Punjabi Bagh,
RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 1 of 24
New Delhi.
3. Mrs. Raghubir Kaur (Daughter)
D/o Late Gajraj Singh
R/o RZS221, James Convent School,
Satsang Road, Nihal Vihar,
Nangloi, Delhi110041
4. Mrs. Jitender Kaur (Daughter)
D/o Late Gajraj Singh
R/o C163, Sushant LokI, Galleria DLFIV,
Gurugram, Haryana122009
5. Mrs. Maninder Kaur (Daughter)
D/o Late Gajraj Singh
R/o B5/16, Paschim Vihar West,
Delhi110063. ........Respondents
Date of institution : 10.10.2013
Date of reserved for judgment : 23.03.2022
Date of judgment : 30.03.2022
Decision : Petition allowed
JUDGMENT : Brief facts of the case
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioners against the respondent for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., One portion open courtyard towards south on ground floor measuring 55.3'x15' in property bearing no. B9, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, PhaseII, Mayapuri, New Delhi110064 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act').
2. The case of the petitioners is that originally the suit property RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 2 of 24 bearing no. B9, Rewari Line, Industrial Area, PhaseII, Mayapuri, New Delhi110064 was allotted in the name of M/s Babu Foundary Works, a partnership firm consisting of three partners namely Shri Ramji Lal S/o Shri Rewar Ram, Shri Krishan Lal S/o Shri Rewar Lal and Babu Ram S/o Shri Ramji Lal. The said partnership firm was dissolved in the year 1979. Thereafter Shri Babu Ram @ Iqbal Singh became sole and exclusive owner of the property in question, who expired on 26.07.1981. After his death, the property devolved upon his five sons namely Hari Chand and the petitioner no. 1 to 4. The petitioner no. 1 to 4 were minor at the time of execution of rent agreement with the respondent.
3. The respondent was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises in July 1983 by late Shri Hari Chand who was the elder brother of the petitioner no. 1 to 4, husband of the petitioner no. 5 and father of the petitioner no. 6 and 7. The petitioners are still issuing the rent receipts to the respondent which are duly counter signed by the respondent. Shri Hari Chand expired on 21.07.1995. After the death of Shri Hari Chand, the petitioners acquired ownership right of the suit property as the same is mutated in their names by the DDA vide its letter dated 25.02.2010. All the petitioners are coowners of the property in question.
4. The petitioners are at present residing in property H.No A1, Gali No.10, Siddhartha Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059 which is comprising of four rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, two latrines, and two bathrooms. The tenanted premises is required by the petitioners for the purpose of their bonafide requirement RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 3 of 24 of residence as the petitioners have no other sufficient, reasonable or suitable residential accommodation available to them except the tenanted premises. The petitioners are having huge family to accommodation but having highly insufficient accommodation at their disposal and therefore, facing paucity of accommodation.
5. The tenanted premises is near to the business place of the petitioner no.1, 3 and 4 and the same is reasonable and suitable to them for residing. Since the petitioner no.2, 6 and 7 are unemployed, therefore, they require the suit property for their commercial purpose also. The petitioner's family is Hindu by religion. Thus, they also require one room for Pooja and Prayer. In all, the petitioners require atleast 22 rooms besides atleast 7 kitchens, 7 bathroom, and 7 latrine for such a huge family but they are living in a very small accommodation which is not sufficient for their huge family. The petitioners at present are having only five rooms, two bathrooms, two latrines, one kitchen in property bearing H.NoA1, Gali No.10, Siddhartha Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59. Except this property, the petitioners are not having any other accommodation for their bonafide need of residence.
On the above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
6. The respondent filed leave to defend application, which was allowed vide order dated 18.01.2019 and the respondent was granted leave to contest the present eviction petition.
Written statement by respondent.
RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 4 of 247. Written statement was filed by the respondent denying the contentions made by the petitioner in the eviction petition stating that the present petition is not maintainable as there existed no relationship between the petitioners and the respondent as of landlord and tenant. The petitioners have come in their individual capacity while the respondent had/has been the tenant of M/s Babu Foundary Works which was a partnership firm in its legal entity. The legal heirship either of Babu Ram alias Iqbal Singh and Hari Chand son of Babu Ram alias Iqbal singh shall have nothing to do with the ownership of the lease hold property bearing no.B9, Rewari Lane, Industrial Area PhaseII, Mayapuri, New Delhi.
8. It is submitted that according to the petitioners, the property in question B9 is stated to have been allotted by the DDA in favor of and in the name of M/s Babu Foundary Works. The property bearing no. B 9, still existed in the name of M/s Babu Foundary Works. The petitioners thus have no legal connection regarding the ownership of the property in their individual capacity or status until and unless the petitioners are the legal partners of M/s Babu Foundary Works, the partnership firm. The partnership firm has to file the present eviction petition through the partners. The partnership firm neither has been impleaded as the proper and necessary party as copetitioners.
9. The petitioners throughout the petition in their pleadings deliberately have not mentioned the timetotime dissolution of the partnership firm, constitution of the further partners and its date, time RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 5 of 24 and place. More so, the petitioners have failed to disclose as to how the petitioners have acquired the individual rights on the basis of legal heir ship as well as survivorship of the legal heirs either of Babu Ram alias Iqbal Singh or Hari Chand. It is submitted that nowhere the petitioners have mentioned about the settlement of accounts of retired partners, either on account of death or otherwise, either at Will or through the notice of retirement as mentioned u/s 32 of Indian Partnership Act and the consequential acts and activities after dissolution as mentioned u/s 45 of Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner no. 1 to 4 happen to be the sons of late Shri Babu Ram alias Iqbal Singh who might have been one of the partners of M/s Babu Foundary Works. The legal heirship and the partnership have separate legal interpretation, legal status and legal scope.
10. The present petition has concealed the subsequent status of the partnership firm. Late Sh. Hari Chand also had two sisters who have not been mentioned or made party in the petition. The petitioner no. 5 also has daughters who may also be the legal heirs of late Shri Hari Chand. Neither Shri Babu Ram alias Iqbal Singh has mentioned himself as owner of the property while executing the previous agreement between Babu Ram alias Iqbal Singh and the respondent nor late Sh. Hari Chand had mentioned himself to be the owner of the property in question. Even the rent receipts upon which the petitioners are relying show the owner of property as M/s Babu Foundary Works which was / is the partnership firm. The petitioners neither have mentioned their names as owners/ RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 6 of 24 landlords in the rent receipts nor do they have any legal status and connection with the property in question.
11. The property in question was allotted by the DDA whereby the leasehold rights of the property were allotted in favour of and in the name of M/s Babu Foundary Works and still the legal status of the property in the records of the DDA is the same. The property would fall in the scenario and in the category of private property. The petition is also barred by Section 14(6) of DRC Act. The petitioners have acquired the rights of alleged ownership of the property in question by mutation in their name by the DDA vide its letter dated 25.02.2010. The petitioners have no enjoyed their alleged rights of ownership continuously for five years after it is acquired.
12. Further, the property no. B9 is admeasuring 400 sq. yards. There are more than three tenants in the property. The respondent is the tenant in the south portion of the property in an open portion. It is the petitioners who neither have shown the status, construction, accommodation available with the other tenants with their complete measurement nor have they shown if any legal proceedings for getting the other tenants evicted have been initiated or not. The petitioners neither have mentioned nor explained as to why the two third constructed portions has not been shown or sought to be taken or restored through the legal proceedings from the other tenants. The remaining portion of the plot is not only duly constructed but also consists of the first floor construction. The petitioners have claimed RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 7 of 24 eviction of the 1/4th open portion of the whole plot from the respondent. The petitioners have neither mentioned nor disclosed the construction, measurement, accommodation, usable portion in property no. 29/20, Gali No. 6, Anand Parvat Industrial Area, New Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioners have the place of work sufficient for every aspect with due establishment in the industrial area which is confirmed area for the business and commercial activities.
13. The use of the tenanted portion under the respondent is commercial one and the respondent has been running his business in the tenanted portion. The petitioners have shown their alleged bonafide requirement of the portion under tenancy of the respondent for their residence. It is submitted that the residential accommodation under the tenant can be obtained for the residential purpose as bonafide need and the commercial place can be obtained only for commercial purposes. The commercial place is being sought by the petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement of their residence.
14. The individual need of the legal heirs of the partners cannot be termed as the bonafide requirement of partnership firm. The personal need of the petitioners shall have no legal value in the eyes of law. Petitioner evidence.
15. During evidence, petitioner Raj Kumar stepped into the witness box as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW 1/A and deposed on the lines of the eviction petition. Further, he relied upon the following documents: RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 8 of 24
a) Site plan of the property : Ex. PW1/1
b) Copy of deed of dissolution of partnership : Ex. PW1/2
c) Rent agreement executed by late Shri Hari Chand : Ex. PW1/3
d) Copy of DDA lease deed : Ex. PW1/4
e) Copy of rent receipts : Ex. PW1/5
f) Copy of mutation letter dated 25.02.2010 : Ex. PW1/6
g) Details of family members and their bonafide requirements on 26.03.2018 : Ex. PW1/7 h) Site plan C : Ex. PW1/8 After crossexamination, the petitioner evidence was closed. Respondent's evidence.
16. In his turn, the respondent Shri Kamaljeet Singh entered into the witness box as RW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. RW1/A and deposed on the lines of the written statement After cross examination, respondent evidence was closed.
17. I have heard Shri Ravinder Malik, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Shri G.A. Madni, Ld. Counsel for respondent and also gone through the Court record. I have also gone through the written synopsis of arguments filed by the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following case laws in support of his arguments: Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath 1976 AIR (SC) 2335, Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Techchandani 2008 (8) AD 285, Jiwan Lal v. Gurdial Kaur 1995 (57) DLT 262, Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR (SC) 2028. Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958. i. Petitioner is the owner/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
ii. Petitioner requires the premises bonafidely for himself or for family members dependent upon him iii. Petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation. Court observations and findings RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 9 of 24 Ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship :
18. The respondent has stated himself to be the tenant in the tenanted premises of M/s Babu Foundary Works, a partnership firm. It is stated that a rent agreement had been executed between M/s Babu Foundary Works through the partner and the respondent. The rent receipts were being issued to the respondent by M/s Babu Foundary Works through its partners. RW1 has relied upon the receipt Ex PW1/5 to submit that the same has been issued for and on behalf of M/s Babu Foundary Works. It is submitted that there exists absolutely no relationship between the petitioners and the respondent in the individual capacity of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioners have deliberately not filed the previous rent receipts. It is submitted that petitioners are not the owners of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that the petitioners got their names mutated in the records of DDA as partners of M/s Babu Foundary Works which is clear from Ex PW1/6.
19. On the other hand, the petitioners have stated that originally the suit property was allotted in the name of M/s Babu Foundary Works consisting of 3 partners namely Ramji Lal, Kishan Lal and Babu Ram. The said partnership firm was dissolved in the year 1979. Thereafter Babu Ram @ Iqbal Singh became sole and exclusive owner of the suit property. Sh. Babu Ram expired on 26.07.1981. After his death, the property devolved on the petitioners. Hence, all the petitioners became the coowners of the suit property. The petitioners have relied upon the RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 10 of 24 deed of dissolution of partnership as Ex PW1/, the rent agreement executed by late Sh. Hari Chand as Ex PW1/3 and the copy of DDA lease deed as Ex PW1/4. It is submitted that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises in July 1983. The petitioners are still issuing the rent receipt to the respondent and the same is duly counter signed by the respondent. After the death of Sh. Hari Chand, the petitioners acquired ownership rights of the suit property and the same is mutated in their names by the DDA vide mutation letter dated 25.02.2010 Ex PW1/6.
20. During the crossexamination, PW1 stated that initially the rent agreement was executed between Sh. Babu Lal and the respondent. After the death of Sh. Babu Lal, the agreement was executed between the father of the respondent and Sh. Hari Chand. It is admitted by RW1 that the petitioners are legal heirs of late Sh. Babu Lal. It is also admitted that RW1 has paid the rent up to the year 2013 and thereafter no rent was paid as the petitioners have filed the present suit. It is also admitted that one of the petitioners used to collect the rent from the respondent.
21. Perusal of the rent agreement dated 01.07.1983 Ex PW1/3 shows that the same has been executed between Sh. Hari Chand as the landlord and Sh.Gajraj Singh i.e. the deceased respondent as the tenant. There is no mention of any agreement with M/s Babu Foundary Works. Further in agreement Ex PW1/3 itself it is categorically mentioned that previously, the agreement was made between late Sh. Iqbal Singh and late Sh. Gajraj Singh. Thus the respondent has not been able to show that RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 11 of 24 M/s Babu Foundary Works was ever its landlord. Further, the rent receipts Ex PW1/5 which are 2 in number, one of which mentions the owner of the property as Raj Kumar and others C/o Babu Foundary Works. Once the rent receipt and the rent agreement is duly admitted by the respondent, the respondent is estopped under Section 116 of Evidence Act from denying the ownership of the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners have placed on record the copy of dissolution deed Ex PW1/2 vide which the earlier partnership was dissolved and the suit property including the tenanted premises was taken over by Sh. Babu Lal @ Iqbal Singh through whom the petitioners are deriving their rights of ownership and landlord. Further the mutation of the lease hold rights has been done in favor of the petitioners by the DDA vide Ex PW1/6. Thus, petitioners are able to establish a better title to the suit property than that of respondent/tenant.
22. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner" it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the plaintiff has to have a better title than the defendant and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 12 of 24 Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant.The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264. In the context of a rent legislation a landlord is an owner if he is entitled in his own legal right to evict the tenant and retain the premises for his own use and even though he may not be able to sustain a claim of ownership in a title suit.
23. Thus, the petitioners are able to establish that they are the owners of the property and not the alleged partnership firm M/s Babu Foundary Works.
24. Another contention raised by the respondent is that the petitioners have deliberately not mentioned the name of further partners after dissolution of partnership. However the said contention is not found tenable as is clear from the dissolution deed Ex PW1/2 that only one of the partners namely Sh. Babu Ram @ Iqbal Singh took over the whole business of M/s Babu Foundary Works i.e. it is clear that the said business after the dissolution deed was taken over by only one person i.e., proprietorship firm as stated by PW1 during crossexamination.
RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 13 of 24Mere mention of petitioners names as partners of M/s Babu Foundary Works in Ex. PW1/6 at the time of mutation by the DDA will not bring in existence the already dissolved partnership firm without production and proof of any fresh partnership deed by the respondent.
25. Another contention of the respondent is that there are 2 sisters of late Sh. Hari Chand and daughters also who are the legal heirs but they not impleaded in the present petition. This ground is also found not to be tenable as any of the coowners can file an eviction petition against the tenant and it is not necessary to implead all the coowners while filing the eviction petition when they do not have any objections. There is no bar to any of the coowners filing the eviction petition against the respondent/tenant. No objection has been raised by any of the alleged other coowners. As per the caselaw in Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178; and , Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2SCC 724 it is held that the landlord, even if not the absolute owner, is at least one of the co owners, is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
26. Another contention of the respondent is that the petition is barred under Section 14(6) DRC Act. It is submitted that mutation has been done in name of petitioners by DDA on 25.02.2010. This ground is also RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 14 of 24 found not tenable as mutation is only for the purpose of property tax. It cannot be termed as a fresh transfer of property as alleged by respondent.
27. Thus, the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship stands duly proved.
Bonafide requirement
28. The petitioners are at present residing in property H.No A1, Gali No.10, Siddhartha Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi 110059 which is comprising of four rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, two latrines, and two bathrooms. The tenanted premises is required by the petitioners for the purpose of their bonafide requirement of residence as the petitioners have no other sufficient, reasonable or suitable residential accommodation available to them except the tenanted premises. The petitioners are having huge family to accommodation but having highly insufficient accommodation at their disposal and therefore, facing paucity of accommodation.
29. The family of the petitioners consists as under:
(a) The petitioner no.1 namely Sh. Raj Kumar aged about 46 years his wife Smt. Renu and his daughter namely Kareena aged about 14 years studying in class 9th. The petitioner no.1 is doing the business of fabrication alongwith petitioner no.3 & 4 at 29/20, Gali No.6, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, New Delhi. The petitioner no.1 has occupied one room measuring 20x12 more specifically shown in blue color on the RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 15 of 24 ground floor.
(b) The petitioner no.2 at present is unemployed. The petitioner no.2 is aged about 44 years, his wife namely Hema, aged about 38 years, is a housewife, having two daughters namely Parul and Daisy aged about 13 years and 4 years respectively. The petitioner no.2 is also living in the one room measuring 11x5, more specifically shown in yellow color in the site plan.
(c) The petitioner no.3 is aged about 42 years, his wife Meenakshi aged about 32 years, is a housewife, having two children namely Parth and Navya, aged about 6 years and 5 years respectively. The petitioner no.3 is also living in the one room measuring 10.4x19.4 shown in green color in the site plan.
(d) The petitioner no.4 is aged about 38 years, his wife Ritu aged about 29 years, is a housewife, having one child namely Tulip aged about 4 years. The petitioner no.4 is also living in the one room measuring 10.4x14.6 more specifically shown in red color in the site plan.
(e) The petitioner no.5 is living with her two unmarried sons i.e. petitioner no.6 and 7 in the drawing room measuring 10.4x14.6 more specifically shown in pink color in the site plan.
(f) The petitioner no.6 and 7 are unemployed presently. The petitioners need at least two rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, latrine and bathroom separately for their respective families.
30. The petitioners are having huge families. Their relatives and RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 16 of 24 friends visit them quite often and also stay there overnight. Thus, the petitioners are in need of the tenanted premises for their residential purposes.
31. The tenanted premises is near to the business place of the petitioner no.1, 3 and 4 and the same is reasonable and suitable to them for residing. Since the petitioner no.2, 6 and 7 are unemployed, therefore, they require the suit property for their commercial purpose also. The petitioner's family is Hindu by religion. Thus they also require one room for Pooja and Prayer. In all, the petitioners require atleast 22 rooms besides atleast 7 kitchens, 7 bathroom, and 7 latrine for such a huge family but they are living in a very small accommodation which is not sufficient for their huge family. The petitioners at present are having only five rooms, two bathrooms, two latrines, one kitchen in property bearing H.NoA1, Gali No.10, Siddhartha Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59. Except this property, the petitioners are not having any other accommodation for their bonafide need of residence.
32. During crossexamination PW1 has stated the current age of the children who have grown up. The respondent has not disputed the number of family members in the family of the petitioners. In these circumstances, each family member requires sufficient accommodation for their residence. The plea of the landlord of bonafide requirement is not to be judged by considering the possibility by which the tenant may be allowed to continue in the premises. The requirement is to be judged on the basis of the property as it stands and not by commanding the RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 17 of 24 landlord to make structural changes therein, to somehow or the other accommodate the tenant. The Supreme Court in Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561 held that the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the relatities of life; an approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself and dwell in lesser premises, so as to protect the tenant's continued occupation in tenancy premises.
33. If the landlord wants separate room for dining and sitting need the same is bonfide requirement as held in K.C. Chopra v. Satyapal Chadha 1971 RLR (Rent) 578. Similarly, landlord's requirement for separate pooja room is bonafide as held in Ram Pratap Sharma v. Smt. Rukmani Devi 2000 (1) RCR 209. Separate bed rooms for self and wife, sons and daughter and also for guests, etc. is also bonafide requirement. Reliance may be placed upon Pravin Sarin v. Manbir Singh & Others, 20 (1981) DLT 61, 152 (2008) DLT 556, S.K. Gupta v. R. C. Jain 23 (1983) DLT (SN) 44, Krishan Kumar Gupta v. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta 152 (2008) DLT 556
34. In Smt Prabhu v. K. Sharma, 1997 RLR 242 SC; Tilak Raj v. Krishan Lal 1982.RLR (Note) 33; Bulaqi Ram v Suraj Bhan 1982 RLR 93 it is held that need of the petitioner for a room for relatives and a guest is justified. Thus, the requirement of the petitioners for residence RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 18 of 24 for themselves as well as their guests is found to be bonafide.
35. Further, it is not denied by the respondent that petitioner no.2, 6 and 7 are unemployed. Hence, the petitioners are at liberty to seek eviction of the tenanted premises for commercial usage purpose of petitioners as well.
36. Another contention of the respondent is the use of the tenanted portion under the respondent is commercial one and the respondent has been running his business in the tenanted portion. The petitioners have shown their alleged bonafide requirement of the portion under tenancy of the respondent for their residence. It is submitted that the residential accommodation under the tenant can be obtained for the residential purpose as bonafide need and the commercial place can be obtained only for commercial purposes. The commercial place is being sought by the petitioners on the ground of bonafide requirement of their residence.
38. As per lease deed Ex PW1/4 it has been mentioned in proviso to para 13 that if the lessee is desirous in using the said industrial plot for a purpose other than that of the manufacturing process, the lessor may allow such change of user on such terms and conditions including payment of additional premium and additional rent as the lessor may in his absolute discretion determine. Thus, it is for the petitioners to seek requisite permission/ sanction/ authorisation from the concerned authorities after completion of the necessary formalities.
39. In Savitri Sahay v. Sachidanand Prasad AIR 2003 SC 156, Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534 and RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 19 of 24 The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Amit Goel 204 (2013) DLT 63 it is held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and the tenant cannot dictate landlord to adjust as suitability would be seen from the convenience of landlord and other circumstances. Further it is well settled law that the owner/landlord can seek eviction of the tenant for expansion of his business, as has been held in M/s. Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal, (2005) 8 SCC; M/s. Bajaj Associates v. Vinod Kumar, 2008 (2) RCR 258 P & H; Rajan v. Poil Raghavan, 2009 (1) RCR 429 Kerala DB.
40. In Ramuk Bai v. Hazarimal Dhokalchand Chandak 1999(6) SCC 540 it has been held that even in case B was unemployed at the time of filing of petition in the meanwhile started some business, he cannot be expected to sit idle away till the case was finally decided.
41. Furthermore, the multiple needs of the petitioner also cannot be challenged by the tenant. It is for the petitioner to decide which need is more pressing and requires priority. In Saroj Malik v. O.P. Gupta RC REV 122/2013 and CM 5176/2013 dated 29.08.2014, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the landlord's need for a tenanted premises could be not only on one but on a number of grounds and all of them could well be taken as grounds for eviction. They cannot be treated as competing needs, but would only go to show urgency for the need of the premises on different counts. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty to use the RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 20 of 24 premises for any of their bonafide requirements as mentioned in the petition.
42. Moreover, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC100, it was 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 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 is 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...".
43. Thus, in view of the discussion made above, the bonafide requirement of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises stands duly proved.
Nonavailability of alternative suitable accommodation
44. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioners have sufficient alternative accommodation with them i.e. property no. A1, Gali No. 10, RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 21 of 24 Siddharth Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi59, Property no. 29/20, Gali No. 6, Anand Parbat, Industrial Area, New Delhi and Property no. 23Q/1, Gali No.4 Industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi110005.
45. On the other hand the petitioners have stated that they are presently residing in property no. A1, Gali No. 10, Siddharth Enclave, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi59 which is comprising of four rooms, one drawing room, one kitchen, two latrines and two bathrooms. It is submitted that petitioners do not have sufficient reasonable or suitable residential accommodation with them and have a huge family. Hence they need the tenanted premises for residential as well as commercial purpose. The petitioners do not have any other property to reside.
46. During crossexamination PW1 stated that the house bearing No.A1, Gali No.10, Sidharth Enclave is in the name of PW1 and petitioner no.1 Amit, the said property is measuring 234sq and construction on the same has been raised by all the petitioners. The property bearing no. 29Q/1, industrial Area, New Rohtak Road, Delhi, was sold by the deceased father of PW1 in the year 1999 and thereafter, the present property bearing A1 where petitioners are residing was purchased.
47. Further, as regards the property bearing 29/20 Gali no.6, factory area, Anand Parbat is concerned, the same is clear from the address of the property itself that it is situated in factory area. Even if, the business RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 22 of 24 in the name of Tanwar Fabrications which was being done by PW1 of stitching of jeans has been stopped, the said property cannot be considered to be alternative suitable accommodation for the purpose of residence of the petitioners with their family members due to its location in the factory area. Further, the said property is measuring only 150sq as compared to the suit property wherein the tenanted premises is situated. The suit property B9 is approximately 417.4 sq. yards. Thus, it is clear that in the suit property of which the tenanted premises is a part the entire family of the petitioners who are residing as a joint family can easily adjust themselves without squeezing their family rather than in a property which is only 150 sq. yards located in a factory area. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the petitioners have already filed eviction petition against the other tenants who are using the same suit property no.B9, Rewari Line.
48. Thus, from the above discussion it is clear that the petitioners have no other alternative suitable accommodation for residence of themselves and their family members in Delhi except the tenanted premises. In totality of the discussions made above, the petitioner has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises i.e. One portion open courtyard towards south on ground floor measuring 55.3'x15' in property bearing no. B9, Rewari Line, RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 23 of 24 Industrial Area, PhaseII, Mayapuri, New Delhi110064 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14(7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Announced in open Court (Susheel Bala Dagar)
on 30th Day of March 2022 SCJ cum RC(West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 24 pages.)
RC ARC 25634/16 Raj Kumar v. Gajraj Singh (now deceased) through LRs Page 24 of 24