Delhi District Court
Bharat Tyagi vs K.K.Bhatia on 2 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Dev Chaudhary, DJS
RC ARC -: 86/2018
Unique Case ID -: DLWT030016112018
In the matter of -
SH. BHARAT TYAGI
S/o- Late Sh. G.C. Tyagi
Through his LRs -
1. Smt. Om Tyagi
W/o Sh. Bharat Tyagi
2. Sh. Rajeev Tyagi
3. Sh. Sanjay Tyagi
Both S/o Sh. Bharat Tyagi
All R/o WZ-119, Basai Darapur, New Delhi-110015
4. Smt. Vandana
W/o Sh. Sandeep Tyagi
R/o P-112, Awas Vikas, near LIC Building,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand
......... Petitioner
VS
SH. K.K. BHATIA
Prop. of M/s Bhatia Opticals
WZ-11, Kailash Park,
Opp. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110015
......... Respondent
1. Date of Institution : 12.07.2018
2. Date of Reserving Order : 25.03.2025
3. Date of Decision : 02.04.2025
4. Decision : Dismissed
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 1 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:40
+0530
Argued by -:Sh. Varun Tyagi, Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Ld. counsel for respondent.
JUDGEMENT -
HEADING PARA No.
1. Factual Matrix 1
2. Petition 2-2.2
3. Written Statement 3-4
4. Evidence 5-7
5. Arguments 8-10
6. Analysis 11-20
- Scope of leave to defend 14-14.3
- Landlord-Tenant relationship 15-15.2
- Vacant land 16-16.7
- Bonafide Requirement 17-17.9
- Alternate accommodation 18-18.1
7. Conclusion 21-24
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Sh. Bharat Tyagi (now being represented by his LRs) against the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "the Act") seeking eviction of the respondent- tenant from the premises i.e. one shop in property bearing no. WZ-11, Kailash Park, Opposite Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter, "tenanted premises"), which was allegedly given on rent to the respondent by the father of the original petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- excluding electricity and water charges.
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 2 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
PETITION -
2. In the petition, it is mentioned that the tenanted premises was let out by the deceased father of the petitioner to the respondent and after the death of his father, the petitioner has become the landlord/owner of the tenanted premises. It is mentioned that the tenancy is an old tenancy and there was no written agreement qua the same. The petition avers that the tenanted premises has been mutated in the name of the petitioner and the respondent has been paying rent to the petitioner. However, no rent has been paid after December, 2017. It is mentioned that the family of the petitioner consists of his three sons and grandchildren. The petitioner has claimed that he requires the tenanted premises for purposes of running of a business by one of his grandsons, namely Sh. Bhavaya Tyagi, who is dependent upon him and intends to start a business of musical instruments and training.
2.1. The petition further avers that the grandson of the petitioner has done a diploma and has experience in the relevant field. It is mentioned that the family members of the petitioner as well as the petitioner do not have any other suitable accommodation for running of the said business. Hence, the present petition, which prays that the respondent be evicted from the tenanted premises. 2.2. Since the present petition was filed under Section 14(1)
(e) of the Act, leave to defend was filed by the respondent and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2023. Thereafter, written statement has been filed by the respondent.
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 3 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
WRITTEN STATEMENT -
3. In the written statement, preliminary objections have been taken that the petition is not maintainable as the shop in question was an open plot (khaali jameen) and the respondent had constructed the shop on the same. It is mentioned that the tenanted premises has been registered in the name of Bhatia Opticals in municipal records and the electricity connection has also been obtained in the name of the firm of the respondent. It is claimed that the provisions of the Act are not attracted to the shop in question.
3.1. It is averred that the deceased petitioner owns several other properties- (1) property no. WZ-119, Basai Darapur, New Delhi measuring 200 sq. yds. having several vacant shops, (2) property no. WZ-3/2, Basai Darapur, New Delhi having vacant shops at upper floor and basement, (3) property no. WZ-A-3, Basai Darapur, New Delhi measuring 1500 sq. yds. having 10 vacant shops, (4) property no. WZ-58, Basai Darapur, New Delhi having 4 vacant shops, (5) property no. WZ-2/42, measuring 600 sq. yds. having 5 vacant shops. 3.2. It is averred that the petitioner has not mentioned the age and qualifications of the grandson of the petitioner and no proper site plan has been filed as there are 3 other shops out of which 2 are vacant. It is mentioned that the petitioner has evicted other tenants and has vacant possession of other shops. It is further stated that the respondent is a joint tenant with his wife, Mrs. Madhu Bhatia, who has not been made a party. It is stated that the only son of the respondent is suffering from various ailments and the respondent shall suffer heavily in case he is evicted from the tenanted premises. It is mentioned that the petition is not bonafide. Some portions of the petition are also admitted in the written statement. It is mentioned that Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 4 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:39 +0530 the petitioner used to collect rent and even after filing of the petition, the rent was given and receipt was demanded, however, the petitioner did not provide the same on the pretext that the same shall be given after printed receipts are obtained from the press. As such, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
4. In the replication filed by the petitioner, it is mentioned that the respondent is adopting different stands as the respondent had earlier denied ownership of the petitioner and has then admitted the ownership of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent has nowhere stated in the reply to the legal notice sent by him to the petitioner, about joint tenancy with his wife. It is claimed that the additional documents were filed later, and these are forged and fabricated. The replication mentions that no proof has been filed by the respondent in support of his stand. It is mentioned that apart from one property, which is owned by the petitioner, the petitioner does not own the other properties mentioned by the respondent. It is stated that the property owned by the petitioner is residential property and the petitioner and his family members reside in the same. The allegations on merits, made by the respondent, are denied.
EVIDENCE -
5. Both the sides have led evidence in this case to prove their rival stands. The petitioner has led the following oral and documentary evidence in order to prove his case -
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 : Sanjay Tyagi
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/A : Evidence affidavit of PW-1
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 5 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
Ex.PW1/1 : Site plan
Ex.PW1/2 : Khasra Girdawari
(OSR)
Ex.PW1/3 : Legal notice dated 12.04.2018
Ex.PW1/4 : Reply to notice, dated 09.05.2018
Ex. PW1/5 : Rejoinder dated 18.05.2018
Ex.PW1/6 : Diploma certificate of Mr. Bhavya
(OSR) Sarang Tyagi
Ex.PW1/7 : Death certificate of Mr. Bharat Singh
(OSR) Tyagi
Ex.PW1/8 : Power of attorney
Mark A/X : ID card and documents of Mr. Bhavya
Tyagi
6. In order to disprove the case set up against him, the respondent has led the following oral and documentary evidence in this case -
ORAL EVIDENCE
RW-1 : K.K. Bhatia
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.RW1/A : Evidence affidavit of RW-1
Ex.RW1/1 : Rent receipts
Ex.RW1/2 : Photographs
Mark PX-1 : Photocopy of electricity bill
Mark DX1 : Rent receipts (put to PW1)
Mark B/X : Documents of Bhavya Tyagi (put to PW1)
7. A detailed discussion on the evidence led in this case by both sides has been done in the latter part of this judgment.
ARGUMENTS -
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both parties at length. I have also given my thorough consideration to the material Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 6 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:38 +0530 on record. Written submissions have also been filed, which have also been considered.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has proved his case by demonstrating that there is bonafide need of the petitioner and his family for the tenanted premises. It is argued that the leave to defend was given to the respondent on the limited ground as to whether the tenanted premises was open land at the time when the property was let out. On other grounds, the case of the petitioner was already accepted in the order vide which the leave to defend was granted to the respondent. It is argued that the ownership of the petitioner is not in dispute, and the petitioner was not required to add all the tenants or co-owners in this case. It is argued that the respondent has failed to substantiate his plea of the property being vacant land and the plea that the petitioner has other suitable properties available with him. It is argued that the petitioner is not obliged to give each and every detail of the business proposed to be done by his grandson and the evidence qua him having all the necessary know-how of the business has already been filed in this case. As such, it is prayed that the petition be allowed. 9.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Kanji Manji vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay MANU/SC/0337/1962, Inder Pal Khanna vs. Bhupinder Singh Rekhi MANU/DE/1090/2008, Gulshan Rai Monga vs. Sanjay Malhotra MANU/DE/1150/2015, Rajkumar Khaitan vs. Bibi Zubeida Khatoon AIR 1995 SC 576, Gurcharan Lal Kumar vs. Srimati Satyawati 2013 (2) RCT (Rent) 120, Dwarkaprasad vs. Niranjan MANU/SC/0195/2003, Mehmooda Gulshan vs. Javind Hussain Mungloo (2017) 5 SCC 683, Sait Nagjee Purushottan vs. Vimalbhai Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 7 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:38 +0530 PrabhulaInd (2005) 8 SCC 252, Hukum Chandra vs. Nemi Chand (2019) 13 SCC 363, Raj Kumar Khanna vs. Parduman Singh MANU/DE/3497/2013, Tagore Education Society vs. Kamla Tandon MANU/DE/0901/2009 and Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 199 in support of his contentions.
10. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is argued that the respondent has all the defences available to him, and the order vide which his application to file additional affidavit was allowed, has remained unchallenged. It is argued that the petitioner's case being that the father of Mr. Bhavya Tyagi being employed, there is no explanation as to how he is dependent upon his grandfather. It is argued that the grandson of the petitioner is out of India since many years, and this fact has been concealed by the petitioner. It is argued that the bonafide need has been fabricated and the documents of the grandson clearly show that he is living outside India with the intent to not return and start a music shop. It is argued that the rent receipts issued by the petitioner clearly mention that the rent is for an open land, which makes the case of the petitioner outside the purview of the Act. He has relied upon Ajit Singh vs. Ram Swaroopi Devi (1995) ILR 2 Delhi 93 and R.K. Rametra vs. Prakash Chand Kaushik 2016 DHC 5899 in support of his contentions. As such, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
ANALYSIS -
11. The only ground urged in the petition is that under Section 14(1)(e), which reads as under-
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 8 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
"(e)- that the premises let for residential purposes are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is 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 residential accommodation.
Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, "premises led for residential purposes" include any premises which having been let for use as residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes"
The provision under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is an exception to the regular mode of eviction as prescribed under the Act and the landlord has to prove the twin conditions of bonafide requirement and unavailability of alternate suitable accommodation in order to succeed in such a petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abuid-Ul- Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua AIR 2022 SC 1778 has observed in this regard, inter-alia, as under-
"12. Section 14(1)(e) carves out an exception to the regular mode of eviction. Thus, in a case where a landlord makes an application seeking possession of the tenanted premises for his bona fide re- quirement, the learned Rent Controller may dispense with the pro- tection prescribed under the Act and then grant an order of eviction. 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 bona fide and (ii) the non availability of a reasonably suitable resid- ential accommodation. Such reasonableness along with suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant. When the learned Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that there exists a bona fide need coupled with the satisfaction that there is no reasonably suitable residential accommodation, the twin conditions mandated Under Section 14(1)(e) stand satisfied."
12. What is meant by a bonafide need has been elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta 1999 INSC 364 in the following words -
"A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 9 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:38 +0530 need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts should place himself .in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself-whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited .for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one. but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against"
13. In order to succeed in the present petition on this ground, the landlord is mandated to show that he is owner of the property and that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Further, the landlord has to show bonafide need of the premises and the fact that there is no other suitable alternate accommodation available to him. Once these essential ingredients are proved, the petition succeeds on the ground of bonafide requirement.
SCOPE OF LEAVE TO DEFEND -
14. At the outset, it is to be seen as to whether this Court is required to adjudicate only on the aspect of nature of land at the time of initiation of tenancy or on other aspects as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the other issues were decided Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 10 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:40 +0530 in favour of the petitioner and the leave to defend was granted only to lead evidence to show whether or not the tenant was given vacant land, the Court should restrict its consideration to only evidence qua that aspect. This has been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondent by arguing that no such restriction is laid down in the order.
14.1. In this regard, the order vide which the respondent was granted leave to defend is to be seen. In the order dated 24.07.2023, the learned Predecessor Court has highlighted all the grounds raised by the defence in this case, including the aspect of ownership of petitioner, availability of other accommodation, qualification of his grandson, non-joining of co-owner and co-tenant etc. The Court has dealt with these objections and ultimately, it was observed that evidence is required to be led to find out whether the tenanted premises was a vacant land when it was leased out to the respondent.
It was observed that the defence does not appear to be frivolous or untenable. The learned Court had observed that the facts are disputed and the correctness or otherwise of the assertions made by each side are required to be examined.
14.2. In the operative part of the order, the learned Court has held that leave to defend has been granted to the respondent to contest the matter. Although it appears that one of the major factors which led the Court to grant the leave was regarding the applicability of the Act itself, owing to the fact that there was a claim that the tenancy was of vacant land, the Court has nowhere restricted the parties to lead evidence only on this aspect. There is no such restriction in the order. It has been categorically stated that the facts are disputed and evidence is required to assess the assertions of both sides. The learned Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 11 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:40 +0530 Court has categorically clarified that the opinion of the Court, as reflected in the said order, shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. After the leave to defend was allowed, the respondent filed his written statement. Pursuant thereto, parties have led evidence.
14.3. The petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence led, and not on the basis of only pleadings, which were the only material available before the Court at the time when the order on the leave to defend was passed. Therefore, this objection of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. This Court has to examine all the issues raised in this petition.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP -
15. In an eviction petition, the petitioner has to show that he has better title than the respondent. Reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satpal Sharma vs. Sadhna Arora 2024 DHC 4296, wherein it was held, inter-alia, as under -
"7. It is settled legal position that in the proceedings of the present nature, the eviction petitioner is not required to establish absolute title over the subject premises. What is required to be established by the eviction petitioner is a title better than that of the tenant."
Similar observations have been made in Rajender Kumar Sharma vs. Leelawati 155 (2008) DLT 383. In this regard, in the present case, the petitioner has claimed that his father was the owner of the tenanted premises, and the same was let out to the respondent by his father. After death of his father, the petitioner has become owner of the property.
15.1. In order to prove this fact, the petitioner has tendered into evidence the Khasra Girdawari of the Village whereby the name Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 12 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:39 +0530 of the petitioner has been reflected as an owner. Although the factum of ownership of the petitioner was initially challenged by the respondent in the leave to defend application as well in the reply to the legal notice sent by him, in the written statement, this fact has not been disputed.
15.2. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it is stated that the petitioner had let out a vacant plot to the respondent. In paragraph no. (a) on the reply to annexure A of the respondent, the contents of the para no. (a) of the annexure A to the petition, whereby the petitioner has claimed ownership of the tenanted premises and has claimed that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner, have been admitted. Therefore, the factum of ownership of the petitioner and the factum of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties has been admitted by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has also fairly conceded during arguments that this fact stands established. This ingredient is thus satisfied in this case.
VACANT LAND -
16. The major bone of contention between the parties is the nature of tenancy. While the tenant has claimed that he was let out a vacant piece of land, on which construction was raised by him, the petitioner has claimed that the shop in question was let out to the tenant.
16.1. The significance of proving or disproving of this fact is immense in this case. It is settled law that in case what has been let out is not "premises", as defined under the Act, the case falls outside the purview of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Surender Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 13 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:38 +0530 Kumar vs. Hari Singh and Ors. MANU/DE/2949/2015 has held, inter-alia, as under -
"10. A plain reading of the expression "premises" as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act shows that for the premises to fall within the realm of the Act, it is essential that there should be in existence a "building". It is only when there is a "building", that garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of the building could be considered to be "premises" within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act. If there is no "building" in existence at the time of letting out, the tenancy cannot be said to fall within the realm of the Act."
It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Ram Prakash Chawla vs. Amril Kaur 20 (1981) DLT 145 that the Court has to see the nature of premises from the time when it was let out to the tenant in order to see as to what the nature of premises at the time when it was let out. If any subsequent construction is made by the tenant, it is irrelevant. 16.2. In this regard, the petitioner has claimed in the petition that a shop was let out to the respondent. The case of the petitioner has remained throughout that the respondent was let out a shop. The earliest version of the respondent in this case is the reply to the legal notice sent by the petitioner to him. In the said reply, no plea has been taken by the respondent regarding the fact that the premises let out to him was a vacant land. The leave to defend also does not raise any objections qua this fact. An application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent prior to the decision on his leave to defend, and it was contented that this fact came to fore when his counsel was going through the file. Learned Predecessor Court vide order dated 27.11.2019 allowed this application. Thereafter, this plea has been taken in the written statement.
16.3. Both the witnesses have been asked qua this bone of contention during their respective cross examinations. PW1 has been cross examined by the defence in this regard. He deposed that he was Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 14 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:39 +0530 about 12 years of age when the premises was let out. He denied the suggestion that the property was a vacant land at the time of letting out. Certain rent receipts were shown to him, however, he denied the same and also denied the signatures on these documents to be those of his father. In fact, he deposed that no rent receipts were given to the respondent by his father. He deposed that he does not have any document to show that his grandfather had constructed the shop in question.
16.4. During defence evidence, the respondent DW1 has entered into the witness box. He has tendered into evidence the rent receipts, which are collectively Ex. RW1/1. It is deposed that the respondent was let out a vacant land and he had raised construction over the same. It is claimed that the name of the shop of the respondent is mentioned in municipal records. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the onus to prove that the property was a vacant land was upon the respondent. The respondent also had an opportunity to narrate the complete facts qua his contentions in his evidence affidavit.
16.5. However, I find that the respondent has not laid down the factual foundation in order to support his version. The evidence affidavit of the respondent, Ex. RW1/A, is bereft of material details.
There are no details as to when the vacant land was let out to him, when he raised construction, whether he obtained any permissions qua the same, when was the construction completed, and the nature of construction etc. The respondent RW1 has been cross examined by the defence in this regard. He has deposed that he had constructed the shop in the year 1985. However, he deposed that he did not get any plan sanctioned from the MCD. He deposed that there was no written Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 15 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:38 +0530 intimation given by him to the petitioner qua the construction done by him. Further, he admitted that he has not placed on record any bill of building material regarding the construction. Therefore, the witness has not given any details whatsoever to corroborate his assertions. 16.6. However, he has filed certain rent receipts to claim that the same reflect the fact that the premises was a vacant land. Both parties have placed heavy reliance on these rent receipts, and a close scrutiny of these is warranted. It is noted at the outset that the respondent has nowhere mentioned in the evidence affidavit as to who has issued the rent receipts, who has executed them, and in whose handwriting the details on the receipts have been mentioned.
In Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit does not amount to due proof of its contents and the execution is to be proved by admissible evidence. The respondent has failed to lead evidence of execution of the same in terms of Section 67 read with Section 47 of the Evidence Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the receipts have been proved as per law, merely because they have been produced in original. This is significant since these receipts were put to the petitioner's witness PW1 during his cross-examination and he had denied execution of the same. On this account alone, the receipts cannot be read into evidence. 16.7. Moving forward, the contents of the receipts itself make them more doubtful than reliable. The receipts allegedly pertain to the period from 1995-2017. All the receipts have been written in English, except for the portion "Kiraya Mahvar, Khali Zameen", which is written in Hindi. There is no deposition as to who has written these words. The receipts mention the "House No." as WZ-11, Kaliash Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 16 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:39 +0530 Park, and there is no mention in the main portion of the receipts that they pertain to any vacant land. RW1 has also been cross examined regarding certain rent receipts, and it appears that the rent receipts have been issued for the amounts different from the rent of the tenanted premises in question. No explanation has been offered by the witness in this regard. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the rent receipts tendered into evidence by the respondent. Since there is no other evidence on record to substantiate the plea of the respondent, the objection of the respondent that the property was vacant land at the time when it was let out to him, is liable to be rejected. There is nothing on record to show that the land was a vacant land at the time of inception of the tenancy, and as such, it is held that the Act is applicable in this case.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT -
17. The crux of the petition is the bonafide need of the landlord to take possession of the premises. In this case, the landlord has claimed that the premises in question are required for purposes of opening a musical instrument business by his grandson, who holds a diploma in the relevant field.
17.1. It is settled that the Court cannot at a drop of a hat order eviction, and it has to be seen from the material on record that the requirement of the landlord is indeed genuine and not a ruse to draw the tenant out of the property. It has to be also kept in mind that the Court has to not impose its own wisdom upon the landlord, who is the master of the property and the purpose for which he requires it. 17.2. In this case, on consideration of the evidence before the Court, I find that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide. In Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 17 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:38 +0530 order to prove his case, PW1 has entered into the witness box. The original petitioner has left for his heavenly journey, and the sole witness to enter the witness box on behalf of the petitioner is his son. The grandson, for whom the tenanted premises was required, as well as his father, have not been examined in this case. Although there is no requirement to examine the person for whom the premises is required, in the peculiar facts of this case, I find that the witness who has come to depose on behalf of the petitioner does not depose about the requirement in a cogent manner.
17.3. PW1 has entered into the witness box and has tendered into evidence the diploma certificate of Mr. Bhavya Sarang Tyagi, for whom the shop in question is required. A perusal of the same reveals that the grandson of the petitioner, in the year 2014, had passed a certificate course in popular music performance from one Rockschool, London. During cross examination, PW1 has admitted that Mr. Bhavya Tyagi has not attended any of the proceedings in this case. He deposed that Ms. Bhavya Tyagi is currently pursuing his PhD from Houston University, USA since the last 2 years. On directions, the witness produced the documents qua the education of Sh. Bhavya Tyagi. He deposed that Mr. Bhavya Tyagi is out of India since the year 2018, and is expected to complete his course in 2028.
He deposed that after completing his bachelors from Amity University in 2018, his nephew had gone to pursue his masters from UK in 2018 itself.
17.4. It is an admitted fact that the nephew of the witness has been living out of the country since 2018. The deposition of the witness PW1 in his cross examination, which creates a doubt on the case of the petitioner, is reproduced below -
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 18 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
"It is wrong to suggest that Bhavya Tyagi has not knowledge about the present matter. He knows about the matter as I have told him verbally. Recently I told him about the matter, but I cannot tell the date, however it was the time when we ask for documents from him, I have never sent the case file to him. I have regular talks regarding his visit to India and he told me that he will visit/return to India after completion of his course. The course will be completed in 2028." The above deposition of the witness leaves no manner of doubt qua the bonafide of the petition. The witness has deposed that he had informed Mr. Bhavya Tyagi about the petition recently, meaning thereby that he was not aware about the petition being filed for his requirement earlier. As per the witness, the grandson of the petitioner was only told about the matter when the documents were required from him for production before this Court during the cross examination of the witness. The witness has also not said with certainty that Mr. Bhavya Tyagi will return to India after finishing his studies.
17.5. The above narration demonstrates that the grandson of the original petitioner had done a diploma in music in the year 2014, i.e. much before the present petition was filed in 2018. He has been regularly pursuing his studies in physics, and for at least the last 7 years, he has been pursuing his studies to become a theoretical physicist. The petitioner has concealed these facts in the petition and only when the cross examination was done, these facts came to fore. The grandson of the petitioner will be outside India for at least 3 more years, and it is not the case of the petitioner that he will leave his studies midway to return to India, or will function via an agent. The fact that the grandson was not aware about the petition being filed for his requirement till recently also lends corroboration to the fact that the requirement is not genuine. It is difficult to digest that a person Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 19 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:38 +0530 who requires a space to start his business is not knowing about a petition being fought in Court for his requirement. 17.6. On the basis of the above discussion, I find that the requirement set up by the petitioner in this case does not appear to be genuine. Further, even though the petitioner can seek the eviction of premises for future use, in this case, even the witness of the petitioner has deposed that the grandson of the petitioner may return or visit in the year 2028. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the course of studies being undertaken by the grandson of the petitioner amount to subsequent events (atleast the PhD), which were not in existence at the time of the filing of the petition. It is apposite to note at this juncture that no evidence whatsoever has been led by the petitioner to show that his grandson was residing in India at the time the present petition was filed. There is no evidence to show when he commenced his studies.
However, since these subsequent developments are on record, these also have to be considered. In Nidhi vs. Ram Kripal Sharma AIR 2017 SC 814, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, inter-alia, as under -
"15. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a number of decisions. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal MANU/SC/0035/2002 : (2002) 2 SCC 256, this Court held as under:
11. The ordinary Rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief, as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become in-
appropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such sub- sequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in accordance with the Rules of procedural law so that the opposite party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 20 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:39 +0530 & General TradersMANU/SC/0415/1975 : (1975) 1 SCC 770 this Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the court cannot be blinked at. The court may in such cases bend the Rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or Rule of fair play is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that the court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned:
(i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the de-
cretal remedy, (ii) Rules of procedure may be bent if no specific pro- vision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circum- stance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cog- nizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious, and (iv) the Rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously obeyed. Om Prakash Gupta's case was referred with approval in Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (Dead) MANU/SC/7670/2007 :
(2007) 5 SCC 660.
16. Though the court has the power to take note of the subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent development on the bona fide need of the landlord. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship to the parties will have to be taken into consideration." (emphasis supplied by me) As such, even though the petitioner has failed to show the bonafide requirement on the date of petition, I find that the subsequent events in this case also disentitle him any relief.
17.7. An argument has also been raised qua the dependency of the grandson upon the petitioner, given that he is earning well and his father is also well settled, as per the petitioner himself. However, I find that the dependency is to be seen not in financial terms but dependency for residential/commercial needs. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M.M Mehta vs. Chaman Lal Kapoor ILR 1980 Delhi 94, has observed, inter-alia, as under -
"(8) The other submission that the requirement of the married sons is not the requirement of the landlord and, therefore, could not be made the basis for eviction, has also no merit. There is a catena of authorities of this Court that a member of the family, although not Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 21 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:40 +0530 financially dependent on the landlord but living together with him, is covered by the word "dependent" used in proviso (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act."
As such, this objection of the respondent is liable to be rejected. 17.8. While coming to the conclusion as narrated above, this Court is also cautious of the fact that a person is not expected to sit idle till the time the petition is decided. It is also cautious of the position of law that the landlord is not required to give any detailed explanation of the requirement. The citations filed by learned counsel for the petitioner also highlight this legal position. However, in this particular case, I find that the studies undertaken by the grandson of the petitioner do not appear to be of such nature that he was working somewhere else only till the time the petition is decided. The person appears to have taken a particular track in life, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he wishes to come back to India to start a music business. Further, as highlighted above, even though the petitioner is not required to state in detail the business proposed to be set up, it is equally settled that the Court has to put itself in the shoes of the landlord to see whether the requirement is indeed a real and sincere requirement.
17.9. I have also gone through the other citations filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, however, the same can be differentiated on facts.
ALTERNATE ACCOMODATION -
18. The last ingredient that is required to be proved by the petitioner is that of non-availability of any alternate suitable accommodation. In this regard, in the written statement, the Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 22 of 24 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:41:40 +0530 respondent has claimed that the petitioner has 5 other properties available with him.
18.1. During evidence, the respondent has not led any evidence to substantiate his claim. There is no documentary evidence to show that the five properties are owned by the petitioner. The respondent has tendered into evidence some photographs, Ex.
RW1/2, that do not mention the name of the petitioner anywhere. RW1 has admitted that the photographs do not depict ownership of the petitioner anywhere. During cross examination, he deposed that a shopkeeper told him that the properties in the photographs are owned by the petitioner. Thus, the evidence on the respondent on this aspect is not reliable. The petitioner has claimed that apart from one property, which is residential, the petitioner does not own any of the other properties mentioned in the written statement. No cross examination of PW1 has been done on this aspect. Thus, the petitioner has been able to prove that there is no other suitable alternate accommodation available with the petitioner.
19. The other objections of the defence are qua non-joinder of the co-owner and the joint tenant. In Yashpal v. Chamanlal Sachdeva, 129 (2006) DLT 200, it was held that a co-owner can maintain a petition and that the inter se arrangement between owners is no business of the tenant. Similar observations have been made in Dharam Veer Goel vs. Renu Jain and Ors. MANU/DE/0089/2023.
20. Similarly, in view of the law laid down in Kanji Manji supra and Inder Pal Khanna supra, there is no requirement to implead all the joint tenants and the petition only against one tenant can be maintained. Even otherwise, the respondent has not led any evidence to show that his wife was a joint tenant in the tenanted premises.
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 23 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
CONCLUSION -
21. To recapitulate the above discussion, in this petition under Section 14(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the most crucial ingredient required to be proved by the petitioner was his bonafide need. The petitioner in this case had claimed that he requires the shop in question for use of his grandson, who wishes to set up a music business. Although the petitioner has been able to show that there is landlord-tenant relation between the parties and that the petitioner has no other suitable alternate accommodation, the petitioner has failed to show that there is bonafide requirement for his grandson. The circumstances of the grandson himself, who will be out of India for a decade commencing from 2018, along with the deposition of the petitioner's witness leave no manner of doubt that the petition has been filed under a guise to evict the tenant. The objection of the tenant that the shop was a vacant property, at the time when it was let out, thus rendering the case out of purview of the Act, remains unproved.
22. Resultantly, the petition filed by the petitioner on ground of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, stands dismissed.
23. Parties to bear own costs.
24. Ordered accordingly. Digitally signed by DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02 14:42:28 +0530 Announced in Open (DEV CHAUDHARY) Court.
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST)
This order contains 24 TIS HAZARI COURTS
signed pages. DELHI/ 02.04.2025
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 24 of 24