Delhi District Court
Mrs. Shakuntla Kathuria vs Sh. Jitender Kumar on 12 December, 2019
In the Court of Ms. Aditi Garg
Commercial Civil Judge cum Addl. Rent Controller
(Central District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. E13/18
CIS No. 21/18
In the matter of :
1. Mrs. Shakuntla Kathuria
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria
2. Sh. Vipin Kathuria
3. Sh. Sunil Kathuria
Both sons of Late Subhash chand Kathuria
All R/o H. No. 153, Pocket F.24,
Sector7, Rohini, Delhi. ........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Jitender Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Thakur Singh
2. Sh. Varun Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Jitender Kumar
Both C/o shop no. 5746
ground floor, Jogiwara
Ward no. VI, Nai Sarak
Delhi6. ..........Respondents
CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 23
Date of institution : 08.01.2018
Date of reserved for judgment : 29.11.2019
Date of decision : 12.12.2019
Decision : Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e. commercial shop admeasuring 8'9'' X 10'10'' 16'10'' and known as 5746, GF, Jogi Wara, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006, as shown 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 the premises which were let out to the respondents prior to 1960 for commercial purpose, are bonafidely required by the petitioners for their own use and occupation and that neither the petitioners nor any member of their family has got any other reasonably suitably accommodation / premises available with them. The petitioners besides being the landlords of the premises are also the owners thereof. Petitioner no. 1 is the widow of Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria, who was the owner landlord of the property in question, whereas, petitioner no. 2 and 3 are his sons. Shri Subhash Chand Kathuria died at Delhi on CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 23 12.10.2016. Petitioner no. 2, Vipin Kathuria on account of matrimonial problems, is not permanently settled and is temporarily employed and his job is not permanent. Petitioners have no particular place to do any business or work.
The petitioner no. 3 who is the younger son of Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria is presently working at Pune (Maharashtra). He too wants to shift to Delhi alongwith his wife and son and be with his old mother and brother. Petitioners now want to start business from the premises in question. Petitioner no. 2, who is now divorced, is living with his mother since 2012 and after the death of his father Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria. is shouldering the responsibility of his mother. That the petitioners now want to start a family business from the premises in question.
The entire property no. 5744 to 5750, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi6 was jointly owned by Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria, husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2 and 3 (25%), Sh. Ashok Kathuria and late Ved Prakash (25%). Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria got three regular shops and one small kothi 3' X 5' (which is vacant) on the ground floor. Three shops on the first floor and two shops on the second floor, one regular shop and one small shop of 7' X 3'. Respondents are tenants in shop no. 5746 on ground floor, one shop is with Raj Kumar Sanjay Kumar on ground floor and one shop is with M/s Vardhman Ladies' Suits Collection on ground floor.
CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 23There are tenants in all the shops on the second floor and similarly on the first floor. One small shop is vacant on the second floor.
Sh. Ved Prakash Kathuria died on 09.05.2008 and on his death his one fourth undivided share came into the hands of his widow Smt. Pushpa Kathuria and sons Rajan and Vikram Kathuria. It is stated by the petitioners that the aforesaid coowners partitioned the afore said property which is three storeyed by means of a registered partition deed dated 24.03.2014 and alongwith the said partition deed, a site plan of the entire building was also duly registered with the main partition deed and the portion shown in red colour on all the floors came to the share of legal heirs of late Sh. Ved Prakash Kathuria, the portion shown in green colour in the site plan on all the floors came to the share of Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria and portion shown in blue colour on all the floors came to the share of Sh. Ashok Kumar Kathuria, whereas, the terrace of the second floor jointly came to the share of all the coowners and in the ratio mentioned in the partition deed. It is stated that Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria duing his life time filed a petition for eviction of the respondents under Section (14) (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, but the same was withdrawn after this death with leave to file fresh petition.
On the above stated grounds, prayer is made for eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises.
CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 233. Summons were served upon the respondents, who appeared and filed leave to defend application, which was allowed vide order dated 30.08.2018 and the respondents were granted leave to contest the present eviction petition. Thereafter, written statement was filed by the respondents denying the contentions made by the petitioners in their petition. Further, it is stated by the respondents that suit property is admittedly commercial unit, let out for commercial purpose and since the tenancy in the instant case is for commercial property let out for commercial purpose, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke jurisdiction of Ld. ARC.
It is further stated that the claim of the petitioners / landlords to commence a new business venture from the demised property, after seeking eviction of the respondents from the demised premises, sounds to be a fanciful desire much less than requirement, what to say bonafide requirements, as being asserted in the petition. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 created lease in respect of shop no. 5745/1A, on ground floor, situated at Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, New Delhi in favour of Archna Jain, Prop. M/s Vardhman Ladies Suits Collections of a period of 5 years commencing w.e.f 01.05.2017 vide Lease dated 15.05.2017, registered vide Document No. 3419, Book No. 1 Vol No. 6601 at Pages 164 to 173 on 15.05.2017 which is just adjoining the shop of the tenants / respondents which could be equally suitable for the petitioners / landlords to commence their CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 23 business venture. Respondents state that it is worth pointing out here that petitioners had been part of the family, which hardly had any business exposure for past twenty years of filing of instant petition. The petitioner no. 1 is old lady aged about more than 75 years, is claiming to commence a new business venture for supporting herself and the other petitioners and their families. The petitioners have not disputed the fact that the petitioner no. 2 is gainfully employed, working as Manager with Royal Enfield since 2013 and had no bonds with the family as much the petitioner no. 1 and her husband disowned and severed their bonds with the petitioner no. 2 during life time of husband of the petitioner no. 1 and further the petitioner no. 3 is settled, gainfully employed and residing with his family at Pune, has no inclination to come to Delhi for venturing business from the demised property, as being asserted in the petition. Thus, petition instituted by the petitioner is nothing but manifest fanciful desire of the petitioners to seek eviction of tenant from the demised property. It is stated by the respondents that the husband of petitioner no. 1 had earlier instituted similar petition claiming our eviction from demised property, without asserting such claims that the petitioners no. 2 and 3 were desirous of commencing any business activity, as being asserted in the instant petition. Thus, the requirement seeking our eviction from the demised property is nothing but sham claim devoid of any substance. It is submitted that CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 23 since tenancy was created for unlimited period, the petitioners do not derive better title what his predecessors had and is bound by the understanding of his predecessors at the time of inducting the father of the respondents as tenant in respect of demises property. It is stated that at the time of creation of lease, the predecessors of the respondent / tenants had tendered huge amount nearly equivalent to then market price and in lieu thereof, tenancy was created for unlimited period on a token of rent payable by the tenants / occupants of the suit property to Late Chaudhary Thakur Singh and after his death, the respondents are retaining it as tenants with consent of the landlords. It is further submitted that petitioners have concealed the fact that they were having another shop bearing no. 13A/2nd floor, 5745, Jogi Wara, Delhi at their disposal and possession of the said shop has been handed over to the petitioners by tenant on 15.01.2016, against receipt dated 15.01.2016, which again shows malafide intention to create vague claim of bonafide requirement of the petitioners to vacate the respondents from the demised property.
4. Petitioners had filed the replication, reiterating the contents and pleas raised in eviction petition and denying the defence raised by respondents in the written statement.
CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 235. During evidence, Sh. Vipin Kathuria, i.e. the petitioner no. 2 stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of the petition. Further, he relied upon the following documents : 1) Site plan : Ex.PW1/1
2) Copy of Partition deed alongwith the : Ex. PW1/2 copy of site plan attached to the same
3) Copy of Aadhar Card of PW1 : Ex. PW1/3
4) Certified copy of order dated 07.04.17: Ex. PW1/4
5) Hand written surrender letter dated : Ex. PW1/R1 15.01.2016 of tenant Madan Lal Sh. Sunil Kathuria, i.e. petitioner no. 3 stepped into the witness box as PW2 and deposed on the lines of the petition. Further, he relied upon the copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. PW2/1 (OSR).
6. On their turn, the respondent no.1, Sh. Jatinder Singh had himself entered into the witness box as RW1 and deposed on the lines of the written statement.
7. Final arguments were addressed by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsel for the respondents. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that relationship of landlord and CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 23 tenant and rate of rent is not disputed. That the petitioner no.1 requires the tenanted premises for starting a business with her sons. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondents had argued that the bonafide requirement of the petitioners is misconceived. That the petitioners have alternate accommodation available, however, the same has been concealed. It is argued that the son of the petitioner, Vipin Kathuria, is not residing in Delhi and he was disowned by the petitioner no. 1 and her husband. It is further argued that Vipin Kathuria is employed and hence, no business is to be started by him. He had further argued that the petitioners had nowhere stated as to what steps have been taken by the petitioner no. 1 and her sons towards starting socalled family business and no documents have been furnished by the other son of the petitioner no. 1, i.e. Sunil Kathuria to show that he wants to shift to Delhi from Pune. It is further argued that petitioners have one shop vacant on the second floor of the premises. The main contention as raised by Ld. Counsel for the respondents is that lease with respect to M/s Vardhman Ladies Suits & Collection was renewed in the year 2017 by the petitioners and hence, when the petitioners had bonafide requirement, why was the lease renewed.
8. I have heard the contentions of Ld. Counsels for both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 239. Before reverting to the facts of the present case, it is imperative to discuss in a nutshell the intention of the legislature while enacting the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Delhi Rent Control Act was enacted so as to safeguard the interest of the tenant and landlord.
Section 14 enumerates the circumstances under which the landlord can get the premises evicted from the tenant. Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958 are as under : i. Petitioner is the owner/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
ii. He requires the premises bonafidely for himself or for family members dependent upon him;
iii. He has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
10. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with respect to a commercial shop admeasuring 8'9" x 10'10" 16'10" and known as 5746, Ground Floor, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. It is stated by the petitioners that the builtup property bearing no. 57445750, Ward No. VI, situated at Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi 110006 was jointly owned by Sh. Ashok Kumar Kathuria (50% share), Sh. Ved Parkash Kathuria (25% share) and Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria (remaining 25% share). That the aforesaid co owners partitioned the aforesaid property by registered Partition Deed dated 24.03.2014. That Sh. Subhash Chand Kathuria has passed away and after his death, his legal heirs have became the CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 23 owners of the tenanted premises and hence, eviction petition on bonafide requirement has been filed with respect to the same.
11. In support of the pleadings, the petitioner no. 1 has examined her elder son, Sh. Vipin Kathuria. He had deposed in his affidavit that one shop is lying vacant on the second floor, in which petitioners have only 1/3rd share and 2/3rd share is that of Vikram Kathuria. He had deposed that due to matrimonial problems, he is not permanently settled and is temporarily employed and his job is not permanent and since the petitioners have no particular space to do any business, hence, the tenanted premises is required to start a business from there. He had further deposed that he is under threat of being sacked by the employer since there a big competition in the market and depression in the business and he has apprehension of being dismissed from the service, hence, the tenanted premises is required. He had further deposed that he is shouldering responsibility of his mother and the petitioners now want to start the family business from the premises in question.
The witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondents. In his crossexamination, he had deposed that for the last 45 years, he is working as Service Manager with M/s North Delhi Motor Cycles at Pitampura and prior to that he was working with M/s Upper India. That prior to 2006, he indulged in trading of CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 23 fabrics and readymade garments in the name of M/s Vipin Enterprises. He had deposed that he did not remember when M/s Vipin Enterprises was constituted. He had not filed any document showing his association with M/s Vipin Enterprises. No sales tax was paid and there was no electricity connection in the name of M/s Vipin Enterprises. He further deposed that he cannot say if his parents have severed their bond with him by giving public notice. He identified the signature of his father on document Ex. PW1/R1, which shows surrender of possession by tenant Madan Lal to his father. He had deposed that the shop vacated by Madan Lal Sharma is still lying vacant, however, his father had only 1/3rd share in the said shop. He had deposed that the portion which was shown at point 'B' on the second floor in the site plan appended with the Partition Deed Ex. PW1/2, is in occupation of Padam Chand Jain. He had further deposed that he or other petitioners have not created any tenancy on second floor after the death of his father. He had further deposed that his father had earlier filed an eviction petition on bonafide requirement, which was withdrawn after his death, with liberty to file a fresh. That petitioner no. 1 had renewed the lease of M/s Vardhman Ladies Suits & Collection after the demise of his father for 05 years w.e.f. 01.05.2017. He had deposed that the said shop from where M/s Vardhman Ladies Suits & Collection is being run is inside the market and the same is not suitable for them.
CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 2312. Sh. Sunil Kathuria, who is brother of Sh. Vipin Kathuria was also examined and he had deposed that he wanted to shift to Delhi to be with his mother and to start a business. He was also cross examined at length by counsel for the respondents and even he had admitted the signature of his father on document Ex. PW1/R1.
13. From the above, it can be inferred that the petitioners have shown the bonafide requirement of running cloth business from the tenanted premises.
14. The respondents have taken various defence in his written statement, i.e.,
1. That the DRC Act is not applicable to commercial properties, hence, present petition is not maintainable.
2. That the petitioners had renewed lease of M/s Vardhman Ladies Suits & Collection on 01.05.2017 for 05 years. The said property is adjacent to the tenanted premises. The instant petition was filed in December, 2017 and the lease was renewed in May, 2017 only. The petitioners had the option of not renewing the lease, hence the bonafide of the petitioners is fanciful.
3. That the petitioners have no family business as such and petitioner no. 1 is old aged lady of more than 75 years.
CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 23Remaining petitioners are employed in private jobs and hence, none of them can actually run the business.
4. That the tenancy was created for unlimited period and hence, present eviction petition is not made out.
5. That the petitioners have concealed the fact that they were having another shop bearing no. 13A/2nd Floor, 5745, Jogiwara, Delhi at their disposal and possession of the said shop has been handed over to the petitioners on 15.01.2016 against due receipt.
15. The respondent no. 1 has got examined himself. In his cross examination, he has deposed that he has no document to show that he had paid pugree amount with respect to suit premises. He has further deposed that he has no document to show that the tenanted premises was let out to him for indefinite period.
16. The following preposition of law are to be considered at this stage.
In case of Satish Jain v. Tara Devi in RC. REV. No. 595/2012 decided on 05.11.2014, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that payment of pagree does not vests any right in the tenant. Section 13 of the Act provides that if a landlord has illegally received any monies in the form of premium, then within CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 23 one year of making the payment, the tenant can seek recovery of the same and not thereafter. In any case even for sake of arguments if it is presumed that pagree/premium was paid, nowhere does the law provides that after payment of such an amount, the tenant cannot be evicted from the suit premises, if there is found a bonafide need for the tenanted premises. Hence, this ground raised by the respondents is rejected.
17. The respondents had stated that the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed as the same has been filed with respect to the tenanted premises which was let out for commercial purposes and Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act applies only to tenanted premises which have been let out for residential purposes. However, the scope of the section has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court titled as Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, reported as AIR 2008 SC 3148 so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes within the scope and ambit of a petition under section 14(1)
(e) of DRC Act.
18. In the present case, since the relationship of the landlord tenant and rate of rent as such is not disputed, the next two foremost requirements are whether the requirement shown by the petitioner is bonafide and whether he does not have any alternate accommodation CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 23 available to adjust the bonafide requirement.
19. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a) The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b) The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
The satisfaction of the two requirements of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus: "The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 23 not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in subsection
(e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is dutybound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable nonresidential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 23 Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean "in good faith and genuine i.e. without fraud or deceit". Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide" is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with 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 need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 23 landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.
The meaning of "bonafide" in the context appears to be in two folds. (a) the need of the landlord must be a genuine one and not a frivolous one. (b) landlord is not motivated by extraneous considerations in trying to recover the possession from the tenant with a view to let it out again to another tenant at a higher rent.
Bonafide requirement :
20. In the present case, the petitioner has shown bonafide requirement of starting family business from the tenanted premises. The same has been contradicted by the respondents on the ground that since the petitioners do not possess experience in cloth business and petitioners do not have any previous family business per se, the bonafide requirement is as such misconceived.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohan Singh & Anr., 2014 (140) DRJ 560, that "no experience is required to start a new business and if a landlord wants to start his own business in the premises owned by him then by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the requirement of the landlord for the premises is neither bonafide nor genuine." Hence, the plea of the respondent is rejected.
CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 23Availability of alternative suitable accommodation :
21. Respondent had stated that the petitioner had two alternate accommodations available;
(i) The shop which was leased to M/s Vardhman Ladies Suits & Collection as the lease was renewed only in May, 2017, i.e. 07 months prior to filing of the present petition. This is accompanied with the fact that earlier also, husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioners no. 2 & 3 had filed a suit for eviction on bonafide ground on 21.11.2014 which was withdrawn after his death. Admittedly, it has come in the evidence of PW1 that the lease of M/s Vardhman Ladies Suits & Collection was renewed after the death of father of petitioners no. 2 & 3.
(ii) With respect to another shop on second floor of the property, i.e. shop bearing no. 13A/2nd Floor, 5745, Jogiwara, Delhi, respondents have relied upon document Ex. PW1/R1 which is a hand written document dated 15.01.2016, the contents of which are in Hindi, however, same are being reproduced here in English :
"Sub : Surrender of possession.
Today, I, Madan Lal Sharma, surrendering the tenancy rights with respect to shop no. no. 13A/2nd Floor, 5745, Jogiwara, Delhi. I have no concern with the said shop henceforth as I had paid all the due rent. I had received my advance payment and handed over the possession. The landlord has no objection to the same."CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 23
The same has been signed by Madan Lal Sharma and at point 'A' owners name has been mentioned as Subhash Kathuria bearing his signature at point 'A'.
22. PW1 & PW2 when examined, have both identified signature at point 'A' of their father Sh. Subhash Kathuria. It is not the case of the petitioners that the said shop was not surrendered to them, however, defence taken by the petitioners is that the said shop is jointly owned by the petitioners and Vikram Kathuria and petitioners have only 1/3rd share in the same. It is nowhere denied by the petitioners that the said shop is not vacant. As per the admission of PW1 & PW2, the said shop was surrendered to father of the petitioners vide document Ex. PW1/R1, and name of father of petitioners on the said document has been stated as owner. Even if it is presumed that said shop is jointly owned by petitioners and Vikram Kathuria, petitioners have nowhere stated why they cannot start their business from the said premises.
23. The facts of the present case are peculiar as earlier an eviction petition was filed by father of the petitioners for his own bonafide requirement, which was withdrawn after his death by the petitioners. It has also come in evidence that the lease of M/s Vardhman Ladies Suits & Collections was renewed for 05 years soon after the death of CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 21 of 23 father of the petitioners and within 07 months from the date of renewal, present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioners. The petitioners have not proved that they have made some arrangements for starting the business as PW1 and PW2 have both deposed in their evidence that they are currently engaged in private jobs. In fact, PW2 is residing in Pune and wishes to shift to Delhi. Even though there is no bar that eviction petition on bonafide ground cannot be filed if no business preparation is made, however, considering the peculiar facts preceding the filing of the present case, the bonafide requirement as shown by the petitioner becomes doubtful. Hence, the petitioners have not been able to prove that they require the tenanted premises for their bonafide requirement and that they have no other suitable accommodation available with them.
24. In view of the discussion made above, the eviction petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is dismissed as rejected. Petitioners are held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e., commercial shop admeasuring 8'9'' X 10'10'' 16'10'' and known as 5746, GF, Jogi Wara, Nai Sarak, Delhi110006, as shown in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition, as shown in red colour in site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioners would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 22 of 23 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.
Digitally signedADITI by ADITI GARG Date: GARG 2019.12.19 11:05:30 +0530 Announced in open Court (Aditi Garg) on 12th Day of December, 2019 CCJ cum ARC (Central) [This order contains 23 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. CIS No. 21/18 Shakuntla Kathuria & Ors. v. Jitender Kumar & Anr. Page 23 of 23