Delhi District Court
Sh. Padam Sain Gupta vs Hari Kishan on 15 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK SHERAWATACJCUMARC
CUMCCJ (SOUTH WEST):DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI
Eviction Petition 10/10
Smt. Raj Rani (Since deceased)
Through LRs
1. Sh. Padam Sain Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal Gupta
2. Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta
S/o Sh. Padam Sain Gupta
3. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Padam Sain Gupta
4. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Padam Sain Gupta
Petitioners No. 1 to 4 are
R/o 100/101,
Main Bazar Najafgarh,
Delhi.
5. Smt. Nirmal Goyal
W/o Late Sh. Naresh Goyal
R/o H. No. D553 (1193A),
Gali Masjid Wali, Ashok Nagar,
Delhi110093
Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan
EP10/10
1
6. Smt. Sneh Aggarwal
W/o Sh. Sunil Aggarwal
R/o H. No. C5B, 26A,
Janakpuri, Delhi110058
7. Smt. Sheela Gupta
W/o Sh. Pankaj Gupta
R/o H. No. 51, Sector15,
PartI, Gurgaon, Haryana122001 ........ Petitioners
VERSUS
Hari Kishan
S/o Late Sh. Kanshi Ram
R/o 93, Ajay Park
Naya Bazar, Najafgarh
Delhi110043 ......... Defendant
Date of Institution : 20.11.2010
Date of Decision : 15.12.2014
JUDGMENT
Vide this judgment I proceed to dispose of petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter called the DRC Act). Through this petition, the petitioner has sought an order for eviction of the respondent from the lease premises being 99, main Bazar, Najafgarh, Delhi.
Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 2 As per case of the petitioner, petitioner is owner of property No. 99, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter called the suit property) purchased by her from one Sh. Khem Chand Gupta. Sh. Khansi Ram was the tenant of the suit property who expired on 29.05.1991 and tenancy devolved upon the respondent who is the son of the deceased. It is further averred that the respondent attorned to the petitioner as landlady and owner and is paying rent to her. It is further averred that family of the petitioner includes her husband Shri Padam Sain and three sons Ram Avtar, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Gupta and their families. It is further averred that Ram Avtar Gupta is in the business of readymade garments and he is running a showroom of the readymade garments at 100, Main Bazaar, Najafgarh, Delhi. It is further averred that Shri Rajat Gupta is a son of Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta, he started his studies in the CA course, but was unable to clear his exams and he is studying for the B.Com Course. It is further stated that the petitioner has decided that Sh. Rajat Gupta should now start his own business of readymade garments to be able to settle in life and he needs a shop for his business. The family of the petitioner and her husband is living together with Shri Ram Avtar Gupta and they have a common Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 3 kitchen also It is further averred that the petitioner requires the suit property for the business of Sh. Rajat Gupta and Sh. Rajat Gupta is dependent upon the petitioner for the suit property. It is further averred that the petitioner and Sh. Rajat Gupta have no other reasonably suitable premises for the business of Sh. Rajat Gupta. It is further averred that bonafide requires the said property namely 99, G.F., Main Bazaar, Najafgarh, Delhi110043 for the business of Shri Rajat Gupta.
Leave to defend application of respondent was allowed vide order dt. 16.11.2011 and respondent was permitted to file written statement but thereafter petitioner expired and her LRs had moved an application u/o 22 Rule 3 CPC which was allowed vide order dt. 01.04.2013 by ld. Predecessor and her LRs were brought on record.
Written statement was filed by the respondent stating therein that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the same have been filed on the false and frivolous grounds. Further, it is stated that the petitioner is an old lady of 80 years and her husband three sons namely Ram Avtar Gupta, Sanjay Gupta and Pradeep Gupta, are well settled in their respective business and professions and having properties of several crores in the main Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 4 Najafgarh, New Delhi while the respondent is having the only source of income to earn livelihood for his family form the said shop No. 99, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi43. Further, it is stated that the ground of personal necessity for the grand son of the petitioner and son of Ram Avtar Gupta is not tenable because, the father of the Rajat Gupta, Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta is already having a well established business of readymade garments at ground floor and upper ground floor of premises No. 100 & 101, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi43, adjacent to the shop of the replying respondent, where more than 10 servants are employed in that business and Sh.Ram Avtar Gupta is having his residence at first floor of the premises No. 100 & 101. Further, it is stated that Rajat Gupta son of Ram Avtar Gupta, grand son of the petitioner is not unemployed and assisting his father in his business. Further, it is stated that Rajat Gupta is dependent on his father Ram Avtar Gupta and not on the petitioner. Further, it is stated that the husband and sons of the petitioner have properties to establish the business for Mr. Rajat Gupta.
In reply on merits, the respondent has denied all allegations made in the petition against him and termed the same as false. Further, it is stated that the petitioner and her sons are bent Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 5 upon to get vacated the suit property from the respondent because he has started the business of school bags, attaches and briefcases etc. at the shop No. 99 and the sons of the petitioner also having the same items at the adjacent shops No. 100 and 101, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Further, it is stated that three sons of the petitioner are rich, educated and having several commercial properties in their names and shares. Further, it is stated that shop No. 99 is the only means for the respondent to earn livelihood for his family. He has also prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the written statement filed by the respondent wherein contents of the petition have been reiterated and allegations levelled against her in the WS have been denied.
Smt. Raj Rani examined herself as PW1 and tendered his affidavit by way of evidence and relied upon EX.AW1/A i.e. site plan, & Mark A i.e. copy of sale deed. She has been cross examined by ld. counsel for respondent.
Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta examined himself as PW2 and tendered his affidavit by way of evidence. He has been cross examined by ld. counsel for respondent.
Sh. Babu, LDC, Transport Authority, South West Zone, Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 6 Palam, Janakpuri, New Delhi examined himself as PW3 and relied upon EX.PW3/1 i.e. record pertaining to the issuance of driving license to Sh. Rajat Gupta. He has been cross examined by ld. counsel for respondent as nil opportunity given.
Sh. Vinod Kumar, Accounts Assistant, Office of AERO, AC35, Najafgarh, New Delhi examined himself as PW4 and relied upon EX.PW4/A to EX.PW4/C i.e. record pertaining to the issuance of election Voter ICard of Smt. Raj Rani Gupta, Sh. Rajat Gupta and Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta. He has been cross examined by ld. counsel for respondent as nil opportunity given.
Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Section Officer, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, I.P. Estate, New Delhi examined himself as PW5 and relied upon Mark A i.e. photocopy of Mark Register, IPCE May 2010 and EX.PW5/A i.e. Statements of Marks of Sh. Rajat Gupta. He has been cross examined by ld. counsel for respondent as nil opportunity given.
Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Richa Manchanda, Civil Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi examined himself as PW6 and relied upon EX.PW6/A i.e. certified copy of ordersheet dated 17.01.2011 and EX.PW6/B i.e. certified copy of cross examination of Hari Kishan. He has been cross Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 7 examined by ld. counsel for respondent as nil opportunity given.
Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed. Sh. Hari Kishan examined himself as RW1 and tendered his affidavit by way of evidence in which he reiterated the contents of his WS. Further, it is stated that he had tendered the rent to the petitioner by way of demand draft and photocopy of same is annexed with the affidavit as Annexure A. He has been cross examined by ld. counsel for respondent.
Thereafter, respondent evidence was closed. I have heard the submissions of the ld. counsels and perused the material on record.
In a suit for eviction u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the premises in question must be required by the landlord or owner bona fide for his or her own use or for use of dependent family members. At the same time, the landlord must not be having any alternative suitable accommodation.
In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties about their relationship being of landlord and tenant. The petitioner requires the suit property to provide space for business to her grandson. The respondent has questioned the bonafide need Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 8 of the petitioner and put forth evidence to discredit the same. Besides, respondent has contested the case on the ground that petitioner and her family are in possession of various alternative properties which can be suitably used for the purpose of the business by the grandson of the petitioner. What is a bona fide requirement has been discussed in detail by the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC
222.
"The Phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is 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 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 need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court"
Here in this case, the petitioner has produced ample evidence to show that her need to accommodate her grandson Rajat Gupta in the suit property for starting business is quite genuine. PW5, a Section Officer in the Institute of Chartered Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 9 Accountant of India, has proved that Rajat Gupta flunked out in his exam of Chartered Accountant. PW5 has proved the relevant part of the register and mark sheets which are exhibited as PW5/A and "A" respectively. Documents proved as Ex. PW3/1 and PW4/B which are copies of details of driving licence and electoral identity card of Rajat Gupta show that he is a major. Thus, the need of the petitioner and her family to launch him into some business of his own comes off as real and honest. PW1, in her examination in chief, has clearly specified the nature of the business business of readymade garments, a family business being carried on by most of the family members and consequently a natural choice for them while seeking to have their member Rajat Gupta settled in life. In her evidence, PW1 has stated that Rajat Gupta has been assisting his father PW2 in his business and has picked up expertise along the way. These are certainly objective standards to reach a conclusion that need of the petitioner to get the premises vacated is not a pretext to oust the defendant, but a felt one.
Again, the fact that a number of properties are listed in petitioner family's name does not seem to stand in the way of her case. It turns out that none of the said properties are vacant so as to afford space for new business which the grandson of the Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 10 petitioner intends to start. The evidence of petitioner and her family members show that all the premises owned by them are already occupied by one or the other family member for business or residence. As it happens, even the respondent is not able to bring on record any property belonging to family of petitioner which may be vacant, let alone the question of suitability.
The respondent has sought to disprove the bona fide claim of the petitioner by putting on record the details of alternative premises being held by the family members of the petitioner . Hence, the two ingredients, namely bona fide requirement and alternative suitable accommodation, appear to be overlapping in this case. The following properties have been referred to commonly by both the parties:
1. 1506/21, E8, Health Centre Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
2. 1067, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3. 661A, Goshala Road, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
4. 1652, Thana Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
5. 100101, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
The detail put forth by the defendant, itself, shows that all the properties in the hands of the petitioner and her relative are being used for some or the other purpose and they can not be taken into account for negating the claim of the petitioner. This Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 11 apart, the alternative premises must be available to the landlord for occupation before it can be considered to be sufficient to meet his needs. If the accommodation is there but the same is not vacant or available due to some reason then it can not be said the landlord is having alternative accommodation available to him. It is significant to note that it is not the case of the respondent that petitioner has concealed any property.
Defendant's contention that the PW2, father of Rajat Gupta, is in the wellestablished business of clothes at a premises adjacent to the suit property and he has employed 1015 workers in the shop does not furnish any ground of defence. Respondent can not be given the authority to dictate terms to the petitioner or her family as to how they use their property. Further, it is no concern of respondent whether PW2 allows his son to join his business or wants him to establish a new one of his own.
In Sait Nagiee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. Vs Vimalbhai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252, it was observed:
"It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 12 advise him what he should do and what he should not it is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business."
Thus, if the petitioner wants her grandson to establish business independent of other family members, it is no business of respondent to advise them against it and ask them to adjust the grandson in someone else's business.
The respondent has also tried to pull apart the case of the petitioner on the ground that Rajat Gupta, for whose requirement the premises is being sought to be get vacated, is not dependent on the petitioner and he is dependent on his father PW2. This again is a fallacious argument. The term "dependent" and "family" are almost correlated. The word "dependent" is not restricted to persons financially dependent but is comprehensive enough to include persons who are residing with the landlord. If a family member is financially not dependent upon the landlord, then it does not mean that he is not dependent on the landlord for any other purpose. Vide M.M.Mehta vs Chaman Lal ILR 1980 (1) Del 94.
The Supreme Court in Baldev Sahai Bangai vs R.C.Bhasin AIR 1982 SC 1091 has held that the word "family" has to be given not a restricted but a wider meaning so as to include not Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan EP10/10 13 only the head of the family but all members or descendants from the common ancestor who are living together in the same house.
In the present case, the person for whose benefit the premise is needed is grandson of the petitioner and he alongwith his father PW2 is residing with her. Under the circumstances, it can not be said that the grandson is not dependent on petitioner or he does not constitute the family of the petitioner.
In the light of the abovesaid discussions, the petitioners have proved their bonafide requirement in suit property as shown in red colour in the site plan EX.AW1/A. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed against the respondent/tenant and he is directed to handover the physical and vacant possession of suit property i.e. property No. 99, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan EX.AW1/A to the LRs i.e. Sh. Padam Sain Gupta, Sh. Ram Avtar Gupta, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta. However, as per stipulation u/s 14 (7) DRC Act, the Landlord shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of this order. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Deepak Sherawat)
court on 15.12.2014 ACJcumCCJcumARC
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi
Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan
EP10/10
14
Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Hari Kishan
EP10/10
15