Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By this order I shall dispose of an application under section 25 B (4) of DRC Act filed on behalf of the respondent. The present petition was filed by the petitioners under section 14(1) (e) r/w section 25 B of the DRC Act on the ground of bonafide requirements. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband was the owner of the property bearing no. 4B/60, //2// Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi and the respondent was inducted as a tenant by the petitioner in respect of one shop (3rd shop) in property no. 4B/60, Old Rajender Nagar, New Delhi @ Rs. 990/­ per month excluding electricity charges w.e.f 01.02.1994 however the rent agreement was executed on 17.02.1997 for commercial purposes. The premises under tenancy of respondent are comprised of an area of 110 sq. ft. It is further stated that the petitioner is a widow and old lady suffering from paralysis for the last 5 years due to which her vocal power/voice has weakened and her right hand foot is not working. Petitioner has no source of income and she depends upon his married son Sh. Sumeer Bindra who is doing work of photocopy and STD booth in a small shop in the name of Bindra Printing & Communication on the ground floor of the abovesaid property. The income from the said small shop is not sufficient for his family members. Due to the illness of the petitioner her son has taken credit/loan from various banks and other individual persons and had to pay heavy rate of interest and penalty to them. Most of the time the petitioner has been ignored of medical supervision due to limited source of income, so the petitioner requires a shop which is under the tenancy of the respondent to develop her sons business and also for her daughter in law who is company secretary by profession. The daughter in law of the petitioner cannot join job as she has to take care of the petitioner as well as her two years old son. The shop in //3// question is suitable for her from where she can run her own office and support her family.

9. The respondent further contended that the petitioner is already having a shop which is run by her son and the petitioner does not require the shop in question. The respondent further contended that the son of the petitioner had purchased a property in Uttam Nagar in August, 2008 in the name of his wife and the petitioner had also sold the shop no. 4 to one Sh. Shrawan Singh in the month of July, 2008. On the other hand the petitioner stated that the shop in occupation of the son of the petitioner is very small and the income from the said shop is not sufficient from the family members of the petitioner. The flat at Uttam Nagar is a small flat measuring 62.8 sq. mtr. which is in joint name of wife of son of the petitioner but the same has not been purchased by the son of the petitioner. The shop no. 4 was in occupation of tenant Sh. Shrawan Singh and the petitioner had to sold the same to him due to financial crisis. The respondent has not disputed that the shop which is in occupation of the son of the petitioner is small in size. The petitioner has also filed the copy of sale deed showing the flat at Uttam //10// Nagar is in joint name of wife of son of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is suffering from paralysis and she needs medical supervision. The respondent has also not disputed that the daughter in law of the petitioner is Company Secretary. The petitioner wants to provide the shop in question to her daughter in law for her office and it is the most suitable accommodation for the daughter is law of the petitioner from where she can look after the petitioner as well as can run her office. The flat at Uttam Nagar is residential one and not suitable for the daughter in law of the petitioner to run her office. It is well settled law that petitioner is best judge of his requirement. It is prerogative of the landlord which property he requires according to his need. A tenant cannot dictate term to the landlord. If each tenant take such plea then a landlord will never get back any of his property. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s John Impacts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Surender Singh, 2007 (1), RCR 509 that the landlord is best judge of his requirement and a tenant cannot dictate terms on which the landlord should live.

10. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner had sold the shop no. 4 to Sh. Shrawan Singh in the year 2008 which shows that petitioner is not in need of other accommodation has no substance because the petitioner is a widow and suffering from paralysis. Her son is running a small shop of //11// photocopy of STD booth, this itself established that the petitioner sold the shop no. 4 due to financial crisis. The documents filed by the petitioner prove that notices were issued to the son of the petitioner for non payment of monthly installment of personal loan. The notice dated 15.10.2008 also issued to the son of the petitioner for one time settlement of loan amount.

11. The respondent further contended that the petitioner is getting Rs. 8,000/­ per month as rent from two other shops and Rs. 990/­ from the respondent besides the income of shop run by her son, therefore, the petitioner has sufficient source of income. These contentions have no substance because the family of the petitioner consists of herself, her married son, her daughter in law and a grandson of two years old. In the family of 4 members where one member is suffering from paralysis and one member is a child of age 2­3 years, the earning of Rs. 8,000/­ to Rs. 9,000/­ is not sufficient to meet out the medical expenses and other house expenses of the family. The respondent further contended that the son of the petitioner had a conversation with the son of the respondent where he wanted to sell the shop in question at a huge amount. The respondent further contended that the only purpose of the petitioner is to get the shop vacated from the respondent to sell/let out the same at a higher rent. These contention of the respondent again has no substance because many times //12// parties discussed for settlement and offers are made from both the sides as per their convenience. Even otherwise, the respondent has a remedy u/s 19 of DRC Act. A tenant can repossess the tenanted premises, if the same is let out or sold by the landlord within 3 years from the date of its acquisition on the ground of bonafide requirement. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner got vacated shop no. 1 from Sh. Devendra Singh and has agreed to sell the same to Sh. Shrawan Singh has no merit because the respondent is blowing hot & cold in the same breath. On the one hand he has stated that petitioner got vacated the shop no. 1 from Sh. Devendra Singh on the other hand he has stated that he would sell the said shop Sh. Shrawan Singh after getting the same vacated from Sh. Devendra Singh. The respondent himself is not clear whether the shop no. 1 is in possession of the petitioner or still in the occupation of tenant Sh. Devendra Singh. The respondent further contended that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as son and daughter of the petitioner were not made parties. This contention again has no merit because the rent agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent only. The petitioner being a landlady is competent enough to file the petition alone.