Preeti Khanna vs Mukesh Mohan Goel on 18 November, 2025
2025.11.18
16:51:12
+0530
have categorically explained that Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers
is a close family knit business and because the petitioner is a part
of their family, the possibility of them agreeing for exploring the
said prospect with the petitioner cannot be completely ruled out.
Further, consideration on this point in depth by the Court would
amount to the Court judging the need of the petitioner and,
assessing the existence of such agreement between the petitioner
and Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers with viability of such
agreement for Bhagwan Dass Khanna Jewellers, which as stated
above in Santosh Bhutani's judgment (supra) is impermissible. In
order to support the contention that tenant cannot dictate terms on
the landlord, the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Santosh Bhutani and ors. Vs
Savitri Devi, RC Rev 251/2020, wherein it was held: "The law is
well settled that a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how
he should accommodate itself, or dictate to the landlord his choice
of accommodation. This position has been reiterated in numerous
of judgments of the Supreme Court". The petitioner also relied on
the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manika
Rani Ghosh & Anr vs Dharwinder Kaur, RC Rev 512/2012 and
Manmohan Singh vs Arjun Uppal, RC Rev 117/2016 to show that
the Court cannot examine the viability of the business intended to
be explored by the landlord, his/her prior experience or
qualification. It was held in both of these judgments: