[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Rajesh Gupta vs Asha on 24 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN, ARC-01,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC NO. 1/2024
Sh. Rajesh Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta,
R/o 9725, Katra Nanak Chand,
Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj,
Delhi - 110006. ..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Asha
W/o Late Sh. Vinod
R/o Pvt No. 3,
9725-9727, Gaushala Marg,
Kishan Ganj, Delhi - 110006
2. Sh. Rahul
S/o late Sh. Vinod
R/o Pvt. No. 3, 9725-9727,
Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj,
Delhi - 110006. ........Respondents
Date of Institution of the case 02.01.2024
Under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B, Delhi
Rent Control Act.
Date of reserving of Order 05.03.2025
Date of Order 24.04.2025
Decision Leave to defend application is
dismissed and eviction order passed
Argued by:
a) Sh. Tejas Gupta, Ld Counsel for Petitioner.
b) Sh. Ashish Sharma and Sh. M. N. Khan, Ld Counsels for
respondents.
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 1 of 22
ORDER
1) This order shall dispose off an application for leave to defend
filed by the respondents/tenants in an eviction petition under Section
14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ( hereinafter called as the DRC
Act).
PETITION
2) It is alleged by the petitioner that property bearing no. 9723-
9727, Katra Nanak Chand, Gaushala Marg, Kishan Ganj, Delhi –
110006, (hereinafter referred to as subject premises) was owned by
Nanak Chand by virtue of registered partition deed dated 22.12.1945. It
is further stated that Nanak Chand died on 08.12.1951 and by virtue of
his Will dated 19.07.1950, his wife Sona Devi became the owner of the
subject premises. It is further stated that Sona Devi demised on
04.09.1981 and by virtue of her Will dated 22.07.1976, the portion of the
subject premises shown in pink colour in the site plan annexed with the
Will, Shyam Sunder Gupta (father of petitioner) became the owner of the
said pink portion. It is stated that the tenanted premises fall in the said
pink portion. It is further stated that the said pink portion consists of four
rooms with covered verandah and one shop (partitioned into two shops)
on the ground floor, five rooms and verandah on first floor and one tin
shed on the terrace of the subject premises. It is further stated that Shyam
Sunder Gupta was firstly married to Asha Gupta and had two sons
namely Rajesh Gupta (petitioner herein) and Siddharth Gupta. However,
the said marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce about 30 years ago
and thereafter, Shyam Sunder Gupta performed second marriage with
Manju Gupta and had daughter namely Nisha Gupta from the said
wedlock. It is further stated that Shyam Sunder Gupta demised on
04.06.1997 and the pink portion of the subject premises devolved upon
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 2 of 22
his legal heirs who executed relinquishment deed dated 13.02.2015 in
favour of the petitioner herein. It is stated that the said pink portion of
the site plan annexed with the will has been separately shown in green
colour in the site plan annexed with the petition and the petitioner herein
is the sole and absolute owner of the said portion. It is further stated that
originally Vinod Kumar (husband of the respondent no.1 and father of
the respondent no.2) was inducted as a tenant with respect to one room
bearing pvt. no. 3 and verandah situated on the ground floor of property
bearing no.9725-9727, Katra Nanak Chand, Kishan Ganj, Gaushala
Marg, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises) and more
specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the
petition. However, on the death of Vinod Kumar, the respondents are in
occupation of the tenanted premises. It is stated that the step mother of
the petitioner Manju Gupta is around 66 years of age and is suffering
from schizophrenia. It is stated that she is staying with the petitioner on
the first floor of the subject premises in the room marked as A in the site
plan. However, due to her mental condition, a care taker has to look after
her. It is also stated that she requires one bedroom for herself, one
drawing room, one dining room, one kitchen and one puja room besides
the room of caretaker. It is also stated that Nisha Gupta (step-sister) is
also presently residing with the petitioner in the subject premises
alongwith her daughter aged about 6 years due to differences with her
husband in the room marked as B in the site plan. It is stated that she
requires one room for herself and for her daughter alongwith one
drawing room, kitchen and one bathroom-cum-WC besides a play-cum-
study room for a daughter. It is also stated that the petitioner’s brother
namely Siddharth Gupta was firstly married to Vidhi Gupta and had two
children out of the said wedlock. However, his marriage was dissolved in
the year 2010 and thereafter, he married Ramya Gupta with whom he is
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 3 of 22
having a son namely Aadit Gupta. It is stated that the said brother
alongwith his wife are residing in two rooms marked C and D in the site
plan. It is also stated that the two daughters though residing with their
biological mother also on and off visit and stay with Siddharth Gupta. It
is stated that the said brother also requires one bed room for himself and
for his wife, one room for his son, two rooms for his daughters, one
study room besides one drawing room, one dining room, one bathroom-
cum-WC and one guest room. It is further stated that the petitioner is
presently unemployed and therefore, he has filed eviction petition
against tenant Balbir Prasad with respect to shop at the ground floor so
that he can run a business of steel utensils. It is further stated that his
wife Anshu Gupta and their daughter Archita is also residing with the
petitioner in two rooms marked as E and F in the site plan. It is stated
that the petitioner requires one bedroom for himself and his wife and for
their daughter Archita, one drawing room, one dining room, one kitchen,
two bedrooms for guests besides bathroom-cum-WC and study room. It
is stated that at present petitioner and all family members are using the
area marked as G in the site plan as kitchen and further, they have built
two temporary bathrooms and latrine in verandah as marked as H in the
site plan which is used commonly by the all members of the family. It is
further stated that one shop on the ground floor with two shutters is in
the tenancy of Balbir (against whom eviction order has been passed) and
Baldev. In the residential portion owned by the petitioner, rooms marked
as pvt. no. 1,2,3,8,28,48B,48 are in the occupation of various tenants and
therefore, separate eviction petitions have been filed against them. It is
stated that the tenanted premises are required for the bonafide need of
residence by the petitioner and his family members and that no other
suitable residential accommodation in Delhi is available to the petitioner.
Alongwith the eviction petition, petitioner has filed site plan, partition
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 4 of 22
deed, Will of Sh. Nanak Chand alongwith its translation, Will of Smt.
Sona Devi alongwith its translation, mediation settlement dated
19.03.2018, order dated 21.03.2018 passed in suit no. 3564/2017
confirming settlement dated 19.03.2018, house tax receipts, rent deed
with tenants namely late Habib Khan, Sudesh Kumar and Budh Sain,
rent receipts of all the tenants namely Khaleeq, Smt. Draupadi, Smt.
Asha, Sh. Sudesh, Sh. Chaman, Sh. Rameshwar and Sh. Budh Sain,
Relinquishment deed dated 13.12.2015, medical documents of Manju
Gupta, copy of adhar card of Manu Gupta, copy of adhar card of Rajesh
Gupta, copy of adhar card of Anshu Gupta, copy of adhar card of Archita
Gupta, copy of adhar card of Sidharth Gupta, copy of adhar card of
Ramya Gupta, copy of adhar card of Aadit Gupta, copy of adhar card of
Nisha Goyal, copy of adhar card of Aaradhya, and transfer letter dated
06.06.2023 by M/s Flipkart to Sh. Siddhartha Gupta.
LEAVE TO DEFEND
3) Upon issuance of summons under the Third Schedule of the
DRC Act, the respondents appeared and filed their leave to defend
application within the prescribed time period. In the said application,
respondents have sought leave to defend and raised various objections.
Firstly, it is contended that there is no landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties. It is stated that petitioner is neither the owner nor
the landlord. It is also stated that ownership can be transferred only by
way of registered sale deed and the documents filed by the petitioner do
not amount to proof of ownership. It is stated that the respondents are
residing in the premises in their own right since during the lifetime of
Sona Devi, the possession of the respondents as owners was affirmed
after negotiation and settlement, though she was not the owner of the
property. Secondly, it is contended that the respondents or their
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 5 of 22
forefather was never inducted as a tenant nor any rent has ever been
claimed from the respondents. It is stated that the rent receipt is false and
fabricated. Thirdly, it is contended that the sufficient accommodation is
available with the petitioner whereas the respondent is only in
occupation of small portion. It is stated that the entire first floor of the
subject premises, one room alongwith WC and bathroom on the second
floor is in the possession of the petitioner. Fourthly, it is contended that
the need is not bonafide as petitioner’s uncle namely Nand Kishore has
also filed eviction petition against the occupants whereby he has pleaded
that he would reconstruct his portion. Hence, it is stated that
contradictory pleadings had been made by the petitioner herein and his
uncle in the said matter. Fifthly, it is contended that the requirement is
not bonafide as the persons for whose need, the present eviction petition
had been filed themselves executed relinquishment deed in favour of the
petitioner herein. Sixthly, it is contended that the need is not bonafide as
the members of the family of the petitioner are not dependent upon him.
It is also stated that Manju Gupta is a step mother of the petitioner and
the relations between them are not cordial. Further, it is contended that in
view of her medical ailments, she does not require separate dining,
drawing room etc. It is further contended that Nisha Gupta is already
married and living with her husband and purported requirement in her
regard is imaginary and fictitious. It is also contended that Siddharth
Gupta is earning handsome salary and has not dependent upon the
petitioner. It is also stated that the subject premises is not suitable to the
status of Siddharth Gupta and therefore, he would not reside in the
subject premises. It is further contended that his daughters from first
wife are living with their mother and there is no interactions between the
said daughters and Siddharth Gupta. Seventhly, it is contended that the
petitioner has stated that being unemployed, he had obtained possession
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 6 of 22
of shop on the ground floor from Balbir but the said shop is lying locked.
Thus, it is stated that the need is not bonafide. Eightly, it is contended
that the petitioner has concealed one room which he has falsely shown as
a storeroom on the second floor. It is also stated that the possession of
room no. 48 and 48B is also with the petitioner and not with any tenant.
Alongwith the leave to defend application, respondents have filed map of
property in question, photographs of property in question, copy of aadhar
card of Rahul, copy of aadhar card of Asha, copy of gas cylinder receipt
dated 20.01.2024, copy of electricity bill dated 27.02.2024, copy of
MTNL telephone bill dated 28.02.2024, and copy of election ID card of
Rahul.
REPLY TO LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
4) In reply to the leave to defend application supported with the
accompanying affidavit, petitioner has denied the averments of the
respondents and reiterated her bonafide requirement of the tenanted
premises.
REJOINDER
5) No rejoinder was filed by the respondents despite opportunity
on 31.07.2024, 23.10.2024, 16.01.2025 and 05.03.2025.
FINDINGS
6) Thereafter, arguments were advanced on behalf of both the
parties by their respective counsels. At the outset, it is stated that there is
no doubt regarding the case laws relied upon on behalf of both the
parties where the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi has laid down the principles with respect to provisions of the DRC
Act, 1958 in different factual scenarios. However, each case has its own
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 7 of 22
distinguishing facts and circumstances and each matter has to be decided
in its own factual background. It is trite to state that in a petition u/s
14(1)(e) of DRC Act in order to get an eviction order the
petitioner/landlord is required to establish the following :-
(i) That he/she is the owner/landlord of the property;
(ii) That he/she requires the premises bonafide and
iii) That he/she does not have any other alternative suitable
accommodation for this purpose.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP
7) As far as the landlord-tenant relationship is concerned,
respondents have disputed the same. It is contended that the documents
filed by the petitioner do not amount to proof of ownership as it has been
held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the ownership can be transferred
only by way of registered sale deed. However, the present matter is not a
title dispute, rather an eviction petition under the DRC Act. Therefore, in
the present case, the petitioner has not to prove absolute ownership. He
only has to show that he has a better title than that of the tenant. The law
in this regard has been elaborately dealt with in the case of in Ramesh
Chand vs. Uganti Devi reported as 157 (2009) DLT 450 the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi held:
“………. The imperfectness of the title of the premises
cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition
under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the
tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title
or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the
tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116
of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a
tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only
after vacating the premises and not when he is
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 8 of 22
occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who
denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to
whom he is paying rent acts dishonestly………”.
8) It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed copy of the
registered partition deed qua the proof of ownership of the original
owner Nanak Chand. Further, he has filed the copy of the Will of Nanak
Chand from whom the property by way of Will devolved upon his wife
Sona Devi. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the respondents in
their leave to defend application have conceded that their title was
affirmed after negotiation and settlement by said Sona Devi. Therefore,
the respondents are also claiming their ownership through Sona Devi but
no document in this regard has been filed by the respondents. It is trite to
state that rights /interest in immovable property can be transferred by
way of written agreement only by virtue of section 17 (1) (b) of the
Registration Act. Furthermore, it is admitted position that no written
agreement was ever executed in favour of the respondents or their
predecessor-in-interest by the said Sona Devi. Per contra, petitioner has
filed copy of the Will of said Sona Devi by virtue of which the portion of
the subject premises was bequeathed to the father of the petitioner
namely Shyam Sunder Gupta and also the copy of mediation settlement
dated 19.03.2018 and order dated 19.03.2018 of the concerned Civil
Court affirming the said settlement between the legal heirs of Sona Devi.
Therefore, the petitioner is the successor-in-interest of the original
owner/landlord. Hence, it is not within the domain of the respondents to
deny his title. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind the principle
laid down in the case of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Teckchandani 2008
(153) DLT 247 which is as follows:-
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 9 of 22
“The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant
litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has
to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the
premises was let out by a person and after his death, the
premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a
Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of
such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner
the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the
premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit
impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask
the Court to decide as to who shall be the
landlord/owner after the death of the original owner.”
9) The principle is very clear that once a tenant always a tenant.
The tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord or his successor-in-
interest. Therefore, the said contention is of no assistance to the
respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansraj
Laltaprasad Mishra v. Stanley Parker Jones (2006) 3 SCC 91 had held
that:
“…..13. The underlying policy of section 116 is that
where a person has been brought into possession as a
tenant by the landlord and if that tenant is permitted to
question the title of the landlord at the time of the
settlement, then that will give rise to extreme confusion
in the matter of relationship of the landlord and tenant
and so the equitable principle of estoppel has been
incorporated by the legislature in the said section.
10) Thus a tenant is estopped from challenging the ownership or
denying the title of the landlord. Hence, the contention that the rent
receipt is false and fabricated or that the respondents or their forefather
was never inducted as a tenant and no rent has been paid is a bald
averment made prima facie for the purpose of raising a plea without any
basis in this regard. No pleadinsg have been made as to how theRC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 10 of 22
respondents or their predecessor came into the possession of the tenanted
premises if not in the capacity of a tenant. It is pertinent to note that the
documents relied upon by the respondents i.e. photographs, aadhar cards,
utility bills are only proof of possession. The factum of the possession of
the respondents has not been disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, the
said documents in no way assist the case of the respondents. In this
regard, I also find it pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court passed in the case of Mohd. Naseer Vs. Mohd. Zaheer and Anr.
RC Rev. No. 267/2016 dated 03.11.2016 is to be noted in which the
following was held :-
“19. …Mere raising of baseless contentions against the
landlord cannot be a ground for being granted leave to
defend to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the
petitioners have given facts or particulars which require
to be established by way of evidence. The petitioners
have merely made allegations for the sake of making
allegation. There is no merit in the said plea of the
petitioner.
20. The trial court has rightly concluded that the
petitioners have failed to place on record any material
to raise a suspicion that the respondents are having a
vacant space on the ground floor of the suit property
which can be used by them to open his workshop for
industrial tools.”
11) Accordingly, it can be stated that the petitioner is the owner
/landlord of the tenanted premises and the respondent is the tenant in the
said premises. Thus, the first ingredient of landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties in the present case, stands established.
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 11 of 22
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT AND NON-AVAILABILITY OF
ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION
12) Since the said two issues are connected, they are taken up
together. Moving forward, in order to succeed in his petition, petitioner
is required to establish his bonafide need. Petitioner has averred that he
requires the tenanted premises alongwith the other portion of the subject
premises owned by him which is in the occupation of various tenants for
the residential need of himself and his dependent family members.
However, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the need of
the petitioner is not bonafide. It is stated that the petitioner’s uncle
namely Nand Kishore has also filed eviction petition against the other
occupants whereby he has pleaded that he wishes to reconstruct the
premises. Hence, it is stated that the sole purpose of the present petition
is to evict the respondents without any bonafide need. It is also stated
that the requirement is not genuine since the persons for whose
requirement, the present petition has been filed had themselves executed
relinquishment deed in favour of the petitioner and therefore, they do not
need the tenanted premises. But the Hon’ble Supreme court in Baldev
Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 has held that
whenever a landlord seeks eviction of the tenant for bonafide need, the
controller shall presume the need as genuine and bonfide. Additionally,
the burden to refute the said presumption squarely lies on the tenant and
mere assertion on the part of tenant is insufficient. Hence, mere assertion
of the respondents in this regard does not amount to any triable issue.
13) Furthermore, it is trite to state that time is not static. With
lapse of time, old needs may extinguish and new needs may emerge.
Therefore, the fact that the family members of the petitioner had
executed relinquishment deed in year 2015 in his favour of the subject
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 12 of 22
premises does not imply that the need is malafide. Also, in this regard,
the provision of Section 19 (2) of DRC Act is to be emphasized which
protects a tenant in case the landlord recovers possession of any premises
and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for
whose benefit the premises are held within two months of obtaining such
possession or having obtained the possession, the same are re-let to any
other person within three years from the date of obtaining the possession.
Hence, no triable issue arises on this account.
14) Next, it is contended that the petition is malafide as the family
members of the petitioner are not dependent upon him. It is stated that he
does not have cordial relations with step mother Manju Gupta and also
that the brother of the petitioner is earning handsome salary. It is also
contended that the subject premises are located in a congested area and
the brother of the petitioner who is working and earning handsome salary
would not shift or stay in such locality. However, it is trite to state that a
tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how he should utilize or adjust
in his own property. It is pertinent to note here the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Abid-ul-Islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC
30 where it was stated by the Hon’ble court that 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 accommodation. Such reasonableness along with
suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not the
tenant. Also, it is the prerogative of the landlord to determine which
premises best suits his requirements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and
the Delhi High Court have repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit
in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 13 of 22
property of the landlord is to be best utilized by him. The landlord is the
absolute owner of his property and is the best person to decide which
property is to be utilized in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as
to how the landlord is to utilize his property. The landlord possesses the
prerogative to determine his specific requirements, exercising full
autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to
impose directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their
chosen usage of the tenanted premises. Therefore, the courts refrain from
prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord’s choices
(residential or commercial). Reliance is placed upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Praveen & Anr. Vs. Mulak Raj &
Ors. RC Rev. 417/2016 in this regard. Therefore, the said contention
does not amount to any triable issue. It is not within the domain of the
tenant to challenge or question the inter personal relation of the
petitioner with his family members. It is not in dispute that Manju Gupta
is residing in the subject premises itself. Also, her medical
condition/ailments have not been disputed by the respondents. In the
present case, multiple requirements have been stated by the petitioner.
Tenanted premises are required by the petitioner not only for residence
of himself, his spouse and child but also for his step mother, step sister
and brother and his family. As regards multiple requirements, in case of
Dr. Jitender Mohan Gulati Vs. Hira Lal Singh, 219 (2015) DLT 489, it
was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as under:-
“……. The fact that Hira Lal has mentioned two bonafide
requirements i.e. to start the business for himself and the other
for expansion of business of his son would not nullify his
bonafide requirement. There is no requirement in the law that
while filing an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC
Act, the landlord must restrict himself to only one bonafide
requirement”.
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 14 of 22
15) Therefore, merely because the landlord has multiple
requirements of the tenanted premises, his eviction petition cannot be
dismissed on ground of vagueness or that he is confused about the
requirement. It will be for the landlord to use the same for the more
pressing requirements and the Court cannot dictate the same. Hence, no
triable issue arises on this account. Furthermore, the landlord being the
best judge of his own requirement is the best person to decide as to how
he should utilize his own premises and neither the tenant nor the court
can intervene the same. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendera
Kumar Tandon 72 (1998) DLT 629 that the landlord is not disentitled
from seeking recovery of the possession of a ground floor merely on the
plea that he is also in possession of first floor and second floor so long as
the court is satisfied with respect to the bonafide requirement of the
landlord for the tenanted premises.
16) Further, it is contended that the need is not bonafide as
previously the petitioner had obtained possession of the shop on the
ground floor from Balbir on the ground that he is unemployed but the
said shop is still lying locked. It is contended that the said modus
operandi has been employed by the petitioner to evict various persons
from the subject premises. However, the petitioner has clarified that only
eviction order has been passed in his favour and the execution of the
same is still pending. Moreover, no material has been placed on record
by the respondent to show that the physical possession of the said shop
has actually been obtained by the petitioner. Furthermore, the bonafide
need in the present case is for residential purpose whereas the said shop
is commercial. Admittedly, it is not the case of the respondent that the
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 15 of 22
said shop can be utilized for residential purpose. It is a matter of
common knowledge that litigation can continue for many years and
therefore, the fact that eviction order has been passed in favour of the
petitioner with respect to commercial shop in the subject premises does
not render his need of the tenanted premises in question for residential
purpose as malafide. Thus, no triable issue arises on the said account as
well.
17) It is a well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient
that any kind of the property should be available to the
petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. The
property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be reasonably
suitable property. In M M Quasim vs/ Manohar Lal Sharma, (1981) 3
SCC 36, the Apex Court has that the landlord does not have an
unfettered right to choose the premises but merely showing that the
landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession may not be
sufficient to negative the landlord’s claim if the vacant premises were
not suitable for the purpose for which he required the premises.
18) Therefore, the contention that the entire floor of the subject
premises, one room alongwith WC and bathroom on the second floor is
in the possession of the petitioner is devoid of merits. Perusal of record
shows that only the portion as shown in pink colour in the site plan
annexed to the Will of Sona Devi fell to the share of father of the
petitioner. Therefore, it is not the case where the entire first floor fell to
the share of the petitioner. The said fact is also affirmed by the order
dated 21.03.2018 passed in Civil Suit No. 3564/2017 passed between the
legal heirs of the Sona Devi. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Abid-ul-Islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 16 of 22
has held for availing leave to defend a mere assertion by the tenant is
insufficient. Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act creates a presumption in favour
of the landlord regarding bona fide need, which is rebuttable only with
substantive material capable of raising a triable issue. It was further held
that the burden of proof is on the tenant to demonstrate, with cogent
evidence, that alternative accommodation is vacant and suitable for the
projected bonafide need of the landlord. The Court also reiterated the
settled principle of law that leave to defend should not be granted on
mere asking but when the pleas and contentions raise triable issues. The
relevant extract of the Abid-Ul-Islam case is extracted below:-
“18. For availing the leave to defend as envisaged
under Section 25-B (5), a mere assertion per se would
not suffice as Section 14 (1) (e) creates a presumption
subject to the satisfaction of the learned Rent
Controller qua bona fide need in favour of the landlord
which is obviously rebuttable with some material of
substance to the extent of raising a triable issue. The
satisfaction of the Rent Controller in deciding on an
application seeking leave to defend is obviously
subjective. The degree of probability is one of
preponderance forming the subjective satisfaction of
the Rent Controller. Thus, the quality of adjudication is
between a mere moonshine and adequate material and
evidence meant for the rejection of a normal
application for eviction.”
19) But no material has been placed on record to even prima facie
show that the petitioner himself has the ownership rights of the entire
first floor. Moreover, as per the case of the respondents themselves, the
uncle of the petitioner has also filed separate eviction petition against the
occupants with respect to the portion falling in his share. Therefore, the
factum of said partition of shares of the subject premises is also
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 17 of 22
acknowledged by the respondents themselves. Hence, bald averment has
been made without placing any material on record which would result in
a triable issue in this regard. Also in the case of K.K. Sarin Vs. M/s
Pigott Chapman & Co. 46 (1992) DLT 352 , the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court held that the tenant has to produce material on which he is relying
upon. But no such material has been brought on record. Furthermore,
while deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is
quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could
have adjusted.
20) Even otherwise, multiple requirements have been stated by the
petitioner since various family members are in need of portion of
residence. Therefore, it is for the petitioner /landlord to decide for which
pressing need, the tenanted premises in question shall be utilized. Even
if, for the sake of the arguments, it is conceded that sufficient
accommodation is available to the petitioner for himself, his wife and
daughter as well as for his brother Siddharth Gupta and his family and
that of Nisha Gupta, still it is not in dispute that the step mother of the
petitioner Manju Gupta is a senior citizen and suffering from various
ailments and also requires caretaker/helper. It is trite to state that an
alternative accommodation, to entail denial of claim of landlord, must be
reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with tenanted premises,
wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. In this regard, it is pertinent
to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Amit
Khandelwal and Anr. vs. Hem Chand Aluria, RC. Rev. 380/2018 wherein
it was held that
“clearly, as tenant cannot dictate to a landlord as to
how the landlord is to use his premises. At the age of
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 18 of 22
69 years (now 76 years), it would be too much to
expect from the respondent landlord, with his health
condition to make climb up and get down the stairs
when he can have the accommodation available on the
ground floor.”
21) Similarly, in the present matter, tenant cannot dictate to the
landlord to adjust on the upper floors when in comparison when he can
have accommodation on the ground floor for his step mother and her
helper /caretaker in this regard. As far as the contention of the
respondents is concerned that the tenanted premises are very small, it is
pertinent to note that the petitioner has also filed eviction petition against
another tenant Draupadi bearing RC ARC No.2/2024 as well. Even
otherwise, it is the prerogative of the petitioner to determine his
requirements and not for the court to dictate the same. It is no longer res
integra that if the landlord is able to show the bonafide, then the tenant
cannot dictate terms to the landlord that he should occupy some other
building and not the one mentioned in the petition. Thus, no triable issue
arises on this account.
22) Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner has falsely shown a
store room on the second floor. It is also contended that the possession of
the room number48 and 48B is also with the petitioner and not with a
tenant. Counter site plan has also been filed by the respondents.
However, perusal of the counter site plan shows that the identity and
extent of the tenanted premises is not in dispute. Furthermore, except for
minor discrepancies, the site plan filed by the petitioner and the site plan
filed by the respondent is the same. As far as the contention with respect
to the store room on the second floor is concerned, the said contention
does not assist the case of the respondents since it is not denied by the
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 19 of 22
petitioner that the room on the second floor is being utilized by the
petitioner and his family members. Therefore, merely the fact that the
said room is in the possession of the petitioner does not render the need
as malafide. It is the prerogative of the petitioner /landlord to utilize the
room as per his requirement and if the petitioner and his family members
are purportedly using the said room for storage purpose, the said fact
would not render the need as malafide. Furthermore, the tenanted
premises are situated on the ground floor and even if the need of other
family members of the petitioner are ignored, still the requirement of
rooms for the step mother of the petitioner namely Manju Gupta on the
ground floor and for her caretaker would still subsist. Hence, the said
store room cannot be held to be suitable alternative accommodation for
the said bonafide need of the step mother of the petitioner.
23) As far as the contention with respect to availability of room
no. 48 and 48B with the petitioner is concerned, petitioner has filed rent
receipts qua tenant Budh Sain (room no. 48) and tenant Rameshwar
(room no. 48B). Here, I find it pertinent to refer to the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Lalta Prasad Gupta Vs. Sita
Ram, 2017 SCC Online Del 13026, wherein it was held as under: –
“…the tenant must plead (a) the particulars of such
premises; (b) the right/title of the landlord to the same; (c)
that the said premises were vacant and available for use at
the time of pleaded requirement of landlord; (d) how the
said premises were suitable for the pleaded requirement;
and (e) how the landlord has deprived himself thereof i.e.
by sale or letting and support the said pleas with material
on the basis whereof such pleas will be proved.”
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 20 of 22
24) Therefore, in the absence of any material to show availability
of the said rooms and further considering the fact that the said rooms are
also on the second floor whereas the tenanted premises are on the ground
floor, no triable issue arises in this regard. Furthermore, it is not the case
of the respondent that the petitioner has let out the said portion after
filing of the present petition to deprive himself of the said portion. Also,
in case the petitioner fails to occupy the premises as has been claimed by
him, the Delhi Rent Control Act also provides for recovery of possession
by the respondent/tenant of the tenanted premises for his re-entry and
occupation. Therefore, the said contention also does not amount to any
triable issue as it is for the landlord to decide which premises are suitable
and not for the court to sit in armchair of the landlord and dictate as to
how the available property of landlord is best utilized by him. Hence, I
find that the respondents have failed to raise any triable issue on the
aspect of alternative accommodation whereas the petitioner has been
able to show his bonafide need.
RELIEF
25) Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings,
I hold that the petitioner has been able to establish the essential
ingredients of petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act i.e. landlord-tenant
relationship, bonafide necessity and absence of reasonably suitable
accommodation. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, this court is
of the view that no triable issue has been raised by the respondents in
their leave to defend application. Accordingly, the leave to defend
application is hereby dismissed and consequently, an eviction order u/s
14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B, DRCA is passed in favor of petitioner and
against the respondents with respect to the tenanted premises i.e. one
room bearing pvt. no. 3 and verandah situated on the ground floor of
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 21 of 22
property bearing no.9725-9727, Katra Nanak Chand, Kishan Ganj,
Gaushala Marg, Delhi and more specifically shown in red color in the
site plan annexed with the petition. However, in light of Section 14(7)
DRCA, the eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six
months from today. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by RUPINDER
RUPINDER SINGH
DHIMAN
SINGH Date:
(Announced in the Open Court) DHIMAN 2025.04.24
16:42:29
+0530
(RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN)
ARC-01, Central District, THC
Delhi/24.04.2025
RC ARC No.1/ 2024 Rajesh Gupta Vs. Asha & Anr. Page no. 22 of 22
[ad_2]
Source link