Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1299
High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Anil Kumar Sharma
Versus
Kamlesh Bhatnagar
RC. Rev. Nos. 94, 96 of 2012 & C.M. Nos. 3730, 3806 of 2012
Decided on : 04-10-2013
For the Petitioner:H.S. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Dinesh Agnani, Senior Advocate, Rajiv K. Sharma, Ms. Shoma Chaudhuri, Advocates.
The landlord must establish the ground of eviction, and the tenant's disclosure of facts should entitle them to contest the eviction. 'Bonafide requirement' must be a genuine need, not a whimsical desire.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act - Eviction Orders - Section 14(1)(e), Section 25B(8)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed petitions under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller. The respondent sought eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for running her own business in two tenanted shops. The petitioner contested the need of the respondent, stating that she had concealed material facts and had alternative accommodation available.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent failed to disclose complete accommodation available with her and did not provide a plausible explanation. The court held that the petitioner raised triable issues regarding the respondent's bonafide requirement, and the matter required a trial. The impugned orders were set aside, and leave to defend was granted.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's need for eviction fell within the scope of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the landlord must establish the ground of eviction and that the tenant's disclosure of facts, not proof, should entitle them to contest the eviction. The court also highlighted the need for a meaningful construction of 'bonafide requirement' and the legislative intent behind the special provisions for eviction.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were set aside, and leave to defend was granted. The parties were directed to appear before the Rent Controller for further directions.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The abovementioned two petitions have been filed by the petitioner under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the
eviction orders dated 8th November 2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller (North-East District), Delhi dismissing the leave to defend applications of the petitioner. Since the facts of the two petitions as well as the issue sought to be decided by this Court in both the matters are the same, thus, both the petitions are decided by this common order.
2. The respondent filed eviction petitions against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of two shop bearing private No.1 and private No.2 at the Ground Floor of the property bearing No.C-395, Main Market, Bhajanpura, Delhi110053 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted shops”) as per the provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. The tenanted shops were let out to the petitioner in July, 1977 but there was no written agreement between the parties.
3. It was contended by the respondent that the petitioner had sublet the tenanted shop No.1 to one Sh.Ram Kumar Sharma illegally and without the written consent of the respondent. Further, the respondent stated that she is a widow lady aged about 70 years and required the tenanted shops for her bonafide needs as she wanted to run her own business there from with the help of her daughters and sons-in-law and had no other suitable accommodation for the same. It was also stated that since each of the tenanted shops are very small in size, she would require both shops for her aforementioned purpose.
4. In the leave to defend applications, the petitioner contested the need of the respondent and contended that the respondent had concealed material facts. It was stated that the husband of the respondent had retired from DJB and was getting family pension. After his death, the respondent was getting approximately Rs.15,000/- as pension besides rent which was more than sufficient for her survival. It was stated that the respondent is aged about 70 years and is not physically in a position to run any business in the said shop. The petitioner contended that the remaining portion of the premises except the tenanted shop was lying locked and the respondent could earn handsome income by rent by letting out the said portion. It was stated that the respondent had no son and only two married daughters who were living in their respective matrimonial homes, in fact the respondent was also living with them. While on the other hand the petitioner is aged about 52 years having two marriageable daughter, wife and old aged mother. The petitioner stated that he is the only earning member in his family and there was no other source of income except the tenanted shop. It was further stated that he was a semi-educated person and had been in tenancy since 1977 and it was next to impossible for him to earn livelihood by arranging another shop in the same locality. The petitioner specifically denied the allegations made by the respondent that the petitioner had sublet the tenanted shop No.1 to one Ram Kumar Sharma.
5. While deciding the matter vide the impugned order, the learned trial Court in Para 15 of the impugned order observed as follows:
“Perusal of the record shows that the respondent has nowhere challenged the fact that the petitioner is not having any other suitable commercial premises to start her business. The ground taken by the respondent that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide is also not substantiated by any material on record. The arguments of the respondent in the application for leave to defend that she can enhance her income by letting out the residential portion of her premises is also without any merits. The tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to how he or she should live or enhance her income. The grounds of comparative hardship of the tenant as mentioned in paras 7 to 9 of the appl
