Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 619
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Giri Raj
Versus
Sheela Devi
RC. Rev. No. 328 of 2012 & C.M. No. 12383 of 2012
Decided On : 25-02-2014
For the Petitioner:Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Sumit Tomar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sugriva Dubey, V.K. Kalra, Advocates.
The main legal point established is the requirement for complete and truthful disclosures in an eviction petition, and the need for the landlord or family member to have no other reasonable suitable accommodation to attract the proviso (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act - Eviction - Section 25-B(8) - Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) - [BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT] - [SHOP EVICTION] - [Section 14(1)(e), Section 25-B] - The court discussed the bonafide requirement of the landlord and the essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act. It emphasized the need for the landlord or family member to have no other reasonable suitable accommodation, and the absence of even one of these ingredients makes the provision inapplicable. The court also highlighted the settled law that the controller is not expected to examine the success or failure of the plea raised but has to examine merely a tenable case, and is estopped from recording a finding as to disputed questions of fact.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner for a shop, claiming bonafide requirement for her son's business. The petitioner disputed the ownership of the respondent and the bonafide requirement, alleging that the son was already running a business from another property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent failed to disclose the son's existing business and other available accommodations, and thus, the petitioner raised triable issues. The court set aside the eviction order and granted leave to defend to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership of the shop, bonafide requirement for the son's business, and the disclosure of other available accommodations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for complete and truthful disclosures in an eviction petition, the requirement for the landlord or family member to have no other reasonable suitable accommodation, and the controller's role in examining a tenable case without determining the success or failure of the plea raised.
Final Decision: The court set aside the eviction order, granted leave to defend to the petitioner, and directed the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has assailed the eviction order dated 7th April 2012 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central, Delhi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of a Shop bearing No.1319, Mohalal Sang Trashan, Bagichi Ram Chand, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted shop”). It was the case of the respondent that the tenanted shop was let out to one Sh.Ram Chander son of Sh.Koki Mal who died and his one legal representative only, i.e. the petitioner herein is doing business activities from the tenanted shop. The respondent being the co-owner of the tenanted shop filed the eviction petition, stating that the same was bonafidely required by the respondent for her son, Yogesh Kumar Mittal, who is dependent upon her for his business purpose of Tour and Travels and that they had no other reasonable suitable accommodation for the said business purpose.
3. It was stated in the petition that the family of the respondent consists of her husband, three married sons, their wives and seven grand-children. Further, only one of the sons had a settled business in Pahar Ganj, while the other two sons and the husband of the respondent did not have any place of their own to do the business independently and the respondent had no other alternative place to accommodate the said son where he could establish his own business.
4. In the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, the ownership of the respondent was disputed. It was stated that the petitioner has been holding the tenanted shop in adverse possession. The fact of Yogesh Kumar Mittal being the son of the respondent and/or dependent upon the respondent was also disputed. It was stated that even otherwise, he was already running his tour and travels business under the name and style of Mittal Tour & Travel at 8563, Ara Kashan Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 which was allegedly concealed by the respondent.
5. It was averred that the respondent concealed the fact that she already has another property bearing No.8158 and 8159 situated at Ara Kashan Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 wherein there are more than 20 rooms and the same is being used as a Hotel under the name and style of Paarth Palace EX. It was also averred that respondent had another property bearing No.5490-5492, Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi, which is also available to the respondent. The site plan filed by the respondent was also disputed by the petitioner.
6. The contentions raised by the petitioner were denied by the respondent in the counter-affidavit and the stand taken in the petition was reiterated.
7. The learned trial Court while dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioner vide the impugned eviction order observed that the respondent himself had admitted Lala Ram Chand Shri Ram as his landlord and also annexed rent receipts issued by Lala Shri Ram who had sold the property including the tenanted shop to the respondent and Smt.Uganti Devi vide Sale Deed dated 6th June 1985 and thus the respondent is the co-owner of the total property. Even the petitioner contended that the respondent is not the owner of the tenanted shop as the father of the petitioner Sh.Ram Chander was the tenant of the tenanted shop of Lala Ram Chand and Shri Ram to whom the rent was being paid. The learned trial Court opined that from the contention of petitioner one thing was clear that the petitioner had Lala Ram Chand and Sri Ram to be the owners of the tenanted shop as well as his landlord and that the perusal of the sale deed dated 6th June 1985 showed that the property No.1315 (part), 1316-1322, Mohanlal Sang Trashan, Bagichi Ram Chand, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi was sold to the respondent and one Smt.Uganti Devi, making the respondent the co-owner of th
