Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 380
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Subhash Jain
Versus
Ravi Sehgal
RC. Rev. No. 292 of 2013, C.M. Nos. 12119 of 2013 & 18918 of 2013
Decided On : 04-02-2014
For the Petitioner:Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Vishal Gupta, Kumar Mihir, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate.
The landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises and the tenant's burden to raise substantial evidence to challenge ownership and bonafide requirement.
Headnote:
Delhi Rent Control Act - Eviction Order - Section 25B(8)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an eviction petition against the petitioner for a shop, claiming bonafide requirement for running his business near his residence. The petitioner contested the petition, questioning the respondent's ownership and bonafide requirement. The Trial Court dismissed the leave to defend application, leading to the petitioner's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent's need for the shop was genuine, considering his old age and the convenience of running the business near his residence. The Court also noted that the petitioner failed to raise any triable issues, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: Ownership of the shop, bonafide requirement, and the validity of the eviction petition under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act were the key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the landlord's need for the premises should be considered for the convenience of the landlord and his family members. It also highlighted that the tenant's denial of ownership should be supported by substantial evidence to raise triable issues.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order and granted the petitioner one year to vacate the premises.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the DRC Act”) has assailed the eviction order dated 7th August 2013 passed by Additional Rent Controller-1, 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.1, Ground Floor, 51/02, New Market, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted shop”) wherein the respondent was a co-owner of the portion of the said property. It was the case of the respondent that he had been running his business from a rented shop bearing No.3613, Idgah Road, Singara Chowk, Delhi-110006 with his son. However due to old age, the respondent is unable to go to his business place and wanted to settle his business near his residence which was situated on the first floor of the tenanted shop. Hence the eviction petition was filed in respect of the tenanted shop stating that the respondent bonafidely requires the same for running his business. It was stated that the respondent had inherited the said property alongwith other legal heirs of his father Late Sh. Madan Lal Sehgal.
3. In the leave to defend application, the petitioner contested the maintainability of the petition filed by the respondent. It was contended that the respondent had not placed any document on record to show his claim qua the ownership of the tenanted shop. The sale deed qua the tenanted shop was disputed. It was averred that the respondent was already running his business from shop No.3613 Idgah Road, Singara Chowk, Delhi-1100 06 alongwith his shop and that the said shop was owned by the respondent. It was averred that the respondent had let out and sold various other properties and therefore the tenanted shop was not required bonafidely.
4. The contentions of the petitioner were contested by the respondent vide his reply to the leave to defend application and the letting out and selling out of other properties as alleged by the petitioner were explained by the respondent.
5. In the rejoinder to the application for leave to defend, the petitioner denied the contentions raised by the respondent.
6. With regard to the issue of bonafide requirement, the learned Trial Court observed that the respondent alongwith his son wanted to establish their business in the tenanted shop to earn their livelihood and that they were running the business from a rented premises and that in his old age, the respondent was finding it difficult to go to the said rented premises at Sadar Bazar from his house. Though it was contended by the petitioner that the said premises are not rented but owned by the respondent, nothing was placed on record to rebut the plea of the respondent that the said premises was rented. The learned Trial Court opined that on such issue, the law is well settled that the landlord cannot be asked to continue his business from the rented shop. Furthermore, it could not be disputed that life would be much easier for the respondent if he established his business in the tenanted shop situated below his residential accommodation.
7. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the respondent had recently let out or disposed of a number of other properties and that the same was a sufficient ground to reject the claim of the respondent, the learned Trial Court observed that the respondent had not filed any document on record in support of his contention. The respondent had admitted that some portion of the property was sold by his father for legal necessity and explained the position with regard to other properties.
8. Accordingly, in the light of these observations, the learned Trial Court opined that the petitioner had failed to disclose sufficient facts so as to raise any triable issues and so the leave to defend application was dismissed vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner h
