Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 3051
DELHI HIGH COURT
Najmi Waziri, J.
Rakesh Kapoor - Appellant
Versus
Krishna Pyari (Late Smt.) Thr Legal Heirs & Anr. - Resopndent
Rc. Rev. 269/2013, CM Appl. 11528/2013 & 11530/2013
Decided On : 11-09-2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mayank Bughani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vineet Mehta, Advocate.
The court established that a hotel cannot be considered suitable alternate accommodation for residential premises, and comparative hardship cannot override a landlord's bona fide need for eviction.
Headnote:
DRC Act - Eviction Petition - Section 14(1)(e) - Summary: The court discussed the landlord's bona fide need for the premises for residence, the availability of alternate accommodation, and the tenant's contention regarding the landlord's hotel business. The court held that the landlord's need for residential premises was genuine and that the hotel accommodation could not be considered suitable alternate accommodation.
Fact of the Case:
The landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, claiming bona fide need for the tenanted premises for residence. The tenant contested the need and proposed the use of the landlord's hotel as alternate accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the landlords, holding that their need for residential premises was genuine and that the hotel accommodation could not be considered suitable alternate accommodation.
Issues: Bona fide need for eviction, availability of alternate accommodation, tenant's contention regarding landlord's hotel business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a hotel cannot be substituted for a residence and that comparative hardship cannot be a ground for denial of eviction if bona fide need is established.
Final Decision: The tenant's revision petition was dismissed, and the eviction order in favor of the landlords was upheld.
Najmi Waziri, J.:--
1. This revision petition under proviso to Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) impugns an order dated 23.04.2013 whereby the petitioner’s (tenant) application for leave to defend was rejected and an eviction order was passed in favour of the respondents (landlords) with the respect to one hall on the ground floor measuring 780 sq ft and one annexe on the first floor measuring 161 sq ft in property bearing No. 8833/2-3, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 (tenanted premises).
2. The landlords had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act on the ground of bona fide need. It was the case of the landlords that the tenant was inducted into the tenanted premises through a rent deed at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- for commercial use; that the tenanted premises was lying locked and unused; that they required the tenanted premises bona fide, for themselves and their family members for residence since the existing accommodation available with them was insufficient; that the landlord No. 1 was 90 years old and had undergone hip surgeries, hence, he required the ground floor portion urgently; that landlord No. 2 was living in a cribbed accommodation on the first floor with his family comprising of 6 members; that the landlord No. 2, aged 61 years old was physically disabled by nearly 35% and was also diagnosed with other diseases and therefore, required the ground floor premises; that Smt. Charanjeet Kaur (one of the co-owners) was living on the 2nd and 3rd floor with her family of about 5 members; that Mr. A.S. Wason (co-owner and son of landlord No. 1) was based in Canada and since his children have grown up and settled, he along with his wife wanted to return to India permanently; that whenever Mr. A.S. Wason visited India, he was forced to live in hotels due to paucity of accommodation. Consequently, the landlords prayed for an order of eviction in their favour.
3. An application for leave to defend was filed by the tenant. It was stated that landlord No. 1 had passed away and the need of landlord No. 2 was not bona fide; that the other portion on the ground floor was already occupied by the landlords; that the tenanted premises was being used for running a company whose turnover was around Rs. 200 crores and paid about Rs. 14.25 crores as tax during FY 2010-11; that the tenanted premises was very important to the tenant since it received daily mails and couriers from his clients and Government agencies and changing the registered address would be a mammoth task, thereby causing unnecessary inconvenience; that landlord No. 2 owned a hotel which was a four storeyed building, hence, there was no paucity of accommodation with the landlords; that Mr. A. S. Wason and his wife had no plans to settle in India and that his staying in hotels during his visit to India was false; that the contention of the landlords that the tenanted premises was lying locked and unused was false since summons of the eviction petition was received at the said premises; that since the tenanted premises was strategically situated the landlords wanted it actually for expanding their already existing hotel business. Based on the above, the tenant prayed for the grant of leave to defend the eviction petition.
4. Reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the landlords. Prior to this, an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of landlord No. 1 was filed and was allowed on 20.03.2012. In the reply, it was admitted that landlord No. 1 had expired on 27.02.2012; that notwithstanding her death, the bona fide need for the ground floor still survived; that there was no accommodation available on the ground floor; that the tenant had earlier on two occasions changed the name and status of his company; that the landlords are indeed running a hotel but as the same is a place of business, it could not be used for residence; that the hotel cannot be used by Mr. A.S. Wason and his wi
