The obligation of the landlord to provide necessary space for bonafide need, considering changed circumstances and family support.

CAV 13/2018

1. Since the learned counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

R.C. REV. 7/2018 and CM 884/2018 (stay) and CM 885/2018 (Exemption)

2. The petitioners are admittedly the tenants in premises described as shop bearing no.6 in property no.13/9, W.E.A. Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 9 x 25ft. (hereinafter referred to as the demised property), having been let out originally for commercial purposes by late Sh. Chaman Lal Budhiraja, the father of the respondent, during his lifetime, in favour of Sh. Vidya Sagar Churamani, the father of the second and third petitioners, who stepped into his shoes upon his death. It is not disputed that the respondent has inherited the right, title and interest in the property in question upon the death of the erstwhile owner.

3. The respondent (landlord) had instituted the case (E-416/2017) seeking an order of eviction on the ground of bonafide need invoking clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 primarily on the averments that his son Vineet Bhudhiraja, engaged in legal practice in United Kingdom wanted to come back to India to set up practice here to support his father (respondent/landlord) in his old age, particularly after the demise of his wife on 18.08.2016 and that for purposes of the son setting up his legal practice here, the demised premises was required bonafide, there being no other suitable alternative accommodation available for such purposes. The Additional Rent Controller issued special summons under Sections 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in response to which the petitioner submitted an application for leave to defend supported by the affidavits of the second and third petitioners. The Additional Rent Controller after securing reply from the respondent/landlord considered the said request but declined it by order dated 23.10.2017 and on such basis passed an eviction order which is assailed through the petition at hand.

4. The petitioners had pleaded in the application seeking leave to contest that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the premises had been let out by the father of the respondent after whose death the property had devolved on his legal heirs, the respondent being only one of them. It was further stated that property no.13/9, W.E.A. Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi comprised of three floors which had more than 17-18 shops, the other shops also being referred to in the context of the plea that the respondent had suitable alternative accommodation available to him. It was pleaded that besides this property, the respondent was owner of several other properties including 5/18, W.E.A. Ajmal Khan Raod, Karol Bagh, New Delhi admeasuring 275 sq.yds.; 16-A/13, W.E.A. Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 275 sq. yds.; D-4, Prashant Vihar, Rohini built over plot of land admeasuring 400 sq. yds.; another shop in South Delhi; and several other properties which are jointly or individually owned. It was pleaded that the petitioner was in the habit of filing false cases to get the shop vacated by hook or by crook reference being made to another eviction case, it bearing no.79036/16, which was pending before the Additional Rent Controller at the stage of consideration of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioners also submitted in the application for leave to defend that the site plan filed was not correct.

5. All the above contentions have been considered by the Additional Rent Controller and rejected. It has been noted in the impugned order that the petitioners had admitted that the respondent is one of the legal heirs of Chaman Lal Budhiraja, who had inducted them as tenant in the demised premises. Referring to the rulings of the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel V. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814; and Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, (2006) 2 SCC 724, the Ad