Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yogesh Khanna, J.
Sanjeev Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Asim Kumar - Respondent
RC.REV. 357 of 2018, CM Appl. Nos. 30209 of 2018
Decided On : 25-01-2019
For the Appellant : Mr.Pushpendu Shukla, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr.P.R.Sharma, Adv.
The landlord's prima facie case and genuine need for eviction create a presumption of bona fide requirement, and the tenant's defenses must disclose a valid defense to non-suit the landlord from claiming eviction.
Headnote:
Eviction Petition - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - The court discussed the ownership of the tenanted premises, the bona fide requirement of the landlord, and the tenant's entitlement to contest the eviction petition. Key legal provisions such as Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and relevant case laws were interpreted to determine the landlord's right to eviction and the tenant's defenses.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant challenged an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The landlord sought eviction for his daughter's office, claiming genuine need and ownership of the tenanted premises. The tenant disputed the ownership, site plan, and availability of alternative accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's ownership and genuine need for the premises were established. It held that the tenant's defenses were not valid, citing relevant legal principles and case laws. The court dismissed the tenant's application and upheld the eviction order.
Issues: Ownership of tenanted premises, genuine need for eviction, validity of tenant's defenses
Ratio Decidendi: The landlord's prima facie case and genuine need for the premises create a presumption of bona fide requirement. The tenant cannot dictate the manner in which the landlord should use the premises. The tenant's defenses must disclose a valid defense to non-suit the landlord from claiming eviction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's application and upheld the eviction order, finding no merit in the tenant's defenses.
JUDGMENT :
Yogesh Khanna, J.
1. This revision challenges the impugned order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC(EAST), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter ‘Trial Court’) in Eviction Petition No.RC/ARC 525/2016 in Asim Kumar vs. Sanjeev Kumar filed by the landlord/ respondent herein against the tenant/petitioner herein under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act).
2. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order had dismissed the leave to defend application of the petitioner and had passed an eviction order in respect of shop No.4, Ground Floor in property bearing No.X/438, Gali No.O, Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110031 (hereinafter ‘tenanted premises’).
3. Before coming to the impugned order, it would be appropriate to state few facts relevant for disposal of instant petition:-
(a) the petitioner is a tenant in respect of tenanted shop, earlier owned by one Smt.Sushila Devi @ Sheela Rani, mother of the respondent. She died intestate on 11.05.1988 and after her death, the father of the respondent namely Sham Pal Singh and his four sons became the co-owners of property bearing No.X/438, Gali No.O, Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi – 110031 (hereinafter ‘entire property);
(b) the respondent and his other three brothers released / relinquished their rights, title and interest in respect of the entire property in favour of their father vide registered relinquishment deed dated 19.07.1988. Hence, the father of the respondent became an exclusive and absolute owner of the entire premises;
(c) in the year 2004 the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of tenanted shop by the father of the respondent on the monthly rental of Rs. 750/-, which later on was increased to Rs. 990/-. The counter foils of rent receipts till the year 2015 have been placed on record;
(d) on 09.10.2002, father of the respondent executed a registered Will in favour of the respondent. The father of the respondent expired on 15.03.2006. The property was mutated in the name of the respondent vide mutation letter dated 31.10.2006;
(e) the respondent family consists of five members i.e. the respondent; his wife; three daughters, out of which the eldest daughter got married in the year 2010. One of the daughters of the respondent namely Ms.Chakita Srivastav has done the professional course of LLB in the year 2013 and was enrolled as an advocate. Thereafter, she appeared in All India Bar Examination and got the certificate of practice in the year 2014;
(f) she need a office for her professional activities. The respondent is in financial difficulty as such is unable to purchase office since has been terminated from the service of Junior Engineer (E) vide order dated 20.08.2007;
(g) there are five shops on the ground floor of entire premises, out of which two shops were sold in the year 2010 and 2012 and whereas the other shops are in tenancy of either the petitioner or of another tenants;
(h) the entire property is a five storey building – consisting of ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor. On the first, second and third floors there are big halls which are given to different tenants and are in their occupation while on the fourth floor there exist three rooms, one kitchen, bath room/toilet and some space open to sky which is given on rent to one Mohan Lal - who is running a business of printing readymade garments; and
(i) the copy of two sale deeds of two shops and rent agreements/receipts etc. for all the floors have been filed. Hence it is alleged there is no alternative accommodation with the respondent herein for opening professional office for his daughter.
4. The tenant/petitioner herein filed leave to defend application wherein he pleaded a) the respondent herein is not an owner of the tenanted premises; b) incorrect site plan has been filed by the respondent; c) first and second floors of the property are lying vacant – which can be used as an office for the daughter of the respondent; d) the
