Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Amit Khandelwal and Another - Appellants
Versus
Hem Chand Aluria - Respondent
R C Rev No. 380 of 2018
Decided On : 05-09-2019
S.N. Gupta, Adv., S.K. Gupta, Adv., Sindhu, Adv., Hitender Sakkarwal, Adv.
The landlord's bonafide need for residential premises and the permissibility of using commercial property for residential purposes.
Headnote:
Eviction Petition - Bonafide Requirement - [Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e)] - The court discussed the bonafide requirement of the landlord for residential premises, the permissibility of using commercial property for residential purposes, and the landlord's right to carry out additions and alterations to make the property suitable for his own bonafide need. The court emphasized that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord how to use his premises and upheld the landlord's bonafide need for the ground floor accommodation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition citing his old age ailments and the need to shift to the ground floor of the property, which was let out to the petitioner for commercial purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent landlord had a bonafide need for the ground floor accommodation due to his age and health conditions, and upheld the eviction petition.
Issues: The main issue was the bonafide requirement of the landlord for the premises and the permissibility of using commercial property for residential purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord how to use his premises and emphasized the landlord's right to carry out additions and alterations to make the property suitable for his own bonafide need.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld in favor of the respondent landlord.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Rc.Rev. 380/2018 & CM APPL. 31835/2018 (stay)
1. Petitioners impugn order dated 26.04.2018, whereby, the leave to defend application of the petitioners/tenants has been dismissed.
2. Subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent with regard to a shop on Ground Floor of property No.2974, Gali No.41, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, more particularly, as described in red colour in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition.
3. The petitioner is a tenant paying rent @ Rs.442/- per month besides electricity charges. The respondent landlord filed the eviction petition, inter alia, contending that the respondent is a landlord and owner of the said shop which was leased by Delhi Development Authority in favour of the respondent and his three brothers. One of the brothers relinquished his share in favour of the respondent and his two brothers. Subsequently, by way of a partition of the family properties, the subject property fell to the share of the respondent.
4. It is contended that the property was let out to the petitioner for commercial purposes.
5. Eviction petition was filed in the year 2012. It is alleged in the petition that the wife of the respondent landlord aged 62 years was suffering from kidney failure and was on dialysis besides other ailments.
6. It is pleaded that, respondent himself was aged 69 years and suffering from old age ailments. It is contended that he was suffering from swelling in bilateral lower limb and also heart problem and his lipid profile shows risk of coronary artery disease. It is contended that he is suffering from arthritis and is unable to climb and get down the stairs. Medical papers of the respondent were also annexed along with the eviction petition.
7. It is contended that the respondent and his wife were living on the first floor of the property and the on the ground floor there were two shops, one rented out to the petitioner and the other to another tenant. Eviction petition has been filed with regard to both the tenants.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent landlord submits that in the other petition also leave to defend has been rejected on 01.05.2019 and eviction order passed.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent landlord that the wife of the respondent passed away during pendency of the present petition and as such the necessity is only of the respondent himself.
10. Leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the premises had been let out for commercial purposes and the need expressed is that of residential premises.
11. Further, it is contended that the respondent and his wife were comfortably residing on the first floor in spacious accommodation having independent room, kitchen and other amenities. It is contended that the accommodation already available with the respondent landlord was sufficient for their requirements.
12. It is further contended that since the premises have been let out for commercial purposes, there are no facilities attached thereto for other amenities like kitchen, toilet, bathroom, etc. on the ground floor and the shop could not be used for residential purposes.
13. By the impugned order, the Rent Controller has held that though the relation of landlord and tenant had been denied by the parties, the petitioner tenant had not denied the lease deed was executed by DDA in favour of the respondent landlord and his brothers.
14. Further, the Rent Controller noticed that there was nothing placed on record to show that anyone other than the respondent was an owner of the property.
15. With regard to bonafide requirement, the Rent Controller has held that the eviction petition was filed on the ground that the petitioner was old, suffering from various ailments and physically weak and therefore unable to climb the stairs and accordingly, wanted to shift to the ground floor.
16. The Rent Controller held there was no bar in using the commercial property for residential purposes
