Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH, J.
Ashok Mittal – Petitioner
Versus
Sudesh Mehta – Respondent
R.C. REV. No. 320 of 2015
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 25-B (8) - Eviction Petition - Petition Challenging Order in Eviction Petition - Possession of Tenanted Premises - Application moved by petitioner for grant of leave to defend and passed an eviction order - Case of respondent/landlady set out in eviction petition was that premises were required by the respondent/ landlady for use and occupation for running a commercial establishment - Respondent/landlady was blessed with five daughters out of whom one had expired and was unmarried - Other four daughters of respondent/landlady are married and are residing in their respective matrimonial homes - Respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to augment her income respondent/landlady is desirous of starting a business with her eldest daughter as there is a lucrative offer for dealership of a tractor company by name of Preet Tractors Limited which company is having its office - Respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to run the business a minimum of 350 sq. yards of commercial place is required and the portion under the tenancy of respondent is about 400 sq. yards and hence premises would be ideal for running aforesaid business -
Finding of the Court:
Requirement of landlord for occupation of tenanted premises must be bona-fide - When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation Rent Controller shall not proceed on presumption that requirement is not bona fide - When other conditions of clause are satisfied and when landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of landlord in bona fide - It is often said by Courts that it is not for tenant to dictate terms to landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premises - While deciding question of bona fides of requirement of landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else landlord could have adjusted himself - learned ARC has committed no jurisdictional error and has passed the order of eviction on the basis of material available before it - Having held that there is no jurisdictional error and the order of learned ARC is not calling for any interference and having noted that the possession of the tenanted premises has already been retrieved by the respondent/landlady, there is no question of any restitution under Section 144 CPC. Thus, the judgments referred and relied upon by the learned Counsel of the Petitioner in Para 8 are neither relevant nor germane to the issue in question. In view of my conclusions above.
Result: Revision Petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the order dated 27th September 2014 passed by learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ (West) in Eviction Petition No. 62/2012 titled Smt. Sudesh Mehta vs. Sh. Ahok Mittal.
2. The learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ vide judgment dated 27th September 2014 was pleased to dismiss the application moved by the petitioner for grant of leave to defend and passed an eviction order under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act regarding the tenanted premises i.e. one covered hall of about 33’.6” x 47’.0” and open space measuring approximate 91’.0’’ x 25’.0” in property bearing Municipal No. 650/I-A, situated at 14, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
3. The case of the respondent/landlady set out in the eviction petition was that the premises were required by the respondent/landlady for use and occupation for running a commercial establishment. The respondent/landlady was blessed with five daughters out of whom one had expired and was unmarried. The other four daughters of the respondent/landlady are married and are residing in their respective matrimonial homes. The respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to augment her income the respondent/landlady is desirous of starting a business with her eldest daughter Shabnam Mehra as there is a lucrative offer for dealership of a tractor company by the name of Preet Tractors Limited which company is having its office at Nabha in Punjab. The respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to run the business a minimum of 350 sq. yards of the commercial place is required and the portion under the tenancy of the respondent is about 400 sq. yards and hence the premises would be ideal for running the aforesaid business. The respondent/landlady has further stated that the grandson of the respondent namely Mr. Saurabh Mehra, son of her eldest daughter Smt. Shabnam Mehra is a qualified engineer in industrial production and is presently doing a job in Dubai. The grandson of the petitioner is also desirous of coming back to India and join the business. Lastly, the respondent has mentioned that similar accommodation in the vicinity would cost the respondent/landlady to pay a rent of somewhere in the range of Rs. 1,15,000/- per month which she cannot afford to pay.
4. The petitioner/tenant in his affidavit has urged the following grounds for the grant of leave to defend:
(B) Tenancy was in the name of M/s Jyoti Plastic Udyog and not in the name of the Petitioner. In addition, the Eviction Petition was also bad for the non-joinder of other LRs of the Petitioner’s father.
(C) The Petitioner alleged that the sole reason to file the Eviction petition was to harass the Petitioner and force him to pay higher rent.
(D) The Petitioner also claimed that the business of tractors requires hard work, but since the respondent/landlady is aged and lacked business experience, it would not have made sense for the Respondent and her daughter to start this business.
(E) The Petitioner further claimed that respondent/landlady was already living a comfortable life with her income from rents running in lakhs. The Petitioner also stated that the daughter of the respondent/landlady with whom the respondent/landlady desires to run the business is also rich while the other daughters are also not dependent on the respondent/landlady. Furthermore, even the grandson is highly placed in Dubai with a high income package.
(F) The Petitioner had asserted that neither the premises were suitable for the business of tractors nor is the market in which the premises in question is situated was meant for such business of tractors.
(G) The Petitioner further expounded that considering that the respondent/landlady had let out a portion of her property to M/s Agarwal Packers and Movers through a registered
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent was entitled to file the eviction petition, and the defenses raised by the petitioner were not considered triable issues.
The landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord's bona fide need, and the rent amount were key legal principles established in the judgment.
The moral duty of the father to settle his son well and the absence of other commercial property justified the eviction.
The court affirmed that a landlord's requirement for a tenant's eviction is bona fide if aimed at establishing a family member's business, with no obligation to prove alternative accommodations.
The landlords' bonafide requirement for the tenanted premises under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is not contingent on the respondent no. 1's lack of experience in running a re....
The court upheld the eviction order, confirming the landlords' bona fide need for the tenanted premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, despite the tenants' claims of independent tenancy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
