Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Abdul Rashid - Appellant
Versus
Nawab Ali - Respondent
RC.REV. 642 of 2018
Decided On : 11-07-2022
Eviction Petition - Bona Fide Requirement - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 25(B)(1), Section 25B(5), Section 14(1)(e) - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the expeditious disposal of eviction petitions filed by landlords for their own bona fide use. It emphasized the presumption of genuine need for landlords falling under special categories and the requirement for specific and supported averments by tenants to disentitle landlords from summary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition stating the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for his unemployed son to start a business. The tenant contested the petition, claiming the landlord had other available accommodations and had sold a vacant room, indicating lack of genuine need.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant's assertions lacked specific details and supporting evidence, and the sale of the room did not raise a triable issue. It emphasized the landlord's authority to prioritize family needs and rejected the tenant's attempt to dictate the landlord's actions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the genuineness of the landlord's requirement for the tenanted premises, the adequacy of alternative accommodations, and the tenant's attempt to challenge the landlord's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific and supported averments by tenants to disentitle landlords from summary proceedings, the landlord's authority to prioritize family needs, and the lack of tenant's authority to dictate the landlord's actions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Order dated 11.10.2018, and found no perversity in the findings of the learned Additional Rent Controller.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. The instant revision petition is directed against the Order dated 11.10.2018, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in eviction petition, being E-160/15 (hereinafter referred to 'the instant eviction petition').
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under :
i. It is stated that Respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Landlord') is the owner of a shop/godown in Property bearing No. 2386, Ward No. 11, Gali Dr. Inayat Khan, Kucha Chelan, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenanted premises'). It is stated that the said godown was let out by the Landlord to the Petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenant') @ Rs. 330/- per month for commercial purposes.
ii. It is stated that the Landlord is also the owner of property bearing No. 4083, Gali Nalwali Urdu Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi-06 admeasuring 50 sq. yds. which consists of three floors and a tin shed on the terrace. It is stated that the Landlord is running his guest house in the name & style of Nawab Guest House in the said property by using the ground floor, first and the second floor. The third floor is being used by the Landlord and his family members for residential purposes.
iii. It is stated that the Landlord has one married daughter and an unmarried son. The son, Mohd. Fazal, aged 22 years is unemployed, has no source of income and is interested in running his own independent business of tent house. It is stated that due to paucity of accommodation, the son of the Landlord has not been able to even start his business till date. It is further stated that the Landlord has no other property either for residential or commercial purpose, and therefore, the Landlord has filed the instant eviction petition on the ground that the tenanted premises is bona fide required by him to enable his son to run his own business.
iv. An application for leave to defend was filed by the Tenant. In the said application, it was contended by the Tenant that:
a) The Landlord was not the owner of the tenanted premises since the property in question is the Custodian Property situated in a Slum Area.
b) The Guest House owned by the Landlord is well-known and is currently being operated by the son, and, therefore, the son does not require the tenanted premises.
c) There are other alternate residential as well as commercial accommodations available and, therefore, there is no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises. It is stated that there are four shops lying vacant in Property No. 4083, Urdu Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi which is owned by the Landlord.
d) It is stated that the first, second and third floor premises of House No. 2386, Gali Dr. Inayat Khan Chelan, Darya Ganj, New Delhi are also lying vacant.
e) It is stated that the Landlord has four shops within the commercial area of Gazipur Mandi and he recently got one shop vacated from the tenant situated near the shop of the Petitioner herein and sold the same.
v. A reply was filed by the Landlord to the leave to defend application filed by the Tenant denying the allegations of the Tenant and reiterating the averments made in the eviction petition. In the reply, it is contended that once the landlord- tenant relationship is established, the ownership of the former cannot be challenged. It is further stated that the Tenant has not provided any documentary evidence establishing that the Landlord is not the owner of the tenanted premises. The affidavit further states that the Tenant has also not provided any documentary evidence to substantiate his allegations pertaining to the aforementioned properties as well as his allegation pertaining to the son of the Landlord running and operating his business elsewhere. The affidavit states that the Landlord has categorically provided true and complete details of the properties under Paragraph 18(v) of the petition and requires the tenanted premises for his
The landlord's genuine need for tenanted premises, the tenant's burden to provide specific and supported averments, and the landlord's authority to prioritize family needs over tenant's hardship.
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 Court emphasized the presumption of bona fide need in favor of the Landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the restrictive scope of interference by the High Court in re....
A tenant's vague assertions of alternative accommodation are insufficient to challenge a landlord's bona fide need for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
It is equally well settled that mere assertions made by tenant with respect to landlord's ownership of other buildings and with respect to alternate accommodations are not to be considered sufficient....
The tenant must provide clear and specific defenses to obtain leave to defend an eviction petition; mere assertions are insufficient without substantial proof.
The landlord's bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises is to be judged based on preference and suitability for the intended business, and the employment status of dependent family members doe....
An Agreement to Sell or Power of Attorney does not constitute valid ownership transfer under property laws; the landlord retains rights to evict tenants based on bona fide needs.
The moral duty of the father to settle his son well and the absence of other commercial property justified the eviction.
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
