Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 2240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Dharam Veer Goel – Appellant
Versus
Renu Jain – Respondent
RC.Rev. 118 of 2022 and CM Appl. 24986 of 2022 (for stay)
Decided On : 11-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Prashant Diwan, Ms. MishikaVig and Ms. Shailja Jha, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Imran Khan, Rohit Kumar and Ms. Pooja Bansal, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The court clarified the circumstances under which a co-owner can file an eviction petition and emphasized that the need asserted in the eviction petition must be based on a distinct cause of action. The court also highlighted the limited scope of revisional power under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.

Headnote:
DRC Act - Eviction Petition - Sections 14(1)(e), 25B(4) and 25B(8) - The court held that the eviction petition was filed by the respondents based on their bonafide requirement for the tenanted premises for the purpose of accommodation. The court also found that the respondents were entitled to file the eviction petition as co-owners of the property. The court further concluded that the respondents had no alternative suitable accommodation available and their need for the tenanted premises was genuine.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Datta, J. The present revision petition, under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the `DRC Act'), assails the impugned judgment/order dated 18.12.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North West District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (the `Rent Controller') in RC ARC No. 01/2021. Vide the said impugned judgment, the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act was dismissed, and the respondents were held entitled to recover the possession of the tenanted premises i.e. 1982/154, presently known as Shop No. 1982, Gali No. 154, (one side), Main Road, Tota Ram Bazar, Ganesh Pura-A, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035. (the `tenanted premises').

2. The eviction petition was filed by the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises, wherein it was disclosed that Sh. Suresh Chand Jain i.e. late husband of respondent no.1 and the late father of respondent no.2, had earlier instituted an eviction petition on the ground of his own bona fide requirement. Pursuant to death of said Shri Suresh Chand Jain, the said petition stood abated vide order dated 14.12.2020.

3. It was averred in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises were originally owned by late Shri Devi Chand Jain i.e. father-in-law of respondent no.1 and the respondents acquired right in respect of the tenanted premises by virtue of being legal heirs of late Shri Suresh Chand Jain who was one of the legal heir of late Shri Devi Chand Jain. It was mentioned that the respondents/landlords have a bonafide requirement in respect of the tenanted premises for themselves and their dependent family members, for the purpose of accommodation.

4. It was specifically pleaded in the eviction petition as under:

"(vii) That the petitioners requires the premises in question bonafidely and genuinely for themselves and his family members dependent upon them for the purpose of accommodation.

(viii) That the family members of the petitioners consists of:

A. Smt. Renu Jain (Petitioner No.1),

B. Sh. Varun Jain (Petitioner No.2),

C. Sh. Tarun Jain (Son of the petitioner No.1),

D. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain, aged 56 years (brother-in-law of petitioner No.1),

E. Sh. Sushil Kumar Jain, aged 54 years (brother-in-law of petitioner No.1, (Divorcee and unemployed),

F. Sh. Rajendra Kumar Jain, aged 52 years (brother-in-law of petitioner No.1), (mentally disturbed and unmarried) and

G. Sh. Bijender Kumar Jain, aged 50 years (brother-in-law of petitioner) (Unemployed and Unmarried).

Identify Proof are enclosed as Annexure-H.

(viii) That the petitioners have to take care of all the members of the family. It is pertinent to mention here that family members are completely dependent upon the petitioners and the petitioners have to spend huge amount in maintaining his family members.

(ix) That after the death of Shri Suresh Chand Jain, the financial condition of the family is worst because huge amounts were spent on the disease of Suresh Chand Jain because he was suffering with the diseases of Covid-19 and Shri Suresh Chand Jain remained admitted in Max Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.

(x) That the petitioner No.1 is a widow and wants to run her own business as well as petitioner No.2 is unemployed and got married in 2018 and now, blessed with a daughter which makes him more responsible towards family.

(xi) That the petitioners are jobless and they want to open a Garment shop, however, they are unable to start a Garment Shop because they does not have any suitable commercial accommodation to open a Garment Shop. The financial condition of the petitioners is not good enough to take a suitable shop near their residence on rent for themselves to run the Garment Business.

(xii) That the another son of petitioner No.1, namely, Shri Tarun Jain is running a factory at Mangol Puri, Industrial Area, Phase-I, T-2/142, which is 10 k.m. away from the residence of the petitioner and the said plot is not suitable for a garment shop and t