Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J.
Mahesh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Lal Malik – Respondent
RC.Rev. 287 of 2018 and I.A. Nos. 26290 of 2018, 40665 of 2019
Decided On : 11-01-2023
DRC Act - Eviction Order - Section 14(1)(e) - Summary: The court dismissed the revision petition challenging an eviction order, holding that the landlord-tenant relationship existed and the landlord's bona fide need for the tenanted premises was established. The court also found that no suitable alternative accommodation was available to the landlord. The petitioner's challenge regarding the rent amount was rejected as the admitted position was that the last paid rent was Rs.1,500 per month. The court emphasized that a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord and that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement.
Fact of the Case:
The eviction petition sought to evict the petitioner and respondent no.2 from a shop at ground floor. The petitioner and respondent no.2 had been running a general store in the tenanted premises. The landlord claimed an increase in rent from Rs.1,000 to Rs.6,000 per month, while the tenants denied this and asserted that the last paid rent was Rs.1,500 per month.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord-tenant relationship existed, the landlord had a bona fide need for the premises, and no suitable alternative accommodation was available to the landlord. The court rejected the petitioner's challenge regarding the rent amount, emphasizing that the admitted position was that the last paid rent was Rs.1,500 per month.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord's bona fide need for the premises, the availability of suitable alternative accommodation, and the disputed rent amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord and that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement. It also held that a party cannot be permitted to blow hot and blow cold in the same breath or approbate and reprobate.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Datta, J. The present revision petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the `DRC Act') assails the Eviction Order/Judgment dated 10.01.2018, passed by Ld. SCJ-cum-RC, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Rent Controller'), whereby the Rent Controller dismissed the application seeking leave to defend, filed on behalf of the petitioner and consequently allowed the eviction petition No.26284/2016, filed by the respondent no.1.
2. The eviction petition was filed qua one shop at ground floor under the name and style of Mahesh General Store bearing No. J-101, Milap Market, Beriwala Bagh, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064 (hereinafter referred to as the `tenanted premises').
3. It was asserted in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises was let out by the previous landlord/father of the respondent no.1, late Sh. Jagdish Lal Malik in the year 1977 to Sh. Virender Kumar Gupta (the respondent no.2 herein), who was running a tea stall at a monthly rent of Rs.100/-, excluding electricity, water and other charges. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have joined the respondent no.2 in the tenanted premises, pursuant to which the petitioner and the respondent no.2 have been running a general/kiryana store under the name and style of Mahesh General Store.
4. It is asserted in the eviction petition that the rent in respect of the tenanted premises was increased from time to time and the last paid monthly rent in respect of the tenanted premises was Rs.1,000/- per month excluding electricity, water and other charges.
5. It is further asserted in the eviction petition that the respondent no.1, along with his brother, purchased the entire built-up property bearing No.J-101, Milap Market, Beriwala Bagh, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064, including the tenanted premises vide registered sale deed dated 18.03.2005.
6. It is further averred that after purchasing the aforementioned property, the respondent no.1 and his brother partitioned the same by mutual oral consent whereupon the tenanted premises came in the share of the respondent no.1, who attorned the petitioner and the respondent no.2 as his tenants, pursuant to which, the said tenants started paying the rent to the respondent no.1 against which the rent receipts are stated to have been issued by the respondent no.1 herein.
7. It is pleaded in the eviction petition as under:
"The last rent is paid by the respondents/tenants till. 31.12.2012 against receipt dated 01.05.2013, thereafter the respondents stopped paying rent to the petitioner in respect of the shop in question, despite the fact the petitioner with oral consent of the respondents has increased the rent Rs.1,000/- to Rs.6000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2013."
8. In the leave to defend application, filed by the petitioner and respondent no.2, it was asserted as under:
"7. That the petitioner had not clarified as to when the rent of the tenanted shop was increased from Rs.100/- per month to Rs.1,000/- per month as no specific date has been mentioned for the alleged enhancement of rent of the tenanted shop as claimed by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has claimed the arrears of rent w.e.f. 01-1-2013 at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month for which there is no evidence to support the alleged claim of the petitioner as such it cannot be said that there was any enhancement of rent of the tenanted shop as claimed by the petitioner and there is no arrears of rent in respect of tenanted shop as claimed by the petitioner, hence it is a disputed question of fact as whether there was rent of Rs.100/- or Rs.500/- or Rs.1000/- per month in respect of the tenanted shop, because the petitioner had not specified anywhere in the contents of the eviction petition as to when the rent of Rs.100/- was enhanced to the sum of Rs.500/- and as to when the rent of Rs.500/- was enhanced to the sum of Rs.1000/- and as to when the rent of Rs.1000/- w
The landlord-tenant relationship, the landlord's bona fide need, and the rent amount were key legal principles established in the judgment.
The landlord's authorization to file an eviction petition, the bona-fide need for the tenanted shop, and the unavailability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation were central to the court'....
The plea of availability of alternative accommodation must be supported by material, and it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord how to accommodate himself.
The landlord's bona fide need and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant are crucial factors in determining eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's entitlement to recover possession based on the admitted landlord-tenant relationship and the landlord's plea on bona-fide requiremen....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, specifically Section 14(1)(a) and (j) to determine the existence of the ....
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
