Rajbir Pal vs Kanwar Partap Singh - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1274

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 1274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Rajbir Pal & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Kanwar Partap Singh – Respondent
RC.REV. 30 of 2022 & CM APPL. 15461 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. G.P Thareja, Mr. Satyam Thareja, Mr. Harshit Thareja, Mr. K.K. Singh and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. Aditi Shastri, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B - Eviction petition - Landlord's requirement - The court emphasized that the landlord's need must be bona fide, asserting that multiple needs can coexist for the premises. The court found that the landlord could use the premises after necessary alterations. The substantive requirement for eviction lies in proving a genuine need (Paras 1, 2, 10, 18, 38).

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the landlord's need was genuine and must be respected, rejecting disputes regarding alleged alternate accommodations on suitability grounds (Paras 26-41).

Issues: Whether the landlord's need was bona fide and the applicability of Section 25B for eviction procedures was determined (Paras 12, 25, 28).

Ratio Decidendi: The ruling emphasized that the essence of bona fide need is rooted in the landlord's right to determine their requirements, with the court affirming this perspective and providing limits to tenant's arguments against eviction based on alleged suitable alternatives (Paras 10, 12, 37).

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of factual background (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments against landlord's bona fide need (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. respondent's counterarguments on bona fide need (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. identification of issues before the court (Para 12)
5. court's analysis on procedural requirements (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. definition and application of bona fide requirement (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. implications of tenant's alternative properties (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
8. final conclusion of the court's observations (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
9. final dismissal of the petition (Para 41)

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 26.08.2021, passed by the ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, North District, Rohini, Delhi in Eviction Petition bearing R.C. No. 37/2018, whereby the Eviction Petition of the Respondent herein was allowed and the Leave to Defend application of the Petitioners herein was dismissed, the instant revision petition has been filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act).

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:

a) It is stated that Property No. 82, Village Rajpura, Gur Mandi, Delhi -110007 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises") devolved upon the Respondent herein by way of the will of his father, Late Sh. Surat Singh, and the Petitioners herein are tenants of the same. Vide Order dated 31.07.2018 in eviction petition No. 56369/2016, the title of the Respondent to the tenanted premises, which had been challenged, was held to be bona fide.

b) It is stated that the Respondent herein had preferred an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the DRC Act against the Petitioners qua Property No. 82, Village Rajpura, Gur Mandi, Delhi-110007 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises") in the year 2009. Though this eviction petition was allowed with the Petitioners' leave to defend application being rejected, vide Order dated 12.10.2011 in R.C. Rev. No. 209/2010, this Court set aside the Order of the Ld. Rent Controller and granted leave to defend to the Petitioners.

c) It is stated that vide Order dated 31.07.2018, the Ld. Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition preferred under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act qua the tenanted premises. However, it is stated that shortly thereafter, another eviction petition was preferred by the Respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act against the Petitioners herein qua the tenanted premises.

d) Vide Order dated 26.08.2021, the Ld. Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition bearing no. RC ARC No. 37/2018, and the leave to defend application of the Petitioners herein was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners have approached this Court assailing the Order dated 26.08.2021.

3. Mr. G.P. Thareja, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the eviction petition moved by the Respondent is not maintainable for the reason that Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act can only be invoked if the need of the landlord is bona fide in nature which is not the case herein. He states that the alleged need of the daughter-in-law and grandchild of the Respondent to open a coaching institute and study/library/cafeteria cannot be said to be bona fide. He further states that the need of the son of the Respondent who is allegedly a lawyer is also false as the son plays an active role as an Executive Director in the management of the Respondent's hotel business. Mr. Thareja also brings to the notice of this Court that the Respondent has concealed material facts and he owns property bearing No. A-97 and A-98, which was allegedly bought and reconstructed by the Respondent in 2017, and Property bearing no. 73, Village Rajpura, Gurmandi, Delhi, from where he's running one boys' hostel by the name of "Garvit Hostel". He states that the Respondent clearly has suitable alternate accommodation which can be put to use for the requirement put forward and no ju