Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
H.S. Bajaj & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Satish Chopra – Respondent
RC.REV. 291 of 2019 & CM APPL. 22016 of 2019
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Bona Fide Need - Eviction Petition - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e), Section 25-B - The court discussed the need of the Petitioners for the tenanted premises and concluded that the need is bona fide. The court also highlighted the legal provisions under Section 6-A and Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act, emphasizing that the landlord is not required to plead the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises in the legal notice. The court set aside the Trial Court's findings and allowed the eviction order in favor of the Petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking eviction of the Respondent from Shop bearing private No. 2 at Ground Floor of Property No. 4/55, Double Storey, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. The Respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend, disputing the Petitioners' bona fide need of the tenanted premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Trial Court erred in drawing adverse inferences against the Petitioners based on the legal notice and non-disclosure of ownership of another shop. The court also found that the Trial Court's conclusion that the Petitioners' need is not bona fide was erroneous and set aside the impugned order, allowing the eviction order in favor of the Petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioners' need for the tenanted premises was bona fide, and whether the Trial Court's findings were based on firm legal basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the landlord is not required to plead the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises in the legal notice, and that the Trial Court erred in drawing adverse inferences against the Petitioners. The court also highlighted the strong presumption in favor of the landlord's bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Trial Court's findings and allowed the eviction order in favor of the Petitioners, directing the Respondent to vacate the tenanted premises. The judgment shall not be operative before the expiry of six (6) months from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. This petition has been filed by the Petitioners, landlords aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by the Rent Controller, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court'), whereby, the Respondent, tenant's application seeking leave to defend has been allowed (`impugned order') and the tenant has been granted liberty to file his written statement.
2. The Petitioners filed an eviction petition on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') seeking eviction of the Respondent from Shop bearing private No. 2 at Ground Floor of Property No. 4/55, Double Storey, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 (`tenanted premises').
2.1. The Petitioners, landlords are the joint owners of Property No. 4/55, Double Storey, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 (`subject property') wherein the tenanted premises is located on the ground floor. There are eight (8) shops on the ground floor, out of which, Shop No. 7 is in possession of Petitioner No. 1 whereas, Shop No. 8 is in possession of Petitioner No. 2 and the remaining six (6) shops are let out to different tenants. It is stated that the Petitioner No. 1 is enrolled as an Advocate and is a practitioner of income-tax and sales tax law and is running his office from Shop No. 7 of the tenanted premises. It is stated that Petitioner No. 2 is carrying on business of sale of cloth under the name and style of `Maharaja Saree', from Shop No. 8 of the tenanted premises.
2.2. It is stated in the petition that Petitioner No. 1, who was more than 80 years of age (at the time of the filing of eviction petition), is the father of Petitioner No. 2, who was about 48 years of age (at the said point of time).
2.3. It is stated in the petition that Petitioner No. 2 required the tenanted premises for use and occupation of his unmarried son i.e., Mr. Raunaq Singh Bajaj (`Raunaq'), who was about 24 years of age (at the time of the filing of the eviction petition on 09.05.2017). It is stated that Raunaq is dependent on the Petitioners, landlords and is presently assisting Petitioner No. 2 in the latter's business which is being run from Shop No. 8. It is stated that the tenanted premises are required to enable Raunaq to set up his independent business. It is further stated in the reply to application seeking leave to defend that Raunaq has obtained a Diploma in Fashion Designing in the year 2015-2016 and wants to set up a boutique as well as shop for sale of ladies' suits in the tenanted premises.
3. The Respondent, tenant filed his application seeking leave to defend, wherein, he disputed that the Petitioners have any bona fide need of the tenanted premises.
3.1. It was stated that Petitioner No. 1 is not using Shop No. 7 and the same is lying vacant and is, therefore, available for use by Raunaq. It was further stated that another Shop No. 5, which was vacated by the erstwhile tenant has been rented out 3-4 months prior to filing of the subject eviction petition.
3.2. It was stated that the Petitioners have failed to disclose the ownership of a commercial shop at G-12, Jaina Tower-I, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi, (`Shop at Janakpuri'), which has been rented out by the Petitioners, landlords. It was stated that the Petitioners own other suitable premises which have not been disclosed.
3.3. The Respondent placed reliance on the legal notice dated 17.04.2017 issued by the Petitioners for seeking enhancement of rent by 10% above the monthly rent of Rs.440/-. It is stated that in the said legal notice, there was no whisper about the bona fide need of the tenanted premises.
4. The Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties held that (i) there is no dispute with respect to existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties; (ii) however, in view of the letting out of Shop No. 5 vide rent agreement dated 29.03.2017, the nondisclosure of the ownership of t
The landlord is not required to plead the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises in the legal notice, and there is a strong presumption in favor of the landlord's bona fide need under Section....
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 court recognized the landlord's prerogative to determine their specific requirements and refrained from imposing directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage o....
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 reinforced that tenants must demonstrate bona fide issues to contest eviction based on landlord's genuine need, while the eviction process remains expedited under the summary provisions of ....
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....
The main legal point established is that the landlord's bona fide need for the premises, as per Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was proven, and the tenant's claim of availability of a....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bona fide need for the tenanted premises must be objectively assessed, and the suitability of alternative accommodations must b....
Bona fide requirement of land lord - Landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live.
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
