Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Manmohan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Arjun Uppal & Anr. - Respondents
RC.REV. 117 of 2016
Decided On : 29-11-2023
Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e)
Fact of the Case:
The landlords filed an eviction petition against the tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking recovery of the tenanted premises for the purpose of opening a plush restaurant by the respondent no. 1. The tenant contested the eviction petition, arguing that the landlords' need was not bona fide and that they had alternative suitable accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlords' relationship with the tenant existed, and the landlords were the best judge of their necessity for the tenanted premises. The court rejected the tenant's contention that the respondent no. 1 could start the projected restaurant from other vacant shops and held that no triable issue had been raised regarding the landlords' bonafide need for the tenanted premises. The court also held that the landlords were not required to obtain and file civic permissions and licenses before obtaining possession. The court further held that the landlords' lack of experience to start and run the restaurant was not a relevant consideration under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The court also rejected the tenant's plea of res judicata and found that subsequent eviction petitions were not barred by the principles of res judicata. The court ultimately declined the tenant's application for leave to contest the eviction petition and passed an order of eviction in favor of the landlords.
Issues: The issues revolved around the landlords' bonafide requirement for the tenanted premises, the relevance of the respondent no. 1's lack of experience in running a restaurant, the necessity of obtaining civic permissions, and the applicability of the principle of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlords' need for the tenanted premises was bona fide, and the lack of experience of the respondent no. 1 to start and run the restaurant was not a relevant consideration under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The court also found that obtaining civic permission prior to the filing of the eviction petition was not an essential prerequisite. Additionally, the court held that subsequent eviction petitions were not barred by the principles of res judicata.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenant's revision petition, finding no merit in the tenant's pleas, and passed an order of eviction in favor of the landlords.
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. - The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred as "tenant") seeking to challenge the impugned order dated 28.08.2015 passed by learned ARC-2, Central, Tis Hazari Courts in E. No. 661/14/10, wherein the leave to defend application filed by the tenant was dismissed and order of eviction was passed with respect to shop municipal no. l635, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-110006 admeasuring 217 sq. ft. (hereinafter referred as "tenanted premises"), against the tenant.
FACTS/PLEADINGS
2. Respondent No. 1 is the son of the Respondent No. 2 (hereinafter collectively referred as "landlords").
3. Respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 are the joint owners of property bearing municipal nos. 1635, 1635-A, 1640 to 1648, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred as "property") having their 3/8th and 5/8th share in the property respectively.
4. At the time of purchase of the property by the landlords, the petitioner/tenant was already occupying the tenanted premises under the previous owners and subsequently, started paying the rent to the landlords.
5. Eviction petition was filed by the landlords against their tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as "DRC Act") for recovery of the tenanted premises.
6. It is stated in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises was let out for non-residential purpose at the monthly rent of Rs. 120.80 per month excluding electricity charges.
7. It is further stated that respondent no. 2 is a hotelier and has been running his hotel under the name and style of M/s. New Royal Hotel on the first and upward floors of the property. The respondent no. 1 is very ambitious and desirous to run an independent business on his own. He has completed his M.B.A. course from La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia and has come to India on 27.03.2008 with the ambition of starting an independent business. Respondent no. 1 has decided to open a plush restaurant on a magnified scale for which he has also got a project report prepared.
8. It is further stated in eviction petition that there are about 50 hotels without the facility of any posh restaurant in the area which is an additional asset giving an added strength to the requirement of the respondent no. l for the space for the proposed project. Therefore, the landlords require an area of approximate 5000 sq. ft. to open this restaurant for respondent no. 1 and for which they require the entire ground floor to complete the project.
9. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 has acquired sufficient knowledge and experience by working at the family hotel business and since his return from Australia, he has been working for the launching of the project taking advantage of his experience in the trade. However, because of the portions of the ground floor of the property being under the occupancy of the tenant, landlords have not been able to give their proposed restaurant a practical shape.
10. It is stated that the tenanted premises under the tenancy of the tenant and the other adjoining shops under the tenancy of other tenants are most suitable for respondent no. 1 to set up and run the proposed plush restaurant because the location of the property where tenanted premises is located is very close to the Old Delhi Railway Station and the strategic location of the property has all the potential to make the project tremendously successful.
11. It is stated that the opening of restaurant by respondent no. 1 on the ground floor of the property including the tenanted premises will also get a boost, thus proving the project to be mutually inclusive and exclusive.
12. Therefore, landlords require the tenanted premises bona fidely for the running of the plush restaurant and they have no other reasonably suitable alternative commercial property for the running of the plush restaurant. Thus, it was prayed that an eviction order be passed in favour
The court upheld the eviction order, confirming the landlords' bona fide need for the tenanted premises under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, despite the tenants' claims of independent tenancy.
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.
Landlords can seek tenant eviction based on bona fide need, despite owning other properties nearby, provided alternatives do not meet their specific business requirements.
The landlord's bonafide need for the tenanted premises, the landlord's subjective choice in selecting suitable accommodation, and the limited scope of the court's revisional jurisdiction were the cen....
Bona fide requirement for eviction is assessed as on the date of filing the petition. A landlord's subsequent death does not extinguish the need or vitiate the decree; legal heirs may enforce the ord....
Eviction petitions under the Delhi Rent Control Act can be maintainable even for partial tenancies, provided the landlord establishes genuine need, which courts prioritize over tenant claims of alter....
The judgment emphasizes the landlord's freedom to choose their residential requirement and the presumption of genuine need, placing the burden on the tenant to refute it with strong and cogent eviden....
The burden of proof lies on the respondent to show the availability of alternative suitable accommodation, and the court must presume the landlord's need as genuine and bona fide unless refuted with ....
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
