Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JASMEET SINGH, J.
Garg Trading Co & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Vijay Mehra & Ors. - Respondents
RC.Rev. No. 45 of 2015, CM Appl. No. 38844 of 2019, CM Appl. No. 40626 of 2019, CM Appl. No. 6786 of 2022, RC.Rev. No. 104 of 2015, CM Appl. No. 40586 of 2019, CM Appl. No. 6787 of 2022, RC.Rev. No. 47 of 2015, CM Appl. No. 38896 of 2019, CM Appl. No. 42276 of 2019, CM Appl. No. 13120 of 2022
Decided On : 27-11-2024
(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e) and 25 B - Eviction petition - Landlords sought eviction on grounds of bona fide requirement for residential and commercial purposes - Court upheld eviction order, finding genuine need and lack of alternate accommodation - The landlords' assertion of need for the tenanted premises was deemed bona fide, and the status of the occupants was not relevant to the eviction order. (Paras 66-84)
(B) Landlord-Tenant Relationship - The court confirmed the existence of a valid landlord-tenant relationship, satisfying the conditions for eviction under the Act. (Paras 66-68)
(C) Bonafide Requirement - The court emphasized that the landlords' need for the premises was genuine, supported by their family and business requirements. (Paras 68-70)
(D) No Alternate Accommodation - The court found that the landlords had no suitable alternative accommodation, thus fulfilling the third condition for eviction. (Paras 78-80)
Facts of the case:
The landlords filed an eviction petition under the DRC Act, asserting that the tenanted premises were required for their residential and commercial needs, which were found to be bona fide. The tenants contested the eviction, claiming they were independent tenants and not sub-tenants.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the eviction order, confirming the landlords' genuine need for the premises and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the eviction petition against alleged sub-tenants and the bona fide requirement of the landlords.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the landlords' assertion of need was sufficient for eviction, and the status of the occupants did not negate this requirement.
Result: The eviction petition was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. These are petitions seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2014 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller - 1 (“ARC”) (central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the learned ARC has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners for leave to defend and the eviction petition filed by the respondents under section 14 (1)(e) read with section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC”) was allowed with respect of the tenanted premises bearing property No. 4082-87, Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 comprising of ground floor (four halls; one of the halls having been partitioned into seven portions), first floor (comprising of six rooms and two halls) and the second floor (comprising of seven rooms) (“tenanted premises”).
2. The petitioners are also challenging the order dated 20.01.2015 whereby the learned ARC dismissed the review applications filed by the petitioners seeking review of the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2014.
3. In RC.REV. NO. 104/2015, the petitioner only challenges the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2014 passed by the learned ARC wherein the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner has been rejected and an order of eviction has been passed in favor of the respondents with respect to the tenanted premises.
4. It is pertinent to mention that in RC.REV. NO. 104/2015, no review was filed by the petitioner.
5. The factual narration is being considered as per RC. REV. 45/2015, being the lead matter and the ratio of this judgment shall also apply to RC.REV. NO. 47/2015 and RC.REV. NO. 104/2015.
Factual Matrix as per the petitioner
6. An Eviction petition being E. No. 150/2012 was filed by the respondents/ landlords under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25 B of DRC Act on the ground that the tenanted premises were bonafidely required by the landlords for themselves and their dependent family members.
7. A total of eight persons were arrayed as respondents (collectively referred as “tenants/sub tenants”) in the eviction petition filed by the landlords whereby M/s Molu Ram Radha Kishan (petitioner in RC. REV. 47/2015) was arrayed as respondent no. 1 and was stated to be the only tenant and respondent nos. 2 – 8 were stated to be sub tenants of the landlords in the tenanted premises. The petitioners in RC. REV. 45/2015 and RC. REV. 104/2015, namely Garg Trading Company and Sh. Om Prakash were arrayed as respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the eviction petition and were alleged to be sub tenants inducted by M/s Molu Ram Radha Kishan.
8. It was further stated that M/s Molu Ram Radha Kishan had sub-let, assigned and/or parted with the possession of certain portions of the tenanted premises to various sub tenants including the petitioner herein, illegally and without obtaining the consent of the landlords in writing or otherwise.
9. In the present petition, a site plan has been brought on record showing possessions of different portions of the tenanted premises by the different respondents in the eviction petition and indicating the same by using different colours. The site plan handed over is reproduced as under :
10. As per the site plan the petitioner herein is stated to be the tenant in the portion which is marked as 'C' on the ground floor and first floor of the tenanted premises and is shown in yellow colour. M/s Molu Ram Radha Kishan is stated to be the tenant in the portion marked as "A" on the ground floor and first floor of the tenanted premises. Mr. Om Prakash is stated to be the tenant in the portion marked as "1" on the ground floor in the tenanted premises.
11. As per the eviction petition, the tenanted premises was purchased by Sh. Madan Lal Mehra (since deceased) in the year 1967. On 16.12.2970, Sh. Madan Lal Mehra executed a will in favor of his wife Smt. Bimlawati, who became the owner of the tenanted premises after the death of Sh. Madan Lal Mehra.
12. Thereafter, on 10.10.1991, Smt. Bimlawati executed a will in favor of her two sons (i) Sh. Manmohan and (ii) Sh. J
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.
The burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish a genuine and bona fide requirement for possession of the premises, and the tenant must prima facie make out a case that disentitles the landlord....
The need of the landlords for the tenanted premises for providing commercial accommodation to their adult sons for starting independent business is genuine and the finding of the Trial Court does not....
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.
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 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....
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
