* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV.No.326/2014 & C.M.Nos.16466/2014(Stay),
16467/2014 (Exemption)
% 30th September, 2014
BAL KISHAN ......Petitioner
Through: None
VERSUS
LALIT MOHAN SINGH & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. On the first call, passover was prayed for which was granted. At the time of granting passover, it was made clear that no further passover or adjournment will be granted. Even on the second call when the case is called out, no one appears for the petitioner. I have therefore gone through the record and I am proceeding to dispose of the petition.
2. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 11.7.2014 by which the RC.REV.No.326 /2014 Page 1 of 6 Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act by the respondent no.1/landlord with respect to the suit/tenanted shop bearing no.3524, ground floor, property bearing municipal no.3521-3524, Kucha Lal Man, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
3. The respondent no.1/landlord pleaded the requirement of the suit/tenanted shop for the purpose of running of a business of ladies clothes by his wife Smt.Archana Singh, who is stated to have good knowledge of tailoring and embroidery work and who is already doing such petty job for the known local residents. The respondent no.1's wife is doing the tailoring job from the residential portion above, i.e the first floor of the tenanted premises where the respondent no.1 is residing with his family. It was pleaded in the eviction petition that new persons/customers hesitate to climb upstairs to the first floor, and as a result of which the income of the wife of respondent no.1 is limited and meager, and hence the bonafide necessity eviction petition.
RC.REV.No.326 /2014 Page 2 of 6
4. A reading of the impugned judgment shows that the only serious issue is with respect to the existence of the bonafide requirement and existence of alternative suitable accommodation.
5. With respect to the aspect of respondent no.1 being the owner/landlord of the suit/tenanted property, the Additional Rent Controller has rightly held this in favour of the respondent no.1/landlord after making the following observations:-
"11. Ownership and landlord-tenant relationship It is alleged by the petitioner that he is owner / landlord ofproperty bearing no. 3521-3524, Kucha Lal Man, Darya Ganj, Delhi having inherited the same from his father late Sh. Shyam Singh who was the owner of the said property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.08.1984. It is averred that after death of petitioner's father Sh. Shyam Singh in 1987, his mother Smt. Laxmi Devi and sister Ms. Taruna relinquished their respective rights / share in the suit property in favour of petitioner vide registered relinquishment deed dated 12.04.1988. The said relinquishment deed has been filed on record by virtue of which, petitioner became the sole owner of the said property. It is also averred by the petitioner that the suit property is mutated in his name in the house tax record of MCD. It is the admitted case that father of the respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Ram Chander was originally inducted as a tenant by landlord late Sh. Shyam Singh and Sh. Shyam Singh issuing rent receipts to the said tenant as and when the rent was paid. That after the death of Sh. Ram Chander, his widow Smt. Yashoda Devi and son Sh. Bal Kishan, being his legal heirs, became the tenants under Sh. Shyam Singh and started Page No. 9 of 9 Lalit Mohan Singh vs. Bal Kishan & Ors. E. No. 126/1210 paying rent to Sh. Shyam Singh against rent receipts. It is further averred that after the death of Sh. Shyam Singh, tenants namely Smt. Yashoda Devi and Sh. Bal Kishan started paying rent to the petitioner by way of rent receipts, counter-foils of which RC.REV.No.326 /2014 Page 3 of 6 have been filed on record wherein the petitioner is shown as a landlord / owner of the tenanted premises. Respondent no. 1 has himself admitted in para no. 4 of his leave to defend application that after the death of Sh. Shyam Singh, respondent no. 1 started paying rent to the petitioner and thus, from the very version of the respondent no. 1, it is proved that the petitioner is the owner / landlord of the suit property. In Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Leela Wati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383, it has been held that:
"the landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership and he is merely required to show that he is more than a tenant in the tenanted premises."
In the present case, the respondent has himself admitted that he had been paying rent to the petitioner after the death of Sh. Shyam Singh and therefore the petitioner has successfully established that he is more than tenant in the tenanted premises, thus discharging his onus of proof."
6. On the aspect of bonafide requirement and alternative suitable accommodation, the case of the petitioner was that the respondent no.1/landlord had five shops in his possession, two shops in property no.3522, Kucha Lal Man, Darya Ganj, Delhi and one shop in property no.3488, Kucha Lal Man, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Alternative suitable accommodation was also pleaded to exist on the first floor being property no.3517, Kucha Lal Man, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
7. In reply to the leave to defend application with respect to the alternative shops which were pleaded to be of the respondent no.1/landlord RC.REV.No.326 /2014 Page 4 of 6 by the petitioner/tenant, the respondent no.1/landlord made a statement that there is an open offer to the present petitioner to occupy any of the shops or the ground floor portion of any of the properties which the petitioner/tenant was stating to be belonging to the respondent no.1/landlord, and which statement was made because respondent no.1/landlord denied that any of the properties which the petitioner/tenant states belong to the respondent no.1, belonged to the respondent no.1/landlord accordingly and respondent no.1/landlord did not therefore have possession of the same.
8. So far as the property bearing no.3517, Kucha Lal Man, Darya Ganj, Delhi is concerned, this property on the first floor is occupied by the respondent no.1/landlord and his family for residential purpose, and therefore this property is not available for the purpose of opening of a shop of ladies clothing. This is not only because the premises are residential but also because a shop is more conveniently opened on the ground floor of a premises and not on the first floor. Further as already contended rightly by the respondent no.1/landlord that customers feel hesitant to come to the first floor of the property where tailoring work is being carried out by the wife of the respondent no.1/landlord.
RC.REV.No.326 /2014 Page 5 of 6
9. In view of the above, the Additional Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the leave to defend application and has rightly held that the respondent no.1 is the owner/landlord of the suit/tenanted premises and that the premises are bonafidely required by the respondent no.1/landlord for carrying on the business by his wife of ladies clothing, and that the respondent no.1/landlord or his wife do not have any other alternative suitable accommodation from which the business of ladies clothing can be carried out.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 KA RC.REV.No.326 /2014 Page 6 of 6