On 7th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Jayant Nath held that the essential ingredients which a landlord is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are (i) the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the suit premises (ii) the suit premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself/herself and any of his/her family members dependent upon him/her. (iii) The landlord/landlady or such other family members have no other reasonable suitable accommodation.

Facts of the case:

The respondent moved an application CM No.13409/2021 praying for dismissal of the present petition as having become infructuous as peaceful possession of the demised premises had been taken over on 19.03.2021 by the respondent. The respondent/landlord had filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on ground of bona fide requirements.

Contention of the respondent:

Learned counsel for the respondent contended the following:

  1. Learned counsel for the respondent has in the present application vehemently relied upon various orders passed by this court to hold that once possession has been regained by the respondent/landlord the revision petition is rendered infructuous.
  2. It was pleaded in the petition that the respondents are the co-owners / landlord of the said shop in question and require the same bonafidely for their own use, for the purposes of manufacturing of sweets and for extension of the counter of their shop.
  3. It is further stated that the respondent/landlord have entered into an agreement with a local builder for the demolition of the entire property and thereafter they will construct shops and go downs to get huge monetary benefits.

Contention of the petitioner:

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended the following:

  1. It was submitted that the respondent/landlord has intentionally and deliberately not disclosed the entire accommodation available with them or their family members.
  2. It was further pleaded that the respondents are not doing any alleged business of manufacturing sweets rather the business is carried out by M/s Chaina Ram Sindhi Confectioners which is a separate legal entity.
  3. It was stressed that the respondents/landlord have wrongly stated in the petition that they have to arrange rented accommodation for their halwai shop.

Observation and judgment of the courts:

The hon’ble bench of the court observed the followed:

  1. A tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord regarding his necessity. Hence, the court concluded that no triable issue between the parties arises which entitles the petitioner/tenant for leave to defend the eviction petition.
  2. The essential ingredients which a landlord is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are (i) the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the suit premises (ii) the suit premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself/herself and any of his/her family members dependent upon him/her. (iii) the landlord/landlady or such other family members have no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
  3. The impugned order rightly holds that other than making bald averments without filing any documents, the petitioner/tenant has failed to plead any fact which would throw doubt on the bona fide requirement of the respondents/landlord.

Therefore, the court held that the petitioner had failed to make out any triable issue; the impugned order has rightly dismissed the application for leave to defend of the petitioner. The petition was dismissed.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Anusree