M/S. A.S. Patel Trust vs Shri Shiv Shankar Gupta
2011 Latest Caselaw 6016 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Judgment: 09.12.2011

+     RCR No. 502/2011 and CM No. 22216-17/2011

M/S. A.S. PATEL TRUST                       ...........Petitioner
                    Through:           Mr. R.K. Bachchan and
                                       Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate.

                     Versus

SHRI SHIV SHANKAR GUPTA                    ..........Respondent
                  Through:             Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated

01.06.2011 vide which the application filed by the

petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend in a pending eviction

proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act

(DRCA) had been dismissed. This order is the subject matter of

the present petition. Order had been passed on 01.06.2011 and

the six months interregnum before the decree could be executed

has since expired.

2. Arguments have been heard.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner before

this court is three-fold. His contention is that the premises were

not owed by the landlord and there was no proof of ownership

which is a mandatory requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the

DRCA. Second submission is that the identity of the suit premises

had not been established. His contention in his application for

leave to defend was that he was a tenant in respect of suit

premises bearing No. 9062/7, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market,

Delhi-110006 and not 9062/13, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market,

Delhi-110006 as has been claimed by the landlord in his eviction

petition. Third submission is that the bonafide need advanced by

the landlord had not been established.

4. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that he was

inducted as a tenant by the father of the respondent (petitioner in

the trial Court) who had expired and thereafter in terms of his

duly registered Will, the respondent had stepped into the shoes of

his deceased father. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner

thereafter continued to pay rent to the respondent. In these

circumstances, the Trial Court had rightly noted that the question

of the ownership does not raise a triable issue. An eviction

petition is not a title suit; admittedly, the father of the respondent

had inducted the present petitioner as a tenant and after his death

vide a duly registered Will (undisputed) the respondent had

stepped into the shoes of his father and the petitioner also

recognized him as a landlord and continued to pay a rent to him.

Section 116 of the Evidence Act was also attracted. Even for the

sake of argument if it is assumed that the present respondent was

not the only legal heir of his deceased father, an eviction petition

filed by a co-owner is also maintainable as has been held by a

Bench of this court in Inder Pal Khanna vs. Commander Bhupinder

Singh Rekhir reported in manu/de/1090/2008.

5. The second submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is also without force. Eviction petition has been filed

seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit premises described as

property No. 9062/13, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi-

110006 although in the application for leave to defend it has been

stated that the number of the premises is 9062/7, Ram Bagh Road,

Azad Market, Delhi-110006 for which an electricity bill has been

attached to substantiate this submission. This document appears

at page 73 of the paper book. A perusal of this electricity bill

shows that it has been addressed to Patel Roadway (P) Ltd. and

not to the present petitioner i.e. M/s. A.S. Patel Trust. The

submission of the petitioner on this court that M/s. A.S. Patel

Trust is a sister concern of Patel Roadways (P) Ltd. and they are

both are the same is further negatived by his own submissions in

his application for leave to defend whereas in para 18 he has

clearly and categorically stated that the respondent i.e. M/s. A.S.

Patel Trust and Patel Roadways (P) Ltd. are separate and distinct

entities. In this view of the matter it is clear that this argument

advanced by the petitioner that he is a tenant of premises bearing

No. 9062/7, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi-110006 which in

his view is substantiated by the electricity bill which as noted

supra has been addressed in the name of M/s. Patel Roadways (P)

Ltd. and which is a separate and distinct entity does not help the

case of the petitioner in any manner; it does not raise any triable

issue.

6. The last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that the bonafide need of the landlord has not been established

and in fact in the reply filed by the landlord to his application for

leave to defend he has in his preliminary submission admitted that

the entire property bearing No. 9062 is owned by him where there

are 59 shows/godowns in which there are 35 tenants; out of 59

shops and godowns, 17 shops have been sold already and this list

has been filed as annexure „D‟ alongwith the reply. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has addressed vehement arguments;

however, on a query by the court as to the details contained in

annexure „D‟ which as per the landlord are all tenant-occupied, he

has admitted that document has not been filed. This appears to be

a deliberate concealment of a valid document which would in fact

throw light upon the submission of the landlord that this list of 59

shops and godowns shows that they are tenant-occupied. This has

been specifically stated by the landlord in his preliminary

submission of the reply.

7. All these contentions were noted in the correct perspective

by the Trial Court. The submission of the petitioner that the

landlord owns several other properties in Delhi at Daryagant,

Netaji Subhash Road, Gupta Market, Sadar Bazaar, Chawri

Bazaar and Bhagirath Place and the present petitioner has been

filed only to extract higher rate of rent also met with a rejected

fate as no details of these properties had been filed; they were

mere bald assertions which were specifically denied by the

landlord in his reply affidavit.

8. The bonafide need explained by the landlord in his eviction

petition is that he wants to run a business of paper stationery unit

from the disputed premises and he has no other suitable or

reasonable accommodation. Contention of the petitioner before

this court is that the respondent has nowhere stated that he is

qualified to run such kind of a business which destroys his

bonafide need; in these circumstances, the need of the landlord

cannot be qualified as a bonafide need is an argument which is

worth of no merits.

9. The landlord alongwith the eviction petition had placed on

record a project report got prepared by him in relation to

aforenoted business which he intended to commence from the

disputed premises which had been annexed alongwith the

eviction petition as annexure „P6‟. This document was also

correctly taken note of. Bonafide need of the landlord to run this

stationery business and he having no other suitable or reasonable

accommodation with him was well established.

10. The Apex Court has time and again reiterated that the

landlord is the best judge of his requirement; it is not open to the

tenant or to the court to dictate to the landlord the manner or the

style in which he must live. In Labhu Lal s/o Jeevan Lal vs.

Sandhya Gupta w/o Luxmi Dutt Gupta reported in 173(2010) DLT

310, a Bench of this court had noted that the landlord wishing to

start his own business establishes his bona fide need. It had

quoted with approval the observation of the Apex Court reported

in Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal

& Ors. reported in (2005)8 SCC 252. Relevant extract hereinbelow

reads as under:-

"It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is

not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business."

11. Impugned order suffers from no infirmity; no triable

issue has arisen; application for leave to defend had rightly

been dismissed; order calls for no interference.

12. Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

DECEMBER 09, 2011 rb