Ranjit Singh Sethi vs Gurmeet Singh Chawla
2012 Latest Caselaw 346 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                            Date of Judgment: 18.01.2012.

+             R.C.R. No. 209/2011

RANJIT SINGH SETHI                                  ..... Petitioner
                        Through     Mr.Shailendra Babbar, Adv.

                   versus

GURMEET SINGH CHAWLA                               ..... Respondent
                 Through            Mr. Amarjit Singh, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Impugned order dated 24.02.2011 had dismissed the

application for leave to defend filed by the tenant and decreed the

eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(e) of

the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the „DRCA‟).

2 Record shows that this eviction petition has been filed by

the landlord Gurmeet Singh Chawla seeking eviction of the shop

in property No. X/922, Private No. 3, Chand Mohalla, Gandhi

Nagar, Khasra No. 121, Delhi which was under the tenancy of the

tenant Ranjit Singh Sethi. The petitioner claims himself to be

owner of the suit property; the property was original owned by his

father Hardev Singh who had sold it to him vide a registered sale

deed dated 22.06.2000; it is not in dispute that the tenant had

attorned to the present landlord and has been paying rent to him.

Contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the sale deed

suffers from an infirmity and the shop under the tenancy is not the

subject matter of the sale deed; this contention now raised was

never a part of his pleadings i.e. a part of his leave to defend

application; this argument now propounded cannot be gone into in

the absence of a pleading to the said effect; even other in view of

the fact that there is a registered sale deed in favour of the

petitioner as also the admitted fact that the tenant was paying

rent to the landlord, in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the

Evidence Act there is little scope for argument left to the tenant

on this score. The trial Court had rightly noted the landlord-tenant

relationship and ownership of the landlord stood established. This

does not in any many raise a triable issue.

3 The other ground urged by learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the petitioner is a confused man; he is blowing

hot and cold; he in one breath requires this shop for the expansion

of his business and in the second breath his requirement for this

shop is for a guest room and a puja room; contention is that the

need of the landlord is not bonafide; it is malafide.

4 The site plan is a relevant document. It has been perused. It

is not in dispute that the shop in question is on the ground floor

from where the tenant is running photo studio under the name

and style of „Jolly Photo Studio‟; adjacent to this shop is a bakery

shop where the landlord along with his family is carrying on his

business. The contention of the landlord in his eviction petition is

that both his sons are men of means; they are income tax payees;

both of them are married; they have wives and three children

each. The entire family is occupying the first floor and the third

floor; the second floor is under the tenancy of an old tenant; his

contention is that the space from where the bakery shop which is

being run by the family is falls short; two employees are

permanently working in the shop; the size of the shop is small; the

entrance is also small; the disputed shop is adjacent to the shop of

the landlord from where he is running his bakery shop. After

breaking the partition wall, the main entrance of the shop will be

increased and the area of the shop will also be enhanced to enable

the petitioner and his family to carry out his business in a

profitable manner as the present accommodation falls short;

because of this shortage of space, his other two sons are not able

to assist him as not enough income can be generated from this

small shop; other family members i.e. his sons also wish to join his

business; this is the bonafide need which is pleaded.

5 The description of the tenanted shop and the fact that it is

adjacent to the bakery shop from where the landlord is carrying

on his business has been substantiated in the site plan; it is clear

that if the intervening wall between the two shops is broken, the

area of the bakery shop will be increased and so also entrance of

the shop. The landlord has specifically pleaded that he has no

other commercial shop from where his business activity can be

carried out; thus this first shop is required by him bonafide. The

bonafide need of the landlord has been established.

6 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the landlord is blowing hot and cold is worthy of no credit. The

landlord has clearly and categorically stated that he requires this

shop for the expansion of his business as after breaking the

intervening partition wall, the area of the shop will be increased

to enable sons of the petitioner to join them future in the business

which is present become run from the present shop which is very

small. This submission is amply substantiated from the site plan.

7. No other submission has been urged or argued.

8 The Apex Court has time and again said that the landlord is

the best Judge of his requirement and it is neither open to the

tenant nor to the Court to dictate the landlord on this aspect both

with respect of his requirement for a residential or commercial

premises.

9 In Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai

Prabhulal and Others, (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 252; the

Court observed 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."

10 In Sudesh Kumar Soni & anr. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Anr .,153

(2008) Delhi Law Times 652, the Court observed as under:-

"It is not for tenant to dictate terms to landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premises-suitability has to be seen for convenience of landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habit and background."

11 The impugned order decreeing the eviction petition of the

landlord and dismissing the application for leave to defend filed by

the landlord suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any

merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 18, 2012/A