Delhi High Court
Shri Pradeep Singh vs Ms. Prem Kaur & Anr. on 19 September, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.09.2012
+ 1. RC.Rev. No.476/2012
Shri Pradeep Singh ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sumati
Jumrani, Advs.
Versus
Ms. Prem Kaur & Anr. ...... Respondents
Through:
AND
+ 2. RC.Rev. No.477/2012
Shri Pradeep Singh ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sumati
Jumrani, Advs.
Versus
Shri Chander Prakash Gulati & Anr. ...... Respondents
Through:
AND
+ 3. RC.Rev. No.479/2012
Shri Pradeep Singh ...... Petitioner
RC.Rev. Nos.476, 477, 479, 480 & 481/2012 Page 1 of 6
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sumati
Jumrani, Advs.
Versus
Shri Harvinder Singh & Anr. ...... Respondents
Through:
AND
+ 4. RC.Rev. No.480/2012
Shri Pradeep Singh ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sumati
Jumrani, Advs.
Versus
Shri Devinder Pal Singh Nagpal & Anr. ...... Respondents
Through:
AND
+ RC.Rev. No.481/2012
Shri Pradeep Singh ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sumati
Jumrani, Advs.
Versus
Shri Satish Chander ...... Respondent
Through:
RC.Rev. Nos.476, 477, 479, 480 & 481/2012 Page 2 of 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. These revision petitions under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act (for short 'the Act') are directed against the common orders
dated 23.05.2012 passed by S.C.J. / R.C (West) in the five eviction
petitions filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking their
eviction from their respective tenanted premises. Vide this order, leave to
defend applications of the respondents/tenants, filed by them, were
allowed.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that petitioner purchased property
No. H-32, Rajouri Garden on 02.06.2005. The respondents were already
tenants in respect of their respective shops in property No.H-32, Rajouri
Garden, New Delhi, under the previous owner. After the purchase of the
said property by the petitioner, they became tenants under the petitioner
on the same terms and conditions. The petitioner filed eviction petitions
against the respondents under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25-B of
the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground that he requires the said shops
in order to expand his business. It is averred in the petition that presently
he is assisting his father in his business at Lajpat Rai Market, but now he
wants to stand on his legs and open a showroom in the suit premises. It is
averred that they are already in possession of four shops, which are lying
locked, and by amalgamating them with the tenanted shops, he intends to
open a showroom there.
3. Thereafter, the respondents filed applications for leave to defend,
which were granted. It was observed by the Ld. ARC that the petitioner
had not disclosed the nature of business he wants to start, and that the
petitioner being already in occupation of four shops on the ground floor,
the projected requirement of tenanted shops is only of additional
accommodation, and thus, the respondents are entitled to leave to defend
the petitions.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
records.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend, and to
which there is no dispute, that the landlord is sole and best Judge of his
requirement, and he has complete freedom in the matter and that tenant
could not dictate the terms to him and advise as to what he should do and
what not. It is also not disputed that it is the privilege of the landlord to
choose the nature of business as also the place of business.
6. When the examination of bonafide of a landlord is within the
domain of Rent Controller, various factors come in the way for
consideration. It is not a thumb rule in every case that whatever the
landlord wishes or desires or even intends that has to be taken as a gospel
truth, just on the ground that he is the best Judge of his affairs. If that was
so, then in every case, on the filing of eviction petitions, the tenants would
lose statutory protection. That is not be the intention of the legislation or
the ratio of the precedents.
7. It was held in the case of Navneet Lal V. Deepak
Sawhney,173(2010) DLT 189 that :
"45. The conspectus of the aforesaid judgments shows
that the broad principles have been set down of the
requirement of a landlord not being a mere whim or
fanciful but that it should be a genuine need of the
landlord. It is only then that the requirement can be said
to be bona fide within the meaning of under Section 14(1)
(e) of the said Act. This would naturally require all the
necessary matrix in terms of the factual averments and
the evidence to be adduced in that behalf.
Simultaneously it has to be kept in mind that the landlord
is the best Judge of his requirement and a tenant cannot
dictate the terms on which the landlord should live.
8. The petitioner needs to demonstrate his intention to be genuine and
authentic, and not only as his wish and desire. It is settled that the Rent
Controller has the power and jurisdiction to examine, evaluate and
adjudicate the bonafide of the landlord and make objective assessment.
9. Though there is no bar in the expansion of business or for
additional accommodation, but all this needs to be tested to see the
bonafide of the petitioner, and which is not possible by affidavits at the
threshold. The respondents, who has raised triable issues, cannot be
ousted from the tenanted premises, without being afforded opportunity of
testing the bonafide of the petitioner.
10. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court.
The petitions have no merit and are hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
sd
