R.D. Mangat vs Brij Mohan
2012 Latest Caselaw 5819 Del

*          THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        RCR No. 277/2012

                                         Date of Decision: 27.09.2012

R.D. Mangat                                      ...... Petitioner

                         Through:     Mr. O.P. Khadaria, Advocate.

                                Versus

Brij Mohan                                       ...... Respondent

                         Through:     Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate.

+                        RCR No. 278/2012

R.D. Mangat                                      ...... Petitioner

                         Through: Mr. O.P. Khadaria, Advocate.
                              Versus

Brij Mohan                                       ...... Respondent

                        Through:      Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. These two revision petitions filed by the petitioner against the

respondent U/S 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'Act')

are being disposed of by this common order, as the parties are common

and same questions of fact and law are involved. Both these petitions

are directed against the separate orders dated 02.02.2012 of the

Additional Rent Controller (West), whereby leave to defend

applications filed by the petitioner, were dismissed.

2. The petitioner is tenant in respect of shop at the ground floor in

house No. G-44, Shyam Nagar, Khyala Road, New Delhi since June,

1978. He is also a tenant in respect of one room above this shop since

1985. Both the premises were taken by the petitioner for commercial

purposes, where he had been running his business of photography. His

eviction is sought from the tenanted premises by the respondent on the

ground of bona fide requirement thereof by him for his business of

dairy products. It is his case that he is doing the business of dairy

products from a rented shop at Arya Samaj Mandir at Sharda Puri,

Ramesh Nagar, Delhi, which is about 7-8 kilometres from the suit

premises. His case is that he intends to do his business from the suit

premises from where he can run the business very comfortably and

also seek the assistance of his handicap son. It is averred that since he

is also residing with his wife and son in the same premises, and has no

other reasonably suitable commercial space, he bona fide requires the

suit premises.

3. The petitioner filed leave to defend applications in both the

cases on the grounds that the respondent is not the landlord of the suit

premises. In this regard his case is that it was his wife Ms. Usha Rani

who is the owner of the suit premises. It is also his plea that the

respondent is running his business in a shop at Sharda Puri where he

has good number of customers and does not require the suit premises.

It is also averred that the respondent has also filed earlier petitions

against him for eviction and that in case he is evicted, he shall suffer

hardships and other business problems. Learned Addl. Rent Controller

vide separate orders dismissed both the applications of leave to defend

of the petitioner and consequently passed eviction orders in respect of

both the tenanted premises. The petitioner has assailed those orders in

the instant petitions.

4. The grounds on which the impugned order has been assailed,

and the submissions have been made by the learned counsel, are the

same which were before the Addl. Rent Controller and which had been

adequately dealt with by him. In support of the contention that the

respondent is not the owner of the suit premises, but his wife Usha

Rani is the owner thereof, the learned counsel has drawn my attention

to a few rent receipts admittedly signed by Usha Rani as owner of the

suit premises. These show Usha Rani to be the owner and her husband

as the landlord thereof. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent has drawn my attention to various other rent receipts of the

year 2009 and 2010 duly signed by the petitioner, showing the

respondent to be the owner of the suit premises. These are not

disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also not

disputed that the suit premises was let out to the petitioner by way of

rent agreement executed between him and the respondent, wherein

respondent has been shown to be the owner/landlord. Further it is also

not disputed that the construction of the first floor of the premises was

done by the respondent, to the knowledge of the petitioner. The

mention of name of Usha Rani on some of the receipts as owner, will

not in fact, make her to be the owner thereof. That concept of

ownership in the case of eviction petition, on the ground of bona fide

requirement, is not absolute like that the one under Transfer of

Property Act. In case of Sushil Kanta Vs. Rajeshwar Kumar 1999

RLR 289 it has been held that

"An owner U/s 14 (1)(e) need not be an absolute owner requiring registered sale deed in his favour contemplated by the general law in Section 54 TPA. It is enough if he has paid for and built tenancy premises. He may also be owner by virtue of current sale agreement and Power of Attorney in his favour. Restricted meaning cannot be given to the owner for the purpose of this Act. It is further held in 155 (2008) DLT 383 titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. that the landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than tenant. Similar proposition has been held in 153 (2008) DLT 423 titled as A.K. Nayar Vs. Mahesh Prasad. "

5. The plea that the respondent has filed frequent petitions of

eviction against the petitioner, is extraneous and without any merit.

Likewise, the plea that the respondent would be having good number

of customers in the shop at Sharda Puri, is also without any basis. It

is undisputed that the respondent is running his shop of dairy products

in a tenanted shop at Sharda Puri. It is not in dispute that he does not

have any other reasonably suitable commercial space for running his

business and that he along with his handicap son and his wife is

residing on the first floor of the suit premises. There cannot be any

dispute that the present accommodation of one room on the ground

floor and one room on the first floor would be the more suitable for the

petitioner who is aged and suffering from various ailments. It is settled

law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and neither

the tenant nor the court can dictate terms upon him.

In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or

illegality in the impugned order of the Learned ADJ. Consequently

both the petitions are devoid of any merit and are hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

SEPTEMBER , 2012 pkv