Rishal Singh vs Bohat Ram & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3199 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                        Reserved on: 09.05.2014
                                                    Date of Decision: 21.07.2014

+                          RC.REV. No.495 of 2012

RISHAL SINGH                                                 ..... Petitioner
                           Through:   Mr. K. Sunil, Adv.

                                         versus

BOHAT RAM & ORS.                                             ..... Respondents
              Through: Mr. J.K. Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

This petition impugns an eviction order dated 31.3.2012, which

rejected the petitioner/tenant‟s application seeking leave to defend the

respondents/landlords‟ eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read

with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short „the Act‟).

The eviction order has been passed against the petitioner apropos the

tenanted premises WZ-1/A/19, Ground Floor, Village Tatarpur, New Delhi-

110027, admeasuring 11ft X 9ft. The admitted rent was Rs.1,200/- per

month. The landlord sought the eviction on the ground that his grandson

required the property to start his own business and that the landlord had no

_______________________________________________________________________

property, other than the suit property from where he could run his business.

The tenant, however, contended that there was no need, much less, a bona

fide need since the landlord had other shops lying vacant and could put them

to use. He further submits that the petition has been filed only to harass the

tenant to pay a higher monthly rent. The learned counsel for the tenant

states that the landlord was in possession of two other shops but had

concealed these facts in the eviction petition. It is also argued that the site

plan was not a correct reflection of the tenanted premises nor had the two

vacant shops been indicated in it; that the landlord‟s grandson was not

dependent upon him for the tenanted premises since the latter was gainfully

occupied and earning his livelihood elsewhere and in any case the said

grandson was no longer a part of the family of the landlord; that some time

earlier the landlord had chosen to sell a room which was available to him,

therefore, it is evident that if the landlord actually required additional space

he would not have sold out the room.

The learned counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, has refuted

these arguments by stating that the grandson was very much a part of his

family and was dependent upon him.

Having heard both the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court

_______________________________________________________________________

found that the two shops referred to by the tenant did not fall into his share

but in the share of the brother of the landlord, hence, they could not be

considered as suitable alternate accommodation being available to the

landlord. The Trial Court held that the tenant had no locus to question the

family terms of the landlord and his family members. All that the tenant can

and is required to do is to show that the landlord had other properties which

could be put to use. The Trial Court relied upon Mohd. Usman Vs. Siraj

Ahmed (2008) 154 DLT 342 and Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti

Teckchandani (2008) 153 DLT 247, which held that the landlord is the best

judge of his requirement and the tenant cannot dictate in what manner the

landlord should utilise his properties. The Trial Court found that the sale of

the room was about two years prior to the filing of the eviction petition.

Whatever be the need, prudence or occasion to sell the aforesaid room and

that too over two years ago cannot be questioned by the tenant or looked

into by the Court. Much can happen or change in two years time. The Trial

Court further held that the grandson could well be dependent upon the

landlord since dependency is not based upon financial means but upon the

lack of accommodation. The Court relied upon Krishna Kumar Gupta Vs.

Swadesh Bhushan Gupta 152 (2008) DLT 556 to elucidate that such an

_______________________________________________________________________

argument cannot be taken by a person who is not a member of the family of

the landlord.

The Court further referred to Om Prakash Bajaj Vs. Chander

Shekhar (2003) 1 RCR (Rent) 332 to show the members who would fall

within the definition of dependent as mentioned in the Act. Upon an

analysis, the Trial Court held that the grandson fell within the definition of

dependent.

The argument of the tenant‟s relative hardship cannot be

countenanced in view of the settled law on the subject. The Trial Court

rejected the tenant‟s argument that there was no need for the premises since

the grandson lacked the qualification to operate a computer repairing shop.

In Ram Babu Vs. Jai Kishan 2009 RLR 58 (NSC), the Supreme

Court has held that no experience or qualification was required to start a

business. Accordingly, the Court held that an eviction petition cannot be

premised upon the landlord or his dependent beneficiary having undergone

prior training or possessing the requisite qualification before the start of a

new business.

Lastly the tenant‟s contention of the lack of landlord-tenant

relationship was rejected in view of the bar under Section 116 of the Indian

_______________________________________________________________________

Evidence Act.

The Court found that there was no triable issue raised in the leave to

defend and accordingly the application was rejected and the petition was

allowed resulting in the eviction order.

The rent control legislations in India were passed with the primary

objective of protecting the tenants from unjustifiable increase of rents and to

prevent landlords from evicting tenants at their desire. The Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 is no exception in protecting tenants from being at the

mercy of landlords; however having pointed out the intent of the Act, it

would be pertinent to note that the Act makes a provision where a landlord

is entitled to gain possession of the tenanted premises when he requires the

premises for himself or for any member of his family under s. 14 (1) (e) of

the Act. Section 14 spells the out the broad intent of the Act in its entirety

and makes it clear that a tenant shall not be evicted by any order or decree of

a Court directing the tenant to do so unless the application made by the

landlord complies with the manner prescribed. Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act

details that an application for eviction moved under this section stating the

reason for eviction of the tenant arises from a bona fide requirement of the

landlord or his dependent. Such being the circumstances, the Rent Controller

_______________________________________________________________________

will require to look into the nature of the requirement and additionally

ensure the landlord has no other suitable property available with him prior to

passing an eviction order. The section, however, does not vest power with

the Court or the tenant to decide on the suitability of the alternate property

or the manner in which the landlord could accommodate his need without

having to uproot the tenant. An eviction petition filed under the s. 14(1)(e)

of the Act shall be considered when the landlord shows that he requires the

property genuinely, that he is the owner of the tenanted premises and that he

has no other suitable accommodation available with him. When the eviction

petition satisfies these requirements, the Court shall pass an eviction order.

It was vehemently argued by Mr. K. Sunil, counsel for the tenant that

the grandson of the landlord, who is said to be living separately from the

landlord, is not a dependent and hence an eviction petition cannot be sought

for him. However, Mr. J.K. Jain counsel for the respondent submitted that

the son and the grandson of the landlord with their family are living with the

landlord and it would be incorrect to state that the landlord has no concern

with the grandson. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that an

unemployed grandson of the landlord is wholly dependent upon him,

therefore, he falls within the ambit of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The

_______________________________________________________________________

grandson is currently unemployed. Learned counsel Mr. Sunil denied the

scope of the section to be as wide as to include grandson in an eviction

petition for bona fide requirement and relies upon Delhi Cloth and General

Mills Co. Ltd v. Sri. T. S. Bhatia 1977 AIRCJ (Delhi) 902 to state that

questions of whether son of any member of the family of the landlord is a

dependent is a question of fact which would require evidence to be lead

which in conclusion would mean that the leave to defend application must

be allowed. The counsel relied on the abovementioned judgment to further

state that such controversies cannot be decided by virtual findings and that

they necessarily need to be out to trial. However, counsel for the respondent

relied on another judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Bajaj v. Chander

Shekhar (2003)1 RCR 332 wherein the Court included sons‟ family of the

landlord in the meaning of dependent. The Court held that the need of any

member including the son; the wife, sons‟ wife and children are to be treated

as the need for the landlord. The impugned order also relied on the same

judicial pronouncement to arrive at a conclusion. This Court finds such a

decision to be more at par with the intent of the Act that the judicial

precedent mentioned by the counsel for the tenant. The law, on this point,

has evolved to extent where it is accepted position that a grandson is

_______________________________________________________________________

included in dependents of the landlord.

In the present petition, the tenant raised a contention that the landlord

has alternate shops which he has deliberately concealed and that the Court

should have considered the concealment while passing the eviction order. It

was argued that apart from a shop lying vacant there are two other vacant

shops on the same lane, which has not been mentioned in the site plan.

Counsel argued that such concealment is not to be taken lightly as it was

indicative of landlord trying to extort a higher rent, rather than there being

any genuine need for the tenanted premises. When there are alternative

accommodations available, the landlord ought to have been granted an

eviction order, it was so argued. This Court finds itself in disagreement with

the argument made by the Counsel because in an eviction petition filed for

bona fide requirement, the landlord‟s needs are put on a higher footing than

that of the tenant. This certainly does not entail that any eviction petition

filed under bona fide requirement will lead to an eviction order being passed

automatically. When the Court finds that the need of the landlord to file the

eviction petition to be a genuine need and not a desire of the landlord, the

Court will allow the eviction petition. The impugned order has already taken

note of the fact that the respondent No.2 has verified the submission made

_______________________________________________________________________

by the landlord that the shop which the tenant claiming to vacant does not

belong to the landlord but to respondent No.2. That being the admitted

position, this Court cannot overlook such admission and hold to the

contrary. When it is shown that the shop, which may be lying vacant as

argued by the tenant, does not belong to the landlord, this Court gathers such

argument to be irrelevant to determine if the landlord has alternate suitable

accommodation. The Court is not vested with the power to question the

family settlement whereby the shops lying vacant have fallen into the share

of somebody other than the present landlord. On this issue, this Court agrees

with the impugned order and sees no reason to interfere with the same.

Apropos the contention that the site plan filed by the landlord is incorrect as

it fails to disclose two shops lying vacant in the same area, it is without

merit as the tenant has not filed any site plan to show the inconsistency. It is

well settled law that when the tenant contents the accuracy of the site plan

filed by the landlord, he is required to file a copy of the site plan he believes

to be correct so as to guide the Court in finding the discrepancies of the site

plan filed by the landlord. Without such site plan being filed, mere

contentions raised to this effect will be considered meritless.

The next argument of the counsel for the tenant was that the grandson

_______________________________________________________________________

of the landlord was already employed elsewhere thereby the need for the

tenanted premises to open a computer repair shop was false. Counsel went to

further argue that since the landlord‟s grandson was already earning

sufficiently and such being the situation there was no genuine need to

supplement his income. The Courts have held that income of the person, be

it the landlord or a dependent of the landlord, is inconsequential to the

outcome of the eviction petition; and that Courts have held comfortable

earnings or financial well-being of the eviction-petitioner or his/her

dependent cannot be a ground for denying the eviction order sought in a

petition founded on bona fide need. It is not for the tenant to set standards

of the comfortable income of the landlord/dependent of the landlord. The

argument of the counsel for the tenant that the grandson of the landlord,

lacking the skill and knowledge to operate such a business, should not be

granted eviction petition, lacks merit as there is rich body of judicial

pronouncements which has settled the law, by holding that the landlord or

the member of the family of the landlord who is construed to be dependent,

does not necessarily need to possess the skill or knowledge in the area of

business for which the eviction is sought. The learned counsel for the

respondent submits that the law does not expect the intending landlord or

_______________________________________________________________________

dependent of the landlord to possess the requisite qualification for opening a

business. He relies on Ram Babu v. Jai Kishan 2009 RLR 58(NSC)

where the Supreme Court held:

"a person can start a new business even if he has no experience. That does not mean his claim is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new businesses, and are successful"

In view of the above, the Court agrees with the submission of the

counsel for respondent and sees no merit in the contention of the tenant.

It was argued by counsel that the landlord had no apparent bona fide

requirement as he owned one shop which he sold two and half years prior to

the passing of the impugned order. Since the landlord could afford to sell

shops when he could give the same to his grandson to facilitate the opening

of a computer shops, the landlord had no apparent bona fide requirement as

claimed. This Court notices that the eviction petition was filed on 19.1.2011

and the impugned order was passed on 31.3.2012 wherein the counsel

submitted that the shop, allegedly lying vacant, was sold 2.5 years earlier -

somewhere in the middle of 2009 when no eviction petition was pending. It

can only be logically concluded that the landlord did not have a need for the

premises at the time of selling the property and that when the need arose he

_______________________________________________________________________

had no other property which could be put to use. Such being the situation, it

cannot be contended that, if at all the landlord needed the premises for a

genuine purpose he should not have sold the other property. But this

argument too is untenable because neither the reason, nor the timing of the

sale can be questioned by the tenant nor could a landlord seek the possession

of a leased property till the bona fide need for it arises. The Court is

required to see the condition of the landlord at the time of filing the eviction

petition and in the present case the landlord had no shop as it was sold long

back. The impugned order is correct in reasoning that it is not for the tenant

to ask the landlord to not dispose property but to hold on to it in case a need

arises in the future. On the contention raised that the son of the landlord

owns a property which ought to be put to use for aiding his son setting up

the shop rather than evicting the tenant, the counsel for the respondent

submit that the shop owned by the son of the landlord is unfit for his need,

furthermore it is presently rented out to a tenant and finally, that it does not

belong to the landlord. This Court is of the view that when the landlord

explains why he cannot put other property to use, such prerogative would

not be questioned. An argument that s. 14 (1)(e) of the Act does not apply to

non- residential/ commercial was raised by the counsel. It was argued that

_______________________________________________________________________

there was no notification or law by an eviction petition filed for bona fide

requirement for commercial premises would be allowed and that the learned

ARC erred in allowing such an eviction petition. This issue is no more res

integra in view of the Supreme Court dicta in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by

LRs v. Union of India (2008)5 SCC 287. The argument is untenable.

In conclusion the landlord, having shown the Court that he has no

other suitable property and needed the tenanted premises for his bona fide

need would be entitled to an eviction order under the summary proceedings

envisaged under Section 25B of the Act. The tenant has failed to show any

triable issue which would warrant grant of leave to defend. The tenant has

further failed to show any discrepancy in the site plan nor has he been able

to prove that the need was a mere desire as alleged by him. This Court is of

the view that a landlord cannot be directed to accommodate or adjust his

requirements or need so that the tenant is not disturbed with eviction from

the tenanted premises. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned

order as no triable issues were raised by the tenant.

There is no merit in the petition and it is dismissed accordingly.

JULY 21, 2014                                           NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
b'nesh

_______________________________________________________________________