Madan Mohan Singh vs Sukhpal Singh & Anr
2016 Latest Caselaw 1175 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Date of Judgment: 15.02.2016.

+      RC.REV. 345/2015 & C.M. Nos.12498/2015 & 23221/2015
       MADAN MOHAN SINGH
                                                     ..... Petitioner
                       Through   Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.
                                 with Mr. Nitin Gupta, Adv.

                          versus

       SUKHPAL SINGH & ANR
                                                       ..... Respondents

                          Through     Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                      Rohit Sharma and Mr. Amit
                                      Sanduja, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (oral)

1      The eviction petition filed by the landlords Sukhpal Singh and

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

(DRCA) had been decreed. The application filed by the petitioner/tenant

seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. The petitioner is aggrieved

by the impugned order.

2 Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed qua

a property bearing no.2278/68, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi.

The landlords Sukhpal and Daljit Singh both sons of Surjit Singh,

claimed to be the owner and landlord of the suit property. One shop

bearing no.1 in the aforenoted property i.e. the property bearing

no.2278/68, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been tenanted out

to the tenant. The tenanted property has been encircled in red in the site

plan. The grounds for eviction have been detailed in para 18 of the

eviction petition. Contention of the landlord is that there are seven

shops on the ground floor portion of the property; all of them are

contiguous and all of them are owned by the petitioners. Out of the

seven shops one is in occupation of the petitioners and other six shops

are in occupation of six other tenants. Eviction petition has been filed

against two tenants and it has been informed to this Court that the

petition filed against Satbir Singh under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA

had been dismissed. The petition filed against another tenant namely

Charanjit Singh has been decreed. Possession of the suit property is yet

to be obtained by the landlord. No eviction petition has been filed

against the other four shops. Contention of the landlord is that the hotel

Rama Deluxe of which petitioner no.1 is a partner has got a very small

reception area on the ground floor which measures 16 sq. ft. The hotel

has 26 rooms of which 9 rooms are on the first floor, 9 rooms on the

second floor and 8 rooms on the third floor. The reception area being

small, there is no place for the guests staying in the hotel for either

sitting or standing in this area when they come for booking rooms in the

hotel. The entry passage leading to the hotel is 4' 8''. The tenanted

property which is contiguous and adjacent to the hotel be permitted to be

included and used as passage and as the reception area to make it larger

and thus more conductive for the running of the aforenoted hotel. (The

site plan depicting the reception area has been shown in blue colour.) It

is stated that there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation with

the petitioners, therefore, they require this accommodation bonafide.

3 Leave to defend has been filed by the tenant. In this application,

it is stated that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands.

They have sufficient accommodation. The landlord has concealed the

fact that earlier there was a restaurant at the ground floor portion of the

property (shown in black colour) which has now been closed and the

petitioners have carved out shops in the same area and the same have

been let out to respective tenants at higher rates of rent, if they required

additional accommodation for their reception area they could have used

the same before letting it out to the other tenants. The present petition

has been filed malafide. The original space as depicted in the site plan

has been deliberately reduced to create grounds for eviction of the

present premises. A site plan has also been filed. It is pointed out that

the stairs which were initially at point D have now been shifted to point

C which has reduced the reception area. The area already in possession

of the petitioners is sufficient for a reception as admittedly there is no

room on the ground floor; the rooms are all on the first, second and third

floors. This is only a case of desire which is not manifest in an act.

4 Reply has been filed to the aforenoted application. Contents of

the same have been denied. The averments made in the eviction

petition have been reiterated. It is stated that the restaurant which was a

part of the ground floor has been absorbed into the hotel. The impugned

order calls for no interference.

5 In the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the

petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the sale documents by

virtue of which the petitioners have become owners/landlords of the

premises. This is a sale deed dated 01.7.1985; the petitioners had

purchased this property along with other tenants in the premises. It is

pointed out that as per this sale deed dated 01.7.1985 there were only

five shops initially including a back portion which was a residential

block. Submission being that it is this part i.e. the residential area which

has been converted into shops and thereafter these shops have been let

out and had the need of the landlord been genuine they would have used

these shops for a reception purpose; they would not have leased out

these shops. The landlords have not come to the Court with clean hands

as in the eviction petition they had not disclosed about this restaurant

which they were admittedly running from the back portion. On this

ground alone the petitioners are entitled to leave to defend. Learned

counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument that a mere desire

on the part of the landlords which has not graduated to a need has placed

reliance upon judgments of the Apex Court reported as (2001) 1 SCC

706 Inderjit Singh Vs. Nirpal Singh and (2001) 5 SCC 705 Deena Nath

Vs. Pooran Lal. It is pointed out that legislature while engrafting the

summary provisions in Section 25 B of the DRCA has envisaged a

situation that the statutory mandate requires not a mere whimsical or a

fanciful desire but the requirement must be bonafide. This has to be

examined in true letter and spirit.

6 Needless to state that these arguments have been refuted. Learned

counsel for the landlord submits that it is not for the tenant to dictate

terms to him. It was a case of an administrative exigency that the

staircase was brought inside and shifted from point D to point C. At

point D there is an electric meter which is an absolute necessity because

of fire hazards. The impugned order calls for no interference.

7 The petitioner has not challenged the status of the landlord; the

fact that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties

stands admitted.

8 The bonafide need of the landlord has been explained in para 18

(a) of his eviction petition. His contention is that the reception area of

his hotel being run by him i.e. Hotel Rama Delux has an area of 16

square feet (besides being an admitted position is also apparent from the

site plan). A reception area of a hotel is a place where guests who have

to check-in to the hotel, bring their luggage and for the purpose of

checking in, the luggage is also kept in the reception area before the

guest finally checks-in. The reception area is also a place in the hotel

where incumbent customers check the status of the hotel. The hotel

admittedly has 26 rooms all of which are on different floors; 9 on the

first floor, 9 on the second floor and 8 on the third floor. The entry

passage leading to the hotel is 4' X 8"; it is almost like a gali and this is

also evident from the site plan. The submission of the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner that this area has deliberately been reduced

and the stairs which were initially at point 'D' have now been shifted to

point 'C' to reduce the area of the passage and the reception area is a

submission bereft of force. Admittedly when this property was

purchased which was sometime in the year 1985 (as is evident from the

sale deed dated 01.07.1985), the premises were purchased with tenants.

It is not the case of the tenant that the hotel was already running in the

premises. This business of the landlord was started and then grown over

a period of time. The tenant has admitted before the Court that earlier

the rooms in the hotel were much lesser and over a period of time, they

have now graduated to become 26 rooms. The need of the hotel has

obviously increased. A submission has been made by the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner that this need of the growing hotel business

has not been spelt out in the eviction petition is again a point which is

noted to be rejected. The eviction petition has categorically stated that

the reception area is very small (at the cost of repetition it is 16 square

feet and the entry passage to the hotel is also very narrow being 4' X

8"); this entry passage and reception area is to be enlarged in order to

make the business of the running of the hotel more conducive. This is

the exact language which has been used in the eviction petition. While

penning a judgment, the words pleaded in the pleadings are not to form

the part of the order; it is the meaning which has to be brought out from

the pleadings and the meaning given to the pleadings of the parties

which has to be adjudged. The landlord's pleadings clearly aver that the

passage area and the reception area being very small are not conducive

for the efficient running of the business of their hotel and accordingly

the shop which is with the tenant and admittedly adjacent to this

reception area is the need of the landlord to include it in the reception

area and make it larger. The vehement argument of the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner that all this is not spelt out in the eviction

petition is rejected.

9 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

stair case which was initially at point 'D' has deliberately been shifted to

point 'C' for a malafide reason has been answered by the landlord in his

reply wherein this position has been categorically denied. It is stated that

the portion shown at point 'D' is not a passage and in fact is a place

where an electricity panel has been fixed. This is depicted likewise in

the site plan. Learned senior counsel for the respondents/landlord points

out that the electricity panel is at point 'D' and where it is absolutely

essential as fire hazards are common in congested areas and the hotel

being run in the area of Karol Bagh which is a well known commercial

hub is a highly congested area; to ward off the fire hazards, the

electricity panel in the interior of the hotel (at point 'D') is an absolutely

necessity to ward off any untoward incident. This submission of the

learned senior counsel for the respondents/landlord has force. Moreover,

from the depiction of the photographs which have been placed on record

by the parties it is evident that the staircase which starts from the

reception area has to go up three flights i.e. right up to the third floor as

admittedly there are rooms not only on the first floor but also on the

second and the third floors. The staircase is from the interior of the hotel

and the submission of the petitioner that this staircase has deliberately

been created to reduce the passage area appears to be incorrect as access

to the hotel rooms on the upper floors, is an essentiality for which a

staircase is a must.

10 The bonafide need of the landlord to enlarge his reception area

and passage area for the growing business of the hotel which he is

carrying on since the last 30 years and which has admittedly grown over

the passage of time and the rooms which were initially much less in

number have now become 26; the customer size has also increased; the

hustle and bustle of the hotel has also grown. The reception area thus

needs to be enlarged and so also the passage. The shop of the petitioner

which is contiguous and adjacent to this reception area (as is evident

from the site plan) measuring 11.6' X 18' is the bonafide need of the

landlord which need stands established.

11 The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the landlord has not come to the Court with clean hands and

although as per the sale deed (dated 01.07.1985), there were five shops

which have been purchased by the landlord including a back portion

(which was residential) the site plan now filed by the landlord shows

that there are seven shops which necessarily indicate that more shops

have been carved out and the necessity of the landlord could have been

fulfilled from these shops; had the landlord wish to increase the

reception area, he would have used this portion for the said purpose. The

petition has been filed malafide.

12 To answer this argument, the pleadings and the site plan of the

premises become necessary.

13 Admittedly what had been purchased vide the sale deed dated

01.07.1985 by the landlord was five shops; the shop with Ram Lal had a

back side residential portion. The terrace right of the first, second and

third floors had also been purchased.

14 In the reply filed by the landlord to the plea of the tenant that back

portion was a restaurant area has been denied. Relevant would it be to

note that that the dates when this restaurant of the landlord stopped

running and when he carved out the shops has not been given by the

tenant. The landlord has denied this submission. It would also not be out

of place to mention that the tenant is a tenant of the same building. As

such the dates of the opening and closing of the restaurant are facts not

alien to the knowledge of the tenant. The landlord on this count has

submitted that this portion has been absorbed in the hotel premises. A

perusal of the site plan shows that a cloak room is located on the back

portion (measuring 12' X 10.3') of this area. The submission of the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the landlord has not come

to the Court with clean hand is thus bereft of force. Even otherwise, this

area on the back portion of the building cannot form part of the entry

passage which is admittedly on the opposite side.

15 The landlord has thus also been able to establish the second

ingredient of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRCA; i.e. that he has no other

reasonably suitable alternate accommodation available with him.

16 The twin requirement of a petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the

DRCA stand established. It has been established by the landlord that the

entry passage to the hotel and the reception area needs to be enlarged

because of the growing business need of the hotel of the landlord; the

fact that he has not other reasonably suitable accommodation with him

and it is only by adding the shop contiguous and adjacent to the

reception area of the tenant that this area can be enlarged. At the cost of

repetition it has already been noted supra that no eviction petition

against four tenants have been filed. One petition under Section 14

(1)(b) of the DRCA against one tenant stands dismissed. One petition

had been decreed for the shop of Charanjit Singh (the other tenant) and

the possession of the same has yet to be taken over. However, this shop

would also not fulfill the need of the landlord as except the shop of the

present petitioner, the site plan indicates that no other shop can fulfill

this need of the landlord (as disclosed by him in the eviction petition).

17 The Apex Court in 2008 V AD (SC) 213 Satyawati Sharma

(Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr, held that the landlord has to

prove the following ingredients for obtaining an order of eviction in a

petition under Section14 (1)(e) of DRC Act.

(a) That he is the owner/landlord of the suit property.

(b) That he requires the premises bona fide for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him.

(c) That he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available with him.

18 Time and again, the Apex Court has reiterated that it is not for the

tenant to dictate terms to the landlord. It is for the landlord himself that

how and in what manner he wishes to use his property. The submission

of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that this appears to be a

desire and whim on the part of the landlord which has not actuated into

an actual act (in view of the aforenoted factual matrix) is a submission

which is without any merit.

19 The impugned judgment, in this background, calls for no

interference. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 15, 2016 Ndn/A