Delhi High Court
Ved Prakash Jain (Deceased) ... vs Bimla Devi on 11 October, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 11th October, 2017.
+ RC.REV. 446/2017 & CM No.34975/2017 (for stay).
VED PRAKASH JAIN (DECEASED)
THROUGH LRS ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.K. Goyal, Adv.
Versus
BIMLA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order (dated 13th April, 2017 in
RC/ARC No.298/16 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi) of eviction, after full trial, of the petitioner in a
petition for eviction filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the
Act.
2. The counsel for the respondent / landlady appears on seeing the matter
in the cause list.
3. The counsels have been heard.
4. The respondent / landlady instituted the petition for eviction from
which this petition arises, for eviction of the petitioner / tenant from one
Shop in property no.C-1/3, Krishna Nagar, Delhi - 110 051 let out to the
petitioner in the year 1973 at a rent of Rs.73/- per month, pleading (i) that the
RC.REV.446/2017 Page 1 of 6
respondent / landlady is a widow and senior citizen aged about 75 years and
is absolute owner and landlady of the property no.C-1/3, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi - 110 051 in a shop wherein the petitioner is a tenant; (ii) that the
respondent / landlady, along with her family comprising of married son,
unmarried daughter, major granddaughter and minor grandchildren, is
residing on the first floor of the said property; (iii) that the husband of the
respondent / landlady prior to his death on 2 nd December, 2009 was carrying
on business of readymade garments under the name and style of M/s.
Unisons and after the death of her husband, the respondent / landlady is the
sole proprietor of the said business; (iv) that the said business is being
carried on from the hall on the ground floor save three shops on the ground
floor and of which one is in the tenancy of the petitioner; (v) that the
unmarried daughter of the respondent / landlady is also running her sole
proprietorship business from the same hall on the ground floor; (vi) that the
respondent / landlady on account of her old age faces problem in climbing
stairs between the ground floor and the first floor several times in the day;
(vii) that the respondent / landlady does not have any restroom and personal
washroom on the ground floor where she and her unmarried daughter can
rest during the day and use the toilet; (viii) that the other married daughters
of the respondent / landlady also visit the respondent / landlady from time to
time; (ix) that though there is a very small toilet on the ground floor
underneath the staircase going to the first floor but the same is used by the
employees of the respondent / landlady and her daughter as well as by the
customers visiting the business of the respondent / landlady and her daughter
on the ground floor; and, (x) that the respondent / landlady requires the shop
RC.REV.446/2017 Page 2 of 6
in the tenancy of the petitioner for creating a restroom and a living room for
herself and her daughter on the ground floor.
5. Need to record the contents of the application for leave to defend is
not felt inasmuch as the contention of the counsel for the petitioner / tenant
only is (i) that out of the three shops besides the hall on the ground floor of
the property, an order of eviction has already been passed against another
shop and in RC Rev. No.428/2017 preferred whereagainst, today, the tenant
in the said shop has been granted time till 31st December, 2018 to vacate the
said shop; (ii) that the third shop on the ground floor, till 2011 was let out;
(iii) that the tenant in the said shop left in the year 2011 and the respondent /
landlady again let out the said shop; (iv) the said tenant also vacated that
shop during the pendency of the petition for eviction from which this petition
arises; (v) that the said shop is now in occupation of the respondent /
landlady; and, (vi) that thus plenty of accommodation is available to the
respondent / landlady for the requirement/need pleaded in the petition for
eviction. It is further argued that in the other petition for eviction also, the
same ground as pleaded in this petition for eviction against the petitioner /
tenant, was urged.
6. The emphasis of the counsel for the petitioner / tenant however is on
the existence of the toilet on the ground floor under the said staircase.
7. Judicial notice can be taken of the nature of the toilets under the
staircase. The said toilets are generally very small. The respondent / landlady
has also pleaded so. The said toilet which is in the nature of a closet only and
cannot even be called a toilet and cannot be a substitute for regular toilets. It
has been held in plethora of judgments (Reference can be made to Shiv
RC.REV.446/2017 Page 3 of 6
Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222, M.L.
Prabhakar Vs. Rajiv Singhal (2001) 8 SCC 561 and Siddalingamma Vs.
Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 2 SCC 355) that a landlord, being a owner of the
property, cannot be asked to sacrifice his comfort for the sake of keeping a
tenant. In the present case I may add that the petitioner is a tenant for the last
over four decades and is paying meagre rent of Rs.73/- per month. The
petitioner / tenant cannot be permitted to contend that the
respondent/landlady, who is the owner of the property should remain in
discomfort for the sake of continuing with the petitioner / tenant.
8. As far as the order in RC. Rev. No.428/2017 also listed today is
concerned, though I have offered to the counsel for the petitioner / tenant
herein also time of one year which has been agreed to by the tenant in RC.
Rev. No.428/2017, to vacate the premises but the counsel for the petitioner /
tenant is not agreeable.
9. A bare perusal of the site plan which is not in dispute shows the
juxtaposition of the three shops to be such that presence of any stranger
therein is bound to lead to loss of privacy in the living room and toilet in the
remaining portion of the ground floor also. A landlord cannot again be
forced to, instead of enjoying the privacy of his / her own property, live in a
place which is accessible to others or where the others can cause loss of
privacy. Moreover, the total area of the three shops is also not such qua
which it can be said that the respondent / landlady having obtained
possession of some portion, should be deprived of the remaining portion. As
aforesaid, the remaining portion of the entire ground floor is a hall with the
entrance to the hall being through a very narrow passage and the three shops
RC.REV.446/2017 Page 4 of 6
occupying the rest of the frontage of the ground floor. The respondent /
landlady, as owner of the property, is certainly entitled to make herself
comfortable at the fag-end of her life and the Court cannot dictate the terms
as to how the respondent / landlady should use her own property. All that is
to be seen is whether the requirement pressed is genuine. Here the Additional
Rent Controller on the basis of examination and cross-examination on oath
of the respondent / landlady who appeared as a witness in support of her case
has found the need of the respondent / landlady to be genuine. This Court, in
exercise of powers under Section 25B(8), within the confines of Shiv Sarup
Gupta supra and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar
Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 is to only satisfy itself that the order of Rent
Controller is in accordance with law. I, on perusal of the evidence am unable
to find the conclusion reached by the Additional Rent Controller on the
genuineness of the requirement of the respondent / landlady to be not in
accordance with law.
10. Supreme Court in Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma (2017) 5 SCC 640
and Dina Nath Vs. Subhash Chand Saini (2014) 11 SCC 20 has held that
though the Rent Control laws having been enacted for protection of tenants,
in yester years were interpreted with a bias in favour of the tenants but there
has been a shift in stand in the recent years and time has now come to
interpret and apply the said laws without any bias in favour of the landlord or
tenant and to, if find the requirement of the landlord to be genuine, not
deprive the landlord who is the owner of the property from use of his own
property.
RC.REV.446/2017 Page 5 of 6
11. There is thus no merit in the petition.
12. Dismissed.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
OCTOBER 11, 2017
'pp'
