Delhi High Court
Rani Sethi vs Amarjeet Singh on 2 May, 2018
$~17 & 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 2nd May, 2018
+ R.C. REV. 539/2015
RANI SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg & Mr.
Imran Khan, Advs.
versus
AMARJEET SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Gupta & Mr.
Abhishek Vashisht, Advs.
+ R.C. REV. 540/2015
VIJAY KUMAR SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg & Mr.
Imran Khan, Advs.
versus
AMARJEET SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Gupta & Mr.
Abhishek Vashisht, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioners concededly are tenants in premises described as
portions/shed room bearing no. A-8/4, A-8/3 respectively in property
bearing no. A-8, Sardar Nagar, behind CC Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi. On the eviction petitions (E-18/12 and E-17/12 respectively)
instituted by the respondent seeking orders of eviction on the ground
under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, upon being
served with the special summons under Section 25 B of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, these petitioners had moved applications seeking
leave to contest. The said applications were rejected by the Rent
Controller by similar orders passed on 15.04.2015, such result leading
to eviction orders being granted to the respondent, the view taken by
the Rent Controller having been assailed by these revision petitions.
2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides at length and
having gone through the record, this Court finds that the Rent
Controller has fallen into error by declining leave to contest. The
issues raised by the petitioners by their respective applications for
leave to contest are triable and, thus, the eviction orders could not
have been granted without respondent being called upon to prove his
case by evidence. This needs elaboration.
3. As per the case set up in the eviction petitions filed by the
respondent in respect of property bearing no. A-8, Sardar Nagar, near
CC Colony, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, it is a plot of land admeasuring
200 square yards which was originally owned by Shri Santokh Singh,
father of the respondent who died on 10.06.2005. It is stated that prior
to his death, the said Santokh Singh he had transferred the right, title
and interest in the property in favour of his wife (Smt. Gurmej Kaur,
mother of the respondent) by executing documents in the nature of
general power of attorney, agreement to sell and Will. Smt. Gurmej
Kaur died intestate on 28.11.2005. Admittedly, the title to the
property was inherited by the respondent and his brother Sarabjeet
Singh in equal shares. It is his claim that his brother had relinquished
his share in his favour by Relinquishment Deed dated 12.07.2011 and
thereafter the property was mutated in his exclusive name by the
municipal authority.
4. The site plan submitted with each of these eviction petitions
would indicate that the plot of land is divided into four equal parts -
rectangular in shape, each covered by a separate tin shed and stated to
be in the tenancy of different persons including the two petitioners
herein. The tenancies were admittedly created by Smt. Gurmej Kaur,
the letting purpose being commercial.
5. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioners have made
default in payment of rent, he reserving the right to take out
appropriate proceedings on that count. But then, such contentions are
inconsequential in the context of the ground of bona fide need under
Section 14 (1) (e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
6. It is the case of the respondent that he with his family that
includes his wife and a son (aged 24 years on the date eviction
petitions were filed) are sharing residential accommodation in a rented
premises bearing property no. D-23, Neelamber Apartments, Sainik
Vihar, Rani Bagh, Delhi with the family of his brother Sarabjeet
Singh. It is his case that the landlord of the said property is
compelling him to vacate and hand over the tenanted premises and,
thus, the tenanted portions are required bona fide by him. It was
pleaded in the eviction petitions that he requires the tenanted premises
vacated so that he may construct a house on the plot which is occupied
by different tenants, the building to be developed on the plot to be
used for residence of self and for members of his family dependent
upon him.
7. It needs to be noted that the letting purpose of all the four
portions covered by tin sheds which were let out to different tenants
including to the two petitioners herein, was concededly commercial.
There is nothing yet brought on record to show as to whether the plot
of land of which the tenanted portions form a part is meant for
residential use or for commercial purposes. The respondent has
claimed that he and his family are sharing residential accommodation
with his brother in a property which has been taken on rent.
Noticeably, it is not his case that the accommodation in the said rented
property is not sufficient. In fact, the eviction petitions are
conspicuously silent as to the extent of accommodation available in
the said rented house. It is a vague plea that the landlord of the said
rented house is compelling the respondent to vacate and hand over the
possession thereof as there is not a shred of document filed in support
of such plea.
8. There is substance in the contention of the petitioners that
possibility cannot be ruled out that the pleadings of the respondents
that he intends to demolish the existing structure and develop a
residential house on the plot of land is a ruse to secure an order of
eviction. Pertinent to note that the law envisages the possibility of the
landlord requiring the premises bona fide for the purpose of building
or re-building which works cannot be carried out without the premises
being vacated. But, for such purposes, it is the obligation of the
landlord to also show to the satisfaction of the Rent controller that the
proposed re-construction would not radically alter the purposes for
which the premises were let out or that such alteration is in public
interest and further, what is more important, that the plans and
estimates of such re-construction have been properly prepared and that
necessary financial resources for carrying out such re-construction are
available with the landlord. These are the requirements of law as
indicated in Section 14 (1) (g) read with Section 14 (8) of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958. The respondent here has simply averred that after
eviction of the petitioners he intends to demolish the existing
structures and raise a residential building to fulfil the needs of self and
family for residence. As mentioned above, he has not indicated the
nature of permitted use of the property or permissibility for alteration
of the purpose of its use from commercial to residential. His case that
he bona fide requires the property for residential purposes cannot be
accepted on its face value, particularly because he is silent on the
issues with regard to the building plans in accordance with which
construction is intended to be carried out or the estimates of
expenditure likely to be incurred and further the availability of
necessary resources.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, it is desirable that the
respondent be called upon to substantiate his case by evidence at the
trial.
10. The impugned order is, thus, set aside. The leave to contest is
granted to the petitioners. Consequently, the eviction orders stand set
aside. The proceedings before the rent controller are revived. The
parties shall appear before the Rent Controller on 31 st May, 2018.
Needless to add, the petitioners here as the respondents in these
proceedings will be obliged to file written statements on the said date.
11. The petitions and the pending applications stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 02, 2018
nk
