Delhi High Court
Pritam Lal Makhija vs Akhil Bhartiya Aggarwal Sammelan ... on 3 September, 2019
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 03.09.2019
+ RC.REV. 431/2016
PRITAM LAL MAKHIJA ..... Petitioner
versus
AKHIL BHARTIYA AGGARWAL SAMMELAN THR ITS
JOINT ORGANISED SECRETARY VIRENDER GUPTA
..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prasoon Kumar with Mr. Aashish Kumar and
Ms. Sarita Kumari, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
RC.REV. 431/2016 & CM APPL.32783/2016 (stay), CM APPL.
39582/2019 (for fixation of user charges)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 02.08.2016, whereby, the application
seeking leave to defend of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Petitioner is a tenant in a shop measuring 7 feet x 18 feet of ground
floor of the property bearing Nos.8596, 8597 and 8543, more particularly,
as described in red colour in the site plan annexed with the eviction
petition.
3. Subject petition for eviction was filed by the respondent contending
that the respondent is a society registered under the Societies Registration
Act and is an all India level society conducting its office through employees
employed in the organisation/society. As per the respondent landlord, it is
in possession of a portion of the ground floor, entire first floor and the
second floor.
4. It is contended in the petition that the accommodation in the
possession of the respondent landlord is falling short and it is not able to
accommodate the staff employed by it. There is a shortage of sitting space
to accommodate the staff, as such, the portion in possession of the
petitioner tenant is required for bonafide expansion of its office.
5. Leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner contending
that there are only 7 employees in the office of the respondent and in the
last 15 years it had never employed more than 8 persons. It is alleged that
the respondent landlord has 472.5 Sq. ft. space available on the ground
floor, 598.5 Sq. ft. on the first floor and 598.5 Sq. ft. space available on the
second floor besides the terrace also being available to the respondent
landlord. A ground has been taken that the need is not bonafide and the
requirement as set up is artificial, imaginary and expresses a mere desire
and not a necessity.
6. In the reply to leave to defend, the respondent landlord has
contended that the respondent society is a national level society having 21
national office bearers, 72 State bearers and 17 Committee bearers and
more than 50 office bearers visit the office daily for various works.
7. It is averred that the ground floor is used for the office purpose
which is too small to accommodate the national office of the organisation.
It is, however, admitted that there are only 7 employees employed to look
after the work of the Delhi office.
8. It is further stated that the first floor is used as a conference room
and the second floor having two rooms are used as storage.
9. Perusal of the eviction petition shows that the respondent/landlord
has not explained the accommodation in its possession and has merely
stated that it is falling short in terms of the accommodation and the space
already available is not sufficient to accommodate the staff employed by
the respondent landlord. It is further averred that there is a shortage of
sitting space to accommodate the staff.
10. Per contra, the petitioner tenant has categorically taken a ground that
the respondent landlord has never employed more than 8 employees in its
office in the last 15 years and has 472.5 Sq. ft. space available on the
ground floor and approximately 600 Sq. ft. space available on each of the
first and the second floors.
11. Perusal of the petition as also the reply to the leave to defend shows
that the landlord has expressed a desire to expand its office. The Rent
Controller has rejected the grant of leave to defend solely on the ground
that the tenant cannot dictate as to how the landlord has to utilize the
premises and it is for the landlord to decide as to what is suitable and what
is not.
12. No doubt the tenant cannot dictate to the landlord as to how it has to
utilise its property and the landlord is a best judge of its accommodation.
Nonetheless, it is also to be seen that a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act would lie only if there is a bonafide need of the
landlord for additional accommodation. Bonafide need/bonafide necessity
is distinct from a mere wish or desire.
13. Reading of the petition shows that the landlord has merely expressed
a desire to expand and has not even pleaded as to how there is a need for
expansion of additional space.
14. In my view, the tenant has raised sufficient grounds which, if
established at trial, would disentitle the respondent landlord of an order of
eviction. The application seeking leave to defend discloses a triable issue
and sufficient ground as to why leave to defend should be granted.
15. The Rent Controller has clearly committed an error in not noticing
the distinction between the bonafide necessity and a mere desire.
16. It may be noticed that the respondent landlord has neither denied the
number of the employees nor the extent of accommodation available with
it. In the reply, the respondent landlord merely stated that 50 people visit
the office on daily basis. It is a matter of trial as to whether the existing
accommodation available with the landlord is sufficient to accommodate 7
employees and 50 visiting members.
17. Clearly, the Rent Controller has committed an error in declining to
grant the leave to defend to the petitioner.
18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the
facts, as pleaded by the petitioner tenant, specifically stating the extent of
accommodation in possession of the landlord and also the plea that there
are only 7 employees, I am of the view that the petitioner tenant has shown
sufficient grounds to entitle the petitioner/tenant to a leave to defend the
eviction petition.
19. Accordingly, impugned order dated 02.08.2016 is set aside. Leave
is granted to the petitioner to defend the petition.
20. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
21. List the eviction petition for consideration before the concerned Rent
Controller on 17.10.2019. Petitioner shall file his written statement within
a period of 30 days from today.
22. Since the eviction petition was filed in the year 2014, the Rent
Controller is directed to expedite the proceedings.
23. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SEPTEMBER 03, 2019
st
