Delhi High Court
Ashok Mittal vs Sudesh Mehta on 26 March, 2021
$~J-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 12th March, 2021
+ Date of Decision: 26th March, 2021
% RC. REV. 320/2015
ASHOK MITTAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate with
Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advocate.
versus
SUDESH MEHTA ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
JASMEET SINGH, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenging the order dated 27th
September 2014 passed by learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ (West) in Eviction
Petition No. 62/2012 titled Smt. Sudesh Mehta versus Sh. Ahok
Mittal.
2. The learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ vide judgment dated 27th September
2014 was pleased to dismiss the application moved by the petitioner
for grant of leave to defend and passed an eviction order under Section
14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act regarding the tenanted
premises i.e. one covered hall of about 33'.6" X 47'.0" and open space
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
measuring approximate 91'.0'' X 25'.0" in property bearing
Municipal No. 650/I-A, situated at 14, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
3. The case of the respondent/landlady set out in the eviction
petition was that the premises were required by the respondent/
landlady for use and occupation for running a commercial
establishment. The respondent/landlady was blessed with five
daughters out of whom one had expired and was unmarried. The other
four daughters of the respondent/landlady are married and are residing
in their respective matrimonial homes. The respondent/landlady has
further stated that in order to augment her income the
respondent/landlady is desirous of starting a business with her eldest
daughter Shabnam Mehra as there is a lucrative offer for dealership of
a tractor company by the name of Preet Tractors Limited which
company is having its office at Nabha in Punjab. The
respondent/landlady has further stated that in order to run the business
a minimum of 350 sq. yards of the commercial place is required and
the portion under the tenancy of the respondent is about 400 sq. yards
and hence the premises would be ideal for running the aforesaid
business. The respondent/landlady has further stated that the grandson
of the respondent namely Mr. Saurabh Mehra, son of her eldest
daughter Smt. Shabnam Mehra is a qualified engineer in industrial
production and is presently doing a job in Dubai. The grandson of the
petitioner is also desirous of coming back to India and join the
business. Lastly, the respondent has mentioned that similar
accommodation in the vicinity would cost the respondent/landlady to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
pay a rent of somewhere in the range of Rs.1,15,000/- per month
which she cannot afford to pay.
4. The petitioner/tenant in his affidavit has urged the following
grounds for the grant of leave to defend:
A. The Eviction Petition was bad since it failed to implead all the
LRs of the elder brother of the husband of respondent/ landlady.
B. Tenancy was in the name of M/s Jyoti Plastic Udyog and not in
the name of the Petitioner. In addition, the Eviction Petition was
also bad for the non-joinder of other LRs of the Petitioner's
father.
C. The Petitioner alleged that the sole reason to file the Eviction
petition was to harass the Petitioner and force him to pay higher
rent.
D. The Petitioner also claimed that the business of tractors requires
hard work, but since the respondent/landlady is aged and lacked
business experience, it would not have made sense for the
Respondent and her daughter to start this business.
E. The Petitioner further claimed that respondent/landlady was
already living a comfortable life with her income from rents
running in lakhs. The Petitioner also stated that the daughter of
the respondent/landlady with whom the respondent/landlady
desires to run the business is also rich while the other daughters
are also not dependent on the respondent/landlady. Furthermore,
even the grandson is highly placed in Dubai with a high income
package.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
F. The Petitioner had asserted that neither the premises were
suitable for the business of tractors nor is the market in which
the premises in question is situated was meant for such business
of tractors.
G. The Petitioner further expounded that considering that the
respondent/landlady had let out a portion of her property to M/s
Agarwal Packers and Movers through a registered lease deed
dated 15.12.2011, it implied that the respondent/landlady was
not in the need of any premises.
H. The Petitioner has also asserted that the area and the site plan of
the tenanted premises in question placed on record by the
respondent/landlady was not correct as well as that the
respondent/landlady had also filed eviction petitions against five
other tenants.
I. The Petitioner asserted further that the respondent was
misrepresenting the premises in question as another property
5. The learned ARC after analysing all the grounds has dealt with
each ground as under:
A. The Eviction Petition was bad since it failed to implead LRs
of the elder brother of the husband of the
Respondent/landlady
The Learned ARC after examining the material before him has
held that respondent/landlady has a better title than the
Petitioner with respect to the premises in question and thus is
entitled to file the present petition. Further, the learned ARC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
relied on various judgments1 and held that it is not essential that
the eviction petition is to be filed by all the co-owners of the
property. Thus, the respondent/landlady was entitled to file the
Eviction Petition without impleading the other co-owners.
B. Tenancy in the name of M/s Jyoti Plastic Udyog and not in
the name of the Petitioner. In addition the Eviction Petition
was also bad for the non-joinder of other LRs of the
Petitioner's father.
(i) The learned ARC noted that the Respondent/landlady in
her reply to the application to Leave of Defend has stated
that though the tenancy is in the name of M/s Jyoti Plastic
Udyog, it is Mr. Ashok Mittal who was the proprietor
thereof. Moreover, the Petitioner did not deny that he was
in the possession of the premises in question and that he
paid rent in regards to the same premises. Hence the
learned ARC observed that there was no need to implead
M/s Jyoti Plastic Udyog separately.
(ii) As regards the LRs of the petitioner's father not having
been impleaded in the Eviction Petition, the learned ARC
held that the Petitioner was in possession of the premises
in question and it was the petitioner who was paying rent
to the respondent/landlady. The learned ARC further held
that no objections were raised by the petitioner when the
Kanta Udharam Jagasia Vs C.K.S Rao (1998) 1 SCC 403; Surender Kumar
Jhamb Vs Om Prakash Shokeen 2000 (2) RCR 540
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
rent receipts were issued and other LRs of the petitioner's
father were not mentioned in those receipts. The learned
ARC relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court titled Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors.
Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383 wherein it
was stated that an eviction petition against one of the
joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants
and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the
Rent Controller as the joint tenancy is one tenancy
and is not a tenancy split into different LRs.
Thus, it was sufficient and proper for the Respondent/landlady
to implead the Petitioner
C. Harassment and increasing Rent
The learned ARC placed reliance on Vinod Kumar Bhalla Vs
Sh Nanak Singh 1982 (2) RCR (Rent) 715 wherein it was
stated that allegations regarding increasing of rent after getting
it vacated are without any foundation since the landlords are not
in the position to sell/re-let the tenanted premises for period of
three years. The learned ARC thus held that this defence raised
by the Petitioner was a sham defence.
D. Age of the respondent/ landlady
The age of the respondent/landlady and her ability to conduct
her business are not triable issues. The learned ARC placed
reliance on judgment on Manika Rani Ghosh & Ors vs
Dharwinder Kaur 197 (2013) DLT 18 wherein it was stated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
that lack of business experience or age of the landlords or
suitability of the suit shop for a business proposed by the
landlord does not constitute a triable issue.
E. Grandson/Daughters being Rich and independent
The contention that the grandson is highly placed or that the
daughters are not dependent on the respondent/landlady was not
supported by any material and hence cannot be relied upon.
Besides, the Delhi High Court2 has observed that it is a moral
duty of parents to help establish their children.
F. Premises unsuitable
The Petitioner is not to judge the suitability of the market for
the Tractor business. As was stated in Raghvendra Kumar v.
Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 Supreme Court 534 the
landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or
business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the
matter.
G. Site Plan incorrect & Misrepresentation
With respect to the incorrect site plan, the learned ARC stated
that since it is not the case of the Petitioner that he owns the
premises other than the premises in question, the incorrectness
of the site plan does not grant him the leave of defend.
Moreover, the site plan filed by the Petitioner was the copy of
the site plan filed by the respondent/landlady in an earlier case.
Pawan Kumar Vs Sant Lal R.C. Rev 303/2012 decided on 06.08.2012 on page
11; Labhu Lal vs Sandhya Gupta 2011 (I) RCR page 12.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
H. Let out other premises
The learned ARC has observed that the Petitioner in his
averment had claimed that the respondent/ landlady let out her
properties but failed to bring anything on the record to show
that it was done so after the offer for tractor business was
received. Further, the petitioner has failed to show that the
respondent/landlady had no requirement for the premises in
question. Consequently, it is only fair that the
respondent/landlady, in order to augment her income, lets out
the other portion of the property.
I. Filed other Petitions
The learned ARC has observed that the Petitioner had failed to
bring any material on record to show against whom and on what
grounds, such other petitions were filed.
J. Landlady being Rich
With regards to the landlady/respondent being rich, the learned
ARC relying on the Hon'ble Delhi High court judgment Aero
Traders Pvt. LTD Vs Mohan Singh and Anr., & other
judgements stated that being rich does not preclude the landlady
from seeking eviction for their bonafide requirement. The
Petitioner cannot dictate how and in what manner should the
landlady/respondent live.
6. I have only briefly culled out the defences raised by the
Petitioner in his leave to defend and as to how they have been dealt by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
the learned ARC for the purpose of brevity. The learned ARC has
considered each of the defences raised by the Petitioner in detail and
thereafter the learned ARC has come to the conclusion that no triable
issue has been raised by the petitioner/tenant and consequently
eviction order has been passed.
7. At the outset I may point out that on 29th October, 2015 Mr.
Aneja learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant informed this Hon'ble
Court that the premises in question have already been retrieved by the
respondent.
8. Mr. Aneja has relied upon the following four judgments to
argue on Section 144 CPC seeking restitution:
(i) M/s. S.K. Seth & Sons v. Vijay Bhalla,
MANU/DE/3496/2012
(ii) Khairati Ram Nayyar v. K.B. Advani,
MANU/DE/0364/1971
(iii) Mohd. Jafar & Ors. v.Nasra Begum,
MANU/DE/3136/2012
(iv) Binayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi & Anr.,
MANU/SC/0024/1965.
9. Another judgment titled Visalakshamma v. Balaji Agencies,
MANU/KA/0242/1985 has been cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner to highlight that the jurisdictional error committed by the
learned ARC can be interfered with in revision petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
10. I have heard the arguments and reserved the orders on 12 th
March, 2021.
11. This Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction does not act as a
Court of Appeal. This Court has only to see whether the learned ARC
has committed any jurisdictional error and has passed order on the
basis of material available before it.
12. The Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
Company Ltd., reported in AIR (1999) SC 100 held as under:-
"6......The above proviso indicates that power of
the High Court is supervisory in nature and it is
intended to ensure that the Rent Controller
conforms to law when he passes the order. The
satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the
records of the case must be confined to the limited
sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is
"according to the law". In other words, the High
Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain
whether any illegality has been committed by the
Rent Controller in passing the order under Section
25-B. It is not permissible for the High Court in
that exercise to come to a different fact finding
unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller
on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent
Controller should have reached such a finding on
the materials available."
13. It was further held by the Supreme Court that:-
"14. ......The crux of the ground envisaged in
clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
requirement of the landlord for occupation of the
tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a
landlord asserts that he requires his building for
his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not
proceed on the presumption that the requirement is
not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause
are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima
facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw
a presumption that the requirement of the landlord
in bona fide. It is often said by Courts that it is not
for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to
how else he can adjust himself without getting
possession of the tenanted premises. While
deciding the question of bona fides of the
requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary
to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord
could have adjusted himself."
14. Similar views have been expressed in various other judgments of
the Hon'ble Apex court as well as this Hon'ble High Court.3
15. In my view the learned ARC has committed no jurisdictional
error and has passed the order of eviction on the basis of material
available before it.
16. Having held that there is no jurisdictional error and the order
dated 27th September, 2014 of the learned ARC is not calling for any
3Mohan Lal v. Ram Chopra 1982 (2) RCJ 161; Hari Shanker v. Rao Girdhari Lal
Chowdhury, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 698; Bell and Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj, AIR 1938
Bom (223); Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 Supreme
Court 2507 and Chaman Prakash Puri v. Ishwar Dass Rajput, 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 445
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
interference and having noted that the possession of the tenanted
premises has already been retrieved by the respondent/landlady, there
is no question of any restitution under Section 144 CPC. Thus, the
judgments referred and relied upon by the learned Counsel of the
Petitioner in Para 8 are neither relevant nor germane to the issue in
question. In view of my conclusions above, the present Revision
Petition is dismissed.
JASMEET SINGH, J
MARCH 21, 2021
sr
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:26.03.2021
16:41:54
