Delhi High Court
Bosco Joseph vs Raj Kumar on 11 July, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11th JULY, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ RC.REV. 259/2016 & CM APPLs. 17519/2016, 17521/2016,
31327/2021, 12496/2022, 13131/2022, 19039/2022
BOSCO JOSEPH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Wills Mathews, Mr.Dhanesh M
Nair, Advocates
versus
RAJ KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ishan Gaur, Mr.Vasu Singh,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The instant revision petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, is directed against the Order dated 31.10.2015, passed by
the learned SCJ-cum-Rent Controller, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, in
Eviction Petition, being E.No.21/2015, dismissing the application filed by
the Petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenant') for leave to
defend and evicting the Tenant from the property bearing Shop No. 16
(admeasuring approximately 160 sq. ft.) with a public Verandah
(admeasuring approximately 120 sq. ft.) in front thereof at the address plot
No.1, Block No.88, Lady Harding Road, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to
as „the tenanted premises‟).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:-
i. It is stated that the mother of the Respondent herein (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Land-lord') had purchased the tenanted
premises vide sale deed dated 24.12.1979 and the Land-lord
acquired the title of the tenanted premises by way of a gift deed
dated 26.02.2020. It is stated that the tenanted premises was
originally let out to the father of the Petitioner herein - Late Sh.
C. D. Joseph at a monthly rent of Rs.39.80/- per month. It is
stated that the father of the Petitioner was conducting his
business at the tenanted premises under the name and style of
M/s. Southland's @ South Indian Concern. It is stated that after
the death of C. D. Joseph in the year 2006, physical possession
of the tenanted premises came to be with the Petitioner
herein/Tenant.
ii. It is stated that the Land-lord filed an eviction petition for
evicting the Tenant on the ground that the Land-lord wants to
establish his younger son - Rohit Aggarwal, who was about 23
years of age at the time of filing of the eviction petition. It is
stated that Rohit Aggarwal does not own or possess any other
accommodation of his own and requires the tenanted premises
for carrying out the proposed business of ice-cream parlour/
coffee shop/ fruit juice parlour. It is stated that at present, the
son of the Land-lord is assisting the Land-lord and his family
members in the family business of M/s Bangla Sweet House
and M/s Bangla Foods Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that Rohit
Aggarwal does not have any fixed place of business and he
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
earns through some commissions and also receives some rental
income from his proportionate share in property No.86, Baird
Road, New Delhi, in which he has 25% share by way of a gift
deed dated 28.06.2020 executed by the father of the Landlord -
Atma Ram Aggrawal.
iii. It is stated that the Land-lord owns Shops No. 115 and 117,
Baird Road, Plot No.1, New Delhi from where the business of
M/s. Bangla Sweet House is running since 1959. It is stated
that the Land-lord is one of the partners in the said business
along with his brother and father by way of a partnership deed
dated 01.04.1996.
iv. It is stated that the Land-lord also owns Shop No.18, Lady
Harding Road, Delhi, which is under the tenancy of the LRs of
one Sh. Ratan Lal. It is stated that the said shop is adjacent to
the tenanted premises and is also required by the Tenant for
settling his son. It is stated that an eviction petition for evicting
the LRs of Sh. Ratan Lal from the said shop has already been
filed.
v. It is stated that the Land-lord is also a licensee of Shop No.113,
Baird Road, Plot No.1, New Delhi and his father - Atma Ram
Aggarwal is a licensee of Shop No.111, Baird Road. It is stated
that the Land-lord or his sons have no right, title or interest in
Shop No.111, Baird Road. Even otherwise the family business
under the name of M/s Bangla Foods Pvt. Ltd. is being run from
Shop No.111-113, where the Land-lord is only a Director along
with other Directors, and the family of the Land-lord has been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
conducting the business of fast food bakery and other items in
the said shops since December, 2003. It is stated that the Land-
lord also owns one built-up residential property bearing No.32
Babar Road, New Delhi. It is stated that the said property is
being used by the Land-lord and his family members for
residential purposes.
vi. It is stated that the father of the Land-lord - Sh. Atma Ram
Aggarwal had gifted a property bearing No.86, Baird Road to
Ms. Rachna Aggarwal (wife of the Land-lord), Mr. Ramit
Aggarwal (elder son of the Land-lord) and Mr. Rohit Aggarwal
(younger son of the Land-lord for whom the tenanted premises
is required) vide a registered gift deed dated 28.06.2010. It is
stated that the said property is jointly owned by Ms. Rachna
Aggarwal, Mr. Ramit Aggarwal and Mr. Rohit Aggarwal in the
ratio of 50%, 25% and 25% respectively. It is stated that the
front portion of the said property is in occupation of Mr. Ramit
Aggarwal (elder son of the Land-lord) where he is running his
business of Commission Agent on full time basis, with his wife
- Nikita Aggarwal, running her business of packed gift baskets.
It is stated that the remaining portion of the said property is in
possession of M/s. Asian Overseas as a Lessee through a
registered Lease Deed dated 01.04.2008 which was mutually
extended between the parties for a further period of five years
w.e.f. 01.04.2013 vide a registered lease deed dated 25.02.2015.
It is stated that the rental income from the remaining portion of
the said property is being proportionately shared by Ms.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Rachna Aggarwal (wife of the Land-lord), Mr. Ramit Aggarwal
(elder son of the Land-lord) and Mr. Rohit Aggarwal (younger
son of the Land-lord for whom the tenanted premises is
required).
vii. The eviction petition further discloses that the mother of the
Land-lord was the owner of properties bearing No.119, 119A &
121, Plot No.1, Block No.88, situated at the crossing of Lady
Harding Road and Baird Road, New Delhi and the said
properties have been gifted by her to the brother of the Land-
lord - Praveen Aggarwal and his wife - Meena Aggarwal and
the Land-lord does not have any right or interest in the said
properties. It is stated that apart from the abovementioned
properties, the Land-lord does not have any other property and
no alternate vacant accommodations are available to the Land-
lord which can meet the requirement of his younger son who
has completed his graduation and now wants to start his own
independent business of ice-cream parlour/coffee shop/ fruit
juice parlour so that he can independently earn his livelihood.
viii. An application for leave to defend was filed by the Tenant
stating that the Landlord hails from a wealthy family and owns
a number of shops in the locality. It is further stated that the
Landlord has not revealed the details of shops that are lying
vacant or of those properties where he can accommodate his
younger son. It is stated that the Landlord has two shops
bearing No.115 & 117, just adjacent to the tenanted premises,
where the Landlord is running a sweet shop in the name of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Bangla Sweet House. It is stated that Shops No.119 and 121 are
also at the disposal of the Landlord as shop No.119 is lying
vacant and Shop No.121 has been let out to Apollo Pharmacy.
It is stated that four other shops at Bangla Sahib Road are also
at the disposal of the Landlord and his family members. It is
further stated that there are 7-8 shops at the disposal of the
Landlord just opposite to the Bangla Sahib Road. It is stated
that other than Shop No.111 and 113, from where the Landlord
is running a shop in the name and style of Bangla Foods Pvt.
Ltd., there are two more shops at the disposal of the Landlord in
the same building which are lying vacant. It is further stated
that just opposite to the tenanted premises, in another building,
there are 4-5 shops at the disposal of the Landlord out of which
one shop is lying vacant and 3-4 shops have been let out to
different tenants and one shop is being used as an office by the
Landlord and his family members. It is stated that apart from
the abovementioned properties, the Landlord has other
properties in Delhi NCR, including one shop bearing No. 1 at
Doctor's lane; one Restaurant in Rohini, opposite Deepali
Chowk, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi; workshop/manufacturing unit
at Baird Road; a big estate in Mathura Vrindavan, and a
restaurant and one sweet shop in Karnal. It is further stated in
the application for leave to defend that the Landlord and his
family members have got enough surplus places adjacent to the
tenanted premises which are sufficient and enough to
accommodate the needs of the younger son of the Landlord. It
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
is also stated in the leave to defend application that on the death
of the original tenant, i.e. C. D. Joseph, the tenancy devolved
on the legal heirs of C. D. Joseph and since the Landlord chose
not to implead all the legal heirs of C.D. Joseph, the eviction
petition is barred by non-joinder of all the necessary parties.
ix. A reply to the application for leave to defend was filed by the
Landlord reiterating the facts as mentioned in the eviction
petition and denying the averments made by the Tenant. In
reply, the Landlord denied that he is the owner of shop No.119
and 121. The Landlord also denied that any of these shops are
available to him or are at his disposal. It is stated in the reply
that Shops No.119 & 121 are owned and possessed by the
brother of the Landlord - Praveen Aggarwal and his wife -
Meena Aggarwal. It is further denied by the Landlord that he or
his family members own a restaurant in Rohini or that he owns
or possess any workshop or manufacturing unit at Baird Road.
However, it is stated that the brother of the Landlord - Praveen
Aggarwal is a licensee of a shop/fuel depot No.5, Gole Market
from where a workshop is being run by M/s Bangla Sweet
House. Further the averments of the Tenant that the Landlord
owns an estate in Mathura Vrindavan and a restaurant in Karnal
have also been denied by the Landlord in the reply to the
application for leave to defend. It is stated by the Landlord that
he owns some agricultural land in Vrindavan, Mathura and the
said agricultural land is presently under Land Acquisition
proceedings and is not available to the Petitioner for setting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
independent business for his younger son.
x. The learned Rent Controller, after considering all the fact and
circumstances, rejected the application of the Tenant for leave
to defend and allowed the eviction petition vide Order dated
31.10.2015 by holding as under:
a) That the extent of the tenanted premises which is disputed
by the Tenant has not lead to any triable issue. The learned
Rent Controller relied on the Order dated 30.01.2014,
passed by this Court dismissing the regular second appeal
filed by the Tenant with respect to the passage, staircase and
roof over the tenanted premises. This Court, by the said
Order had held that the Tenant failed to prove that he was
the Tenant in respect of the passage, staircase and the roof.
The learned Rent Controller held that the Landlord is
seeking eviction of the Tenant from Shop No.16, which is
specifically shown in red colour in the site plan and,
therefore, the Tenant knew about the area of which he is the
Tenant.
b) The learned Rent Controller rejected the averment of the
Tenant that the eviction petition is barred by non-joinder of
necessary parties by stating that the tenanted premises was
let out to C. D. Joseph and the Petitioner herein being the
son of C. D. Joseph, is a legal heir of C. D. Joseph. The
learned Rent Controller held that in cases where more than
one legal representatives of the deceased tenant are in
occupation of premises, an eviction petition by landlord
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
against those who are in occupation of the premises is a
valid petition and it is not necessary for landlord to implead
all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. For this purpose,
the learned Rent Controller relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul, (1989) 3 SCC
c) The learned Rent Controller also rejected the argument
raised by the learned counsel for the Tenant that the
Landlord is not the owner of the tenanted premises. The
learned Rent Controller held that the Landlord has placed
on record a copy of the gift deed dated 26.02.2000 executed
by his mother - Smt. Saraswati Devi in favour of the
Landlord and, therefore, the Landlord is entitled to institute
an eviction petition against the Tenant.
d) The learned Rent Controller also rejected the argument of
the Tenant that the need of the Landlord is not bona fide.
The learned Rent Controller held that the tenanted premises
is required for opening a business of ice cream parlour/
coffee shop/juice or shake parlour for his son Rohit
Aggarwal who has completed his graduation and now wants
to start his own independent business. The learned Rent
Controller held that the fact that Rohit Aggarwal is getting
25% of the rent amount from property bearing No.86, Baird
Road, does not take away the need of the Landlord to settle
his own son and enable him to support his own business.
The learned Rent Controller held that the son of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Landlord has only a small share in the property bearing
No.86, Baird Road, which is primarily occupied by the
elder son of the Landlord and his wife, and the rest of the
portion is under tenancy and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the Landlord has a suitable accommodation with him to
settle his younger son - Rohit Aggarwal. The learned Rent
Controller held that at the time of filing of the eviction
petition the younger son of the Landlord was only helping
his father in the family business and it cannot be said that
the Landlord cannot endeavour to ensure that his younger
son sets up his own independent business. The learned Rent
Controller held that the desire of the Landlord to establish
his younger son cannot be said to be fanciful or
unreasonable. The learned Rent Controller held that the fact
that Rohit Aggarwal has completed his graduation is not
disputed and it is quite natural that the Landlord would like
to settle his sons in separate businesses without interference
of each other. The learned Rent Controller further held that
Rohit Aggarwal is dependent upon the Landlord for his
livelihood and for accommodation, and merely because he
is getting some income by way of commissions and share in
property bearing No.86, Baird Road, does not lead to the
inference that he is gainfully employed and does not cast
any doubt on the bona fide of the Landlord to establish his
younger son.
e) The learned Rent Controller also rejected the plea of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Tenant that there is availability of an alternative
accommodation. The learned Rent Controller rejected the
argument of the Tenant that there is a basement under the
possession of the Landlord in shop No.115-117 where
Bangla Sweet House is being run and the said space can be
utilized by the Landlord to meet his requirement of settling
his younger son. The learned Rent Controller relied upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Bajaj and Anr.
v. Vinod Ahuja, (2014) 15 SCC 610, wherein it was held
that landlord is entitled to evict his tenant if the landlord is
carrying on business from a less convenient location and
wants to shift to a more convenient location. The learned
Rent Controller also relied on the judgment of this Court in
Surinder Singh vs. Jasbir Singh , 172 (2010) DLT 6117,
wherein it has been held that the fact the Landlord has not
disclosed the availability of an accommodation in the
basement would not be fatal to the case of the Landlord as it
cannot be said that the basement is a suitable alternative
accommodation for the Landlord for the purpose of setting
up a business. The learned Rent Controller held that as far
as property bearing No. 117 and 115 are concerned, it is
stated that M/s. Bangla Sweet House is running from the
said premises and the Landlord is one of the partners in the
same. The learned Rent Controller held that this fact is not
disputed by the Tenant. It was further held that as far as
property bearing No. 111-113 is concerned, admittedly M/s.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Bangla Foods Pvt. Ltd is being run in the said premises. He
held that Shop No.18, Plot no. 1, Block No. 88, Lady
Harding road is under tenancy of LRs of Late Sh. Ratan Lal.
The learned Rent Controller held that as far as property
bearing No. 32, Baber Road, New Delhi is concerned, it is
purely a residential accommodation where the Landlord is
residing along with his family and the said accommodation,
by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as an alternative
accommodation for the purpose of carrying out a business.
The learned Rent Controller further held that as far as
property bearing No.86, Baird Road is concerned, the same
is jointly owned by the wife of the Landlord and his two
sons in the ratio of 50%, 25% and 25% respectively and the
said property is located far from the tenanted premises. The
learned Rent Controller held that the fact that the younger
son of the Landlord is the owner of 25% of the said property
does not mean that he has an alternate accommodation as
maximum portion of the said property is with the elder son
of the Landlord. The learned Rent Controller further held
that as far as properties bearing No.119, 119A and 121 are
concerned, it has been stated by the Landlord that his
mother - Smt. Saraswati Devi, was the owner of said
property and she has gifted the said property to his brother
Sh. Praveen Aggarwal and his wife Smt. Meena Aggarwal.
The learned Rent Controller also held that with regard to the
property at Doctor's lane, it has been stated by the Landlord
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
that his brother Praveen Aggarwal is a licensee of the said
property and the same is being used by him as a workshop
for M/s. Bangla Sweet House. The learned Rent Controller,
therefore, held that these properties cannot be considered as
alternative suitable accommodation for the Landlord to
establish his younger son.
f) The learned Rent Controller further held that as far as the
property at Vrindavan is concerned, it has been stated by the
Landlord in his reply that the same is an agricultural land
and is also under the Land Acquisition proceedings. The
learned Rent Controller held that even if it is assumed that
the said land in Vrindavan is available to the Landlord then
also it cannot be termed as an alternative accommodation
for the Landlord as it is natural that a father would like to
keep his sons near him.
xi. It is this Order which is under challenge in the instant revision
petition.
2. Notice in the instant revision petition was issued on 10.05.2016. On
28.08.2019, at the request of the parties, the matter was referred to the Delhi
High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre. Unfortunately, the mediation
failed. Vide Order dated 07.02.2022, this Court fixed the rent of the tenanted
premises at Rs.75,000/- per month. An application was filed by the Landlord
stating that the monthly rent, as has been fixed by this Court vide Order
dated 07.02.2022, is not being paid by the Tenant. This Court, at this
juncture, is not going into the said issue as it is deciding the main dispute as
to whether the Order dated 31.10.2015, passed by the learned SCJ-cum-Rent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Controller, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition, being
E.No.21/2015, dismissing the application filed by the Tenant for leave to
defend and evicting the Tenant from the tenanted premises, is in accordance
with law or not.
3. Mr. Wills Mathews, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant,
submits that though the family of the Tenant took the tenancy of the tenanted
premises many years ago, the Petitioner/Tenant has been in occupation of
the tenanted premises for more than 16 years now. He states that the
Petitioner/Tenant does not have any alternative accommodation and the
business that he is running from the tenanted premises is the only source of
livelihood for the Tenant whereas the Landlord has about 12 properties in
the same locality and two shops in the same market have been kept closed. It
is also stated by the learned Counsel for the Tenant that the Landlord is a
rich man having a number of properties and over 100 employees and,
therefore, the need of the Landlord cannot be said to be bona fide. The
learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the eviction petition
was filed by the Landlord without impleading all the LRs of C.D. Joseph,
who was the original tenant of the tenanted premises. He relies on the earlier
eviction petition, being E.No.42/2009, filed by the mother of the Respondent
herein/Landlord against the Petitioner herein and other legal representatives
of C.D. Joseph. He states that all the legal representatives of C.D. Joseph
were impleaded in the abovementioned petition, however, in the impugned
eviction petition the other legal representatives of C. D. Joseph were not
made parties. He further submits that the Landlord has suppressed the fact
regarding the ownership of the property at Vrindavan. He states that the
factum of ownership of the property at Vrindavan was accepted by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Landlord only in his reply to the application for leave to defend filed by the
Tenant. He further states that the Landlord has also suppressed the fact about
the availability of a basement at shop No.115-117 and, therefore, this itself
raises a triable issue and the learned Rent Controller ought not have
dismissed the application of the Tenant for leave to defend.
4. Per contra, Mr. Ishan Gaur, learned Counsel for the
Respondent/Tenant, supports the impugned judgment. He states that other
than the tenanted premises, no other property is available with the Landlord
to establish the business of his younger son. He states that the learned Rent
Controller has meticulously gone into all the issues and the Order of the
learned Rent Controller does not require any interference.
5. Heard Mr. Wills Mathews, learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant,
Mr. Ishan Gaur, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Tenant, and perused the
material on record.
6. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Tenant has
raised triable issues which would entitle him leave to defend or not.
7. The eviction petition has been filed by the Landlord for evicting the
Tenant on the ground that the Land-lord wants to establish his younger son -
Rohit Aggarwal, who was about 23 years of age at the time of filing of the
eviction petition, and has completed his graduation. It was stated in the
eviction petition that Rohit Aggarwal does not own or possess any other
accommodation of his own which may be as reasonably and suitably located
as the tenanted premises for carrying out the proposed business of ice-cream
parlour/ coffee shop/ fruit or juice parlour.
8. In the application for leave to defend, the Tenant has stated that
a) The Landlord hails from a wealthy family and has a number of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
shops in the locality.
b) The Landlord has not revealed the details of shops that are lying
vacant and the details of other properties where he can
accommodate his younger son.
c) The Landlord has two shops bearing No.115 & 117, just adjacent
to the tenanted premises, where the Landlord is running sweet
shop in the name of Bangla Sweet House.
d) That Shops No.119 and 121 are also at the disposal of the
Landlord, and while shop No.119 is lying vacant, Shop No.121
has been let out to Apollo Pharmacy.
e) Four other shops at Bangla Sahib Road are also at the disposal of
the Landlord and his family members.
f) Just opposite to the Bangla Sahib Road, there are 7-8 shops at the
disposal of the Landlord.
g) Other than Shop No.111 and 113, from where the Landlord is
running a shop in the name and style of Bangla Foods Pvt. Ltd.,
there are two more shops at the disposal of the Landlord in the
same building which are lying vacant.
h) Just opposite to the tenanted premises, in other building, there are
4-5 shops at the disposal of the Landlord, out of which one shop
is lying vacant, 3-4 shops have been let out to different tenants,
and one shop is being used as an office by the Landlord and his
family members.
i) Apart from the abovementioned properties, the Landlord has
other properties in Delhi NCR including one shop bearing No. 1
at Doctor's lane; one Restaurant in Rohini, opposite Deepali
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Chowk, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi; workshop/manufacturing unit at
Baird Road; a big estate in Mathura Vrindavan; and a restaurant
and one sweet shop in Karnal.
j) The Respondent/Landlord and his family members have got
enough surplus places adjacent to the tenanted premises which
are sufficient and enough to accommodate the needs of the
younger son of the Landlord.
9. Material on record reveals that the tenanted premises was purchased
by the mother of the Land-lord vide a sale deed dated 24.12.1979. The
tenanted premises was originally let out to the father of the Petitioner herein
- Late Sh. C. D. Joseph at a monthly rent of Rs.39.80/- per month. After the
death of C. D. Joseph in the year 2006, physical possession of the tenanted
premises is with the Petitioner herein/Tenant. Material on record further
reveals that the Respondent herein acquired the title of the tenanted premises
by way of a gift deed dated 26.02.2020. Respondent herein, therefore,
became the Landlord and was, therefore, entitled to file the eviction petition.
Material on record discloses that the mother of the Respondent/Landlord has
also instituted an eviction petition against the Petitioner herein and had
impleaded all the legal representatives of C.D. Joseph in that eviction
petition. After becoming the owner of the tenanted premises, the Respondent
herein filed the impugned eviction petition and he has only impleaded the
Petitioner herein and not all the legal representatives of C.D. Joseph. In the
eviction petition it was not the case of the Landlord that somebody else,
other than the Petitioner herein, is in occupation of the tenanted premises.
This Court in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Leela Wati & Ors, 2008
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
106 DRJ 4721, has held as under:
"14. It is also settled law that when original tenant
dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants
and occu-pation of one of the tenant is occupation of
all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to
implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether
they are living in the property or not. It is sufficient for
the landlord to im-plead only those persons who are
living in the property, as party. There may be a case
where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of
deceased tenant and impleading only those LRs who
are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the
purpose of filing Eviction Petition. An eviction petition
against one of the joint tenants is an Eviction Petition
against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are
bound by order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy
is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different
legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count
must fail."
Further the learned Rent Controller, while dealing with this question, has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in H. C. Pandey v. G. C.
Paul, (1989) 3 SCC 77. In view of the above, the contention of the learned
counsel for the Petitioner that the eviction petition filed by the Landlord was
barred by non-joinder of necessary parties, cannot be accepted and this does
not raises a triable issue.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there is a
suppression on the part of the Landlord regarding the availability of a
basement at shop No.115-117 and a property at Vrindavan, which has been
admitted by the Landlord in his reply to the leave to defend application,
raises a triable issue, also cannot be accepted. The Apex Court in M.L.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal, (2001) 2 SCC 355, has observed as under:
"5. It has been urged that there was suppression
on the part of the landlord inasmuch as he did not
disclose the premises which were available at No.
16/57, Gali No. 1, Joshi Road as well as the
premises which are available at Basant Road,
Pahar Ganj. On the other hand, on behalf of the
respondent, Dr Singhvi has submitted that the only
requirement is to disclose such accommodation as
is suitable for residence of the landlord. Dr
Singhvi submitted that if there is no other
residential accommodation which is suitable then
there is no duty to disclose. Dr Singhvi relied upon
the authority in the case of Ram Narain Arora v.
Asha Rani [(1999) 1 SCC 141] wherein it has been
held that the question whether the landlord has
any other reasonably suitable residential
accommodation is a question which is intermixed
with the question regarding bona fide requirement.
It is held that whether the landlord has any other
reasonably suitable residential accommodation is
a defence for the tenant. It is held that whether the
other accommodation is more suitable than the
suit premises would not solely depend upon
pleadings and non-disclosure by the landlord. It
was held that the landlord having another
accommodation would not be fatal to the eviction
proceedings if both the parties understood the case
and placed materials before the court and case of
neither party was prejudiced. In this case even
though the landlord has not mentioned about the
other two premises, the material in respect of the
other two premises was placed before the Rent
Controller as well as before the High Court, thus
no prejudice has been caused. The parties have
squarely dealt with this question."
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
11. In view of the above, no prejudice has, therefore, been caused to the
Tenant. Basement of a shop cannot be equated with the shop itself. The
Landlord's son wants to start a business of ice-cream parlour/ coffee shop/
fruit juice parlour. The said business can run more effectively from a shop at
the ground floor rather than a shop at the basement. Further, the availability
of a property at Vrindavan also does not help the case of the Tenant. It is
stated that the said land is sought to be acquired by the Government. Further,
in any event, it cannot be said that the need of the Landlord's son to set up a
business of ice-cream parlour/coffee shop/fruit juice parlour can be
effectively run from Vrindavan and not from the tenanted premises which is
located on a busy market road. The findings of the learned Rent Controller,
therefore, does not require any interference by this Court.
12. It is well settled that a tenant cannot dictate as to which of the
premises is more suitable for the landlord to conduct his business and it is
always the choice of the Landlord to establish his son in a premises which is
most suitable to him. As stated earlier, the tenanted premises faces the
market road and is, therefore, more conducive to run a business. The Apex
Court in Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja, (2014) 15 SCC 610, has reiterated that
it is not for the tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him as
to what he should do and what he should not do. The relevant portion of the
said judgment has been reproduced as under :
"6. In the present case it is clear that while the
landlord (Appellant 1) is carrying on his business
from a shop premise located in a narrow lane, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
tenant is in occupation of the premises located on
the main road which the landlord considers to be
more suitable for his own business. The materials
on record, in fact, disclose that the landlord had
offered to the tenant the premises located in the
narrow lane in exchange for the tenanted premises
which offer was declined by the tenant. It is not the
tenant's case that the landlord, Appellant 1, does
not propose to utilise the tenanted premises from
which eviction is sought for the purposes of his
business. It is also not the tenant's case that the
landlord proposes to rent out/keep vacant the
tenanted premises after obtaining possession
thereof or to use the same is any way inconsistent
with the need of the landlord. What the tenant
contends is that the landlord has several other
shop houses from which he is carrying on different
businesses and further that the landlord has other
premises from where the business proposed from
the tenanted premises can be effectively carried
out. It would hardly require any reiteration of the
settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant
to dictate to the landlord as to how the property
belonging to the landlord should be utilised by
him for the purpose of his business. Also, the fact
that the landlord is doing business from various
other premises cannot foreclose his right to seek
eviction from the tenanted premises so long as he
intends to use the said tenanted premises for his
own business. (emphasis supplied)
13. Similarly, this Court in Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 3855, has held as follows :
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
"11 (c)....This Court is in agreement with the
reasoning and finding of the learned ARC.
Moreover, it is well settled that a landlord is the
best judge of his requirement. It is neither open
for the Court or for the tenant to dictate terms to
the landlord. Furthermore, the contention of the
tenant that the son in the past never intended to
start such a business and that too from a small
bye lane situated in old Delhi which has no
potential for such business is without any merit.
A tenant cannot be permitted to dictate terms to
the landlord as to the suitability of the premises
for purposes under which the eviction is sought.
Therefore, the finding of the learned ARC does
not warrant any interference by this Court."
14. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Tenant that the family
of the Tenant is in possession of the tenanted premises for many years now
and the Landlord, who is a wealthy man and has a number of properties,
should not seek to evict the Tenant because of the hardships which the
Tenant will face would weigh out the need of the Landlord, also cannot be
accepted.
15. Unlike a few of the Rent Control statutes where comparative hardship
is one of the tests that a Rent Controller applies, under the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, there is no test of comparative requirement. Under the
Delhi Rent Control Act, all that has to be shown is that the tenanted premises
is bona fide required by the Landlord or by any member of the family who is
dependent on the Landlord for the said premises or that other member of the
family for whose benefit the premises is sought for is dependent on him and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
no other reasonably suitable accommodation is available. There is no test of
comparative hardship in the Delhi Rent Control Act. The argument of the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Landlord, coming from a wealthy
family and having more than 100 people working under him, cannot be
permitted to evict the Tenant, who is solely dependent on the tenanted
premises for his livelihood, cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that the
younger son of the Landlord has become a graduate and the need of a father
to settle his son cannot be said to be not bona fide.
16. The learned Rent Controller has gone into great detail of every
property which, according to the Tenant, was available with the Landlord to
satisfy the bona fide requirement of settling his younger son. Shop No.115-
117 are occupied by M/s Bangla Sweet House and the Landlord is only a
partner in M/s Bangla Sweet House. This property, therefore, cannot be said
to be available to the Landlord for the purpose of establishing his son. As far
as Shop No.111-113 are concerned, M/s Bangla Foods Pvt. Ltd. is being run
from the said premises which is separate from M/s Bangla Sweet House.
Shop No.18, Plot No.1, Block No.88, Lady Harding Road, was in possession
of the LRs of Sh. Ratan Lal on the date when the eviction petition was filed.
Though it is stated that the said shop is available to the Landlord, however,
no site plan has been filed by the Tenant to show that the said premises is
equal in size and dimension as the tenanted premises. On the contrary, the
learned Counsel for the Landlord has submitted that the said shop is actually
half the size of the tenanted premises. Shop No.119, 119A and 121 are
owned by the brother of the Landlord and nothing has been placed on record
by the Tenant to show that the said shops are owned by the Landlord. As far
as property No.86, Baird Road, is concerned, material on record shows that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
the front portion of the said property is in occupation of Mr. Ramit Aggarwal
(elder son of the Land-lord) where he is running his business of Commission
Agent on full time basis, with his wife - Nikita Aggarwal, running her
business of packed gift baskets. The remaining portion of the said property is
in possession of M/s. Asian Overseas as a Lessee through a registered Lease
Deed dated 01.04.2008 which was mutually extended between the parties for
a further period of five years w.e.f 01.04.2013 vide registered lease deed
dated 25.02.2015. Hence, that premises is also not available to the Landlord
to accommodate or establish his younger son. Other than vaguely
mentioning that the Landlord has a shop at Karnal, the Tenant has not filed
any material to substantiate the same. The property at Vrindavan is also not
suitable for the Landlord to establish his son. This Court cannot shut its eyes
to the fact that a land in Vrindavan cannot be equated to a shop on a busy
Delhi market.
17. The need of a father to establish his son by enabling him to start his
own independent business cannot be said to be not bona fide. The Apex
Court in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397, has laid
down certain tests to identify as to whether the tenanted premises is required
by the Landlord to discharge his obligation to settle a person closely
connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support
himself and/or the Landlord. The Apex Court has observed as under:
" 24. ........ Keeping in view the social or socio-
religious milieu and practices prevalent in a
particular section of society or a particular region, to
which the landlord belongs, it may be the obligation
of the landlord to settle a person closely connected
with him to make him economically independent so
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
as to support himself and/or the landlord. To
discharge such obligation the landlord may require the
tenancy premises and such requirement would be the
requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of
actual user of the premises by a person other than the
landlord himself the court shall with circumspection
inquire: (i) whether the requirement of such person can
be considered to be the requirement of the landlord,
and (ii) whether there is a close interrelation or
identity nexus between such person and the landlord so
as to satisfy the requirement of the first query.
Applying the abovesaid tests to the facts of the present
case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required
for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered
accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord
to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his
best to see him economically independent. The
landlord is not going to let out the premises to his son
and though the son would run his office in the
premises the possession would continue with the
landlord and in a sense the actual occupation by the
son would be the occupation by the landlord himself.
It is the landlord who requires the premises for his son
and in substance the user would be by the landlord for
his son's office. The case squarely falls within the
scope of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act."
(emphasis supplied)
18. In view of the above, it is settled that the Landlord is the best judge of
his requirements, and he also has the complete authority to prioritize the
needs of his family and those who are dependent on him over any hardship
that might be caused to the tenant. In the instant case, the son of the Landlord
is currently unemployed, has no alternative accommodation and is dependent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
on his father. Therefore, it cannot be said that the requirement of the
Landlord is not bona-fide.
19. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Tenant has
failed to raise any triable issue, and the Order dated 31.10.2015, passed by
the learned SCJ-cum-Rent Controller, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, in
Eviction Petition, being E.No.21/2015, does not require any interference
from this Court.
20. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed, along with all
the pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
JULY 11, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
