Delhi High Court
Kuldeep Singh Baweja vs Amarjeet Singh Khurana 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. 411/2019 & CM APPL. 13514/2022
KULDEEP SINGH BAWEJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J. P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Mr. R. L. Sinha
and Ms. Ishita Mohanty, Advocates.
versus
AMARJEET SINGH KHURANA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. N.S. Bajwa and
Mr. Sahil Batra, 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 07.03.2019, passed by
the learned SCJ-cum-Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in
RC/ARC No.17/2018, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner
herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenant') for leave to defend and
consequently allowing the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as 'the
instant eviction petition') filed by the Respondent herein (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Landlord') and evicting the Tenant from one shop
admeasuring about 210 sq. feet (approximately), having private No. A in
property No. G-15, Hauz Khas Market, 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 tenanted premises was let out to the Tenant
by H.S. Khurana, i.e. the father of the Respondent herein, at a
monthly rent of Rs.275/-. It is stated that H.S. Khurana
executed a will dated 30.05.1995 in favour of the Respondent
herein. It is stated that the father of the Respondent herein
passed away on 15.01.1996 leaving behind the Respondent
herein and a daughter - Pramjeet Kaur. It is stated that since the
wife of H.S. Khurana predeceased him, the Respondent herein
became the true and lawful owner of the properties left behind
by H.S. Khurana, including the tenanted premises. It is stated
that by mutual understanding, the rent of the tenanted premises
was increased from time to time and the last rent paid by the
Tenant was @ Rs.1,700/- per month.
ii. It is stated that the Landlord married twice. Out of his first
marriage he has a son, namely, Gurmeet Singh, and out of the
second marriage the Landlord has one daughter, namely, Ms.
Simran Khurana. It is stated that the relationship between the
second wife of the Landlord and his son, i.e. Gurmeet Singh, is
not cordial.
iii. It is stated that the shop adjoining the tenanted premises,
admeasuring 210 Sq. Ft., is occupied by the Landlord himself
from where he runs a general provision store under the name
and style of M/s Janta Sevak Store. It is further stated that the
premises at the back portion of the abovementioned two shops
has a common space of about 380 Sq. Ft out of which 300 Sq.
Ft. area has been let out to one Diet Clinic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
and the remaining 80 Sq. Ft. area has been let out to one Ankit
Gulati from where a godown is being run. It is further submitted
that the entry to the backside portion of the ground floor and the
upper floor till terrace of the entire building is from the
backside lane. It is stated that the mezzanine floor of the
building having an area of about 300 Sq. Ft. has been let out to
one M/s A to Z Infra Service Ltd. It is further stated that the
first floor of the building has been occupied by the Landlord
wherein he is residing along with his family members, the
second floor of the building having an area of about 600 Sq. Ft.
has been let out to one Pamasa Mediworld Pvt. Ltd., and the
roof of the building has been let out to Bharti Airtel.
iv. It is stated that the Landlord filed an eviction petition
(hereinafter referred to as 'the earlier eviction petition') in 2011
against the Tenant on the ground of requirement of additional
space for his own use as well as for his son. It is stated that the
application for leave to defend which was filed by the Tenant in
the said eviction petition was allowed by the learned Rent
Controller on 09.10.2013. However, the said eviction petition
was withdrawn by the Landlord on 31.03.2015.
v. It is stated that the instant eviction petition was filed by the
Landlord on 02.04.2018 on the ground that his son - Gurmeet
Singh, who is about 27 years of age, is presently unemployed
and the Landlord needs the tenanted premises to settle his son
by establishing a business of a Bar-be-cue eating house in the
tenanted premises.
vi. It is stated in the eviction petition that the son of the Landlord
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
was employed at a private firm in Noida, UP, and the commute
to and from the firm took up almost four hours and the health of
the Landlord's son deteriorated due to extensive travelling and
he left the said job to join SARVA Servicescape Pvt. Ltd. at
A14/3, Second Floor, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II, New
Delhi as a Telemarketing Executive. It is stated that due to the
heavy workload and tremendous pressure, the son of the
Landlord was unable to continue with the job. It is stated that
the son of the Landlord suffered from acute tuberculosis and
had to be hospitalized from 19.07.2016 to 05.09.2016 in Rajan
Babu Institute for Pulmonary Medicine and Tuberculosis, GTB
Nagar, Delhi.
vii. It is stated that the Landlord wishes for his son to be
established, married and settled in life and for this purpose the
tenanted premises is required so that the son of the Landlord
can start a business of a Bar-be-cue eating house. It is stated
that to open a Bar-be-cue eating house the tenanted premises is
most suitable as the same is situated on the ground floor on the
front side of the market. It is stated that there is sufficient
parking space in front of the tenanted premises and commercial
as well as private vehicles have an easy and free access to the
tenanted premises. It is further stated that since the tenanted
premises is situated just adjacent to the shop of the Landlord, he
may also be able to provide necessary assistance to his son.
viii. It is stated that on issuance of summons, the Tenant filed an
application for leave to defend in the instant eviction petition.
In the application for leave to defend it was stated by the Tenant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
that the Landlord had earlier filed an eviction petition against
the Tenant which was later on withdrawn when the leave to
defend application in that eviction petition was allowed by the
learned Rent Controller. It is, therefore, stated in the application
for leave to defend that there is no bona fide need of the
tenanted premises and the instant eviction petition has been
filed on the same ground that had been raised in the earlier
petition wherein leave to defend was granted. It is, therefore,
stated in the application for leave to defend that leave to defend
be granted to the Tenant in the instant eviction petition as the
same had been done in the earlier eviction petition. It is further
stated in the leave to defend application that the fact that leave
to defend had been granted in the earlier eviction petition has
been concealed in the instant eviction petition. It is further
stated that several properties have been let out by the Landlord
to several tenants at a much higher rate in the interregnum of
the withdrawal of the earlier eviction petition and filing of the
instant eviction petition, and, therefore, the instant eviction
petition is only a ruse to evict the Tenant so that the Landlord
can let out the tenanted premises to somebody else at a higher
rate.
ix. It is further stated in the leave to defend application that the son
of the Landlord, for whom the tenanted premises is required,
has never resided with the Landlord because of family disputes,
a fact which has also been mentioned in the instant eviction
petition. It is stated that the name of the son of the Landlord is
not mentioned in the electoral roll of Hauz Khas. It is further
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
stated that the Landlord had given his son - Gurmeet Singh, in
adoption to his sister, Pramjeet Kaur and her husband,
Dhanwant Singh and they are the ones who have looked after
Gurmeet Singh and raised him. To substantiate his contention,
the Tenant has filed documents given by the Principal of Guru
Harkishan Public School, where Gurmeet Singh has studied,
wherein the name of Dhanwant Singh - husband of Pramjeet
Kaur, has been shown as guardian of Gurmeet Singh. It is stated
that the relationship between the second wife of the Landlord
and Gurmeet Singh has never been cordial, and Gurmeet Singh
stays at a different place by paying rent. It is further stated in
the leave to defend application that after withdrawal of the
earlier eviction petition in 2015 and before instituting the
instant eviction petition in 2018, the Landlord has been forging
documents to show that Gurmeet Singh is residing with the
Landlord. It is further stated that a perusal of all these
documents, namely, Driver's Licence, Election Card, etc.,
would demonstrate that they all have been issued in 2017-2018
just for the purpose of substantiating that Gurmeet Singh is
residing with the Landlord at G-15, Hauz Khas. It is stated that
the falsity of the abovementioned documents is evident from
the fact that as per the medical certificate filed by the Landlord
stating that Gurmeet Singh was advised complete bed rest from
09.07.2016 to 19.02.2018 on account of his suffering from
Tuberculosis. However, during this period, the driver's licence
and the election card of Gurmeet Singh was issued. It is,
therefore, stated that these documents were procured only for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
the purpose of filing the instant eviction petition. It is further
stated in the leave to defend application that the medical
certificate produced by the Landlord is false because as per the
said certificate the son of the Landlord was advised complete
bed rest from 09.07.2016 to 19.02.2018 on account of suffering
from Tuberculosis whereas as per the discharge summary, the
son of the Landlord was discharged from the hospital on
06.09.2016. It is further stated that as per the discharge
summary dated 06.09.2016, the Tuberculosis report of the son
of the Landlord shows 'negative' which means that the son of
the Landlord was free from Tuberculosis by September 2016
and the medical certificate advising bed rest for the son of the
Landlord from 09.07.2016 to 19.02.2018 was forged only to
justify the delay of three years in filing the instant eviction
petition. It is, therefore, stated that the eviction petition ought to
be rejected on this ground only.
x. It is further stated in the application for leave to defend that the
son of the Landlord, for whom the tenanted premises is
required, has no experience in running a Bar-be-cue shop. It is
also stated that nothing has been placed on record to show that
the son of the Landlord has sufficient
resources/competence/expertise to run a Bar-be-cue shop. It is
further stated in the leave to defend application that the son of
the Landlord is not unemployed and he is currently working in
a private firm at RZ-24, 21, Gali No.11, Vashist Park, New
Delhi.
xi. The learned Rent Controller, after considering all the facts and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
circumstances of the case, dismissed the leave to defend
application filed by the Tenant by holding that the Landlord has
put forward a case that he wants to establish his son and help
him in opening a Bar-be-cue shop, and that this cannot be said
to be not bona fide. The learned Rent Controller further held
that there is nothing to show that the Landlord has given his son
on adoption to his sister and her husband. The learned Rent
Controller held that the school documents indicate that the
name of the Landlord has been mentioned as the father of
Gurmeet Singh and Dhanwant Singh has only been shown as a
guardian. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, dismissed the
leave to defend application of the Tenant on the ground that the
Tenant has failed to show that there is any other alternative
premises that is available with the Landlord to establish his son
by opening a Bar-be-cue shop in that alternate premises.
xii. It is this Order which has been challenged in the instant revision
petition.
2. Mr. J. P. Sengh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner/Tenant, vehemently contends that the Landlord has not
approached the Court with clean hands. He states that the Landlord had
already filed an eviction petition against the Tenant in 2015 on the ground
that he requires additional accommodation for his son and the learned Rent
Controller granted leave to defend to the Tenant on the ground that the need
of additional space for the Landlord can only be ascertained if opportunity is
granted to the Tenant to cross-examine the Landlord. He further states that
the learned Rent Controller, while allowing the leave to defend application
filed by the Tenant in the earlier eviction petition, had held that as to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
whether or not the son of the Landlord was living with him could only be
ascertained after an opportunity is given to the Tenant to cross-examine the
Landlord. He states that the situation remains the same and, therefore, the
leave to defend ought to have been granted to the Tenanted by the learned
Rent Controller in the instant petition as well. He states that admittedly the
wife of the Landlord and his son, for whom the tenanted premises is
required, are not on talking terms. He states that the son of the Landlord has
been staying separately since his childhood and that situation remains
unchanged as the son of the Landlord is still living in a rented
accommodation. Learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant, therefore,
states that leave to defend ought to have been granted to the Tenant by the
learned Rent Controller to ascertain as to whether Gurmeet Singh indeed
wants to run a Bar-be-cue shop adjacent to the shop of the Landlord.
3. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant has further taken this
Court through various documents that have been filed along with the instant
eviction petition to show that the said documents were forged by the
Landlord to show that his son was living in the same premises as the
Landlord in order to circumvent the finding in the earlier eviction petition
that the Landlord and his son are not on talking terms and the son of the
Landlord does not reside with the Landlord. He has taken this Court through
the Aadhaar Card of the son of the Landlord - Gurmeet Singh to show that it
was prepared after the earlier eviction petition was withdrawn by the
Landlord. He has also taken this Court through the driver's licence of
Gurmeet Singh to show that it was prepared on 18.09.2017, i.e. after the
withdrawal of the earlier eviction petition and before the filing of the instant
eviction petition. He has also taken this Court through the election card of
Gurmeet Singh to contend that it was also prepared on 27.01.2018, i.e. just
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
before the filing of the instant eviction petition. He has further taken this
Court thorough the voter's list of Malviya Nagar which does not show the
name of the son of the Landlord. He also states that serious doubts can be
raised with regard to the letter dated 16.04.2016 filed by the Landlord in the
instant eviction petition to show that the son of the Landlord is no longer
working at SARVA Servicescape Pvt. Ltd. He states that this letter is
concocted and has been procured by the Landlord just to prove that his son is
unemployed. He states that for this purpose, the Landlord or Gurmeet Singh
will have to step into the witness box to substantiate their contentions.
4. Learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant has taken this Court
through various lease deeds entered into between the Landlord and other
tenants with respect to different portions of the property which fell vacant
after the withdrawal of the earlier eviction petition and before the institution
of the instant eviction petition to show that if the need of the Landlord was
bona fide then instead of letting out those properties, the Landlord ought to
have given those properties to his son to run a Bar-be-cue shop. He states
that vide a lease deed dated 25.07.2016, the mezzanine floor of the building
having an area of about 300 Sq. Ft. has been let out to one M/s A to Z Infra
Service Ltd. He has further taken this Court through a lease deed dated
02.08.2016 by which, out of the total area of 380 Sq. Ft in the back portion
of the tenanted premises, 300 Sq. Ft area has been let out to one Diet Clinic
Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. He states that this 300 Sq. Ft. area was let out to another
tenant on 02.08.2016, i.e. after the withdrawal of the earlier eviction petition
and before filing the instant eviction petition. He, therefore, states that if the
need of the Landlord was bona fide then this shop, which is on the ground
floor of the premises, ought not to have been let out by the Landlord and the
learned Rent Controller ought to have appreciated this fact and granted leave
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
to defend the instant eviction petition. He further states that vide a lease deed
dated 14.07.2017, the second floor of the building having an area of about
600 Sq. Ft. has been let out to one Pamasa Mediworld Pvt. Ltd. Learned
Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant, therefore, submits that all these lease
deeds were entered into by the Landlord after the earlier eviction petition
was withdrawn and before filing of the instant eviction petition and if the
need of the Landlord was bona fide then these properties ought not to have
been let out by the Landlord. He, therefore, submits that this shows that the
need of the Landlord was not bona fide and the learned Rent Controller
ought to have granted leave to defend to the Tenant.
5. Per contra, Mr. Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the
Respondent/Tenant, contends that there is nothing on record to show that the
Landlord had given his son up for adoption to his sister and her husband -
Dhanwant Singh. He states that in all the documents of the school, the
Landlord is shown as the father of Gurmeet Singh, and that Dhanwant Singh
and his wife have only been shown as guardians. He states that the letter
dated 12.07.2006, written by Dhanwant Singh to the Principal of Guru
Harkishan Public School wherein he has stated that Gurmeet Singh is his
son, does not establish that Gurmeet Singh was given up for adoption to
Dhanwant Singh. He states that the letter dated 12.07.2006 cannot be the
sole basis for granting leave to defend as, in the absence of any proof of
adoption, it cannot be said that Gurmeet Singh was given up for adoption
and, therefore, it becomes clear that Gurmeet Singh is dependent on the
Landlord for the purpose of accommodation and livelihood. He has taken
this Court through the bank documents of the Landlord showing that the
school fee of Gurmeet Singh was being paid by the Landlord. He states that
even assuming that Dhanwant Singh has brought up the son of the Landlord
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
as his own son, then also it does not take away the obligation of the
Landlord to establish Gurmeet Singh and settle him in life.
6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord further contends that
the fact that the name of Gurmeet Singh does not appear in the electoral roll
of Malviya Nagar cannot be a reason for granting leave to defend to the
Tenant for the reason that the Landlord himself has admitted in the eviction
petition that the relationship between the second wife of the Landlord and
his son were strained due to which Gurmeet Singh was living separately in a
different accommodation. He states that the fact that Gurmeet Singh was not
staying with the Landlord does not, in any way, take away the responsibility
of a father to establish his son. He further states that the earlier eviction
petition which was withdrawn by the Landlord was filed for the purpose of
additional space as space was required for the Landlord to accommodate his
son. He states that after leave to defend was granted to the Tenant on
09.10.2013, Gurmeet Singh took up a job and the eviction petition was
withdrawn by the Landlord because no useful purpose would have been
served in continuing the eviction petition. He states that when the son of the
Landlord had to leave his job due to his poor health, the Landlord filed the
instant eviction petition so that he could establish his son and settle him in
life. He states that the Landlord wants the tenanted premises so that his son
can start a Bar-be-cue shop in it. He states that the fact that other portions of
the premises which became vacant after the earlier eviction petition was
withdrawn were let out to other tenants before filing of the instant eviction
petition does not mean that the need of the Landlord is not bona fide or does
not exist. He states that the tenanted premises is most suitable for starting a
Bar-be-cue shop and all other portions are not as suitable as the tenanted
premises.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
7. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent/Landlord, states that
the mezzanine floor of the building having an area of about 300 Sq. Ft.
which was let out to M/s A to Z Infra Service Ltd vide lease deed dated
25.07.2016 is not suitable for opening a Bar-be-cue shop. He further states
that 300 Sq. Ft area in the back portion of the tenanted premises which has
been let out to one Diet Clinic Healthcare Pvt. Ltd vide a lease deed dated
02.08.2016 is also not suitable for opening a Bar-be-cue shop as the same is
in the back side of the lane. He states that the second floor of the building
having an area of about 600 Sq. Ft. which has been let out to one Pamasa
Mediworld Pvt. Ltd vide a lease deed dated 14.07.2017 is also not suitable
for opening a Bar-be-cue shop as it is on the second floor, and clients, more
so old clients, would find it difficult to climb to second floor for entering the
Bar-be-cue shop. He states that for the purpose of opening a Bar-be-cue
shop, the ground floor is most suitable.
8. Heard Mr. J. P. Sengh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner/Tenant, Mr. Anil Sharma, learned Counsel for the
Respondent/Tenant, and perused the material on record.
9. The short question which arises for consideration in the present case is
whether the application for leave to defend filed by the Tenant ought to have
been allowed by the learned Rent Controller or not. The contentions raised
by the Tenant in the leave to defend application are as under:
a) that in the earlier eviction petition, which had been filed by the
Landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement, leave to defend
was granted to the Tenant on the ground that the Landlord was
not on good terms with his son, and the contention as to whether
space that was already available wit the landlord for running a
business was sufficient and if additional space would be required
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
were facts that needed cross-examination. It is the averment of
the Tenant that the said reasons exist even today and, therefore,
leave to defend ought to have been granted by the learned Rent
Controller in the instant eviction petition as well.
b) that the relationship between the wife of the Landlord and his son
is not cordial, and the son of the Landlord is not residing with
him in the same premises. Therefore, the need sought in the
eviction petition is only a ruse to evict the Tenant from the
tenanted premises so that the same can be let out to some other
person at a higher rate.
c) that the landlord has alternate accommodation as many other
portions in the building which fell vacant after the earlier
eviction petition was withdrawn on 31.03.2015 and before the
institution of the instant eviction petition on 02.04.2018 could
have been given by the Landlord to his son for starting his
business.
d) that the Landlord has not come before this Court with clean
hands inasmuch as he has concocted the documents to show that
the Landlord and his son are residing in the same premises, i.e.
G-15 Hauz Khas.
10. As far as the first ground of the Tenant is concerned, the Landlord has
filed the earlier eviction petition contending that he is running a shop just
adjacent to the tenanted premises and he requires the tenanted premises for
expanding his business. The learned Rent Controller vide Order dated
09.10.2013 granted leave to defend to the Tenant holding that it has to be
proven as to whether the relationship between the Landlord and his son are
so cordial that they can conduct a business together and further it has to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
tested as to whether the place which is available to the Landlord is sufficient
or not for carrying out the business. The said eviction petition was
withdrawn on 31.03.2015. The learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord
is correct in contending that the son of the Landlord got a job at a private
firm in Noida and the earlier eviction petition was withdrawn on 31.03.2015,
i.e. after about one-and-a-half years from the date of grant of leave to
defend, as the purpose for which the said eviction petition was filed no
longer survived. It is contended that the son of the Landlord left his job due
to poor health and that the tenanted premises is required by the Lanlord so
that he can establish his son.
11. The instant eviction petition has been instituted by the Landlord so
that he can establish his son by opening a Bar-be-cue shop in the tenanted
premises, unlike the earlier eviction petition which had been filed for
additional accommodation. The instant eviction petition has been filed on
the ground that the Landlord wants to establish his son by setting up a Bar-
be-cue shop in the tenanted premises. The consideration in both the cases are
different and, therefore, it is not necessary for the Landlord to be called to
the witness box to ascertain as to whether the relationship between him and
his son is cordial or not. Further, documents have been produced by the
Landlord to show that his son was removed from his job and there is no
necessity to disbelieve the said statement. It is not the case of the Tenant that
the son of the Landlord, Gurmeet Singh, is continuing in the job even after
2016. Just by stating that the letter dated 16.04.2016, given by SARVA
Servicescape Pvt. Ltd. (the employer of Gurmeet Singh) stating that
Gurmeet Singh is no longer working with SARVA Servicescape Pvt. Ltd.,
cannot be believed, is no ground to grant leave to defend to the Tenant.
Some material ought to have been given by the Tenant to demonstrate that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
the son of the Landlord was continuing in the same job even after 2016, in
which case the Court would have granted leave to defend to the Tenant. Just
stating that Gurmeet Singh is still working at RZ-24, 21, Gali No.11,
Vashisht Park, New Delhi, is not sufficient for grant of leave to defend
without producing any documents to substantiate the same.
12. The Apex Court in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5
SCC 397, 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
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."
13. The need of the Landlord to establish his son, even when the
relationship between his son and his second wife are strained, cannot be said
to be not bona fide and in fact it is the moral obligation of a father to
establish his son and settle him in life. It is also well-settled that in case the
Landlord does not use the tenanted premises for the purpose of opening a
Bar-be-cue shop for his son, it is always open for the Tenant to invoke
Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, to get back the possession
of the tenanted premises. Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,
affords adequate protection to the Tenant against unscrupulous landlords
who get the tenanted premises vacated on the false premise that the property
is required for their bona fide need or for the need of other persons who are
dependent on the landlord.
14. From the facts of this case it is evident that the landlord/Respondent is
the owner of several commercial properties, many of which are already on
rent. It is the specific case of the Landlord that only the tenanted premises is
suitable for opening a Bar-be-cue shop, as it is the only premises on the
ground floor. If not for these averments, the present case would have been a
fit case for granting leave to defend, especially in view of the fact that many
of the leases of the other commercial properties had expired/were renewed in
the recent past. Any of these shops/commercial properties could have been
given to his son - Gurmeet Singh, but were not given because only the
tenanted premises, which is on the ground floor, was suitable for the
proposed Bar-be-cue business. Therefore, if it is found that the
Respondent/Landlord is using the tenanted premises for any reason other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
than running a Bar-be-cue shop, he would be liable to return the possession
of the tenanted premises to the Tenant.
15. The next ground raised by the Tenant is that the Landlord has given
his son up for adoption to his sister and her husband, Dhanwant Singh. The
Tenant has relied upon a letter dated 12.07.2006 written by Dhanwant Singh
to the Principal of Guru Harkishan Public School wherein he has stated that
Gurmeet Singh is his son. This Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v. Deepika
Verma, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12847, had defined what constituted as a
'dependent' in terms of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
" 12. Customarily or in common parlance a dependent
would be defined as any person who is reliant on
another either for financial or physical support for
sustenance of life. It is pertinent to note that the word
dependent or as to what constitutes a family has
nowhere been defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Rather, the legislators consciously and deliberately
have used the words "any member of family dependent
on the landlord" instead of defining a clear degree of
relations so as to construe a wider meaning to the
aforesaid words as man is a social creature and part of
a complex societal system involving myriad of relations
from which he cannot be isolated. It is significant to
understand that the dependency is not restricted to
financial or physical but will also include emotional
reliance on another person. Reliance in this regard is
placed on the findings of this court in Jhalani Tools
(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. B.K. Soni; AIR 1994 Delhi 167,
wherein the court observed that the social set up of our
society is such where a married daughter continues to
enjoy a place of pride in her maternal home and
therefore while considering the requirement of the
landlord her married daughter and her expected visits
cannot be lost sight of. Similarly in Sain Dass v.
Madan Lal; 1972 Ren CJ (SN) 8 (Delhi), this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
has acknowledged that the word "himself" has to be
construed to mean "himself" as cohabiting with his
family members with whom he is normally accustomed
to live. Therefore, contrary to the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner financial or physical
incapacitation cannot be the sole premises for
determining dependency on another.
13. The Honorable Supreme Court in Corporation of
the City of Nagpur v. The Nagpur Handloom Cloth
Market Co. Ltd., AIR (1963) SC 1192 while
interpreting the word "Family" observed as under:
"But the expression „family‟ has according to
the contest in which it occurs, a variable
connotation. It does not in the setting of the
rules postulate the existence of relationship
either of blood or by marriage between the
persons residing in the tenement Even a single
person may be regarded as a family, and a
master and servant would also be so
regarded."
14. As it crystallizes from the aforesaid the word
dependent cannot be constructed in a narrow and
literal manner. The same have to be interpreted
judiciously keeping in mind the intent of the legislators.
As discussed above the words used under S.14(1)(e),
are "any member of family dependent on him" which
would include the daughter in law who in the instant
matter is dependent on her mother in law/landlady
(respondent herein) and on account of sharing of
residence both the daughter in law and the respondent
are physically, emotionally and financially inter-
dependent. "
16. A perusal of all the school records shows that the name of the
Landlord is mentioned as the father of Gurmeet Singh and the name of
Dhanwant Singh is mentioned as a guardian of Grumeet Singh. The bank
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
documents filed along with the eviction petition shows that the school fee of
Gurmeet Singh was being paid by the Landlord. Nothing has been filed to
show that Gurmeet Singh was adopted by Dhanwant Singh. Just because in
the letter dated 12.07.2006 Dhanwant Singh has described himself as the
father of Gurmeet Singh does not, in any way, raise a triable issue in the face
of overwhelming documents which are on record wherein the Landlord is
being shown as the father of Gurmeet Singh. Just because the relationship
between the wife of the Landlord and his son has soured and the son of the
Landlord is living separately, it would not lead to the inference that the
Landlord is not obliged to ensure that his son gets settled. For this purpose, it
is not necessary to bring the Landlord to the witness box.
17. The averment of the Tenant that the Landlord has not come with clean
hands before this Court, and that the documents, i.e. Aadhaar Card, Driver's
Licence, etc. have been concocted just to show that Gurmeet Singh resides
with the Landlord, also does not raise any triable issue. It is further to be
noted that these documents have been tested by the learned Rent Controller
in the inquiry conducted by him and all the documents have been found to be
genuine.
18. The contention of the Tenant that after withdrawal of the earlier
eviction petition on 31.03.2015 and before instituting the instant eviction
petition, other portions of the building have been given on rent to other
tenants by the Landlord and that the Landlord could have used any of those
portions for establishing his son, also does not raise any triable issue. As
stated in the eviction petition, the son of the Landlord wants to start a Bar-
be-cue shop. The tenanted premises is situated on the ground floor of the
front lane and is accessible to both commercial and private vehicles.
Therefore, the tenanted premises is most suitable for running a Bar-be-cue
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
shop.
19. 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.
20. 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 of establishing a
business to the landlord and advise him as to what he should do and what he
should not do. The relevant portion of the aforementioned judgment has
been reproduced as follows :
"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
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
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)
21. Similarly, this Court in Anil Jain v. Bhagwan Shankar Khanna, 2014
SCC OnLine Del 3855, has held as follows :
"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."
22. Flowing from 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 on eviction. In the instant case, the son of
the Landlord is currently unemployed, has no source of income and is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:14.07.2022
13:29:17
dependent on his father. Therefore, it cannot be said that the requirement of
the Landlord is not bona-fide.
23. 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 dated 07.03.2019, passed
by the learned SCJ-cum-Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi,
in RC/ARC No.17/2018, does not require any interference from this Court.
24. 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
