Shakuntala Devi & Ors. v. Subhash

1. On 28.8.2014, when this three year old matter of the year 2011 came up for hearing, on behalf of the petitioners/tenants no arguments were addressed and consequently the interim order staying operation of the impugned judgment dated 7.3.2011 was vacated and the matter was listed on 13.2.2015. Now this application is moved stating that the interim order be again passed. Counsel for the petitioners/tenants has however argued the main petition and I have therefore heard the counsel for the petitioners/tenants at his request on merits with respect to the main petition. 2014:DHC:4664 The main petition impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7.3.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenants and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short ‘the Act’) with respect to one shop on the ground floor admeasuring 90 sq. ft. in the property bearing Municipal no. A-208, Ground Floor, Shashtri Nagar, Main Road, Delhi-52 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the eviction petition.

2. Before me, three grounds are urged on behalf of the petitioners/tenants to impugn the judgment dismissing the leave to defend application:-

(i) The petition is not bonafide because the petition in fact has been filed simply to get the rent increased.

(ii) The respondent is not the owner/landlord of the suit premises.

(iii) The respondent/landlord is already carrying on business with his other son in a side lane of the same property, and therefore the need is not bonafide.

3. Let me first take up the aspect with respect to the bonafide need because the respondent/landlord has sought eviction from the tenanted shop not for carrying on his own business and that of the other son with whom he is clearly carrying on his business from the side lane of the property, but the tenanted premises are pleaded to be bonafidely required for opening of a stationary shop for the eldest/other son of the respondent/landlord. The Additional Rent Controller has observed that in fact the respondent/landlord could have required the tenanted premises for his own need also because not only the premises from where the landlord is presently carrying on business are situated in a side lane but also the premises from where the business is being carried on are not owned by the respondent/landlord and has been taken by him on tenancy. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja in Civil Appeal No.5513/2014, decided on 8.5.2014: 210 (2014) DLT 58 (SC) has held that if the landlord wants to carry on his business from a more suitable location on the main road, then, tenants cannot dictate that landlords should not do so. Therefore, in fact, the bonafide necessity eviction petition was maintainable even for the need of the respondent/landlord, and which in any case is only for the need of opening of a stationary shop by the eldest son, and the pleadings show that there is no dispute in the leave to defend application or before this Court that the eldest son for whom the tenanted premises are required is carrying on some other business and therefore does not want the tenanted premises for opening of a stationary shop. Hence the respondent/landlord was more than justified in seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants for bonafide need.

4. On the aspect that respondent is not the owner/landlord of the premises, the Additional Rent Controller has referred to the fact that the suit premises have been purchased by the respondent/landlord by means of a sale deed dated 6.9.2004. Petitioners/tenants sought to argue by referring to the directions contained in the sale deed that the tenanted premises are not the subject matter of the sale deed, however, I find this argument to be totally frivolous because if seller/mother does not dispute the factum that the suit property has been sold to the respondent/landlord/son, the petitioners/tenants would have no locus standi to challenge the sale deed. This defence is only a malafide defence not having any substance and does not raise a triable issue.

5. The last aspect which is urged is that the respondent/landlord wants to increase the rent and therefore the eviction petition is pleaded not to be bonafide. This argument is once again only a misconceived argument because once it is proved that the respondent/landlord has a bonafide need, and which bonafide need is for the eldest son to open a stationary shop (and even the respondent/landlord may want the premises for his own need because he is not only carrying on the business in the side lane but that too in a rented premises) and hence clearly the bonafide need is established and once the bonafide need is established, the stand of the landlord seeking increase of rent cannot mean that bonafide need if otherwise established can vanish merely because there is a demand for increase of rent, and which stand of the petitioner in any case is pleaded to be false by the respondent/landlord.

6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. At the time of dismissing of the petition interim order passed by this Court on 25.11.2011 fixing interim user charges of Rs.3000/- per month from the date of the eviction order are confirmed. Next date of 13.2.2015 stands cancelled.

SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib