Santosh Arora v. Sunil Dhupar and Another

1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/landlord impugning the order dated 23.08.2023 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"] passed by learned ARC-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., two offices, measuring about 11.[3] x 13 and

21.13 alongwith two toilets and one pantry on second floor of property bearing no. 1E/I[5], Jhandelwalan, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "demised premises"] wherein the Application for Leave to Defend/Contest filed by the Respondents/tenants was allowed.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord has drawn attention of the Court to the Impugned order, more specifically to paragraph 11 and 12, to submit that the only findings in the Impugned Order were with respect to the ownership of the premises and bona fide of the landlord. 2.[1] Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord further submits that so far as concerns the aspect of ownership of the Petitioner/landlord that the Petitioner/landlord is the wife of one of the original owners of the subject premises. The subject premises was owned by three brothers including the husband of the Petitioner and after his death, the subject premises has devolved upon her by virtue of a family settlement agreement dated 16.09.2020 [hereinafter referred to as “MOFS”]. 2.[2] Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord further submits that although the family settlement agreement was on record, the learned Trial Court has given a finding that because Schedule B of the MOFS was not placed on record, the ownership was not proved. 2.[3] Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord seeks to rely upon the pleadings of the Respondents/tenants in this regard more specifically to his Application for leave to defend wherein the Respondents/tenants has admitted that the Petitioner/landlord is the owner of the subject premises. The relevant extract is set out below: “(d) That admittedly the property was owned jointly by three brothers namely Late Om Prak.ash, Brij Mohan and Surinder Mohan Arora and after their demise, the proportionate shares in property devolves into their LRs.” 2.[4] Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord further submits that it is settled law that the veracity of a family settlement cannot be challenged in the manner as has been sought to be done [See: Kale & Ors. vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors.[1] ]. She submits that the only other finding in the Impugned Order is on the bona fide need of the Petitioner/landlord. 2.[5] Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord submits that the need of the Petitioner/landlord as set out in the Eviction Petition is for herself and her son and they do not have any other commercial property except the subject premises for her son to set up a travel agency.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/tenants, on the other hand, limits his submission before this Court to the aspect of bona fide need. He submits that the Respondents/tenants had in its leave to defend Application pointed out that the requirement of the Petitioner/landlord is not for the son of the Petitioner/landlord but for the company under the name M/s Heritage Holidays Private Limited in which the son of the Petitioner/landlord is stated to be a Director. He submits that in the first instance, the need for a company cannot be a bona fide need. In addition, he submits that the company has several other properties from which it does its business. He relies on the Rejoinder to the leave to defend Application wherein two additional properties are mentioned including at Vasant Vihar and DLF City, Gurgaon. He submits that the bona fide need of the Petitioner/landlord could be satisfied from the same.

4. Arguments have been substantially heard in the matter.

5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the parties submit that the matter can be disposed of, limiting the adjudication before the learned Trial Court to the aspect of bona fide need.

6. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is modified to the extent that the triable issue that has been raised by the Respondents/tenants on the aspect of bona fide need of the Petitioner/landlord shall be the only issue examined by the learned Trial Court.

7. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that they will not take any unnecessary adjournments before the learned Trial Court and will endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The parties are bound down by the statements made by their Counsel before the Court made today.

8. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. All rights and contentions of both the parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Trial Court on the limited aspect as has been noted above.