Gurinder Singh v. Jasjit Kaur

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 27.02.2015 whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner was dismissed. Petitioner also impugns order dated 20.03.2017 whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner impugning the said order was also dismissed.

2. Subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent seeking eviction of the petitioner from shop bearing No.704B/2, ground floor, Kabul Nagar, G.T.Road, Shahdara, Delhi, more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the eviction petition.

3. The need as mentioned in the eviction petition was that the respondent has four sons besides three daughters. Three of the sons of the respondent namely Sh. Charanjit Singh, Sh. Parminder Singh and Sh. Mandeep Singh are well settled in their respective businesses and the daughters are also happily married and well settled with their respective husbands. It was contended that the fourth son Sh. Veerinder Singh Ahluwalia was looking after the respondent. He had retired from service in the year 2006 and got enrolled himself with the Bar Council of Delhi and started his practice as an advocate. It is contended that Sh.Veerinder Singh did not have any chamber in Court or any other reasonable suitable office space anywhere in Delhi except the property in question and as such the respondent wanted the tenanted premises so that her son Veerinder Singh Ahluwalia could open his office and practice therefrom.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only need projected in the eviction petition is that Sh.Veerinder Singh needs the tenanted premises to open his office.

5. As noticed hereinabove, Sh.Veerinder Singh has since expired and the only need as propounded in the petition does not survive any further.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks to rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in D.Sasi Kumar vs. Soundararajan, (2019) 9 SCC 282 to contend that the Court has to consider the need as propounded on the date of filing of the eviction petition and not subsequently.

7. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in D. Sasi Kumar vs. Soundararajan (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court in the said case while holding that the bonafide necessity has to be considered on the date of the petition further noted that there was no material on record to show that the need as pleaded at the time of filing of the eviction petition did not subsist at that time.

8. In this case as is noticed from the eviction petition the only need propounded is that for opening an office of Sh.Veerinder Singh Ahluwalia. It is also on record that Sh.Veerinder Singh Ahluwalia has since expired.

9. In this case since the only necessity propounded was that to open an office for the elder son of the respondent, who has since expired, in view the need does not survive.

10. Reference may also be had to Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act which reads as under:- “19. Recovery of possession for occupation and re-entry. (1) Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises from the tenant in pursuance of an order made under clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 [or under sections 14A, 14B, 14C, 148 and 21], the landlord shall not, except with the permission of the Controller, obtained in the prescribed manner, re-let the whole or any part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining such possession, and in granting such permission, the Controller may direct the landlord to put such evicted tenant in possession of the premises. (2) Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises as aforesaid and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the premises having been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let to any person other than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller under sub-section (1) or the possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the Controller to be bona fide, the Controller may, on an application made on him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit.”

11. In terms of Section 19 where a landlord recovers possession of any premises from the tenant pursuant to an order inter-alia under Section 14(1)(e), landlord has to, within two months of obtaining such possession, occupy the said premises for the purposes for which eviction was sought.

12. Admittedly in the present case, since Sh.Veerinder Singh Ahluwalia has expired, respondent landlord cannot comply with the provisions of Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. If the respondent landlord does not comply with the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant is entitled to seek recovery of possession for occupation and re-entry.

13. In view of the above, I am of the view that the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) does not survive and the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed.

14. Accordingly, in view of the above, impugned dated 27.02.2015 and order dated 20.03.2017 are set aside. The Revision Petition is allowed and consequently the eviction petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.

15. It is clarified that this order will not come in the way of the respondent in filing a fresh eviction petition on a different ground of bonafide necessity, if any.