Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF DIVYA GUPTA
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No. 617/2024
In the matter of: -
Mrs. Bandana Kumari
W/o Sh. Rajan Chaudhary
R/o B-10, Vikram Nagar, First Floor
Kotla Firoz Shah, New Delhi-110007.
Sh. Rajan Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Kameshwar Chaudhary
R/o B-10, Vikram Nagar,
First Floor, Kotla Firoz Shah
New Delhi-110007. ……………. Petitioners
Versus
Usha Wool Shop
Through its Partner
Sh. Ashok Jain S/o Late Sh. Jai Chand Rai Jain
Shop No. 10A, Part Property of M/s Laxmi Chand
Jaipuriya Spinning & Weaving Mills,
Kolhapur Road, Subzi Mandi,
Delhi-110007. ……………. Respondent
ORDER
1. The application under consideration is the one filed by the
respondent/tenant u/s 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act (
in short
“DRC Act”) seeking leave to contest against the eviction
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 1/26
-- 1 of 26 --
petition filed by the petitioners/landlords under Section 14(1)
(e) with section 25(B) of DRC Act for seeking eviction of
tenant/respondent, in respect of the property/shop bearing No.
6926-33/ 10A, Ground floor, part of Property of M/S Laxmi
Chand Jaipuria Spinning and weaving Mills, Kolhapur Road,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007, as shown in red color in site plan
annexed with petition (
hereinafter referred as “tenanted
premises”).
THE PETITION: -
2. Briefly stated, the facts of petition as alleged by petitioners are
such,
a. That petitioner no. 1 is the wife of petitioner no. 2. The
petitioners are the co-owners of the property in
question/tenanted premises. That M/s Raghunath Builders
Pvt. Ltd. was the owner of the subject property No. 6926-
33/10 A, Ground Floor, part of property of M/s Laxmi
Chand Jaipuria Spinning and weaving Mills, Kolhapur Road,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 and the respondent was the
tenant under the said property in portion more specifically
shown in red color in the site plan attached with the petition.
b. That M/S Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale
deed dated 25.10.2019 sold the aforesaid property to the
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 2/26
-- 2 of 26 --
petitioners and also handed over notional possession of the
said property with effect from 25.10.2019. Hence, the
petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 became the sole and
absolute owner of the said property.
c. That the petitioners vide notice dated 23.11.2019 intimated
the respondent about purchase the tenanted premises and
further notified that respondent should attorn tenancy in
favour of petitioners and start paying the monthly rent i.e.
amount @ Rs. 600/- per month to the petitioners. That the
respondent has not paid the rent despite receipt of the notice
nor has he tendered any rent to the petitioners till date. The
petitioners have filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of
DRC Act which is pending adjudication.
d. That tenanted premises is required by the petitioners for their
bonafide needs and requirement. That the daughter of the
petitioners namely, Ms. Ridhima Chaudhary is pursuing her
studies and now entered into final year of Graduation Course
and currently unemployed. She has opted for Math (H) and
wish to open her own business of running Tuitions
Centres/Coaching etc. from tenanted premises.
e. That tenanted premises is situated in a locality which is most
suitable to run such business as the shop is situated in the
Delhi University Area where there are many students opting
for tuitions of the demanding subject i.e. Math. The
daughter of the petitioner is Ranked 1 in her subject/class
and would finish her studies in July 2025. It is stated that the
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 3/26
-- 3 of 26 --
said daughter is already taking tuitions etc. but has no space
to run it on large scale.
f. Further that additionally, the petitioner no. 1 and her
husband/petitioner no. 2 are the practicing lawyers and they
are jointly carrying out their profession from Chamber No.
408A/420A, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The petitioners do not
have any other place to run their Lawyers Office. That the
Chambers at Tis Hazari Corts are not conducive to work at
late hours as there are no amenities available after 6 O’
clock. None of the Clients wish to visit Tis Hazari during the
evening hours. The tenanted premises is situated in a market
place where one of the stations of Delhi Metro is proposed to
be opened very soon. The said place would conveniently
serve the purpose of an advocate’s office as the same is
centrally located place from courts at Rohini and Tis Hazari.
g. That the petitioners have no other commercial property from
where they may run their lawyer’s office or their daughter
may run the Tuition Centre.
h. The petitioners reside in a small accommodation having one
bed room and Drawing/Dining Space at Vikram Nagar,
Kotla Firoz Shah, New Delhi, and have no other place either
to reside or do their business.
i. That there is no other reasonable suitable accommodation
available to the petitioners to fulfil the bonafide need of
themselves and their family members who are dependent
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 4/26
-- 4 of 26 --
upon them for the purpose of commercial accommodation in
Delhi.
3. For this need of petitioners as well as of their daughter, Ms.
Ridhima Chaudhary, eviction of respondent is prayed for under
section 14(1)(e) DRC Act.
APPLICATION SEEKING FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND: -
4. Summons were served upon the respondent and leave to defend
application with documents along with separate detailed
affidavit was filed by Sh. Ashok Jain stating that he is one of its
partners of respondent firm and is competent to file, sign and
verify the present leave to defend application, swear affidavit,
engage advocate and to do all other necessary acts and things
for defending the eviction petition. He sought leave to defend
mainly on the ground that the petitioners have alternate
accommodations available and that the need projected by them
is not bonafide. It is briefly stated that,
a) The petitioners were aware of the fact that the respondent is
an old tenant in the property. That the respondent has already
paid rent to M/S Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. till
31.03.2020 against receipt and prior to that also the same
was tendered and paid and when the landlord refused to
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 5/26
-- 5 of 26 --
receive the rent the same was deposited under Section 27 of
the DRC Act. That neither the landlord M/s Raghunath
Builders Pvt. Ltd. informed of transfer of the property in
dispute nor the petitioners. There is no attornment of the
relationship between the parties. There is no relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties.
b) None of the alleged family members mentioned in the
petition are dependent upon the petitioners either financially
or for the purpose of accommodation.
c) The petitioners are the practicing lawyers and they are
jointly carrying out their profession from Chamber No. 408
A, 409A and 420A, at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The
petitioners are having a big chamber in lawyer’s block, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi. The chambers are allowed to be
opened till 10:00 PM at least and further the chambers are
having all facilities of light, AC, office furniture, sitting
place for staff and clients etc. Tis Hazari Courts are situated
in heart of the city and is easily approachable and has
connectivity of Metro and road transport etc., whereas the
shop in dispute is having no such facilities. Even the buses
are not allowed to pass from the said road. There is no
parking space in or around the shop in dispute whereas the
Tis Hazari Courts has facility of parking and that parking is
free for all concerned.
d) The property bearing no. B-10, Vikram Nagar, Firoz Shah
Kotla, New Delhi is a three storied building and is a big
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 6/26
-- 6 of 26 --
property. On each of the floors of the said property there are
two bedrooms, one drawing room, one drawing room,
kitchen and bath room. The said property is entirely with the
petitioners and is more than sufficient taking into
consideration the present and future needs of the petitioners,
family members etc. The accommodation available with the
petitioners is sufficient and suitable for the petitioners and
their family members. On the ground floor of the said
property there is the office of the petitioners while the first
floor of the same is being used as a residence of the
petitioners and their family. The second floor is lying vacant
and surplus with the petitioners.
e) The petitioners have not filed complete and correct site plan
of the property. The respondent is filing a complete and
correct site plan of the property. That the petitioners have
also not filed any plan of the property no. B-10, Vikram
Nagar, First Floor, Kotla Firoz Shah, New Delhi-110001.
f) The present case is a case of additional and alternative
accommodation and is not a case of immediate need of the
petitioners.
g) The daughter of the petitioners has no intentions to run any
tuition class as she is still studying.
5. Upon these grounds, the respondent prayed that there exist
triable issues that would disentitle the petitioners from
obtaining an eviction order in respect of tenanted premises.
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 7/26
-- 7 of 26 --
THE REPLY
6. Reply to leave to defend application has been filed by the
petitioners along with supporting affidavit wherein they have
denied that the present petition is based on false and frivolous
grounds and does not contain the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e)
of DRC Act. The petitioners denied all the allegations and
assertions made in leave to defend application and affidavit. It
is further specifically averred in para no. 4 of counter affidavit
that petitioners along with their son and daughter are residing in
one room, one drawing/dining room at first floor of property at
Vikram Nagar. That petitioners do no have an inch of space
available to provide separate rooms to children. Further that
second and ground floor of property at Vikram Nagar is in
occupation of original owner, i.e. Legal heirs of Smt. Tulsi
Devi/Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Gulyani.
THE REJOINDER
7. Rejoinder filed by the respondent to the reply of leave to defend
application. In Counter affidavit, respondent has simply denied
without any evasive denial, the averments of petitioners made in
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 8/26
-- 8 of 26 --
para no. 4 of counter affidavit filed with reply as mentioned
above.
ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the records of the case very carefully.
THE LAW
9. The present petition for eviction is under clause (e) of proviso
to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 which after
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Satyawati Sharma
Versus Union of India”, on 16.04.2008 reads as under: -
“14. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other law or contract, no order or
decree for the recovery of possession of any premises
shall be made by any court or Controller in favor of the
landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application
made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order
for the recovery of possession of the premises on one
or more of the following grounds only, namely: -
* * *
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the
landlord for occupation for himself or for any member
of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner
thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the
premises are held and that the landlord or such person
has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.”
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 9/26
-- 9 of 26 --
10. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section
14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish the
following ingredients: -
(i) That he is the owner of the tenanted shop and there
exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and
the respondent.
(ii) That tenanted shop is required bonafide by the
petitioner for himself or for any member of his family
dependent upon him.
(iii) That the petitioner does not have any other alternate,
reasonable and suitable accommodation.
11. The facts and circumstances of the present case are being
analyzed hereunder keeping in view the principle of law as
discussed above.
I. Ownership of the petitioners over the tenanted premises as
well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the
petitioners and the respondent.
12. The case of petitioners is that the petitioners are the co-owners
of the property in question/tenanted premises. as purchased
from M/s Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. vide registered sale
deed dated 25.10.2019. That respondent is an old tenant of
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 10/26
-- 10 of 26 --
erstwhile owner. That after purchase of said property,
petitioners became landlords/owners of tenanted premises. That
vide notice dated 23.11.2019, petitioners had intimated the
respondent regarding purchase of the said property.
13. Petitioners have relied upon copy of registered sale deed dated
09.10.2019 in favour of petitioners along with site plan.
14. It is pertinent to note that though objection has been taken by
respondent that there is no landlord tenant relationship between
petitioners and respondent, however, in the leave to defend
itself, the respondent has admitted himself to be tenant of
erstwhile owner of the said property. The only objection taken
by respondent is that neither the original landlord M/s
Raghunath Builders Pvt. Ltd. informed of transfer of the
property in dispute nor the petitioners and there is no
attornment of the relationship between the parties.
15. It is observed that legal preposition is very well settled that
once a tenant is always a tenant. Further law of estoppel stops
tenant from disputing the title of the landlord. Therefore,
relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and
the respondents is not in question in any manner.
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 11/26
-- 11 of 26 --
16. It is settled preposition that if the ownership of property is
acquired by a person, the landlordship devolves upon the said
person by way of law and there is no requirement of any
attornment. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in J.C. Mehra Vs.
Smt. Kusum Gupta, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 31.
17. It has been held in Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan
Sulaiman (2002) 6 SCC 1, Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta Vs.
Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul (1997) 5 SCC 329 and Mohar Singh
Vs. Devi Charan (1988) 3 SCC 63 that on transfer of tenanted
premises by the landlord, the transferee automatically becomes
the landlord of the tenant by operation of law and the coming
into being of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the
transferee and tenant is not dependent upon any overt act on the
part of the tenant.
18. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, the landlord-
tenant relationship between the petitioners and respondent is
duly proved.
19. Thus, there is no triable issue with respect to ownership of
petitioners and landlord-tenant relationship between petitioners
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 12/26
-- 12 of 26 --
and respondent.
II. Bonafide requirement of the petitioners:
20. The petitioners have stated in the petition that the tenanted
premises is required bonafidely by the petitioners/landlords for
the bonafide need of their daughter Ms. Ridhima Chaudhary
who is stated to have entered into final year of Graduation
Course and currently unemployed. That she has opted for Math
(H) and wish to open her own business of running Tuitions
Centres/Coaching etc. from tenanted premises. It is further the
case of petitioners that tenanted premises is also required for
opening lawyers’ office by petitioners who are practicing
advocates.
21. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of respondent that
intention of petitioner is not bonafide as daughter of petitioners
is still studying. However, petitioners have clearly mentioned
that daughter is in final year and already giving tuitions. Further
argued on behalf of respondent that daughter is not dependent
upon petitioners for accommodation.
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 13/26
-- 13 of 26 --
22. However, it is a settled position that in Indian societal set up
parents are under social obligation to settle their children.
Reliance is placed upon case titled “Joginder Pal Singh Vs.
Nawal Kishore Behl” AIR (2002) SC 2256, the Hon’ble Court
has held that:
“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 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 inter-
relation for identify nexus between such person and
the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the
first query. Applying the overlaid 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.”
23. Another contention raised on behalf of respondent is that the
daughter of the petitioners has no intentions to run any tuition
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 14/26
-- 14 of 26 --
class as she is still studying. However, it is observed that said
apprehension is already taken care of in the DRC Act itself by
our legislative forefathers while enacting the laws who have
already considered possibility of misuse in the hands of
unscrupulous landlords and thereby inserted Section 19 of DRC
Act which reads as follows: -
"Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises 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, relet to any person than the evicted tenant without
obtaining the permission of the Controller such tenant can be put
back to the premises or can be paid such compensation as the
Controller thinks fit."
24. Hence, if the requirement of landlord is not bonafide and if a
landlord abuses the process of the court, obtains an order of
eviction, subsequently lets out the property or sells the same,
the tenant can always apply for restitution under section 19 of
the DRC Act.
25. In another case titled as ‘Sudesh Kumari Soni & Anr. v. Smt.
Prabha Khanna & Anr.’ RC Rev. No. 44/2004 decided on
03.10.2008 the Hon’ble High Court has observed that:
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 15/26
-- 15 of 26 --
“The suitability has to be seen from the convenience of
the landlord and his family members and on the basis of
circumstances, including their profession, vocation, style
of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best
judge of his need.”
26. It is further observed that the law is very well settled that the
requirement of the landlord is to be presumed as genuine and, in
this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam Vs Indersen
Dua dated 07.04.2022, wherein it was observed as follows: -
“……...when a landlord asserts that he requires his
building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller
shall not proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of
the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a
prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to
draw a presumption that requirement of the landlord is
bonafide……”.
27. Now in view of this legal position and present facts and
circumstances, it is observed that in the entire application for
leave to defend the respondent has failed to specifically plead
even a single word to deny the bonafide requirement of the
petitioners as stated in the eviction petition and on the other
hand petitioners have stated their bonafide need in a very
detailed manner, therefore, the presumption of genuiness of
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 16/26
-- 16 of 26 --
requirement has to be drawn in favour of petitioners only.
28. Thus, respondent has failed to raise any triable issue qua the
bonafide requirement of the petitioners.
III. The petitioners do not have any other alternate, reasonable
and suitable accommodation.
29. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that the petitioners do
not have any other reasonably suitable alternate commercial
accommodation in their ownership for intended purpose.
30. On the other hand, respondent has argued that the petitioners
are having a big chamber in lawyer’s block, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi and they are jointly carrying out their profession from
Chamber No. 408 A, 409A and 420A, at Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi. That same is not denied by petitioners.
31. However, it is pertinent to note that in para no. 18 A (ix) of
petition, petitioners have clearly disclosed that they are jointly
carrying out profession from chambers at Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi. The case set up by petitioners is that petitioners do not
have any other place to run their Lawyers Office and that the
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 17/26
-- 17 of 26 --
Chambers at Tis Hazari Corts are not conducive to work at late
hours as there are no amenities available after 6 O’ clock. None
of the Clients wish to visit Tis Hazari during the evening hours.
32. It is further specifically by petitioners in petition itself that the
tenanted premises is situated in a market place where one of the
stations of Delhi Metro is proposed to be opened very soon. The
said place would conveniently serve the purpose of an
advocate’s office as the same is centrally located place from
courts at Rohini and Tis Hazari. It is trite law that tenant cannot
decide the suitability for landlord. Further petitioners have
specified bonafide need of their daughter as well for starting her
coaching centre and further stated that tenanted premises is
most suitable for that purpose as same is situated in university
area.
33. Moreover, mere availability of other alternate accommodation
is itself not the decisive factor for denial of eviction proceedings
by the landlord, more so, since there are various factors like the
size, location, access, purpose, viability, safety concerns,
football, and/or like, amongst others which have/ are to be taken
into consideration while dealing with the aspect of availability
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 18/26
-- 18 of 26 --
of alternate suitable accommodation. Reliance is placed upon
case titled as Shiv Sarup Gupta v Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta
(1999) 6 SCC 222.
34. Even otherwise, it can be observed that it is not for the tenant
to dictate to the landlord that how he should meet or fulfill his
requirement. In this regard reference can be also made to the
judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled as Sudesh
Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT
652 it was observed that: -
“24. It is often said by courts that it is not for the
tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how
else he can adjust himself without getting
possession of the tenanted premises. While
deciding the question of bona fides of the
requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary
to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord
could have adjusted himself.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the
convenience of the landlord and his family
members and on the basis of the circumstances
including their profession, vocation, style of
living, habits and background. Landlord is the
best judge of his residential requirement”.
35. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999
SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that: -
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 19/26
-- 19 of 26 --
"14. The availability of an alternate
accommodation with the landlord i.e. an
accommodation other than the one in occupation
of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted
has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of
another accommodation, suitable and convenient
in all respects as the suit accommodation, may
have an adverse bearing on the finding as to
bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably
refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy
his alleged need. Availability of such
circumstance would enable the Court drawing an
inference that the need of the landlord was not a
felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was
not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another
principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section
(1) of Section 14 which speaks of non-
availability of any other reasonably suitable
residential accommodation to the landlord, would
not be satisfied. Wherever another residential
accommodation is shown to exist as available
than the court has to ask the landlord why he is
not occupying such other available
accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord
may convince the court that the alternate
residential accommodation though available is
still of no consequence as the same is not
reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which
the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating
objectively to exist. Needless to say, that an
alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the
claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable,
obviously in comparison with the suit
accommodation wherefrom the landlord is
seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the
landlord and his family members would be
relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of
the circumstances, the court may keep in view the
profession or vocation of the landlord and his
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 20/26
-- 20 of 26 --
family members, their style of living, their habits
and the background wherefrom they come.”
36. In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem
Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under: -
“It is settled position of law that the landlord is
best judge of his requirement for residential or
business purpose and he has got complete
freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v.
T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in
hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the
tenant from the suit premises for starting his
business as it was suitable and it cannot be
faulted.”
37. It is contended by respondent that site plan filed by petitioners
is not correct. No counter site plan has been placed on record by
the respondent. Reliance can be placed in this regard on
decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in “Satish Kumar
Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal, 2012 SCC Online Del 4447
(SLP © No. 27341/2012)”, wherein it has been held that,
“If a tenant does not file his site plan showing the site
plan filed by the owner is incorrect, then, the site plan
filed by the owner would be assumed to be true. In the
present matter also, no such site plan has been filed by
the respondent. Therefore, he has no right to question
the site plan filed by the landlord to be incorrect.
Hence, in view of the judgments and observations
made above, this contention of the respondent is vague
and untenable.”
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 21/26
-- 21 of 26 --
38. It is further argued on behalf of respondent that the petitioners
have not filed site plan of property bearing no. B-10, Vikram
Nagar, Firoz Shah Kotla, New Delhi which is a three storied
building and is a big property. On each of the floors of the said
property there are two bedrooms, one drawing room, one
drawing room, kitchen and bath room. The said property is
entirely with the petitioners and is more than sufficient taking
into consideration the present and future needs of the
petitioners, family members etc. On the ground floor of the said
property there is the office of the petitioners while the first floor
of the same is being used as a residence of the petitioners and
their family. The second floor is lying vacant and surplus with
the petitioners.
39. It is a settled position of law that tenant has no say and he
cannot decide what is suitable for petitioner and what is not.
Further it is observed that petitioners have clearly revealed in
the petition that aforesaid property is used for the purpose of
residence and that same is a small accommodation. In reply to
leave to defend, it is further submitted by petitioners that
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 22/26
-- 22 of 26 --
petitioners along with their son and daughter are residing in one
room, one drawing/dining room at first floor of property at
Vikram Nagar. That petitioners do not have an inch of space
available to provide separate rooms to children. Further that
second and ground floor of property at Vikram Nagar is in
occupation of original owner, i.e. Legal heirs of Smt. Tulsi
Devi/Late Sh. Bhagwan Das Gulyani. It is pertinent to note that
respondent has failed give any evasive denial to the said
submission. Further it is observed that petitioners were not
under duty to file site plan of property at Vikram Nagar as
mentioned above. Respondent has nowhere denied the
composition of family of petitioners.
40. Further, in the eviction petition, the landlord need not disclose
the alternate properties available to him if he is of the view that
the alternate properties are unsuitable for him. The eviction
petition is not a declaration or disclosure of all the immovable
assets of the landlord and then and the exercise of sifting
through the ones’ which are or could be deemed to be suitable
as alternate accommodation. For any property to be considered
alternately available, it has first to be available, i.e. in
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 23/26
-- 23 of 26 --
possession of the landlord and capable of being put to
immediate use; thereafter only the issue of its suitability for the
bona fide need arises. The landlord’s discretion and prerogative
in this regard cannot be questioned, except insofar as it is not
whimsical, ex facie or shockingly unreasonable. Reliance is
placed upon Babu Lal vs Atul Kumar & Anr. CRP NO. 147 of
2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
41. In view of the settled legal position, it is not for the respondent
to dictate to the petitioner that it should use some other
accommodation for its business, even if it is indeed available
with the petitioner. The tenanted premises belong to the
petitioner and it is for the petitioner to see whether it is suitable
for its requirement or not. It is the right of the petitioner to
choose a property which is going to be more profitable and
convenient for its business. If the tenanted premises is suitable
as per his needs, the petitioner has every right to possess the
said premises and the respondent cannot contend that the
petitioner should manage his affairs otherwise. While deciding
the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is quite
unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 24/26
-- 24 of 26 --
could have adjusted. In view of the above discussion, the
allegation of the respondents that the petitioner has alternative
suitable accommodations does not give rise to any triable issue.
42. Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that the petitioners need the
tenanted premises in question for purpose of setting up of
lawyers office as well as for their daughter to start her
coaching/tuitions centre and I am further satisfied that the
petitioners do not have any other alternate property available
with them to fulfill the said requirement.
43. After analysis of the present factual situation in backdrop of the
law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
respondent has failed to raise any triable issue in respect of
bonafide need of petitioners and alternate accommodation
available with the petitioners.
44.Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the need set up
by the landlords/petitioners is genuine and bonafide and there is
no alternate suitable accommodation available to them.
CONCLUSION
45. Hence, the present petition for eviction is allowed and an
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 25/26
-- 25 of 26 --
application for leave to defend stands disposed of accordingly
as dismissed. The Petitioners are held entitled to recover the
possession of property/shop bearing No. 6926-33/ 10A, Ground
floor, part of Property of M/S Laxmi Chand Jaipuria Spinning
and weaving Mills, Kolhapur Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-
110007, as shown in red color in the site plan annexed with
petition. However, the petitioners would not be entitled to
initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of
the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from
today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
46. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no
order as to costs.
47. File be consigned to record room.
(This order contains 26 pages and
each page has been signed by me)
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Divya Gupta)
Today i.e. on 18.02.2026 ARC-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
RC ARC No. 617/24 Bandana Kumari & Anr. Vs. Usha Wool Shop Page no. 26/26
-- 26 of 26 --