Chaman Lal Nayyar v. Daya Chand

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 28, 2017 ‗M' (Corrected & released on 6th October, 2017)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 28th July, 2017 + RC.REV. No.301/2016, CMNo.20843/2016, CM No.20581/2017 and CM.No.26648/2017 (u/S 151 CPC). CHAMAN LAL NAYYAR .... Petitioner Through: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Mr. Amit Prakash Shahi and Ms. Ruchika Mittal, Advs. Versus DAYA CHAND …...Respondent Through: Mr. Ramkishan Saini, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order (dated 1st February, 2016 in E No.109/08 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi) of eviction, after full trial, of the petitioner/tenant from shop situated on the ground floor of property bearing Private No.1, forming part of the property bearing Municipal No.1865-A, Ram Lal Asha Ram Market, Opposite Dharam Bhawan, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, in a petition for eviction filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 2. This petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued and Trial Court record requisitioned and vide order dated 27th May, 2016 the execution of the order of eviction was stayed. 3. The matter was listed on 21st July, 2017 when adjournment was sought on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant; observing that the petitioner/tenant, after obtaining stay of the order of eviction could not avoid hearing, the interim order was vacated and the petition posted for hearing on 11th December, 2017. The petitioner/tenant has filed CM.No.26648/2017 for restoration of the interim order and which has come up today. The counsel for the respondent/landlord appears on advance notice and with the consent of the counsels, the Rent Control Revision Petition itself is taken up for hearing today. Resultantly the date of 11th December, 2017 is cancelled. 4. The counsels have been heard. 5. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant, during his arguments, has not disputed that the respondent/landlord is the owner of the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner and that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. Thus the discussion hereinafter will be confined to the aspects of, whether the respondent/landlord bona fide requires the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant and whether the respondent/landlord has any other alternate suitable premises available to him to fulfil his requirement. 6. Before discussing the said aspect, another argument of the counsel for the petitioner/tenant may be taken note of. 7. It is argued that the premises in tenancy of the petitioner was let out to the petitioner by the father of the respondent/landlord decades ago and the petitioner has been carrying on his business therefrom and should not be dispossessed. 8. The aforesaid argument is of no relevance to the adjudication. The Delhi Rent Act does not contain a concept of comparative hardship and the mere fact that the petitioner has been a tenant in the shop for over half a century, paying a meagre rent of Rs.100 per month, would not disentitle the respondent/landlord if a ground of eviction under the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Rent Act has accrued to him, from evicting the petitioner. Under the Rent Act, the protection of the petitioner from eviction, notwithstanding a contract or any other law to the contrary, is subject to right of the landlord to claim eviction if the Controller is satisfied of a ground of eviction having accrued. 9. The requirement pleaded by the respondent/landlord in the petition for eviction filed over nine years back in the year 2008 is (i) that the respondent/landlord was working in Northern Regional Power Committee and retired on 31st July, 2006 and after retirement became jobless and without any activity resulting in sickness and disturbance of peace of mind and with a meagre pension of approximately Rs.5000/- per month which is not sufficient to meet the