Rajinder Kaur Bhatia v. Raj Kumar

Order reserved."

¶3I have perused the Trial Court record and find the respondent/tenant to have, though not along with the leave to defend application filed on 9th October, 2015 but along with the rejoinder to the reply to the leave to defend application, having filed a photocopy of the electricity bill dated 19th October, 2015 in the name of Gurdeep Singh Bhatia of Shop No.8608, Ground Floor, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110007.

The counsel for the petitioner/landlady, on 11th January, 2018, as aforesaid, has admitted that her husband is the owner of the said property.

¶4The only question which remains for consideration is, whether the respondent/tenant is entitled to leave to defend for the reason of the petitioner/landlady, on 11th January, 2018, having admitted ownership of her husband of Shop No.8608, Ground Floor, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.

¶5Undoubtedly the petitioner/landlady in the petition for eviction did not disclose the said shop. However at the same time, the petitioner/landlady did not anywhere in the petition for eviction represent that her husband was not the owner of any other property. The respondent/tenant, in his application for leave to defend also did not mention the said shop and thus the occasion for the petitioner/landlady to take a stand with respect thereto in the reply to leave to defend application did not arise.

¶6Significantly, the respondent/tenant, in the leave to defend application, does not dispute that the husband of the petitioner/landlady who is now disclosed to be the owner of the aforesaid shop, was carrying on his business from one of the three shops on the front side of the property, in a shop wherein the respondent is a tenant.

¶7The question which thus arises for consideration is, whether the factum of the husband of the petitioner/landlady, who is a co-owner along with the petitioner/landlady and his son of the property with respect to a shop wherein the petition for eviction from which this Revision Petition arises was filed, owning Shop No.8608, Ground Floor,

Kishan Ganj, Delhi disentitles the petitioner/landlady from obtaining an order or eviction of the respondent/tenant.

¶8I reiterate, that it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner/landlady though owning Shop No.8608, Ground Floor, Kishan Ganj, Delhi is carrying on business from one of the three shops in the front of the property from a shop wherein the respondent/tenant is sought to be evicted. It has been held in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252 that merely because the landlords have their business at another place cannot be a ground for denying the landlord eviction of tenant from another premises. It was held that it is always the prerogative of the landlord and if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of his business, it is not open to the tenant or the Court to say that the landlords are already having their business and their need is not genuine. It was yet further held that it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlords and advise him what he should do and what he should not and it is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature and the place of business.

¶9Applying the said ratio, as long as it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner/landlady is occupying one of the three shops in front in the property, from a shop wherein eviction of the respondent/tenant is sought, making the said shop unavailable to the petitioner/landlady, the petitioner/landlady cannot be denied her requirement which is otherwise abundantly made out and is not disputed.

¶10Mention may also be made of Anil Bajaj Vs . Vinod Ahuja (2014)

15 SCC 610 holding that the fact that the landlord is doing business from various other premises cannot foreclose his right to seek eviction from the tenanted premises, so long as he intends to use the said tenanted premises for his own business.

¶11Here it is not the petitioner/landlady but her husband who is stated to have another place of business besides the shop in front in the property from a shop wherein the eviction of the respondent/tenant is sought.

¶12Once the said fact does not disentitle the petitioner/landlady to an order of eviction, Section 25B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not allow leave to defend to be granted on account thereof.

¶13The counsel for the respondent/tenant has referred to (i) Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh 2000 (1) SCC 706; (ii) Mohd. Illyas Vs. Nooruddin 184 (2011) DLT 590; and, (iii) Shanti Devi Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jain 2015 (2) SCC 158 but which are found to turn on their own facts and are not found to have any application to the controversy as is for adjudication herein.

¶14The petition thus succeeds and is allowed.

¶15The impugned order granting leave to the respondent/tenant to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the petitioner/landlady is set aside.

¶16The leave to defend application filed by the respondent/tenant is not found to disclose any facts as would disentitle the petitioner/landlady from an order of eviction.

¶17The application for leave to defend is thus dismissed.

¶18Axiomatically, an order is passed in favour of the petitioner/landlady, of eviction of the respondent/tenant from Shop No.8568 forming part of Plot No.75, Ground Floor, East Park Road, Model Basti, Filmistan Cinema, New Delhi – 110 005 as described in paras 1, 2 and 8 of the petition for eviction from which this Rent Control Revision Petition arises and as shown in red in the site plan filed with the petition for eviction.

¶19However, in accordance with Section 14(7) of the Act, the order of eviction shall be inexecutable for a period of six months.

¶20In the circumstances, no costs.

¶21The Trial Court file requisitioned in this Court be returned forthwith.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MARCH 15, 2018 'pp'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 15th March, 2018 + RC.REV. 431/2017 RAJINDER KAUR BHATIA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Naina Kejriwal, Adv. versus RAJ KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Shyam Singh Sisodia, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. On 13th November, 2017, the following order was passed in this matter. "1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order [dated 8th June, 2017 in E No.78204/2016 (Old E No.266/2015) of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC)-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of grant of leave to the respondent to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the petitioner. 2. Finding the impugned order to be not containing any reasons for granting leave to defend and otherwise on reading the petition for eviction and the application for leave to defend and the reply filed thereto, prima facie finding no case for grant of leave to defend, notice of the petition was ordered to be issued. 3. The respondent is reported to be served and the counsel for the respondent appears. 4. The counsels have been heard and the copies of the Trial Court record perused. 5. The petitioner filed the petition for eviction from which this petition arises for eviction of the respondent from shop No.8568, forming part of Plot No.75, Ground Floor, East Park Road, Model Basti, Filmistan Cinema, New Delhi in the tenancy of the respondent since the year 1960 i.e. since the time of the grandfather of the respondent and for which the respondent was last paying rent of Rs.250/- per month, pleading (i) that the petitioner, her husband Gurdeep Singh Bhatia and her son Gagandeep Singh Bhatia are the owners/landlords of the property in a shop wherein the respondent is a tenant; (ii) that the said property constructed over 166 sq. yds. was owned by one Bhikam Singh who had inducted the grandfather of the respondent as a tenant in a shop therein; (iii) that on the demise of Bhikam Singh and his wife, their six sons and two daughters namely Laxmi Narain, Ajit Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Ramesh Chand, Jai Singh & Om Parkash and Smt. Laxmi Devi and Smt. Santosh became the owners of the property; (iv) that the aforesaid legal heirs of Bhikam Singh vide seven registered sale deeds executed in May, October, November, 2009 and in February, 2010 sold and conveyed the entire property to the petitioner and her husband Gurdeep Singh Bhatia and her son Gagandeep Singh Bhatia; (v) that thus the petitioner, her husband and her said son are co-owners of the property; (vi) that the said property comprises of ground floor, first floor and terrace; (vii) that ground floor comprises of three shops facing the front road; (viii) that from one of the said shops, the husband of the petitioner namely Gurdeep Singh Bhatia runs a chemist shop and from the second shop of the front side, the son of the petitioner Gagandeep Singh Bhatia runs the business of sale and purchase of medicines in wholesale; (ix) that the third shop is in occupation/tenancy of the respondent; (x) that the back portion of the ground floor is being used as a godown for storing medicines; (xi) that after the demise of the grandfather and father of the respondent, the respondent had become the tenant in the said shop; (xii) that the respondent had filed a civil suit against Jai Bhagwan one of the sons of Bhikam Singh as well as against the husband and the aforesaid son of the petitioner to restrain them from forcibly dispossessing the respondent from the said shop; (xiii) that the petitioner was working with M/s Creative Clothing, a readymade garment house and was looking after its sale and purchase department and now after leaving the said job, wants to start her own business of readymade garments from the said shop. 6. The respondent sought leave to defend, pleading (a) that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlady of the respondent; (b