0

Any person who is a tenant can be protected against eviction: Court of New Delhi

There was an alleged business carried on by the parties and it was sufficient to do so, but they applied to concur more space from the other party, this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE  JAYANT NATH, in the matter BHAWANI SHANKAR V. NAND LAL AND ORS.

Respondent made a move and filed an application CM No.13409/2021 praying for dismissal of the present petition as having become infructuous as peaceful possession of the demised premises had been taken over on 19.03.2021 by the respondent. counsel for the respondent has in the present application vehemently relied upon various orders passed by this court to hold that once possession has been regained by the respondent/landlord the revision petition is rendered infructuous.

Meanwhile, counsel for the petitioner denies that the present petition is infructuous. And there was a Reference may be had to the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Neelam Sharma vs. Ekant Rekhan, (2019)256 DLT 750, And also, Reference may be had to a similar observation made by another Co-ordinate Bench of this court in RC. REV. 255/2014 Kuldeep Kumar Meena & Ors. vs. Supreme Motors Ltd, wherein on 04.02.2016 this court passed a similar order holding that the petition has become infructuous as the petitioner has received possession of the suit property.

This petition is filed under Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘The DRC Act’), 1958 seeking to impugn the eviction order dated 15.11.2019 about the property being ground floor bearing Municipal No. 6449, Katra Bryan, Fatehpuri, Delhi -110006. The respondent/landlord had filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of bona fide requirements. The petitioner/tenant applied Section 25 B (4) of The DRC Act seeking leave to defend and contest the eviction petition.

The respondent/landlord has filed a reply to the aforesaid application of the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend. The respondent has pointed out that the first floor of the property bearing Municipal No.6452 is being used for manufacturing nankeen and sweets by the respondents/landlord. But the petitioner owns only one small shop on the ground floor being property No.143, Gali Memwali, Katra Bryan Fatehpuri, Delhi which is being used by the respondent for manufacturing seasonal items.

The relationship between landlord and tenant is also not disputed. The impugned order further holds that the law is well settled and that the landlord is the best judge of his necessity and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Therefore, a tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord regarding his necessity. Hence, the court concluded that no triable issue between the parties arises which entitles the petitioner/tenant for leave to defend the eviction petition.

Hence, this court is to test the order of the ARC to see whether it is according to law and whether the conclusions are not wholly unreasonable. Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act reads as follows: “Protection of tenant against eviction”. In the present case, it is manifest that the requirement spelt out by the respondents/landlord is a bona fide requirement.

Another plea that was raised by the petitioner is that the respondents are not in the business of manufacturing sweets and that the business is being carried on by the enterprise M/s Chaina Ram Sindhi Confectioners. This plea is contradictory as different pleas are taken on the contrary eviction petition. Further, the respondents have placed on record the partnership deed which clearly shows that it is the respondents who are working under the name and style of M/s Chaina Ram Sindhi Confectioners.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that –“ the impugned order has rightly dismissed the application for leave to defend of the petitioner. There are no reasons to interfere in the finding made by Ld. ARC. The petition is dismissed. All other pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.” Dated on 7th September 2021.

 

Click here for Judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat