Blog

Case title : Yatti Dawar and Ors. vs. Ashok Kr. Gupta

Case No. RC.REV. 120/2022 & CM APPL.25011/2022.

Dated on: Reserved on May 17, 2024, and pronounced on May 22, 2024.

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Ashok Kr. Gupta owns shop no. 1126/2, Kucha Natwa, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2007. The shop was rented to Sh. Sunil Dawar, who passed away on 07.04.2018. His legal heirs, including petitioner no.1 (Yatti Dawar) and petitioners no.2-4, continued to occupy the premises. Ashok Kr. Gupta filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming he needed the premises for his unemployed son, Shobhit Gupta, to start a business of readymade ladies garments. He stated the premises were ideally located in a market known for wholesale and retail business of clothes and mentioned no suitable alternate accommodation. Petitioners no.2-4 filed an application under Section 25B(5) seeking leave to contest the eviction but did not provide specific grounds and lacked the required supporting affidavit. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed their application and passed an eviction order against all petitioners since petitioner no.1 did not file any application for leave to contest. Petitioners claimed petitioner no.1 had filed an application for leave to contest, which was allegedly removed from the court record, but this application was identical to the insufficient application of petitioners no.2-4. Petitioners argued the eviction petition was not bona fide, asserting Shobhit Gupta was already engaged in the steel business. The respondent argued that the petitioners’ applications were without merit and reiterated the bona fide need for the premises for Shobhit Gupta’s new business, emphasising no legal restriction on changing business types.

ISSUES

1. Whether Ashok Kr. Gupta’s claim that he needs the subject premises for his son Shobhit Gupta to start a new business of readymade ladies garments is genuine and constitutes a bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Whether the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by petitioners no.2-4 were procedurally adequate, given that they did not specify any grounds for contesting the eviction and lacked the required supporting affidavit.
3. Whether petitioner no.1’s application for leave to contest was filed and subsequently removed from the court’s record, as claimed by the petitioners, and the implications of this allegation on the eviction proceedings.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

1. • Section 14(1)(e): Provides grounds for eviction of a tenant by the landlord. It allows eviction if the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, or for any purpose for which the premises were let out.

1. • Section 25B(5): Special procedure for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. This section outlines the procedure for a tenant to seek leave to contest an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e). The tenant must file an affidavit disclosing the grounds on which they seek to contest the eviction.

1. • Section 25B(8): Provides the right to appeal. This section allows a tenant to appeal against an order passed by the Controller under Section 25B.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Himalaya Gupta, Counsel of the appellant submitted that the case revolves around procedural irregularities and challenges to the bona fide requirement claimed by the respondent. Firstly, the appellant contends that there was a procedural error in the filing of the application for leave to contest. They argue that the application submitted by petitioners no.2-4 lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not include the necessary supporting affidavit as required by law. However, they assert that this deficiency stemmed from the negligence of their legal representative rather than any intentional oversight on their part. Additionally, the appellant raises the issue of a missing application allegedly filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest. They claim that despite filing the application, it was somehow removed from the court’s record. The appellant suggests that this missing application, if considered, could potentially provide additional grounds for contesting the eviction.

Furthermore, the appellant questions the bona fide requirement asserted by the respondent for the premises in question. They argue that the respondent’s claim that the premises are needed for his son, Shobhit Gupta, to start a new business of readymade ladies garments lacks credibility. Specifically, the appellant points out that Shobhit Gupta is already engaged in the steel business, which raises doubts about the genuine need for the premises for a new business venture. Additionally, the appellant implies that the eviction petition may have been filed opportunistically following the death of the original tenant, Sh. Sunil Dawar. They suggest that the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement may be driven by ulterior motives rather than a genuine necessity for the premises. These contentions collectively form the basis of the appellant’s argument against the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent and seek a reconsideration of the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, represented by Mr. Nitin Ahlawat and Mr. Kshitiz Ahlawat, Advocates, presents several contentions in response to the appellant’s claims. Firstly, they assert that the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by petitioners no.2-4 were without merit, a point even acknowledged by the appellant’s counsel. The respondent argues that these applications lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not adhere to the procedural requirements outlined by law. Therefore, they contend that no further consideration is warranted regarding the procedural adequacy of these applications.

Regarding the missing application allegedly filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest, the respondent dismisses the appellant’s claim, arguing that there is no substantive evidence to support this assertion. They suggest that the alleged removal of the application from the court’s record lacks credibility and appears to be a diversionary tactic by the appellant. Thus, they maintain that the missing application should not factor into the court’s decision-making process.

Moreover, the respondent defends their claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises. They emphasise that the premises are genuinely needed for their son, Shobhit Gupta, to establish a new business of readymade ladies garments. They refute the appellant’s argument regarding Shobhit Gupta’s existing engagement in the steel business, asserting that there is no legal restriction preventing individuals from diversifying their business interests. Therefore, they assert that the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement remains valid and should be upheld by the court.

In conclusion, the respondent reaffirms the legitimacy of their eviction petition and the bona fide requirement asserted therein. They argue that the appellant’s contentions regarding procedural irregularities and the bona fide requirement lack merit and should not affect the outcome of the case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

 After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court proceeded with its analysis of the case. The court first addressed the procedural irregularities regarding the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by the appellants. It noted that these applications, filed by petitioners no.2-4, lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not include the required supporting affidavit. The court acknowledged the appellant’s claim that these deficiencies were due to the negligence of their legal representative. However, it emphasised that procedural requirements must be adhered to, and the absence of grounds for contesting the eviction hindered the court’s ability to grant leave to contest.

Regarding the alleged missing application filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest, the court found the appellant’s claim lacking substantive evidence. It deemed the alleged removal of the application from the court’s record as not credible, stating that there was no material to support this assertion. Therefore, the court did not consider the missing application as a valid factor in its decision-making process.

Moving on to the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises, the court analysed the circumstances presented. It observed that the respondent genuinely required the premises for their son, Shobhit Gupta, to establish a new business of readymade ladies garments. Despite the appellant’s argument regarding Shobhit Gupta’s existing engagement in the steel business, the court noted that there was no legal impediment preventing individuals from diversifying their business interests. Thus, the court found the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement to be valid and upheld.

Based on its analysis of the case, the court concluded that the procedural irregularities in the appellant’s applications for leave to contest and the lack of substantive evidence regarding the missing application for leave to contest filed by petitioner no.1 did not warrant a reconsideration of the eviction order. Additionally, the court found the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises to be genuine and upheld it. Therefore, the court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appellant’s petition, along with any pending applications.

The court upheld the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appellant’s petition, along with any pending applications. The judgement was pronounced on May 22, 2024.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement