Category Archives: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Hardial Singh (Deceased Through LRs) v. Vivek Gupta

Case Number: RC.REV. 339/2016

Dated On: Judgement reserved on May 14, 2024, and pronounced on May 22, 2024

Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia

 FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves a petitioner named Hardial Singh, represented through his legal representatives, and a respondent named Vivek Gupta. Hardial Singh is the tenant, while Vivek Gupta is the landlord. The dispute centres around two ground floor shops located in Model Town, Delhi, referred to as the subject premises. Vivek Gupta claims ownership of these premises. The subject premises were originally owned by Gupta’s mother, Smt. Nirmala Gupta. Upon her demise, a partition suit was initiated between Vivek Gupta and his brother, Dr. Pradeep Gupta. The partition suit concluded with a settlement agreement, allocating the subject premises to Vivek Gupta’s share and a neighbouring shop to his brother.  Vivek Gupta filed an eviction petition against Hardial Singh, asserting a bona fide need for the subject premises to establish an IT consultancy firm. Hardial Singh contested the eviction petition, challenging the genuineness of Gupta’s need for the premises. Singh questioned Gupta’s ownership of adjacent premises and his residential status vis-à-vis his workplace location. The matter was brought before the Rent Controller, where both parties presented their arguments and evidence. The Rent Controller eventually dismissed Singh’s application for leave to contest, prompting Singh to challenge the decision before the High Court.

ISSUES 

1. Whether Vivek Gupta genuinely requires the subject premises for his IT consultancy firm, as stated in the eviction petition, or if there are alternative motives behind the eviction.
2. Clarification of the ownership status of the subject premises following the partition suit between Vivek Gupta and his brother, Dr. Pradeep Gupta, and its impact on the eviction proceedings.
3. Determination of Hardial Singh’s rights as a tenant and his entitlement to contest the eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
4. Assessment of whether the eviction proceedings comply with legal procedures and principles of fairness as per the Delhi Rent Control Act.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: This provision relates to the powers of the High Court to review orders for possession of tenanted premises passed by the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: This section pertains to the grounds for eviction of a tenant, specifically in cases where the landlord requires the premises for his own use.
3. Relevant Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Sections: References are made to relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code for procedural matters.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia and his team, contests the assertion made by the respondent landlord, Vivek Gupta, regarding the necessity of the subject premises for starting an IT consultancy firm. They argue that the respondent’s claim lacks merit as alternative premises are available to him. This contention forms the crux of their defence against the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. In furtherance of their defence, the appellant suggests potential irregularities surrounding the partition suit and subsequent settlement, which resulted in the respondent’s claim to the subject premises. They raise doubts about the authenticity of the partition decree obtained by the respondent, implying potential manipulation or fraudulent activity in securing ownership rights to the subject premises. Another key contention put forth by the appellant is the dispute over the respondent’s claimed residency in Noida and its relevance to the eviction proceedings. They challenge the respondent’s assertion of residing in Noida, highlighting the presence of metro connectivity between Model Town and Noida. By doing so, they seek to undermine the significance of travel inconvenience as a valid reason for the respondent’s alleged need for the subject premises. The appellant further argues that the respondent has access to other suitable premises for his consultancy firm, including vacant shops nearby. By emphasising the existence of viable alternative options, they aim to discredit the respondent’s claim of exclusive reliance on the subject premises for his business endeavours.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani and his team, asserts the genuine necessity of the subject premises for initiating an IT consultancy firm. They emphasise the respondent’s professional background and intentions to establish a business, underscoring the importance of the subject premises for this purpose. The respondent’s counsel argues that the requirement is bona fide and essential for the respondent’s career aspirations, providing a robust defence against the appellant’s challenge to the eviction proceedings. In response to the appellant’s contention regarding the validity of the partition decree, the respondent’s counsel reaffirms the legitimacy of the settlement reached through mediation. They counter the appellant’s insinuations of manipulation or fraud, citing the court-approved settlement agreement as evidence of the lawful transfer of ownership rights to the subject premises. This argument aims to dispel any doubts surrounding the legality of the partition decree and establish the respondent’s rightful claim to the premises. The respondent’s legal team refutes the appellant’s assertion regarding travel convenience and residency, maintaining the respondent’s need for the subject premises despite potential metro connectivity between Model Town and Noida. They argue that the respondent’s decision to establish his consultancy firm in Model Town is a deliberate choice driven by professional considerations and personal circumstances, which should be respected in the context of the eviction proceedings. Additionally, the respondent’s counsel justifies the selection of the subject premises for the consultancy firm, citing strategic and practical reasons such as proximity to existing business networks and potential client base. They argue that the premises offer distinct advantages for the proposed business venture, reinforcing the respondent’s genuine need for the subject premises and bolstering their defence against the appellant’s challenges.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The case involves a dispute between the petitioner, representing the deceased tenant’s interests, and the respondent, the landlord, regarding the eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondent claims ownership of the premises inherited through a partition settlement, intending to utilise them for an IT consultancy firm. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court is tasked with determining the validity of the respondent’s eviction claim and the petitioner’s challenge to it.

The petitioner, through their senior advocate Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, raises several challenges to the respondent’s eviction petition. These challenges primarily focus on disputing the bona fides of the respondent’s requirement for the subject premises. The petitioner argues against the necessity of eviction, citing factors such as the existence of vacant adjacent premises, the respondent’s residency in Noida, and the alleged lack of urgency in initiating the proposed business venture. Additionally, the petitioner contests the validity of the partition settlement, implying collusion and manipulation.

In response, the respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani and his team, presents a robust defence of their eviction claim. They emphasise the genuine need for the subject premises to establish an IT consultancy firm, underscoring the respondent’s professional qualifications and intentions. The respondent’s legal team refutes the petitioner’s challenges, asserting the legality of the partition settlement and the legitimacy of their requirement for the premises, despite the petitioner’s objections regarding travel convenience and alternative accommodations.

The court meticulously examines the arguments presented by both parties, taking into account the legal provisions under the Delhi Rent Control Act and relevant case law. It emphasises the need to balance the rights of landlords and tenants, particularly in cases involving eviction claims under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The court scrutinises the validity of the partition settlement, ultimately affirming its legality and recognizing the respondent’s rightful ownership of the subject premises.

After thorough deliberation, the court upholds the respondent’s eviction petition, dismissing the petitioner’s challenges and affirming the validity of the eviction order. It finds no merit in the petitioner’s contentions regarding the respondent’s requirement for the premises or the legality of the partition settlement. The court’s judgement underscores the respondent’s genuine need for the subject premises and affirms their right to eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, thereby concluding the dispute in favour of the respondent.

“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

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