The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S The Commerical Electric Works & Ors vs Sharda Gupta consisting of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that landlord cannot recover possession of the tenanted premises if the tenant didn't reveal issues that could be considered in court at the stage of defend.
Facts:
The tenants who filed this revision petition were disputing the eviction order dated 23.03.2019 issued by the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ("Trial Court") in Eviction Petition No. E-150/16 (New No. 15/17) which allowed the eviction petition filed by the Respondent (landlady) u/s 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act").
The Respondent filed an eviction petition to reclaim the commercial premises on the ground, mezzanine, and third floors of a building in Delhi ('tenanted premises'). The eviction petition was filed on the grounds that she had a legitimate need for her grandson (Mr. Kanishk Gupta), who had recently graduated and wished to start and manage his own business or join the landlady in her existing business and expand it from the tenanted premises. It was claimed that the landlady owned no other commercial property. It was also claimed that the landlady runs a company selling women's clothing from the FF (first floor) and SF (second floor) of the relevant property; however, because of the deteriorating condition of the building and the lack of parking, the customers were unwilling to reach the FF for shopping.
Procedural History:
The Petitioners herein opposed the eviction petition and sought leave to defend on many grounds, including the respondent's contention that she was the owner and landlady. However, before this Court, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners limited his oral submissions to challenging the findings of bona fide need on the grounds that FF and SF of the subject property were vacant and thus available to the landlady for her grandson's alleged business. After hearing the parties arguments, the Trial Court determined that the Respondent was the owner and landlady of the tenanted premises. It also determined that the rented premises were legitimately required for the grandson's business. It turned down the submission.
It dismissed the claim that the landlady had sufficient alternative accommodation on the subject property's FF and SF. It relied on images on file to conclude that the FF and SF were in poor condition. It went on to say that there was no comparability between business premises on the bottom floor and those on the upper floors. Considering the aforementioned facts and findings, it denied the application for permission to defend and issued the impugned eviction order. The Respondent did not need the tenanted premises because her grandson, for whom the tenanted premises were required, was working as a relationship manager at the HDFC Bank in New Delhi. It was said that the Respondent, the landlady, recovered the FF and SF of the relevant property in May 2013, in an eviction petition filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. However, based on a power bill issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited ('BSES') for the meters installed on the abovementioned floors, it was claimed that they were not being utilized for the business and were lying vacant/unused as on date.
Contentions Made:
Appellant: The Respondent did not need the tenanted premises because her grandson, for whom the tenanted premises were required, was working as a relationship manager at the HDFC Bank in New Delhi. It was said that the Respondent, the landlady, recovered the FF and SF of the relevant property in May 2013, in an eviction petition filed by her u/s 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. However, based on a power bill issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited ('BSES') for the meters installed on the abovementioned floors, it was claimed that they were not being utilized for the business as alleged in the subject eviction petition and were lying vacant/unused as of the date of the eviction.
Respondent: During the pendency of the eviction petition, Mr. Kanishk Gupta was engaged with HDFC Bank as of 22.04.2019 but was later relieved on 18.10.2020. The rented premises (particularly the Ground Floor (GF)) were genuinely vital to allow the landlady’s unemployed son and grandson to create and operate their business. It was claimed that the subject property was over 75 years old and so in a deteriorated state. It was also argued that, while the stairway leading to the subject property’s upper levels was tiny, consumer footfall on the ground floor was high and consistent. As a result, there was no parity between the ground and upper floors. Furthermore, when the Respondent offered to exchange the GF of the subject property for the FF with the Petitioners, they declined.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench referred to Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua and reiterated that at the stage of seeking leave to defend, the tenant is required to disclose any facts that give rise to triable issues and warrant consideration on merits; and the landlord/landlady is barred from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the tenanted premises.
Regarding Respondent’s ownership and existence of tenancy, it noted that it was a matter of record that the subject property was mutated in the Respondent’s name and she was paying the house tax for the said property in her capacity as the owner of the property. After the death of her husband, the Respondent's children executed a recorded Release Deed in her favour in 2001, making her the absolute owner of the subject property. The Petitioners had not disputed these facts. As a result, it concluded that the Trial Court’s findings on ownership and the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship were accurate, and the Petitioners’ pleadings in the leave to defend and revision petitions were absurd.
Regarding bona fide need, it was noted that the Petitioners had not challenged the fact that the Respondent’s son and grandson were both unemployed. As a result, it concluded that the landlady had a genuine need.
Regarding the issue of no suitable alternative accommodation, it opined that the Petitioners’ rejection of the aforementioned exchange offer demonstrated that the said upper floors were not similar to the GF and, as a result, FF and SF could not be recognized as alternative accommodations.
Relying on Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja, it reiterated that it is not up to the tenant to tell the landlord how he should use his property for the purposes of his business. As a result, the Trial Court's findings that the Respondent's need for her grandson was genuine and she had no other alternative accommodation were not flawed. Furthermore, the Trial Court cited Supreme Court decisions in its findings, which ruled that commercial premises located on the first floor are more viable for business and attracting clients than the upper floors of a property. Moreover, there was no adverse inference on account of the previous eviction petition.
Judgment:
The Bench held that the Petitioners’ claim about the availability of FF of the subject land was untenable in light of the Supreme Court’s and this Court’s dicta in K.B. Watts v. Vipin Kalra. As a result, it dismissed the revision petition, and the eviction decision of March 23, 2019, was upheld. The interim order of 2019 was overturned. The Respondent was free to carry out the eviction order, and the Petitioners were obligated to continue paying the use and occupation charges of Rs. 15,000/- per month until the Respondent was given possession.
Case: M/S The Commerical Electric Works & Ors vs Sharda Gupta
Citation: RC.REV. 529/2019 & CM APPL. 56322/2022
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Sachin Jain and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Agarwal.
Advocates for Respondent: Mr. H.L. Narula, Advocate along with Respondent in person.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
