‘Landlord is the best judge of his own needs’

By Lovisha Aggarwal | December 29, 2018

Court: Delhi HC

Judge: Anu Malhotra, J.

Case Name: Subhash Chander Rana v. Jitender Verma (decided on 29-12-2018)

KEY LEGAL POINTS:

1. the petition filed by landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent having been dismissed is not an embargo (official ban) to the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement
2. the landlord is the best judge of his own needs

Facts of the Case:

Contention by Landlord

Landlord is a goldsmith who carries on his own business from the shop adjacent to the tenanted shop. He filed the petition on the grounds of bona fide requirement seeking eviction of the tenant as:

1. his own shop was very small and he had difficulty in running his shop
2. he needed a separate place for labour work and for dealing with the customers both of which could not be done in the existing shop due to paucity of space
3. he intended to remove the intervening wall between the two shops to make it a big shop to run his business properly
4. he did not have reasonably suitable alternative accommodation from where he could run his business by providing separate space for labour and for dealing with customers
5. he wanted the tenanted shop to upgrade his business because the size of his family had increased and his profession as a goldsmith was his only source of income.

Contention by Tenant

1. the need of the land lord was not bonafide but was artificial and malafide
2. landlord did not require any additional accommodation for doing any work
3. landlord and tenant were in the same business and that the landlord intended the tenant to be thrown out from the suit premises due to business rivalry
4. contention of the landlord that he required the tenanted premises for space was not tenable as in that locality no work in which chemicals were required was permissible
5. immediately after the purchase of the suit property, the landlord had filed the petition on the ground of non-payment of rent in which the tenant was granted the benefit of Section 15(1) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (as amended) and thereafter, the said petition filed on the ground of non-payment of rent was dismissed.
6. the landlord had another shop in Mongolpuri which was lying vacant and that the landlord also had another area available to him in the suit property and that he had much more sufficient space in his accommodation.
7. the landlord gets the labour work done on piece to piece basis from outside sources as the labour work was not permissible from the suit property.

Observations by the court

1. the tenant has been unable to prove that the landlord has any other suitable accommodation available for expansion of his business of a goldsmith
2. the tenant failed to provide any specific details of any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation being available with the landlord
3. The landlord has no intention to use any chemicals for the labour work which would all be manual
4. there was no necessity of the landlord continuing with the outside agencies for his labour work if sufficient space was made available to him.
5. the petition filed by landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent having been dismissed is not an embargo (official ban) to the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement
6. the landlord is the best judge of his own needs

Held: dismissed the revision petition filed against the order of Additional Rent Controller whereby the tenant’s application for leave to defend the eviction petition was dismissed.

RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISION

Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:

14. Protection of tenant against eviction. –

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:

Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-

(e) That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;

Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, “premises let for residential purpose” include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes.

Read the complete Judgement here