-Report by Mehul Jain
It was held by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S THE COMMERICAL ELECTRIC WORKS & ORS VS SHARDA GUPTA that the Delhi High Court on April 06, while not changing the decision of Trial Court for giving landlady property to his grandson for bona fide needs. Because of the dicta of the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the issues raised by the Petitioner herein do not merit any interference and the finding of the Trial court does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition of the petitioner is dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.
FACTS
The judgment is made by the learned Single Judge bench on 06 April 2023. The judgment is given by “HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA”. This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners, tenants, assailing the eviction order dated 23.03.2019, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), in Eviction Petition No. E-150/16 (New No. 15/17).
The Respondent, the landlady, is stated to be the owner of the entire property bearing No. 1814-1815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (‘subject property’) which comprises a Ground Floor (‘GF’), Mezzanine Floor, First Floor (‘FF’), Second Floor (‘SF’), and Third Floor (‘TF’).
The Respondent filed the eviction petition for recovery of the commercial premises being the ground floor, mezzanine floor, and third floor of property No. 1814-1815, ward No. IV, Chandni Chowk, Delhi (‘tenanted premises’) located in the subject property. The eviction petition was filed by the landlady on the plea that she has a bona fide need for her grandson i.e., Mr. Kanishk Gupta, who has recently graduated and wants to establish, run and operate his own business or join the landlady in her existing business and expand the said business, from the tenanted premises. It was asserted that there is no other commercial property owned by the landlady. However, before this Court, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has restricted his oral submissions to assail the findings concerning bona fide need on the plea that FF and SF of the subject property are lying vacant and are therefore, available to the landlady for the alleged business of her grandson. The Trial Court after considering the submissions of the parties held that the Respondent is the owner as well as landlady in respect of the tenanted premises. The Trial Court further held that the tenanted premises are bona fide and required for the business of the grandson. The Trial Court rejected the submission of the Petitioners herein that the landlady has suitable alternative accommodation on the FF and SF of the subject property. The Trial Court relied upon the photographs placed on record to opine that the FF and SF are in a dilapidated condition. The Trial Court, further, held that there is no parity between commercial premises located on the ground floor vis-à-vis upper floors. In light of the aforesaid facts and findings, the Trial Court rejected the application seeking leave to defend and passed the impugned eviction order.
PETITIONER CONTENTION
The petitioner’s counsel states that the tenanted premises are not bona fide required by the Respondent, landlady, since her grandson, for whose bona fide need the tenanted premises are required, is working as a relationship manager in the HDFC Bank branch at A-9, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi.
Petitioner states that the FF and SF of the subject property were recovered by the Respondent, landlady, in May 2013, in an eviction petition (E106/13/09) filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. In this regard, he has placed on record the electricity bill issued by BSES Yamuna Power Limited (‘BSES’) for the meters installed on the said floors, to show the negligible consumption of electricity in the said premises.
He relies upon the Petitioners’ averments recorded in the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by this Court, whilst issuing notice in the present petition. Petitioner states that the non-use of the FF and SF by the Respondent belies the plea of bona fide need and the Trial Court erred in dismissing the leave to defend the application.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent, the landlady, states that currently, both, the Respondent’s son i.e., Mr. Manish Gupta and grandson i.e., Mr. Kanishk Gupta are unemployed. Both the grandson was employed before but they leave their job for operating or running the business.
He states that the landlady along with her daughter-in-law i.e., Ms. Madhu Gupta had started the business of sale of women’s wear under the name and style of ‘Kanishk Sarees’ in the year 2014, from the FF of the subject property. He states that however, the said business has failed as customers are unwilling to come to FF in the subject property. However, FF and SF are unsuitable for new businesses.
He states that the Petitioners herein have abused the procedural safeguards to delay the hearing in the present revision proceedings. He states that even during the adjudication of the eviction petition, though the leave to defend application was filed, however, a copy of the same was not provided to the landlady for almost 3 years.
COURT’S DECISION
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the decision of the Trial Court was correct and there is no need to change or revision of that judgment. So, the Hon’ble High Court gives the judgment in the favour of Respondent. And the Hon’ble High Court referred the case which is related to this matter as “Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30”[2].
The subject eviction petition was filed much later on 26.12.2016 and for the bona fide need of the grandson, which in this opinion of this Court has rightly upheld by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Abid-ul-Islam (Supra) has after discussing the law held that the scope of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is limited.
Accordingly, because of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed and the eviction order dated 23.03.2019 is upheld. The pending applications are disposed of. The interim order dated 06.09.2019 is hereby vacated. The Respondent is at liberty to proceed with the execution of the eviction order and the Petitioners will be liable to continue to pay the use and occupation charges at Rs. 15,000/- per month, until the handing over of the possession to the Respondent.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/40SpfYo