-Report by Harshit Yadav
The present case involves a revision petition filed by tenants who are challenging an eviction order passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller in Delhi. The landlord had filed an eviction petition on the grounds of the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises, which is a shop measuring 83.4 sq. ft. The landlord, who owns the subject property, which consists of ground-floor shops, had been running his business in one of the shops, which was not sufficient for his business requirements. The tenants, in their application seeking leave to defend, had failed to raise any triable issues, and the court had dismissed their application and passed the eviction order in favor of the landlord. The tenants have challenged the order on the grounds that the landlord has sufficient alternate suitable accommodation for carrying on his business from other shops in the same property and has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises.
FACTS:
A revision petition was filed by tenants against an eviction order passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller in Delhi. The tenants were occupying shop no. 3 on the ground floor of a property owned by the landlord. The landlord had filed an eviction petition on the grounds of the bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for expanding his business of sale of utensils. The tenants had challenged the eviction order by stating that the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation for his business, but the Trial Court had dismissed their application seeking leave to defend. The present revision petition has been filed against the said order. The document contains the submissions of the parties, relevant facts, and the findings of the Court.
ISSUES RAISED:
Whether the Petitioners’ leave to defend failed to raise any triable issues and the contents of the said application failed to rebut the presumption of bona fide requirement of the Respondent?
Whether the Respondent has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises as he has sufficient pension income post-retirement and has possession of shop nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the subject property?
Whether the plea of the Respondent that he intends to carry on business from the tenanted premises is a triable issue, which the Trial Court ought to have appreciated and thus granted the leave to defend?
Whether shop nos. 1 and 2, being used by the sons of the Respondent for carrying out their separate and independent businesses, are not available to the Respondent to carry on his own business and thus, the tenanted premises are required by the Respondent for properly keeping his stock so as to display the same and invite customers, as the space available in the existing shop no. 4 is grossly insufficient?
CONTENTIONS:
The Petitioners’ counsel contended that the Respondent has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises as he has sufficient pension income post-retirement, and he has possession of shop nos. 1, 2, and 4 in the subject property. Therefore, the Respondent has alternate suitable accommodation for carrying on his business. However, the Respondent’s counsel submitted that shop nos. 1 and 2 are being used by his sons for carrying out their independent businesses, and shop no. 4, which the Respondent uses for his business, is very small in size. He stated that the Respondent needs the tenanted premises to display his stock properly and invite customers.
The Court considered the submissions of both parties and perused the record. It held that the Respondent has a bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for expanding his business, as shop no. 4, where he currently operates his business, is not sufficient for him. The Court also noted that the Respondent’s sons are using shops nos. 1 and 2 for their independent businesses, and shop no. 4 is too small for the Respondent’s business. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Petitioners’ revision petition and upheld the eviction order passed by the Trial Court in favour of the Respondent.
JUDGEMENT:
In this case, the tenants have filed a revision petition challenging the eviction order passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller in RC ARC No. 5589/16, whereby the Petitioners’ application seeking leave to defend was dismissed, and the impugned eviction order was passed in favor of the landlord with respect to shop no.3.
The Respondent, the landlord, filed an eviction petition for the recovery of the tenanted premises, which abuts his shop no.4, as it was not sufficient for carrying on his business. The Trial Court found that the Petitioners’ leave to defend failed to raise any triable issues and the contents of the said application failed to rebut the presumption of bona fide requirement of the Respondent.
The learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that the Respondent has no bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises, as he has sufficient pension income post-retirement and has alternate suitable accommodation for carrying on his business. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that shop nos. 1 and 2 are being used by the sons of the Respondent for their independent businesses, and shop no.4, which admeasures 8.5 sq. ft, is being used by the Respondent for running his independent sale of utensils etc.
After considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the Respondent has a bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises. Admittedly, shop nos. 1 and 2 are being used by the sons of the Respondent for their independent businesses, and shop no.4, which admeasures 8.5 sq. ft, is being used by the Respondent for running his independent sale of utensils etc.
The Respondent has stated that the tenanted premises are required for properly keeping his stock so as to display the same and invite customers, as the space available in the existing shop no. 4 is grossly insufficient. This Court finds that the Respondent has a genuine need for the tenanted premises, and the Petitioners have failed to raise any triable issues in this regard.
Therefore, this Court upholds the impugned eviction order passed by the Trial Court and dismisses the present revision petition filed by the Petitioners. The Respondent is entitled to possession of the tenanted premises. The Petitioners are directed to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3JVacal