Tag: #landlord

-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

-Report by Anurag Sinha

The present case of Gurjit Singh (D) Through LRs…Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., is based on a dispute between a tenant and a landlord. Both of them had marketing licenses but after a period of time, the appellant passed an eviction order against the respondent. Herein, the respondent moved to another shop but was not granted a license for the same. He later was allotted another shop in front of his previous landlord to which the appellant claimed ownership.

FACTS:

The judgment made by the learned Judge, Mr. J Shah, on23.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, and these sequent order dated 17.12.2013, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said letters and Patent Appeals. Gurjit Singh, the appellant stated and informed that he had bought Shop no. 27 from the Agricultural Produce Market, Chandigarh and that respondent no. 5 was the tenant of that shop. Both the appellant and respondent no. 5 had market licenses. The appellant evicted respondent no. 5 shortly after. The High Court upheld the eviction. Hence, in 2007, respondentNo. 5 moved as a tenant to Shop No. 12 and applied for a change of address, but it was refused and he was told to surrender his license and apply for a new one. State Agricultural Marketing Board granted the appellant’s fruit/vegetable license. Since then, the appellant runs the business from his Shop No. 27. Respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition with the High Courtchallenging the judgment dated 05.07.2007 that denied his requestto move to Shop No. 12. 05.07.2007 order stayed. The stay was extended until respondent No. 5’s license expired on 31.03.2009. The Market Committee, Chandigarh denied respondent No. 5’slicense renewal application.

Under the order passed by the High Court, respondent No. 5 continued to operate under the former license per the Supreme Court order. That the Licence Committee under Licensing of Auction Platform Regulations, 1981 resolved to allot the platform site based on “One Site One Shop” and listed respondent No. 5 as co-allottee with the appellant.

Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition. The HighCourt granted respondent No. 5’s writ petition and renewed his license on 26 September 2011. The High Court further ruled thatrespondent No. 5 can use the platform in front of Store No. 27unless the Act or Regulations are amended to provide alternativeplatform rights. The knowledgeable Single Judge also found thatthe right to utilize the platform and the license to do business in the market region were distinct and unrelated.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellant herein is doing business, has a license, and is granted shop No. 27, thus he is entitled to the auction platform adjacent to and/or in front of it. Respondent No. 5 is doing business in shop No. 12, therefore not allowing the appellant(s) todo business on the auction platform, which is close

to shop No. 27, and allotting it to him is unjust and arbitrary. Then, the appellant challenged the site co-allotment to respondent No. 5 before the learned Single Judge. If the appellant fails, they cannot be worse off than before filing the writ petition. Hence, Market Committee sheds collapsed on 10.06.2007 and were rebuilt in 2009. Soon thereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture, U.T. Chandigarh handed down the principles and rules at the first instance, allottees who were assigned sheds for working previousto the collapse of shed 8 on 10.06.2007 were entitled to shed/space as they existed on that day. The appellant was awarded the license on 16.07.2007, however, the sheds collapsed on 10.06.2007, hencehis case is not covered by the policy. The Market Committee’sallocation of sheds follows the Secretary, Agricultural Department, Chandigarh’s guidelines/policy.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

Respondent No. 5 has had a valid license since 1970 and was operating on the platform when the shed collapsed on 10.06.2007. However, at the time of the allotment of freshly constructed sheds, the firm’s license was not valid owing to non-renewal, and theCommittee’s office was considering granting the license, which was finally granted in February 2010. After the Committee was formed, respondent No. 5, Committee licensee and shed owner before its collapse—was allotted the shed. The above arguments request that the appeals be dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in absence of any specific rule/regulation to the contrary and when the sheds are allotted as per the principles/guidelines of the Secretary, Agriculture, reproduced hereinabove, and in absence ofany specific rule in favor of the appellant, right to claim the allotment just in front of his shop and/or adjacent to the same and when the allotment in favor of respondent No. 5 is made as per. As both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court have rightly held against the appellant and have rightly dismissed the writ petition and appeal. The supreme court was in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

The present appeals lacked merit and were dismissed for the reasons indicated above.

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/3ZKjJpC