Babu Lal v. Atul Kumar & Anr.

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral):— The present revision petition filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) impugns the order dated 31.5.2013 wherein the application for leave to defend was rejected by the SCJ-cum-RC, Tis Hazari Courts.

2. The brief facts required for consideration are that the respondents herein (landlords) filed for an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Act occupying the premises situated at Property No. 2834, Pucca Katra, Katra Khushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Delhi-6. The landlord filed the eviction petition claiming that the property was required for their own accommodation as they did not have efficient accommodation for both their families. It is the case if the landlords that they do not have sufficient rooms to accommodate their entire family and require the tenanted premises; that in all they need about 10-14 rooms in order to accommodate all the members of their family. The landlords have given a detailed requirement on the number of rooms they need which is recorded in the impugned order.

3. In his application for leave to defend, the tenant contested the eviction petition on the ground that there was no bona fide requirement by the landlords and that the tenant has been in possession of the tenanted premises for 100 years and the tenant is aware of the fact that the landlord has additional accommodation which has not been put to use. The tenant claimed that the landlords are not the true owners of the property. The tenant further states that he does not consider the present respondents as his landlord, thereby negating the existence of a tenant-landlord relationship. The tenant alleges that the landlord has two other properties which should be occupied rather than evicting the tenant.

4. The case before the learned SCJ-cum-RC in the application for leave to defend of the tenant was: (i) that the tenant has been in possession of the tenanted premises for 100 years and now he cannot be evicted; (ii) that the landlords had filed the eviction petition only to harass the tenant and they had no real bona fide need for tenanted premises; (iii) that the landlords had two other properties which were large enough to accommodate both their families; (iv) that the site plan filed by the landlords was incorrect. However, the tenant failed to file any site plan of his own to show the discrepancies in the site plan filed by the landlords.

5. The SCJ-cum-RC noted that while the tenant claimed that he paid a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- to the landlords and that his family including him had Resided in the tenanted premises for 100 years, the tenant also claimed that there was no tenant-landlord relationship between the parties and that the respondents were not the owners of the tenanted premises. On the issue of the landlords having two other properties, the SCJ-cum-RC noted that the landlord submitted that the two addresses were of the same property but that was unsuitable for their use as they had only 5 rooms when the requirement was for more. On the contention of the tenant that he has been residing in the tenanted premises for over 100 years will not lead to a determination that the landlord's bona fide requirement for the premises is irrelevant or that such need fades away. On the tenant's contention of the absence of any tenant-landlord relationship the impugned order the argument is untenable since the tenant had admitted to residence in the property for over 100 years paying rent for it regularly. The issue of the sale deed of the landlord is void was not accepted by the learned SCJ-cum-RC as a tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord.

6. The impugned order held that there were no triable issues raised by the tenant and accordingly the leave to defend application was disallowed. Hence, the present petition.

7. The counsel for the tenant assails the order passed by the SCJ-cum RC passing the eviction order and disallowing the leave to defend application on grounds that there was no bona fide requirement of the landlord; that the landlords have alternative properties which they are not putting to use and that the site plan filed by the landlords is incorrect. The counsel for the tenant vehemently contended that the landlords have failed on all counts to show that the eviction petition was filed out of a genuine need and that the landlords have concealed material facts to the Court. The site plan filed by the landlords is argued to be incorrect by the counsel for the tenant, though this Court notices that the tenant has failed to bring on record any site plan to show the discrepancies in the site plan earlier filed by the landlords. The tenant is required to file a site plan of his own which would aid this Court in understanding the lacunae in the site plan file by the landlords. This Court finds that the tenant has failed to substantiate this argument with any document and concludes that there were no errors in the site plan on record.

8. The next contention of the tenant is that the landlords have two additional properties which are lying vacant and that the landlords are not putting them to use and are harassing the tenant by filing the eviction petition. The tenant has disclosed addresses of two other properties, which the impugned order has taken note of. However, in the present petition, the tenant has disclosed addresses of five properties more stating that these are properties located in and around Delhi which are all owned by the landlords. It is pertinent to point that the existence of these five properties which the tenant claims are owned by the landlord is not mentioned anywhere in the impugned order. The counsel neither makes any mention nor submits any details which may conclusively lead to this Court to believe that the properties mentioned are owned by the landlords. In an eviction petition, the landlord need not disclose the alternate properties available to him if he is of the view that the alternate properties are unsuitable for him. The eviction petition is not a public declaration or disclosure of all the immovable assets of the landlord and then and exercise of sifting through the ones which are or could be deemed to be suitable as alternate accommodation. For any property to be considered alternately available, it has first to be available, i.e in possession of the landlord and capable of being put to immediate use; thereafter only the issue of its suitability for the bona fide need arise. The landlord's discretion and prerogative in this regard cannot be questioned, except insofar as it is not whimsical, ex facie or shockingly unreasonable.

9. Another argument brought forward by the tenant was that the landlord did not need the accommodation as claimed as they had sufficient space available with them. It is settled law that tenant is not one to dictate to the judiciary as to how it can use the property. Such liberty is not vested with either the Court or the tenant. This Court and the Supreme Court has held time and again that the landlord, once having shown that he genuinely needs the property, there can be no interference on how the property should be put to use. The Supreme Court in Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353 held:

“2. The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own………There is no law which deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.”

The Supreme Court in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs.) v. Traders and Agencies, (1996) 5 SCC 344 held that the landlord has liberty to occupy the premises so tenanted if the premises he is occupying is insecure or inconvenient. Under any circumstances, the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement.

10. The landlord has explained for the two properties which were allegedly in the possession of the landlords. The impugned order records the reasons given and this Court sees no reason to interfere with the same. On the issue of the other five properties being disclosed, this Court finds the same to be a bald averment with no document or ex facie credible/compelling details brought on record to substantiate the argument. Therefore, this argument too is without basis and untenable and the Court cannot consider the landlord to be the owner of the five properties mentioned.

11. The counsel for the tenant contended that there was no tenant-landlord relationship between the parties therefore the tenant cannot be evicted from the premises. The argument was made right after the tenant claiming that his family had been in possession of the tenanted premises for over 100 years. The impugned order also records the tenant's submission that the tenant has been paying the landlord a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- regularly and that there are no arrears. There is clear contradiction in the arguments on behalf of the tenant; his resistive argument is self-defeating because how could there not be a tenant-landlord relationship when the tenant himself admits to have been residing in the premises for 100 years and also paying rent regularly. Under the Rent Control Act, if the tenant admits to paying rent to the other party or treats the other party as their landlord, the tenant is estopped from later stating that he does not consider the other party as his landlord. It is submitted by the counsel for the landlord that the tenant was paying rent initially but has failed to do so for the last 18 years. The default in payment of rent would not alter the landlord-tenant relationship.

12. The tenant's next contention was that the sale deed vesting ownership on the landlords was illegal and void. However, in matters of landlord-tenant relationship, the question whether the landlord has the title to the property pales into insignificance when the tenant shows that he has been paying rent to the eviction-petitioner. This Court is of the view that the relationship is established between the parties when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord and the landlord has been collecting such rent in his own right and not on behalf of somebody. The learned counsel then argued that the property does not belong to the landlord but to the Government vide notification dated 18-12-1971 and the sale deed of the landlord is void; a fact, he contends, the learned SCJ-cum-RC failed to take due note of. This Court finds no credibility when such contentions are raised without producing anything to ex facie substantiate the argument. Furthermore, the tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord of the suit property when he is still in possession of the tenanted premises.

13. The counsel for the tenant contended that the landlords have sufficient alternative accommodation and as such there is no bona fide requirement. The landlords, according to the counsel for the tenant, do not need as many rooms as they claims and the reasons mentioned in the eviction petition are false as the landlords have not substantiated these averments with documents. The counsel argues that the landlord has to show how his requirement is genuine in nature which, in the present case, the landlords have not. In an eviction petition, the Trial Court is required to be shown that the need for the tenanted premises is meant for use by the landlord and his dependants and that the landlord has no other suitable accommodation. The landlord is required to show that there is prima facie bona fide need for the premises while the tenant in his leave to defend application is required to show why the landlord is disentitled from evicting the tenant. A Court proceeds on the assumption that the need of the premises is genuine. Mere bald averments by the tenant would not suffice, he would need to show ex facie reasons which would disentitle the landlord from grant of an eviction order. The Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gunta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr.), (1999) 6 SCC 222 has dwelt in detail on what constitutes bona fide requirement and what the tenant has to bring forth to the Court to be granted a leave to defend.

14. For the above reasons this Court is unpersuaded by the arguments on behalf of the petitioner-tenant to set aside the impugned order. The view taken by the Trial Court is based on the record and is a plausible view in law. There is no material irregularity warranting the interference of this Court. There is no merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.