- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
NARESH KHANNA v. SAROJ GUPTA
Factual and Procedural Background
This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 challenges the dismissal by the Additional Rent Controller of the tenant's application for leave to defend an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The eviction relates to Shop No.1404, Gali Jhajjar Wali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The tenant also filed an application seeking a stay on the execution of the eviction order. The court issued notice, requisitioned trial court records, and heard counsels for both parties on the revision petition and the stay application.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the tenant is entitled to leave to defend the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
- Whether the landlord's claim of bona fide requirement of the premises for her daughters-in-law qualifies as a valid ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(e).
- The applicability and interpretation of "requirement" and "family" under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in the context of eviction petitions based on personal requirement.
- The legitimacy of the landlord's conduct and allegations of misuse of the Rent Control Act for profiteering through eviction of tenants.
- The scope of remedies available to tenants under Sections 19(1), 19(2), and 14(6) of the Rent Act in cases of alleged misuse by landlords.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner / Tenant's Arguments
- The respondent's husband, an advocate with expertise in rent laws, allegedly buys properties in the respondent’s name to misuse the Rent Control Act and evict old tenants for profiteering.
- Several eviction petitions have been filed by the respondent's husband claiming bona fide requirement for family members.
- Contradictory pleadings regarding ownership and occupancy of property No.1699, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, suggesting falsity and disentitlement of relief.
- The daughters-in-law, for whose requirement eviction is sought, are not dependent on the respondent, and the sons conduct independent businesses elsewhere.
- The property at Shahdara, claimed to be owned by the son-in-law, is small and used only for job work, challenging the bona fide requirement claim.
- Reference to multiple eviction petitions filed by the respondent’s wife, implying a pattern of misuse of eviction proceedings.
Respondent's Arguments
- The husband of the respondent had tenancy and law practice at property No.1699, Dariba Kalan, which was surrendered in 1990.
- The husband’s family resided at the premises until 1998, and occasional client visits to the premises justified continued use of old letterheads.
- The property at Shahdara was purchased to enable the son to obtain a license and is not part of a business of buying and selling properties.
- The respondent, her husband, sons, and daughters-in-law reside together as a family unit.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil Vs. Mohammad Gudusaheb (2003) 3 SCC 101 | Capacity to purchase property alone does not disqualify bona fide requirement for eviction. | Supported rejection of tenant’s vague arguments against landlord’s bona fide requirement. |
| Ramesh Kumar Vs. Neelam Dawar MANU/DE/1751/2014 | Financial well-being of landlord does not preclude eviction if suitable accommodation is lacking. | Reinforced that financial status alone cannot deny eviction on valid grounds. |
| C.L. Davar Vs. Amar Nath Kapur MANU/PH/0327/1962 | Definition of "dependent" includes those not wholly independent or self-supporting, not limited to financial dependence. | Used to interpret dependency of daughters-in-law on landlord for accommodation. |
| J.L. Mehta Vs. Hira Devi (1970) 6 DLT 484 | Family definition depends on social and religious customs; family members residing together form landlord’s family. | Supported inclusion of relatives residing with landlord as family for eviction purposes. |
| Gobind Dass Vs. Kuldip Singh ILR (1970) I Delhi 585 | Requirement of family members residing with landlord is part of landlord’s requirement. | Affirmed that eviction can be sought for family members’ accommodation. |
| Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397 | Requirement of married daughter's family also considered landlord's requirement; words "for his own use" construed broadly. | Applied to recognize daughters-in-law’s requirement as bona fide ground for eviction. |
| Kailash Chand Vs. Dharam Das (2005) 5 SCC 375 | "His own occupation" must be liberally and practically construed, not limited to landlord personally. | Supported broad interpretation of personal requirement including family members. |
| Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi (2016) 10 SCC 209 | Requirement of premises for business of son engaged in other business is landlord’s requirement. | Used to uphold eviction petition based on business needs of family members. |
| Asha Sawhney Vs. Kamini Gupta (2017) | Requirement of daughter-in-law residing with mother-in-law recognized as landlord’s requirement. | Referred to support eviction petition based on daughters-in-law’s accommodation. |
| Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Deepika Verma (2015) 224 DLT 473 | Similar recognition of family member’s requirement for eviction purposes. | Supported current case reasoning on family requirement. |
| Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta (2010) 119 DRJ 599 | Requirement of daughter-in-law residing with mother-in-law as ground for eviction. | Reinforced family requirement principle. |
| M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.K. Soni AIR 1994 Del 167 | Requirement for financially independent sons and grandchildren considered bona fide. | Supported inclusion of extended family’s requirement. |
| Santosh Kumari Mehra Vs. Om Prakash (2015) 221 DLT 578 | Requirement for financially independent sons and grandchildren upheld as landlord’s requirement. | Referred to confirm family requirement interpretation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the tenant’s allegations of misuse and found them to be vague and unsupported by specifics, thereby rejecting the contention that the landlord’s husband’s legal expertise and financial capacity disqualified the bona fide requirement claim. The court emphasized that the law recognizes eviction petitions based on the personal requirement of the landlord’s family members residing with or dependent on the landlord. It applied precedents clarifying that "dependence" need not be absolute financial dependence, and "family" is construed broadly to include relatives living as a family unit.
The court noted that the daughters-in-law, for whose requirement eviction was sought, are considered dependent family members residing with the landlord, and no evidence was presented to show strained relations or separate residences. The court also observed that the alternative accommodation suggested by the tenant was not comparable in commercial value or suitability, reinforcing the landlord’s bona fide requirement.
The court addressed concerns about potential misuse of eviction proceedings by highlighting statutory safeguards under Sections 19(1), 19(2), and 14(6) of the Rent Act that protect tenants from eviction abuse, thus negating the need for additional restrictions on landlords’ rights.
Consequently, the court found no merit in the tenant’s petition and upheld the order denying leave to defend the eviction petition.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
The court dismissed the tenant’s petition challenging the denial of leave to defend the eviction petition. The decision confirms that eviction petitions based on bona fide requirement of family members residing with the landlord, including daughters-in-law, are valid under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The ruling upholds the broad and practical interpretation of "family" and "requirement" in eviction law and affirms existing statutory protections against misuse of eviction processes. No new precedent was established; the court applied settled legal principles to the facts of the case. The tenant was denied leave to defend, and the eviction order stands without costs.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM Nos.30866/2017 & 30867/2017 (both for exemptions)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The applications are disposed of. RC.REV. 281/2017 & CM No.30865/2017 (for stay)
3. This petition, under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, impugns the order [dated 21 January, 2017 in E-25/16 (New No.79739/16) of the Court of Additional Rent Controller-02,Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner / tenant for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent and the resultant order of eviction of the petitioner / tenant from Shop No.1404, Gali Jhajjar Wali, Chandni Chowk, near Central Bank of India, Delhi-110006.
4. Notice of the petition was issued and the trial Court record requisitioned and the counsel for the respondent appeared.
5. CM No.30865/2017 has been filed by the petitioner / tenant for stay of execution of the order of eviction. The counsel for the respondent appears. RC.REV. 281/2017 Page 2 of 9
6. The counsels have been heard on the Rent Control Revision Petition itself.
7. The counsel for the petitioner / tenant has argued i) that the husband of the respondent viz. Mr. O.P. Aggarwal is an advocate and a practitioner of rent laws and has expertise therein and has made a business of buying property in the name of the respondent and then misusing the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for evicting the old tenants in the property and for profiteering therefrom; ii) that the said husband of the respondent has filed several petitions for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for some member or other of his family; iii) attention is invited to page 89 of the paper book, being a part of the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner / tenant, and where the petitioner / tenant had pleaded that the respondent and her husband are the owners of built up property No.1699, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-110006; attention is next invited to reply thereto at page 132 of the paper book where it has been pleaded that the respondent or her family members have no concern with property No. No.1699, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-110006 and the petitioner / tenant if so desire can occupy the same and that the husband of the respondent was a tenant on the third floor in the said property and left the same on 30 June, 1990 and shifted to property No.A-34-35, Chanderlok, Mandoli Road, Delhi; attention is next invited to page 178 of the paper book being a letter head dated 15 November, 2000 of the husband of the respondent where one of the address given is 1699, Kucha Jatmal, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-110006 (On Appointment Seat) and it is argued that the respondent has indulged in falsity and is disentitled from any relief on this ground alone; iv) that the daughters-in-law of the respondent, pleading whose requirement the RC.REV. 281/2017 Page 3 of 9 petition for eviction of the petitioner / tenant was filed, are not dependent upon the respondent and the sons of the respondent are carrying on independent business at a different place; v) attention is next invited to page 132 of the paper book, being reply of the respondent to the application for leave to defend, where it is pleaded that property No.A- 6/8, Gali No.1, Chanderlok, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi is in a narrow street and the same is in the area of 28 sq. yds. and owned by the son of law or petitioner where only Ashu Gupta is doing job work to earn his livelihood.; attention is next invited to page 423 of the paper book being order dated 23 May, 2017 in Case No.E-212/2017 of the Court of ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in another petition for eviction filed by the respondent against Sh. Sanjay and Sh. Ravi and where five petitions including the petition for eviction from which this petition arises filed by the wife of the respondent are mentioned.
8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent who is also the husband of the respondent has argued i) that the third floor of property No.1699, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-110006 was in the tenancy of the husband of the respondent and from where the husband of the respondent was having his law practice; ii) that the said tenancy was surrendered on 30 June, 1990; iii) that the brother of the husband of the respondent was also residing in the said premises and whose family, after his death continued to reside there till 1998; iv) that since the clients of the husband of the respondent were used to meeting him at Dariba Kalan and found visiting the office at Mandoli, Shahdara inconvenient, the husband of the respondent, whenever any client wanted to meet, was visiting the said premises for the purpose of meeting the client only and which also stopped after the RC.REV. 281/2017 Page 4 of 9 brothers family moved out from that premises and it is just that the old letter heads continued; v) that the Agreement to Sell at page 195 with respect to the property No.A-6/8, Gali No.1, Chanderlok, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi in the name of Ashu Gupta son of the respondent was to enable him to obtain a licence; vi) that the respondent and her husband have purchased only two properties and are not in the business of sale and purchase of properties; vii) that the respondent along with her husband, sons and daughters-in-law are residing together.
9. I have considered the rival contentions.
10. No merit is found in the first of the aforesaid contentions.
11. Merely because the landlady is well to do or her husband is a practitioner of law, does not prevent him / her from invoking Section 14(1)(e) of the Act and vague arguments, without any specifics, cannot be considered. Supreme Court in Bhimanagouda Basanagouda Patil Vs. Mohammad Gudusaheb (2003) 3 SCC 101 held that the fact that a person has a capacity to purchase the property cannot be the sole ground to hold against him, if has a genuine need for the premises purchased. This Court also, in Ramesh Kumar Vs. Neelam Dawar MANU/DE/1751/2014, (SLP (C) No.23911/2014 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 3 September, 2014) held that although the landlord may be financially well off but in the absence of suitable accommodation for his need, his financial well being cannot deny him the eviction order.
12. With respect to the second argument, I fail to see as to what purpose the trial will serve thereon.
13. Whether it be at this stage or after trial, the question for adjudication is, whether a landlady can seek eviction of the tenant on the RC.REV. 281/2017 Page 5 of 9 ground of requirement of her daughter-in-law. The said question is no longer res integra and it has been settled that the words requirement of the landlord within the meaning of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is not only confined to requirement of the landlord but of all members of the family of the landlord who are dependent upon the landlord for accommodation and with whom landlord is residing as a family or who constitute family of landlord. It is for this reason only that eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been ordered for the requirements of financially well off sons as well. In the present case, the plea of the respondent / landlady in the petition for eviction is that the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner / tenant is required to enable her daughters-in-law who have been doing the work of sale of garments from their residence, to set up a boutique.
14. As far back as in C.L. Davar Vs. Amar Nath Kapur MANU/PH/0327/1962 it was held that the meaning of the word dependent cannot be construed as meaning nothing but wholly dependent in the sense of not earning anything at all and being entirely dependent for boarding, lodging and food. It was held that the term must be construed as meaning somebody not wholly independent or self supporting and in a position to set up a separate residence. It was yet further held that dependence may not in all circumstances be entirely a matter of finance. Again in J.L. Mehta Vs. Hira Devi (1970) 6 DLT 484 it was held that what constitutes a family in a particular society depends upon the habits and ideas of persons constituting that society and the religious and socio religious customs of the community to which such persons may belong. It was thus held that the requirement of the family of the brother of the landlord residing with the landlord would also be the RC.REV. 281/2017 Page 6 of 9 requirement of the landlord. It was further held that the requirement of the landlord himself cannot be considered by excluding the requirement of other persons with whom the landlord is habituated to residing as a family. To the same effect is the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Dass Vs. Kuldip Singh ILR (1970) I Delhi 585. Supreme Court in Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397 approved of the view taken in J.L. Mehta supra as well as in Krishna Devi Vs. Parmeshwari Devi (1977) 2 RCJ 529 where requirement of the family of the married daughter was also considered as requirement of the landlady. It was further held that the words for his own use cannot be construed narrowly. Again, in Kailash Chand Vs. Dharam Das (2005) 5 SCC 375 it was held that the expression his own occupation has to be liberally construed and given a practical meaning and does not mean occupation by the landlord himself only. Recently in Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi (2016) 10 SCC 209 also the requirement of premises for the business of the son already engaged in some other business was held to be the requirement of the landlord. Reference in this regard may also be made to my judgment dated 17 July, 2017 in RC. Rev. No.315/2017 titled Asha Sawhney Vs. Kamini Gupta and to Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Deepika Verma (224) 2015 DLT 473 and Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta (2010) 119 DRJ 599. The latter two were also cases of requirement of the daughter-in-law residing with the mother-in-law. Mention may also be made of M/s. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.K. Soni AIR 1994 Del 167 and Santosh Kumari Mehra Vs. Om Prakash (2015) 221 DLT 578 (SLP (C) No.20970/2015 preferred whereagainst was dismissed on 15 January, 2016), both of which were RC.REV. 281/2017 Page 7 of 9 cases of requirement for financially independent sons and grand children of the landlord.
15. The counsel for the petitioner / tenant has not argued that the relations between the respondent / landlord and her sons and daughters-in- law are strained or that they are not even staying in the same house. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner / tenant has interrupted and has drawn attention to pages 88 and 90 of the application for leave to defend. At page 88, it is stated that the two sons of the respondent / landlord are living in property No.A-6/8, Gali No.1, Chanderlok, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi and at page 90, it is stated that the respondent / landlady and her husband are residing at property No.169-170, Gali No.1, Chanderlok Colony, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi.
16. I have enquired from the counsel for the petitioner / tenant, whether the said addresses, which are both of Gali No.1, Chanderlok Colony, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi are separate properties and how much is the distance separating them.
17. The counsel for the petitioner / tenant states that they are far off but is unable to show the same from any plea taken. In the absence of the same, it cannot be said that the relations are strained.
18. In the aforesaid state of law, the daughters-in-law of the respondent / landlady would be dependent upon the respondent / landlady for accommodation and the respondent / landlady would be entitled to seek eviction of the tenant for their requirement and cannot be compelled to instead of meeting / fulfilling the requirement of her daughters-in-law keep a tenant in the premises.
19. As far as the other petitions for eviction stated to have been filed RC.REV. 281/2017 Page 8 of 9 are concerned, merely because a landlord / landlady may have filed more than one petition for eviction, is no ground for grant of leave to defend in any of the petitions for eviction. Each case has to be decided on its own merits and as per the pleas taken in the application for leave to defend and if at all owing to any eviction order and recovery of possession of any premises, the pleaded requirement can be said to be satisfied, only then will the same constitute a plea.
20. I have also drawn attention of the counsel for the petitioner / tenant to Section 19(1) and 19 (2) of the Rent Act which provides the remedy against the landlord misusing the process of the Rent Act by seeking eviction on the ground of requirement and thereafter letting out the premises, by permitting the tenant to apply for repossession thereof. It is thus not as if the petitioner / tenant, if subsequently finds that the respondent / landlady and her husband are guilty of conduct as has been argued, that they would be remediless. Mention in this regard may also be made to Section 14(6) which prohibits a petition for eviction on the ground of personal requirement being filed within five years of acquiring title to the property. The legislature having taken care of the situation of the landlord profiteering from purchase of property and evicting tenants therefrom, no further embargo can be placed on the rights of the landlords.
21. It may also be mentioned that for the requirement pleaded for opening a boutique the premises at Shahdara, Delhi cannot be said to be alternative suitable accommodation. Chandni Chowk, Delhi where the tenancy premises are situated is a well known commercial market including for garments, attracting a large number of purchasers and retailers from other cities also and the potential of business from RC.REV. 281/2017 Page 9 of 9 Shahdara, Delhi cannot be the same as from Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
22. There is thus no merit in the petition. No error is found in the order of the ARC finding the petitioner / tenant to be not entitled to leave to defend the petition.
23. Dismissed. No costs.
24. The date earlier given of 26 September, 2017 is cancelled. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 28, 2017 gsr.. (Corrected and released on 3 October, 2017).
Alert