DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS THAT OWNERSHIP OF MULTIPLE PROPERTIES BY A LANDLORD MUST BE PROVED BY THE TENANT TO RETAIN POSSESSION OF TENANTED PREMISES

A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Girish Kathpalia passed a judgement dated 29.05.2024 in Dr. Arun Puri & Anr v. Rajinder Kumar Aggarwal Rc.Rev. 560/2019 wherein the High Court held that submission of a mere affidavit by a tenant stating that a landlord owns multiple properties, would not be sufficient for the tenant to retain possession of the tenanted premises, rather, the tenant must prove such submissions by placing significant evidences on record.

Facts

The present Petition was filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act) (Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement) by the Petitioner/Tenant, challenging the Order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Delhi, whereby Application of the Petitioner seeking leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act (Protection of tenant against eviction) was dismissed.

The Respondent/ Landlord was the owner of the entire first floor and second floor of premises bearing No. 2/21, Roop Nagar, Delhi (Subject Premises). The mother of the Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the Subject Premises and later the Petitioner became the tenant of the same property. The Subject Premises was lying unused and vacant for the past several years but was in possession of the Petitioner.

The Respondent is the Director of a Company named JCBL Limited engaged in the business of luxury buses and thus filed an Eviction Petition against the Petitioner for use of the Subject Premises for establishing an office for his Company and also for its use by his family. The Respondent provided that JCBL had to vacate the earlier offices located at different parts of Delhi and now the Subject Premises is the only place left for him to set up his office. The Respondent contended that his daughter and son are working in different fields and need a place in Delhi for business development.

The Respondent in his Eviction Petition pleaded that he requires the Subject Premises to be used as a guest house of JCBL Limited on first floor and for business establishment of his daughter on the second floor.

The Respondent also stated that the Subject Premises was vacant since past 10 years and the Petitioner was only interested in extracting money from the Respondent for vacating the property.

The Petitioner on the other hand, filed an Application for leave to contest in the proceedings before Ld. Additional Rent Controller, pleading that the Subject Premises have been used by them for running a nursing home and there has been no change in the non-residential use of the same. The Petitioner also contended that the Respondents live in Chandigarh and have no intention to settle in Delhi in any manner and they have filed the Eviction Petition just to evict the Petitioner from the property.

It was also provided by the Petitioner that the Respondent also has multiple properties in Delhi including a residential space in Hauz Khas which can be used for the purposes stated by the Respondent.

However, after hearing both the Parties, Ld. Additional Rent Controller dismissed the Application of the Petitioner and hence the present Petition was filed in the Delhi High Court.

Issues

I) Whether the Additional Rent Controller was right in dismissing the Application for leave to contest of the Petitioner?

II) Whether the Respondent has the bona fide requirement of the Subject Premises for his family and children?

Decision by the High Court

The High Court of Delhi took consideration of the earlier contentions and arguments made by the Parties before the Ld. Additional Rent Controller. The High Court also observed that the Petitioner has brought the argument that the Respondents do have alternate accommodation in Delhi at the stage of rebuttal, which deserves to be rejected as it was contrary to the record. The Respondent had successfully proved that he had no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation for the requirements of his family.

The Hon’ble High Court took consideration of the fact that the daughter of the Respondent is carrying on her business from tenanted premises and she had to keep shifting her workplace on account of expiry of lease periods. It also is reflected from record that JCBL Limited also had been operating from the tenanted premises and had to keep shifting due to expiry of lease periods.

The Delhi High Court observed that the Delhi Rent Control Act was enacted not to kill rights of an owner of a property who had inducted tenant in the same. Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court looked upon the expression “dependent” which could be construed not only as financial dependency but also emotional dependency along with dependency on accommodation. With the help of judicial precedents, learned counsel for Respondent contended that financial independence of children of Respondent does not mean independence for the purposes of accommodation.

Hence, the Hon’ble Court held that submission of a mere affidavit by the tenant stating that a landlord owns multiple properties will not be sufficient and the tenant must prove by placing significant evidences on record.

The Hon’ble Bench had taken a view in the case of Charanjeet Singh vs Vivek Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 613 that merely because the children of the landlord are financially independent, it cannot be said that requirement of the tenanted premises setup by the landlord for their own use is not a bona fide requirement.

Conclusion

Thus, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the Petition filed by the Petitioner. The High Court did not find any infirmity in the Order passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and upheld the said Order stating that there is no law which states that a rich man must be presumed to be devoid of bona fide requirement of premises.

 

ARJAV JAIN

ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES