DELHI HIGH COURT HOLDS LANDLORD-OWNER ENTITLED TO GET BACK POSSESSION OF UNUSED TENANTED PREMISES FOR FURTHER BUSINESS USE

In a recent case, Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the Delhi High Court pronounced a judgment dated 02.06.2023, in the matter of Bhaskar Refractories and Stoneware Pipes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ishwar Industries Ltd. RC. REV. 257/2022, and allowed the eviction petition in favor of the Respondent-Landlord on the ground that the latter is the owner of the suit property and is entitled to get back the tenanted premises from the Petitioner-Tenant for further business use.

FACTS

1) In the present case, the property situated at Ground Floor, Block No. 6 in Khasra No. 264, Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi – 65 (‘Property’), was sold by one, Pandit Amarnath Bhaskar to the Respondent, Ishwar Industries Ltd through an oral sale in 1943. The Respondent’s name appears on the Jamabandi and Revenue records as the owner of the P

2) The Respondent entered into a Development Agreement dated 08.01.1985 and 04.02.1986 with a Developer who undertook  the development of the Property. The Developer agreed to allot 50% of the super-built up area of the Property to the Respondent by means of ‘Owner’s Allocation’.The Developer finished the construction of the ‘Tribhuvan Complex’ (‘Building’) and handed over possession to the Respondent in accordance with the ‘Owner’s Allocation’.

3) The Respondent rented out a part of the Property on the ground floor i.e. to an extent of 5000 sq.ft. to the Petitioner, Bhaskar Refractories and Stoneware Pipes Pvt. Ltd. (‘Tenanted Premises’). However, no lease deed was executed between the Parties, as both Petitioner and Respondent were family businesses but the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 1750/-per month payable directly to the Director of Respondent Company. But the Petitioner failed to pay the rent for the Tenanted Premises beginning in 2006.

4) Aggrieved, the Respondent-Landlord filed an Eviction Petition bearing RC ARC No. 50 of 2019 before the Ld. Rent Controller, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’), under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) (Protection of tenant against eviction) against the Petitioner on the ground that the Respondent needed the office space for its business for bona fide reasons and that it had no other suitable alternate place available for the said purpose. Further, the Tenanted Premises was locked and remained unused by the Petitioner, as it had stopped doing business at the Tenanted Premises for around 7-8 years .

5) The Trial Court ordered for issue and service of notice of the Eviction Petition upon the Petitioner under Section 25B(2) of the DRC Act (Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement).

6) As per the aforesaid Notice, the Petitioner was required to submit the request for leave to defend within 15 days, as per Section 25B(2) of the DRC Act read with Third Schedule of the DRC Act. However, the same was filed with a delay of 13 days by the Petitioner along with an Application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the non-filing was on account of the mistake of the clerk of the Counsel.

7) The Trial Court, vide Order dated 01.12.2021, allowed the Eviction Petition filed by Respondent.

8) Aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a Review Petition before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, vide Order dated 28.07.2022 dismissed the Review Petition.

HIGH COURT OBSERVATIONS

Aggrieved by the Trial Court Orders dated 01.12.2021 and 28.07.2022, the Petitioner filed a Revision Petition bearing RC.REV. 257/2022 before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court, vide Order dated 02-06-2023, made the following observations:

(i) That the reasons given by the Petitioner while seeking condonation of delay before the Trial Court was merely a pretence , and if accepted, it would invalidate the statutory requirement to file the leave to defend within 15 days.

(ii) That the Petitioner has not established / proved that he was prevented from requesting leave to defend within the allotted time by a circumstance beyond its control, thus, the Petitioner is held not entitled to the relief of condonation of delay to file its defense.

(iii) Further, the Trial Court correctly rejected new arguments sought to be brought up by the Petitioner at the time of hearing the Review Application, that were not raised in its earlier defense filed in the eviction proceedings before the Trial Court.

(iv) Furthermore, with regard to the Petitioner’s contention that as the Respondent is a corporate entity, the Eviction Petition at the behest of a corporate entity is not maintainable under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the High Court held that the law recognises the right of a corporate entity to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, for its legitimate needs.

(v) Further, with regard to the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent has no bona fide need for the Tenanted Premises and the pleading to the effect that the Premises are required for the personal use of the Director of the Respondent, does not fall within the ambit of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, as the Respondent-Landlord had no other reasonably accommodation suitable to be used for its business.

(vi) Further, the Tenanted Premises remained unused and locked for 7-8 years by the Petitioner, hence, there is no reason for the Petitioner to initiate the proceedings against the Eviction Order passed by the Trial Court.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the aforesaid observations, the High Court held that the Respondent-Landlord is rightfully entitled to get back the possession of the Tenanted Premises from the Petitioner-Tenant. As a result, the Trial Court Orders dated 01.12.2021 and 28.07.2022 were upheld and the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner-Tenant was dismissed.

Girija Rani Mullapudi

Associate

The Indian Lawyer