Ms. Devna Soni, Mr. Jatin Sehgal, Mr. Ashish Garg, Ms. Simran Bajaj Shubham Aggarwal v. RANJIT SINGH

The court has heard Ms. Devna Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; as well as Mr. S.C. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in RC. REV. No. 95/2014 and Mr. Sajan Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in RC. REV. No. 112/2014, at length. For the sake of completeness, it ought to be recorded that vide two separate orders, both dated 20.08.2019, the legal representatives of deceased respondent in RC. REV. No. 95/2014 and deceased respondent No.2 in RC. REV. No. 112/2014 were impleaded in the present proceedings and amended memos of parties were taken on

4. record.

5. Furthermore, as recorded in order dated 29.04.2025, the additional documents placed before this court in RC. REV. No. 95/2014 have not been considered in the present revisional proceedings, since those documents did not form part of the record before the learned ARC. Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:02.07.2025 14:36:00 RC.REV. 95/2014 & RC.REV. 112/2014 Page 2 of 19

6. Briefly, RC. REV. No. 95/2014 pertains to premises bearing No. FACTUAL MATRIX II/40/8, Dalip Singh Block, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi and RC. REV. 112/2014 pertains to premises bearing No. II/40/9, Dalip Singh Block, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi respectively, which premises are presently fetching paltry rents of Rs. 40/- per month each. As the record would show, both premises have been in the occupation of the concerned respondents for the last more than 50 years. The premises are stated to be old constructions and no rent agreement is stated to have been executed between the landlord and the tenant(s). Both the above-mentioned premises are hereinafter, individually and jointly, referred to as the „subject premises‟.

7. Two eviction petitions, both dated 17.04.2009, were filed by the petitioners under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the respondents (tenants) from the subject premises on the ground that petitioner No.2, who runs 02 restaurants by the name of „Dhaba‟ in London, United Kingdom bona-fidé requires the subject premises for expanding his business in India.

8. The respondents filed their respective applications seeking leave to defend, which applications came to be allowed vide orders dated

08.09.2009 and 17.11.2009 respectively passed by the learned ARC. The eviction proceedings culminated in passing of the impugned judgments dated 25.07.2013, which judgments, while acknowledging the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:02.07.2025 14:36:00 RC.REV. 95/2014 & RC.REV. 112/2014 Page 3 of 19 proceeded to dismiss the eviction petitions on the ground that the petitioners had failed to prove that they had any bona-fidé requirement for the subject premises.

9. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned ARC relied on the fact that the petitioners are Non-Resident Indians („NRIs‟) who have been residing outside India since the 1970s; and on the evidence of PW- 1/petitioner No.2 recorded on 22.05.2010, where he stated that given the measurements of the subject premises, a restaurant cannot be run from those premises alone. Furthermore, the learned ARC also reasoned that petitioner No.1 (who is the mother of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3) cannot run a business due to her ill-health; and since petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are settled-in and are running their businesses in London and Dubai respectively, the petitioners did not require the subject premises for their “subsistence or survival”; and therefore their bona- fidé requirement did not amount to being an “actual need”; and that two of the eviction petitioners (petitioners Nos. 1 and 3) did not even depose in the proceedings. PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS

10. Ms. Devna Soni learned counsel for the petitioners would submit, that the learned ARC has failed to appreciate, that it is settled law that tenants cannot dictate the terms of use of a tenanted property to their landlords. In this regard, counsel has relied on the decision of a Co- Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:02.07.2025 14:36:00 RC.REV. 95/2014 & RC.REV. 112/2014 Page 4 of 19 ordinate Bench of this court in Satya Pal Pathak vs. Vijay Kumar Kaushik.1

11. Inasmuch as PW-1‟s statement dated 22.05.2010 is concerned, Ms. Soni would argue that the learned ARC has only selectively appreciated that statement, and in doing so, has erroneously concluded that the petitioners do not have any bona-fidé requirement for the subject premises. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel has drawn attention of the court to the following excerpt of PW-1‟s statement recorded on 22.05.2010 “… The tenanted premises has now fallen to my share out of the ancestral property and I therefore want to use the same for opening a restaurant in Delhi where I have been born and brought up. It is incorrect to suggest that this eviction petition has only been filed because the same has fallen to my share. According to me the approximate measurement of the tenanted premises is 15’ X 12’. It is correct that a restaurant cannot be run from this shop alone. Vol. I can however run a take away/delivery joint from the said shop.…” (emphasis supplied) Ms. Soni accordingly would submit that the learned ARC has failed to appreciate that even if the subject premises alone cannot be used to run a sit-down restaurant, it can certainly be used to operate a food take-away business or delivery joint, which is essentially like running a restaurant. Counsel would further submit that the petitioners have also filed proceedings seeking eviction of tenants from other contiguous premises; and the combined size of these premises would 1 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8846 Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:02.07.2025 14:36:00 RC.REV. 95/2014 & RC.REV. 112/2014 Page 5 of 19 even allow the running of a full-fledged restaurant. To further substantiate this argument, counsel has also drawn attention of this court to the following excerpt of statement dated 17.09.2010 of PW-2, who is the power of attorney holder of PW-1/petitioner No.2 : “Q. How can Mr. Jonny Loyal run a restaurant business from the tenanted shop which is having an area of 10X12 feet? Ans. Mr. Jonny Loyal intends to start a take away business from the tenanted shop and he also plans to merge all the three tenanted shops for starting his restaurant business.”

12. Insofar as the learned ARC‟s conclusion is premised on the (emphasis supplied) petitioners being NRIs and being well-established abroad concerned, Ms. Soni would place reliance on verdicts of the Supreme Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal,2 and Raghunath G. Panhale vs. Chaganlal Sundarji and Co., 3 to argue that it is neither unnatural for a landlord to seek eviction to expand his business; nor should a landlord necessarily be on the verge of destitution to seek to establish his business. In this regard counsel has also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prativa Devi (Smt.) vs. T.V. Krishnan, 4 and Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,5 to submit, that a landlord is free to decide his own requirements and it is unnecessary to enquire into “how else the landlord could have adjusted himself”. 2 3 4 5