Mr. Gaurav Seth, Advocate v. ANUP NARAIN GAUR

Judgment

1. The respondent/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition being RC ARC No.119/2020 titled as ‘Anup Narain Gaur v. Rajender Kumar Pahuja’ under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 against the petitioner/ tenant3 seeking eviction of the shop on the ground floor of property bearing no. IX/7024, Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110 0314 before the learned Additional Rent Controller, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi5, on the ground that the same was required for his own bona fide need of establishing a readymade garments business after taking voluntary retirement from service in the Gas Authority of India Limited. 1 hereinafter ‘respondent’ 2 hereinafter ‘the Act’ 3 hereinafter ‘petitioner’ 4 hereinafter ‘subject premises’ 5 hereinafter ‘learned ARC’ RC.REV. 391/2024

2. Upon being served, the petitioner filed the leave to defend under Section 25B(4) of the Act refuting the grounds urged by the respondent as also primarily urging that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in the claimed partition and other deeds filed by the respondent qua the ownership of the subject premises, as also that there were three other shops adjacent to the subject premises, and out of those three shops, two were being run jointly by the respondent and his brother, and one had been let out recently (then 2021) by the respondent, proving that there was no bona fide requirement of the subject premises on part of the respondent. It was also contended that there were suppressions in the Site Plan filed by the respondent, and certain mezzanine floor in the said premises recently let out to the adjacent shop, being an alternate accommodation, had been

concealed by the respondent, as also some other spaces on the first floor had been concealed. 3. In response thereto, denying the aforesaid averments made by the petitioner, the respondent submitted that there was no concealment qua the Site Plan in the eviction petition, which had in fact been admitted by the petitioner in separate proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, and the so-called mezzanine floor in the adjacent shop was not an alternate suitable accommodation, but under the exclusive control of the existing tenant in the adjacent premises, as also the first floor cannot be used for commercial purposes as per the Zonal Development Plan of the Delhi Development Authority. 4. Upon considering the above, as also hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned ARC identified three conditions of RC.REV. 391/2024 Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, viz. landlord-tenant relationship, bona fide requirement of the landlord and no alternate suitable accommodation available with the landlord, dismissed the application for leave to defend of the petitioner vide order dated 31.07.20246. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Act seeking setting aside of the impugned order passed by the learned ARC. 6. On the very first day of listing thereof on 23.12.2024, this Court passed the following order:- Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant “… … 6. further submits that in view of the fact that a correct site plan was not filed, the examination undertaken by the learned Trial Court was inadequate.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/ tenant, on instructions, restricts his contentions to an examination on the aspect of the site plan and the availability of alternate suitable accommodation.

8. On this limited aspect, issue Notice. … …” [Emphasis Supplied]

7. Then, the respondent filed an application for early hearing (CM APPL.15930/2025) which was allowed by this Court on 25.04.2025. Now the petitioner has also filed a similar application for early hearing (CM APPL. 52638/2025). Considering the status involved, the present petition is taken up for hearing. 8. Mr. Gaurav Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the Site Plan annexed with the eviction petition filed by the respondent, leave to defend filed by the petitioner and the Partition Deed filed by the 6 hereinafter ‘impugned order’ RC.REV. 391/2024 respondent, submits that there are contradictions therein. He further submits that the subject premises are in fact not owned by the respondent but by his sister, as also, of the three other shops, two are owned by the respondent, wherein he and his brother are jointly running business. 9. Mr. Gaurav Seth then submits that the requirement urged by the respondent is not bona fide in nature, as the same is vague and unrealistic, amounting only to a mere state of mind or a wish. He lastly submits that the mezzanine floor in the adjacent shop, as well as the space available on the first floor which has been concealed by the respondent are alternate suitable accommodations, and the said issue has been decided by the learned ARC in a mechanical manner. 10. Per contra, Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, learned senior counsel for the respondent supporting the impugned order submits that there are no concealments on part of the respondent in the site plan. Also, the objection to the Site Plan by the petitioner is unfounded and baseless, especially, when the very same petitioner has admitted the very same Site Plan in the written statement(s)/ reply(s) filed by the petitioner to the two other eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) filed by the respondent. He submits that the said documents were duly filed before the learned ARC and have also been noted by the learned ARC in the impugned order. 11. Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, learned senior counsel then submits that there is no alternate suitable accommodation under the ownership or possession of the respondent as he only owns the subject premises. Out of the three adjacent shops, one of them is jointly owned by him and his sister, and in the remaining two shops, his brother is independently running his own business exclusively without any involvement of the respondent. He, once RC.REV. 391/2024 again, submits that the same have also been noted by the learned ARC in the impugned order. 12. Mr. Jagdeep Sharma, learned senior counsel further submits that the mezzanine floor of the adjacent shop which has been leased out for the past several years, is not a separate space, but a part of the very same adjacent shop. Lastly, he submits that since the subject premises is in a property placed in a Pedestrian Shopping Street, any space on the first floor thereof cannot be used for commercial purposes. As such, there being no alternate suitable accommodation, the issue qua the same has rightly been decided in favour of the respondent by the learned ARC in the impugned order. 13. This Court, in terms of order dated 23.12.2024 passed by this Court, has heard learned (senior) counsels for the parties, as also gone through the pleadings and documents on record on the limited aspects of (i) the Site Plan filed by the respondent and (ii) the availability of alternate suitable accommodation. 14. Qua the Site Plan filed by the respondent, interestingly, the very same petitioner has admitted the very same Site Plan in the replies filed in two other eviction petitions being E.No.46/2019 and E.No.27/2018 under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Act respectively inter se the very same parties, which has been categorically observed by the learned ARC as well. The petitioner cannot, thus, be allowed to blow hot and cold, and plead contrary to his own earlier taken stand. Even otherwise, and as correctly pointed out by learned senior counsel for the respondent, the learned ARC has still, for the sake of arguments, proceeded to consider the contrary Site Plan(s) filed by the petitioner, and held that, keeping in RC.REV. 391/2024 view the subsequent Partition, Relinquishment and Sale Deeds, all of which were duly signed and registered, the division of possession amongst the respondent and his brother and sister was undoubted, and hence any inconsistencies, if there, were immaterial. Further, it was held that there were no material concealments in the Site Plan, since, even if the petitioner’s best case is taken, some space on the first floor or the mezzanine of the leased out adjacent shop, were also held to be irrelevant for the purposes of the respondent’s eviction petition based on the evidence on record. This Court does not find anything illegal/ unreasonable in the above findings of fact, and no case to interfere with the same, at this stage, is made out. 15. In any event, it must be borne in mind that the respondent was required to identify the subject premises as also give a Site Plan, but it was not incumbent upon him to give the exact Site Plan under such circumstances. Once it was established that the respondent was the landlord of the subject premises, of which he was admittedly not in possession, the issue of minor consistencies in the Site Plan, if any, fades into insignificance. More so, as held in Shakuntala Devi v. Mohan Das7, even the non-filing of site plan may not be fatal to the case of a landlord, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Therefore, the said issue qua the Site Plan filed by the respondent is discarded. 17. Qua the availability of alternate suitable accommodation, as per the settled position of law, it is not for any tenant like the petitioner, nor for this Court, to go into the aspect of suitability and/ or convenience and/ or RC.REV. 391/2024 choice of the need, much less adequacy thereof, of any landlord like the respondent. Being the landlord, the respondent is the best judge to adjudge his means and necessity. The respondent was only to show that he had a genuine and sincere requirement for the subject premises, and which was not whimsical, imaginary and/ or fanciful. For that, the respondent had indeed made a categoric statement to that effect before the learned ARC, which the petitioner was unable to refute besides making bald, unsupported statements. In any event, it is trite that such mere bare statements will not come to the assistance of any tenant like the petitioner [Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co.8; Balwant Singh v. Sudarshan Kumar9; Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehsan & Ors. 10]. 18. The respondent had taken retirement from service, and was interested in commencing readymade garment business, in the existing scenario, it was very much sufficient for the respondent to file eviction petition for eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises before the learned ARC. Under such circumstances, since the need of the landlord was bona fide it was not open for the petitioner to question the suitability of alternate suitable accommodation. This Court is in complete agreement with the findings of the learned ARC, which, while dealing with the availability of alternate suitable accommodation, has held as under:- “12. Once the landlord has stated that it requires the tenanted premises for a particular use, the Courts are required to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical. Given such standard of scrutiny, this Court proceeds to