Mr. P. P. Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sonia Malhotra Kumar, Mr. Vishal Gohri v. HARISH CHAND GARG

Judgment

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] seeking to challenge the judgment dated 06.02.2018 [hereinafter referred to as “the Impugned Judgment”] passed by the court of Ld. SCJ-cum-RC, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”] in Eviction Petition bearing no. 78192/2016 [renumbered from 115/2011] captioned Dr. Sudershan Kumar v. Harish Chand Garg [hereinafter referred to as “Eviction Petition”] whereby the Eviction Petition filed by the Petitioner/Landlord has been dismissed in respect of the shop forming part of the property bearing no. 29/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 measuring front 8’4” and length 23’9” as shown in the red colour in the site plan which is annexed with the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”].

2. Briefly, the facts are that an Eviction Petition was filed by the Petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”] seeking eviction of the Respondent from the subject premises in the year 2011. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject premises by way of a sale deed dated 27.07.2006, having purchased the same from the previous owner, one Mr. Vijay Kumar, who had let out the subject premises to the Respondent at a monthly rental of Rs. 200/-. The Petitioner seeks eviction of the Respondent on the ground that the subject premises is required by the Petitioner for his bona fide need Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 20:17:24 RC.REV. 226/2018 Page 2 of 57 to set up a dental clinic facility.

2.1 An application for leave to defend was filed by the Respondent, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 15.12.2012. The order dated 15.12.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court was the subject matter of challenge before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RC Rev. No. 109/2013 captioned Sudershan Kumar v. Harish Chand Garg, and the same was dismissed by a judgement dated 13.06.2014 [hereinafter referred to as Judgement dated 13.06.2014”]. Thereafter, upon a full trial, the Eviction Petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by way of the Impugned Judgment. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is the owner of the subject premises by way of a sale deed dated 27.07.2006 and the Respondent was inducted as a tenant in the subject premises by the erstwhile owner of the subject premises. The property bearing no. 29/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 [hereinafter referred to as “Property No 29/5, Shakti Nagar”], comprises two front-facing shops on the main road, of which one is the subject premises and the other is a separate shop which was given on tenancy to a different tenant and separate proceedings were initiated seeking eviction of that tenant. The back portion of the Property No 29/5, Shakti Nagar is in possession of the Petitioner.

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner requires the subject premises for the bona fide need of the Petitioner to set up a dental clinic facility in the subject premises. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a highly qualified dentist with a Master’s degree in Dental Surgery and advanced training abroad in maxillofacial surgery and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 20:17:24 RC.REV. 226/2018 Page 3 of 57 orthodontics, and that the Petitioner has also previously served as the Head of Department and senior consultant at St. Stephen’s Hospital for 16 years.

3.2 It is further submitted that the Petitioner is currently running a dental clinic from Shop No. 3, Municipal Market, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, admeasuring 16’-4½” × 14’-4½” [hereinafter referred to as “Shop No.3 Kamla Nagar”]. However, the existing clinic is small and can only accommodate two dental chairs and one X-ray machine in a congested setup, with no proper waiting area for patients. Further, due to space constraints, the Petitioner is unable to provide adequate treatment to the patients and is forced to refer patients elsewhere. Thus, the Petitioner requires the subject premises to set up a modern dental clinic/hospital with round-the-clock facilities, catering to patients, attendants, and staff under one roof, and also for promoting dental tourism.

3.3 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is residing in a house bearing no. 11/8, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 [hereinafter referred to as “Property No. 11/8, Shakti Nagar”], and the subject premises is situated near the residence of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner is a senior citizen, and thus it will be convenient for the Petitioner to establish a dental clinic near the residence of the Petitioner.

3.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Property No. 11/8, Shakti Nagar is used solely for residential purposes and Shop No.3 Kamla Nagar from where the Petitioner is currently running his dental clinic, has insufficient space. In regards to the vacant portion in Property No 29/5, Shakti Nagar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the same is not sufficient for the intended bona fide need of the Petitioner since Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.07.2025 20:17:24 RC.REV. 226/2018 Page 4 of 57 the Petitioner intends to open a clinic with all modern facilities and as part of the composite plan the Petitioner would require the subject premises as well as the other shop in the Property No 29/5, Shakti Nagar along with the space in the Property No 29/5, Shakti Nagar which is already in possession of the Petitioner.

3.5 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the second floor of the Property No 29/5, Shakti Nagar is owned by the wife of the Petitioner, however, the same is not suitable for carrying out professional activities and cannot be used for non-residential purposes.

3.6 It is further submitted that the front-facing shops are better placed to run a business in comparison to the shops which are placed on the back side of the property. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Anil Bajaj & Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja1.

3.7 It is further submitted by the Petitioner that there does not exist any other reasonable or suitable accommodation with the Petitioner to establish a modern dental clinic/hospital as intended by the Petitioner.

3.8 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that landlord is the best judge of his requirements and a tenant cannot dictate the terms to the landlord as to how the landlord has to use the property. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan2 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Adarsh Electricals & Ors. v. Dinesh Dayal3 in this behalf.