Dr. Ajay Chaudhary, Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. Bharat Chaudhary and Mr. Anurag Singh Tomar v. GEETA SARDANA

Judgment

1. The present Petition seeks to challenge an order dated 04.06.2016 passed by the learned SCJ/RC (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the Application for Leave to Defend/Contest filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed. The premises in issue are one shop in property bearing No. A-11, Gali No.1, Jagat Puri, Delhi-51 as shown in the red colour in the site plan annexed with the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”].

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has made two submissions before this Court. He submits in the first instance that the need of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 18:46:55 RC.REV. 416/2016 Page 1 of 15 Respondent/landlord as set out in the Eviction Petition is “cosmetic”. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that soon after the filing of the present Petition, in fact 13 days later, the Respondent/landlord let out an adjacent shop bearing No. A-15/3, Jagat Puri, Delhi to a third party. It is thus contended that in view of the letting out of the shop, the bona fide need does not exist.

2.1 Secondly, is contended by learned Counsel for Petitioner/tenant that there are several additional properties which were set out in the Application for Leave to Defend/Contest. It is contended that these properties are available with the Respondent/landlord. Thus, the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”] are not stand satisfied.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord on the other hand submits that the need as was set out by the Respondent/landlord in the Eviction Petition was for settling his son. It was stated therein that the son wishes to start a business of a fast food chain from the subject premises. It was further contended that the shop is situated on the main road in Jagat Puri market and it was further stated in the Eviction Petition that it is a good option for setting up a fast food shop.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord further submits that the premises that are being discussed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant as being available with the Respondent/landlord are premises which are much smaller than the subject premises and is situated in the residential area. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 18:46:55 RC.REV. 416/2016 Page 2 of 15

5. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord that so far as concerns the several properties mentioned by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant in his Leave to Defend/Contest, the same have already been addressed by the Respondent/landlord in Reply to Leave to Defend/Contest. Reliance is placed on the following extract of Paragraph 7 in this behalf, which is below: “7. That the contents of para no.7 of the application are denied in toto. It is denied that the petitioner is having other properties in her name or that as well as benami properties in the name of her dears and nears or that it is denied that the petitioner is the owner of the Two shops and two floors at A-15, Jagat Puri, Delhi or that A-11, Jagat Puri, Delhi-51 consisting three shops and four storied building or that 4, Arjun Nagar, Delhi-51, consisting two shops or that A-17, Jagat Puri, Delhi consisting four stories or that 21, South Anarkali, Delhi including shop or that A-7, Jagat puri, Delhi or that 128, Old Anarkali, Delhi including shop or that 33 A, Radhey Puri Extn, Delhi including shop or that E-64, South Anarkali, Delhi or that A-1, Jagat Puri, Delhi or that 51, Anarkali Garden, Delhi or that Shop at Khasra No.32/23/2, Plot No.3, Harsh Vihar, Delhi or that details of Benami Properties one second floor at H-32, Shastri Park, Delhi or that third floor at H-32, Shastri Park, Delhi or that first floor at 153, Old Anarkali, Delhi or that second floor at 153, Old Anarkal, Delhi or that third floor at 153, Old Anarkali, Delhi or that 2, New Layalpur Extn., Delhi or that third floor at N-85, Raghuvir Nagar, Delhi or that first floor at 67, Khasra No. 28/2, Baldev Park, Delhi or that 132/A/3, Jagat Puri, Delhi or that ground floor at F-4, Jagat Puri, Delhi or that land in village Badalpur, Dadri, purchased from Bhanwar Singh. It is submitted that the property No.15/3 is three storeys and is being used by the petitioner and her family members. There are two shops of the ground floor portion out of which one shop was already given on rent by the petitioner and one shop is lying vacant but the same is not a suitable accommodation for the purpose of running the desired business further the property bearing No.A-11, is having three shops, one is in the possession of respondent, one is in the possession of other tenant Smt. Manisha W/o Late Madan Lal and another one was vacated by another tenant Smt. Santosh Sharma after filling of similar application, which was withdrawn by the petitioner from the Ld. Predecessor of this Hon’ble Court further the property bearing No.4, Arjun Nagar is having two shops Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 18:46:55 RC.REV. 416/2016 Page 3 of 15 out of which one shop is under the tenancy of one tenant and another one is lying vacant but the same is not a suitable accommodation for the purpose of desired business. Further property No.A-17, Jagatpuri is not in the name of petitioner. Further the petitioner is only the owner of one shop at property No. 21, South Anarkali, Delhi, which was sold by her before 5-6 year back. Further with regard to property No.A-7, Jagatpuri, it is submitted that the petitioner is having no concern over the same and the husband of the petitioner namely Hemraj Sardana is the tenant in the same from the last 2-3 years at a month by rent of Rs.532/- P.M. The rent receipt is enclosed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Further the petitioner had already sold the property No.128, Old Anarkali, Delhi before 10-12 years back and at present she is having no concern with the same. Further the petitioner had already sold the property No.33-A, Radhey Purl Extn, Delhi before 4-5 years back and at present she is having no concern for- the same. Further the petitioner is the owner of only IInd floor portion of premises No.E-64, South Anarkali, Delhi, which is residential one and the same was given on rent by the petitioner. Further the petitioner was l/he owner of only IInd floor portion of premises No.A-1, Jagat Puri, Delhi and the same was disposal off by the petitioner before 7-8 years and at present, the petitioner is having no concern with the same present. Further the petitioner is having no concern with property No.51, Anarkali Garden and the same was disposed off by her before 10 years back and at present she is having no concern with the same. Further Khasra No.32/23/2; Plot No.3, Harsh Vihar, Delhi is not a shop rather the same is Plot and the petitioner is having no concern with the same nor the same is in the name of petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner had not disclosed about the above stated properties as the same is not the subject matter for the purpose of deciding the present application as the same were already disposal above. The petitioner had disclosed her present status in the application and had disclosed the bonafide requirement of herself and her family member over the suit premises and as such merely mentioning the details of properties, which were already disposed off by the petitioner is of no help for the respondent. The law is otherwise well settled that a tenant can not dictate the landlord as to and in what manner the landlord shall use his premises.” [Emphasis Supplied]

6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord additionally submits that the plea that was taken by the Petitioner/tenant before the learned Trial Court the Leave to Defend/Contest was the son of Respondent/landlord was already doing a business of sale/purchase of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:02.04.2025 18:46:55 RC.REV. 416/2016 Page 4 of 15 property. However, it is contended that the said business is being done by the Respondent/landlord.

7. It is further contended that the only reason that this contention was made by the Petitioner/tenant as was set out in his Leave to Defend/Contest, is that the number of the son of the Respondent/landlord was appearing on the sign boards of the business being run by the Respondent/landlord. Learned Counsel lastly contends that the need is to set up the son of the Respondent with an independent business, thus the need is bona fide.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has contended that given the fact that there were several properties mentioned by the Petitioner/tenant in his Application for Leave to Defend/Contest, the Leave to Defend/Contest ought to have been allowed. He seeks to rely upon his Application for Leave to Defend/Contest filed before the learned Trial Court wherein several properties have been mentioned as being the properties of Respondent/landlord and details of various “Benami” properties have also been mentioned. It is thus contended that the Leave to Defend/Contest ought to have been allowed by the learned Trial Court.

9. The Supreme Court in Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua1 has while relying on the judgment in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh2 has held that the Leave to Defend sought for cannot be granted for the mere asking or in routine manner, nor can it be refused on the basis of a mere desire. The relevant extract of the Abid-ul-Islam case is as follows: “16. We may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in Inderjeet Kaur v.