Case Title: Hardial Singh (Deceased Through LRs) v. Vivek Gupta
Case Number: RC.REV. 339/2016
Dated On: Judgement reserved on May 14, 2024, and pronounced on May 22, 2024
Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case involves a petitioner named Hardial Singh, represented through his legal representatives, and a respondent named Vivek Gupta. Hardial Singh is the tenant, while Vivek Gupta is the landlord. The dispute centres around two ground floor shops located in Model Town, Delhi, referred to as the subject premises. Vivek Gupta claims ownership of these premises. The subject premises were originally owned by Gupta’s mother, Smt. Nirmala Gupta. Upon her demise, a partition suit was initiated between Vivek Gupta and his brother, Dr. Pradeep Gupta. The partition suit concluded with a settlement agreement, allocating the subject premises to Vivek Gupta’s share and a neighbouring shop to his brother. Vivek Gupta filed an eviction petition against Hardial Singh, asserting a bona fide need for the subject premises to establish an IT consultancy firm. Hardial Singh contested the eviction petition, challenging the genuineness of Gupta’s need for the premises. Singh questioned Gupta’s ownership of adjacent premises and his residential status vis-à-vis his workplace location. The matter was brought before the Rent Controller, where both parties presented their arguments and evidence. The Rent Controller eventually dismissed Singh’s application for leave to contest, prompting Singh to challenge the decision before the High Court.
ISSUES
- Whether Vivek Gupta genuinely requires the subject premises for his IT consultancy firm, as stated in the eviction petition, or if there are alternative motives behind the eviction.
- Clarification of the ownership status of the subject premises following the partition suit between Vivek Gupta and his brother, Dr. Pradeep Gupta, and its impact on the eviction proceedings.
- Determination of Hardial Singh’s rights as a tenant and his entitlement to contest the eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
- Assessment of whether the eviction proceedings comply with legal procedures and principles of fairness as per the Delhi Rent Control Act.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: This provision relates to the powers of the High Court to review orders for possession of tenanted premises passed by the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
- Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: This section pertains to the grounds for eviction of a tenant, specifically in cases where the landlord requires the premises for his own use.
- Relevant Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Sections: References are made to relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code for procedural matters.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia and his team, contests the assertion made by the respondent landlord, Vivek Gupta, regarding the necessity of the subject premises for starting an IT consultancy firm. They argue that the respondent’s claim lacks merit as alternative premises are available to him. This contention forms the crux of their defence against the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. In furtherance of their defence, the appellant suggests potential irregularities surrounding the partition suit and subsequent settlement, which resulted in the respondent’s claim to the subject premises. They raise doubts about the authenticity of the partition decree obtained by the respondent, implying potential manipulation or fraudulent activity in securing ownership rights to the subject premises. Another key contention put forth by the appellant is the dispute over the respondent’s claimed residency in Noida and its relevance to the eviction proceedings. They challenge the respondent’s assertion of residing in Noida, highlighting the presence of metro connectivity between Model Town and Noida. By doing so, they seek to undermine the significance of travel inconvenience as a valid reason for the respondent’s alleged need for the subject premises. The appellant further argues that the respondent has access to other suitable premises for his consultancy firm, including vacant shops nearby. By emphasising the existence of viable alternative options, they aim to discredit the respondent’s claim of exclusive reliance on the subject premises for his business endeavours.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani and his team, asserts the genuine necessity of the subject premises for initiating an IT consultancy firm. They emphasise the respondent’s professional background and intentions to establish a business, underscoring the importance of the subject premises for this purpose. The respondent’s counsel argues that the requirement is bona fide and essential for the respondent’s career aspirations, providing a robust defence against the appellant’s challenge to the eviction proceedings. In response to the appellant’s contention regarding the validity of the partition decree, the respondent’s counsel reaffirms the legitimacy of the settlement reached through mediation. They counter the appellant’s insinuations of manipulation or fraud, citing the court-approved settlement agreement as evidence of the lawful transfer of ownership rights to the subject premises. This argument aims to dispel any doubts surrounding the legality of the partition decree and establish the respondent’s rightful claim to the premises. The respondent’s legal team refutes the appellant’s assertion regarding travel convenience and residency, maintaining the respondent’s need for the subject premises despite potential metro connectivity between Model Town and Noida. They argue that the respondent’s decision to establish his consultancy firm in Model Town is a deliberate choice driven by professional considerations and personal circumstances, which should be respected in the context of the eviction proceedings. Additionally, the respondent’s counsel justifies the selection of the subject premises for the consultancy firm, citing strategic and practical reasons such as proximity to existing business networks and potential client base. They argue that the premises offer distinct advantages for the proposed business venture, reinforcing the respondent’s genuine need for the subject premises and bolstering their defence against the appellant’s challenges.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The case involves a dispute between the petitioner, representing the deceased tenant’s interests, and the respondent, the landlord, regarding the eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondent claims ownership of the premises inherited through a partition settlement, intending to utilise them for an IT consultancy firm. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court is tasked with determining the validity of the respondent’s eviction claim and the petitioner’s challenge to it.
The petitioner, through their senior advocate Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, raises several challenges to the respondent’s eviction petition. These challenges primarily focus on disputing the bona fides of the respondent’s requirement for the subject premises. The petitioner argues against the necessity of eviction, citing factors such as the existence of vacant adjacent premises, the respondent’s residency in Noida, and the alleged lack of urgency in initiating the proposed business venture. Additionally, the petitioner contests the validity of the partition settlement, implying collusion and manipulation.
In response, the respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani and his team, presents a robust defence of their eviction claim. They emphasise the genuine need for the subject premises to establish an IT consultancy firm, underscoring the respondent’s professional qualifications and intentions. The respondent’s legal team refutes the petitioner’s challenges, asserting the legality of the partition settlement and the legitimacy of their requirement for the premises, despite the petitioner’s objections regarding travel convenience and alternative accommodations.
The court meticulously examines the arguments presented by both parties, taking into account the legal provisions under the Delhi Rent Control Act and relevant case law. It emphasises the need to balance the rights of landlords and tenants, particularly in cases involving eviction claims under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The court scrutinises the validity of the partition settlement, ultimately affirming its legality and recognizing the respondent’s rightful ownership of the subject premises.
After thorough deliberation, the court upholds the respondent’s eviction petition, dismissing the petitioner’s challenges and affirming the validity of the eviction order. It finds no merit in the petitioner’s contentions regarding the respondent’s requirement for the premises or the legality of the partition settlement. The court’s judgement underscores the respondent’s genuine need for the subject premises and affirms their right to eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, thereby concluding the dispute in favour of the respondent.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
