Case Name: Satpal Singh Sarna & Ors v. Satya Prakash Bansal
Case No.: RC.REV. 626/2019
Dated: April 29, 2024
Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In their eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, the petitioners assert that they are the owners of the ground floor shops No. 3 and 4, which are part of a larger premises. They filed this petition against their tenant, the respondent, on the grounds that the subject premises were previously owned by their mother, Smt. Kulwant Kaur, who bequeathed them to them after her death, and that the petitioners became the owners of the subject premises upon the probate of that Will. Rented to the petitioners until December 2015, the respondent acknowledged them as landlords. The subject premises have been closed and unoccupied for the past five years because the respondent moved his business to another location around five years ago.
The petitioner No. 1 resides in and operates his business out of the remaining larger premises along with his wife and two married sons. The petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 with their spouses and kids live in Canada and continue to travel to India, but they struggle to find enough room to stay at the larger premises mentioned above. The petitioners are the owners of the aforementioned larger premises, which consist of five stores, two of which are used as godowns by the sons of petitioner No. 1 who operate under the names Sunny Shoe Point and Sunny Punjabi Juti.
That of the three rooms on the ground floor of the Girish Kathpalia digitally signed by Girish Kathpalia, the aforementioned larger premises are divided into two rooms occupied by one son of petitioner No. 1, one room serving as a guestroom, and two rooms and a store on the first floor occupied by the other son of petitioner No. 1. Because the larger premises are in a dilapidated state and petitioners No. 2 and 3 intend to return to India in order to marry and settle their children here, they have a legitimate need for the subject premises and do not currently have any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available to them. As a result, they want to reconstruct the larger premises in accordance with their needs.
Once permission to contest the proceedings was granted, the respondent/tenant filed a written statement acknowledging a legal relationship of tenancy with the petitioners. However, the statement further pleaded that the requirement set up by the petitioners is not legitimate because the mother of the petitioners had previously filed an eviction petition under Section 14 of the Act, which was dismissed.
While it is unknown when and for how long the petitioners and their families, who live in Canada, want to visit India, it is possible that they have already been there. Following the property’s eviction, the petitioners want to relet the subject space at a higher rent. Petitioner No. 1 has been engaging in a range of activities with the intention of intimidating the respondent in an attempt to have the subject premises removed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
The petitioners’ attorney argued that there is no legal basis for the contested order. Invoking the intervention of this court, learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that the impugned decree exhibits perversity on its face.
Invoking the intervention of this court, learned counsel representing the petitioners argued that the impugned decree exhibits perversity on its face. Expert legal representation for the petitioners contended that the petitioners’ genuine want to return home at this advanced age is a prerequisite for the petition to be successful. Knowledgeable counsel for the petitioners relied on the ruling of a coordinate bench of this court in a historic case to bolster his claims.
It was argued that insufficient information had been presented to demonstrate that Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were ending their business ventures, jobs, or commercial activities in Canada or that they intended to sell their Canadian assets in order to relocate permanently to India. The experienced Rent Controller determined that there was no need to review the other provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act after concluding that the petitioners had not demonstrated that they are a bona fide requirement of the subject premises.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The respondent’s experienced counsel contended that this court cannot reappreciate evidence and that its authority to intervene in proceedings under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act is quite restricted. The reply contended that the petitioners had neglected to provide the Aadhar cards of the petitioners’ children on file, which would have verified their adult age. A knowledgeable attorney representing the respondent further contended that the petitioners’ requirements aren’t legitimate because they’ve been attempting to kick the respondent out in a number of ways.
The respondent’s learned counsel contended that this court cannot reappreciate evidence and that its authority to meddle in proceedings under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act is quite limited. The respondent contended that the petitioners had neglected to provide documentation of the Aadhar cards of the petitioners’ children, which would have demonstrated their adult age.
The respondent argued that the petitioners had failed to produce proof of the petitioners’ children’s Aadhar cards, which would have proved their adult age. The respondent’s learned counsel further contended that the requirements set forth by the petitioners are not legitimate because they have been attempting to evict the respondent through a variety of tactics.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: Tenant eviction is covered under this clause. It gives landlords the right to file for eviction if they legitimately need the space for themselves or any members of their family. This clause was triggered by the petitioners’ contention that they required the subject premises for their own purposes.
- Proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act: A review request against the Rent Controller’s ruling is permitted by this clause. Through this revision petition, the petitioners contested the way their eviction petition was dismissed.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court noted that on the directions of his client GIRISH KATHPALIA, learned counsel for the respondent addressed a particular question during the closing arguments based on the competing pleadings. He strongly asserted in a digitally signed document that was present in the courtroom that the respondent is still using the subject premises for his business. However, after the petitioners’ skilled counsel asked and the court granted their request to name a Local Commissioner to find out the facts, the respondent and his attorney made a U-turn and acknowledged that the respondent had not been using the subject premises for a number of years.
The court, after determining the appropriate level of leverage to offer a tenant is contingent upon this factor. It was typical for the tenant to keep the leased property locked because they were unable or unwilling to utilise it, hoping to intimidate the landlord into accepting an offer of money in exchange for leaving. It was necessary to stop these activities since they seriously undermine the goals of the rent control laws.
The court noted that there is no question about the fact that petitioner No. 1 and his family live in India, while the other petitioners and their families live abroad. Furthermore, there is no substantial disagreement, as demonstrated by the pleadings and documentation, about the fact that the petitioners are at least sixty years old and their children are mature adults. The petitioners’ want to go back home and live out the remainder of their lives in their country of origin cannot be viewed suspiciously in these circumstances.
The court ruled that it is common for Indians who live overseas to experience a deep yearning to pass away in their birthplace. It is impossible to reduce such a powerful emotional need to a mere whim or common want. In a case heard by the entire bench of this court, it was acknowledged that a landlord’s desire to live out his final years in his own home was a natural aspiration. This is especially true when the tenant withholds information that would contraindicate their desire.
In summary, the court found no reason to doubt the veracity of the petitioners’ stated desire to return home and settle down here after their children are married here in their birth country due to the complete lack of specific pleadings from the respondent, the complete lack of affirmative evidence, and the lack of a productive cross-examination. The petitioners’ plan to re-construct the larger premises is justified by the fact that, given the size of their families and the growing families of their grown children, the space available to them in the said premises would undoubtedly be insufficient. As a result, their requirement of the subject premises is certainly bonafide.
“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.”
Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora.
