Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order in Landmark Rental Dispute: Lays down Implications for Property Owners and Tenants in Delhi
Case Name: Nem Chand Jain v. Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr
Case No.: RC.REV. 405/2014
Dated: May 13, 2024
Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The present respondents filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, claiming to be the owners of the shop Delhi. They claimed to be operating under the name M/s. Sagar Chand Jain and to be in the business of selling cards and stationery from tenanted premises in Delhi.
Given that they don’t have access to any other reasonably acceptable commercial accommodations, they genuinely need the subject premises for their children. With the consent of the owners, who obtained the right to live by virtue of a will dated 11.03.1974, the first and upper floors of the property are being used as a godown. Previously, they were using them for residential purposes, but they later moved to a residential area in Sainik Farms, Delhi.
They own two rooms and a veranda on the third story of the Chawri Bazar property, but they are unable to be used as a shop. They need the relevant premises for their daughter Sanjana to get a degree in Fine Arts so that she can launch her own wedding card design business, and for their sons Shantanu and Toran to operate their card and stationery business. They were also launching eviction cases against the tenants of the shops next to the subject premises because the subject premises would only partially satisfy their requirements.
Later, stores were cut out of the property’s ground floor, and the municipal authorities gave each store a unique number so that they could all be a part of the bigger structure. The Will dated 11.03.1974 of their grandmother, which was also probated, gave the present respondents ownership of the entire larger land in Chawri Bazar as well as in Chhota Chhipiwara Khurd, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. In order to use the subject premises for their children’s legitimate economic needs, the petitioner now residing there may be forced to vacate.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
The petitioner argued against the contested eviction decision on the grounds that the current respondents had hidden all relevant information about the property they owned and could have used for their children’s business. The petitioner/tenant’s learned counsel argued that the condition put forward by the respondents/landlords needs to be rejected as lacking validity because they disguised the entire area, including measures and the number of shops on each of their properties together with the tenants’ personal information. The argument was that the landlords/respondents had misrepresented the shops that were offered as godowns, hence their argument to that effect had to be denied.
The learned counsel representing the petitioner/tenant relied on the ruling of a coordinate bench of this court in the Khem Chand vs. Arjun Jain, 2013 IX AD (Delhi) 89 case. They argued that the suitability and reasonableness of the alternate accommodation is a factual matter that must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than as a general rule that the landlord is the best judge.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
The contested eviction decision was backed by knowledgeable lawyers for the landlords/respondents, who argued that the current petition had any validity at all. The knowledgeable attorney representing the respondents/landlords guided me through opposing pleadings and supporting documentation to bolster his contention that the petitioner/tenant’s allegation of concealments is wholly untrue given that the respondents/landlords had explicitly revealed and elucidated every piece of property they owned.
On behalf of the respondents/landlords, it was contended that not even the subject premises’ site plan was contested during cross-examination because it had been properly proven in evidence. The learned counsel representing the respondents/landlords cited the ruling of this court’s coordination bench in Mohd. Saleem v. Zaheer Ahmad, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1469, as evidence for his claims.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court held that there should be exercise caution not to engage in a roving investigation that would transform the authority of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, which is expressly prohibited by the legislature, while reviewing the Rent Controller’s records to ensure that the contested order was issued legitimately.
Unless the factual findings recorded by the Rent Controller were so irrational that no Rent Controller would have recorded the same on the material available, it is not permissible for the High Court in such proceedings to reach a different conclusion.
The court reviewed the record with consideration for the previously specified restricted parameters of this court’s particular jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B of the Act. From the information above, it is clear that the parties do not dispute the existence of a legal relationship of tenancy or the respondents’/landlords’ ownership of the relevant premises.
The challenge to the validity of the requirement established in light of the alternative accommodations offered by the respondents/landlords is centre to the current issue. All of the respondents’ children lack the necessary skills or inclination to operate a paper business, the current petitioner further claimed in their pleadings.
During the court proceedings, as previously said, the primary focus of the petitioner’s/tenant’s knowledgeable legal representation was to reveal the extent to which the respondents/landlords had obscured the availability of alternative accommodations.
“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.
