The Delhi High Court passed a judgement on 30-11-2022 in the case of Dilip Singh Kapoor & Ors vs Neeraj Khanna & Anr RC.REV. 66/2017, CM APPL 36449/2022 & 37996/2022. Justice Najmi Waziri dismissed the petition by mentioning some conditions.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This revision petition impugns the eviction order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller under s.14(1) (E) read with s.25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, directing the petitioners to vacate the shop on the ground floor and basement, admeasuring 258.38 sq. ft. and 647.65 sq. ft. respectively, at G-7, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the suit property’) on the ground of bona fide requirement and for expansion of the business of the respondents/landlords.
The petitioners say that there is no bonafide requirement, it is more of a subjective desire of the landlord as against objective assessment of bonafide need. 3. The respondents are first cousins and joint owners of the premises. On the basis of a family settlement dated 16.10.2007 pursuant to which a Release Deed 17.09.2008 and a Gift Deed dated 18.11.2008 were executed by Mrs. Meena Khanna and Mrs. Neelam Khanna in their favour. The aforesaid premises were let out on 10.06.1985 by the respondents’ predecessors to Mrs. Surjit Kaur Kapoor for commercial purposes. The annual value of the suit property as on 01.01.2016 was Rs.1,29,60,000. On the demise of the said tenant, the tenancy was inherited by her LRs- the three appellants who are running a business enterprise therefrom, under the name and style of M/s Kapoor Watch Company Pvt Ltd and they are stated to be Manging Director /Directors of the said company. During the lifetime of Mrs. Kapoor, the erstwhile tenant, an eviction petition being Eviction Petition No.106/2002 titled Meena Khanna & Ors. V. Surjeet Kaur Kapoor had been filed against her by the respondents’ predecessors in interest on the ground of her having sub-let the tenanted premises without permission. Subsequently, a Family Settlement came about between the property owners. The respondents were substituted as landlords of the premises on 07.11.2015. The eviction petition was later disposed-off as withdrawn. Subsequently, another Eviction Petition was filed (being Old Eviction Petition No.16/2016 and new Eviction Petition No.5162/2016) under sections 14 (1) (a) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 on the grounds of bonafide need. The petitioners/tenants then filed an application seeking leave to defend. It was disallowed on 15.11.2016 by the learned ARC on the ground that no triable issues were raised and the impugned eviction order was passed.
JUDGMENT
For the reasons mentioned by the court is of the view that the tenants have not made out a triable case for grant of leave to defend. The landlords’ case is not for additional accommodation but of alternate accommodation not being available for the bonafide need of their business.
In view of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. Sudarshan Kumar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 114, it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the latter should run his/its affairs/business, simply to accommodate the tenant to continue to occupy the tenanted premises. 14.
For the aforesaid reasons, the court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned eviction order dated 15.11.2016. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. The pending application(s) also stand dismissed.
“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 ABHINAV CHATURVEDI
Click here to view full judgment
