2016 AIR CC 974 (DEL) ::2016 (2) ADR 355 ::(2016) 227 DLT 363 ::(2016) 1 RenCR 222 ::(2016) 1 RentLR 141

Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): V. K. Shali , J

(A) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) S. 14 (1)(e), 25-B(4) — Eviction petition — Summary procedure — Plea by tenant that ARC while rejecting leave to defend has written an order as if he has held a full-fledged trial/inquiry on the issues arising from the facts stated in the applications seeking leave to defend and thereby has travelled beyond prescribed summary procedure under S 25B(4) — Landlord has detailed all the accommodations available to him along with their utilization or occupation by different tenants to controvert plea of alternate accommodation by tenant — Order of ARC passed in the light of each averment made in petition cannot be said to be illegal — Moreover, petitioner had cited as many as nine judgments and taken hours together in addressing argument and therefore Court is called upon to deal with each of the submissions irrespective of the outcome AIR 1982 SC 1456, Disting (Paras 20, 22, 38)

(B) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) S. 14 (1)(e) — Eviction — Landlord seeking eviction on ground that he needs tenanted premises for opening showroom for display of products manufactured in its industry — It does not lie in mouth of tenant who have absolutely no knowledge or information about the kind of products which is being manufactured by the respondent/landlord that goods are not required to be sold through display — Moreover, purpose of having a showroom is not only to sell products but also to display products which is in form of an invitation to various customers to come and have a see range of products being manufactured by the manufacturer, have discussion and then if satisfied enter into sale/purchase of the products or place orders

(C) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) S. 14 (1)(e) — Eviction — Availability of alternate accommodation — Landlord seeking eviction on ground that he needs tenanted premises for opening showroom for display of products manufactured in its industry — Plea that landlord could open showroom in the manufacturing unit itself — Not tenable as it is industrial area and landlord wants to open shop in commercial area — Reference to other alternative accommodations also is unwarranted as said premises are on seventh floor and showroom is to be opened on ground floor — Tenant not entitled to leave to defend — Further his apprehension that landlord would let out premises to somebody else — Also not acceptable since he is protected by S 19 of Act (Paras 26, 27, 29)

(D) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) S. 14 (1)(e) — Eviction — Bona fide need — Only test to be satisfied by the landlord is that its subjective demands must be objectively assessed by Court and if found genuine and without any mala fides then that demand must be permitted to have its full play and eviction must be ordered — This is moreso when tenant has been occupying and enjoying the premises for a considerable length of time and he has never been disturbed by the respondent/landlord except for dire need of premises

(E) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) S. 14 (1)(e) — Eviction — Bona fide need — Plea of additional accommodation — Landlord seeking eviction on ground that he needs tenanted premises for opening showroom for display of products manufactured in its industry — Plea that it is case of additional accommodation — Held, a case can be considered ordinarily to be a case of additional accommodation only if tenant and landlord are living in the same accommodation and landlord is having alternate accommodation available in same property and wants to evict his tenant from any portion of the said accommodation — Not applicable to a case of change of strategy of selling existing products by two of the members of HUF on account of the change in scenario over a period of time (Paras 35, 36)

(F) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) S. 14 (1)(e) — Eviction — Bona fide need — Landlord seeking eviction on ground that he needs tenanted premises for opening showroom for display of products manufactured in its industry — Plea that Karta and his son as being 80 and 57 years of age is a not the age when a person would start an independent business — Not tenable — If they can supervise the manufacturing unit or are carrying out manufacturing activity certainly, it cannot be assumed that they cannot run a showroom

(G) Delhi Rent Control Act (59 of 1958) S. 14 (1)(e) — Eviction — Bona fide need — Leave to defend application — Not to be allowed in cases where on face of it and facts of particular case it is established from record that in all probability plea of tenant is likely to fail No doubt, while considering the points in the leave to defend application what is expected by the tenant is to make out the prima facie case and not a strong probable case that he has to ultimately succeed but all these aspects have to be considered in the light of the averments made by the respondent/landlord himself in the eviction petition. Conversely, it would mean that the leave to defend application is not to be allowed merely because of the fact that the tenant is able to create a slight prima facie case for the purpose of holding a trial which would ultimately result in futility and rejection of his plea. Keeping in view the very heavy pendency in Courts it takes almost five to six years to conclude trial at the initial stage itself. Therefore, the entire purpose of seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement becomes redundant by the time the eviction order comes to be passed if it is established that the requirement of the landlord is genuine. Therefore, the leave to def .....