In RC.REV. 287/2022-DEL HC- Need expressed by landlord for tenanted premises cannot be negated on ground that he can commence business from other commercial market, holds Delhi HC
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora [11-01-2023]

Read Order: SHRI RAKESH TIWARI v. SHRI RAM BANS GUPTA

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, January 15, 2023:While considering a matter where the respondent-landlord had established that he was the owner of the the tenanted premises and he required the premises bona fide for himself as he had no other reasonable alternate suitable accommodation, the Delhi High Court has confirmed the order of the Trial Court whereby the eviction order was granted in favour of the owner.

Referring to the judgments of the Top Court in M/S Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors, Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, Anil Bajaj and Anr. v. Vinod Ahua, the Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora affirmed, “The Courts have repeatedly held that landlord cannot be dictated on the use of his premise.”

The eviction petition was instituted by the Landlord before the Trial Court, seeking possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of his bona fide need to start a retail shop of disposable crockery i.e., paper crockery and other related items to support his family. In the eviction petition.

Considering the fact that the Courts have repeatedly held that defence of negative character which are intended to put the Landlord to proof are not the kind which will entitle the Tenant to grant of leave, the Bench noted that the owner’s two other Shops were being used as a gift shop and the Landlord’s contention that his son used the fourth Shop as a godown appeared to be reasonable and logical considering the said son was carrying on retail business of a gift shop in the adjoining other two Shops.

Finding no dispute with the fact that the tenanted premises and the shops owned by the wife of the Landlord were located in different commercial markets namely, Rajgarh Colon and Krishna Nagar, the Bench said, “The need expressed by the Landlord for the tenanted premises cannot be negated on the ground that he can commence business from the other commercial market.”

Also, noticing that the Landlord indeed on the date of filing of the eviction petition was carrying on business, whether on behalf of his son or otherwise, the Bench held that the Landlord’s statement that he intends to commence disposable crockery business from adjoining fifth Shop raised a presumption that his need was bona fide and the same couldn’t be doubted.

“It is not upto the Tenant or this Court to dictate a Landlord as to the market place in which he must undertake his business activity. A landlord is the best judge of this requirement. As much as the intention of the Landlord to start a crockery business is not disputed in the instant case, the bona fide requirement of the Landlord stands established”, the Bench held.

Thus, observing that the pleas raised by the Petitioner did not give rise to any triable issue, the Bench dismissed the revision petition along with all the pending applications.