The Delhi High Court held that the landlord is not required to spell out the exact nature/ purpose/ disclosure of the new business and be bound by it, taking the risk of inviting an application under Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act then, as this could have never been the intention of the legislature while enacting the Delhi Rent Control Act.
The Court clarified that the nature/ purpose/ disclosure of the new business, especially under circumstances where the tenant was already in possession of the subject shop since a long time and depending upon the facts and circumstances of the fast-changing economy involved, may/ can be fluid.
The non-consideration and silence of the admission of existence of a landlord tenant relationship between the parties by the tenant in his own application for leave to defend, play a significant role, added the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the Delhi Rent Control Act is silent about any requirement of the landlord giving the details/ divulging anything qua the nature/ purpose/ disclosure of the proposed new business by the landlord. Thus, the very basis of the rent controller dismissing the eviction petition is against the very tenets of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and fundamentally wrong.
It is not necessary for a landlord, like the one herein, to plead and/ or prove the precise nature of business he intends to commence from the subject shop, added the Bench while directing the tenant to vacate the property as per the Site Plan. However, the tenant shall be entitled for the benefit of a six-month period extendable to him under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
Briefly, the petitioner/ landlord filed a tenant eviction case, arguing that being a senior citizen with no other source of income, he needed the property to run a business to earn a decent living. This was opposed by the tenant in his application for leave to defend, claiming that the landlord had no genuine need for the property and that the petition itself was not maintainable since the landlord was merely an attorney of the erstwhile owner.
The rent controller opined that since the tenant did not dispute the landlord-tenant relationship, he was estopped (barred) under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from challenging his landlord’s title. However, since the landlord did not specify the kind of business he wanted to run, the tenant’s application for leave to defend was allowed. Accordingly, the landlord’s eviction petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
Advocates Ajaya Bhardwaj, Harshit Bhardwaj, and Shubham, for the Petitioner
Advocates Gaurav Bhardwaj and Garima Bhardwaj, for the Respondent
