1 IN THE COURT OF MR. [ENTITY], ARC-1, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Eviction Petition No. E-90/14 (New No.77474/16) Unique Case ID/CNR no. DLCT03-000144-2012 Mst. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] D/o Late [ENTITY] R/o 988, Haveli Hissamuddin Haider, Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. Petitioner VERSUS Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Late Sh. [ENTITY] 1206, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 Respondent Date of Institution of Petition : 29.02.2012 Date on which order was reserved : 11.10.2018 Date of decision : 12.10.2018 Decision : Application of respondent seeking leave to defend is dismissed. Eviction order is passed. ORDER
1. This is a petition for eviction of tenant under [SECTION]/[SECTION] of the [ACT]. This order shall dispose off the application seeking leave to defend filed by the respondent.
2. The petitioner claims to be the owner and landlord of one shop on the ground floor in property no. 1206, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenanted premises'). It is stated that the tenanted premises was let out to Late Mr. [ENTITY], father of the respondent. Rent was paid by Mr. [ENTITY] to Mr. [ENTITY], Late father of the petitioner. Rent receipts were also issued by Mr. [ENTITY] to Mr. [ENTITY]. It is averred that the rate of rent is Rs.150/- per month including property taxes, but excluding all other charges.
3. It is stated that Mr. [ENTITY] had purchased the tenanted premises by registered sale deed dated 17.04.1971 executed by Mst. [ENTITY]. It is averred that Mr. [ENTITY] died on 05.11.2003 and by virtue of his Will dated 22.08.1999, the tenanted premises devolved upon the petitioner herein. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises.
4. It is submitted that the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for expanding her business of sale and purchase and export and import of readymade clothes etc. and/or for starting a new business. It is pleaded that the business of the petitioner has grown tremendously and she has acquired goodwill and reputation. However, due to lack of sufficient space, their business suffers set backs in sales. It is submitted that for expanding her business and volume of trading, it is essential for the petitioner to have acquired possession of additional premises.
5. It is pleaded that the petitioner does not have any other accommodation available with her for this purpose. The petitioner has prayed that eviction order may be passed in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
6. Summons under [SECTION] of the [ACT] were issued by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court which were served upon the respondent. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend. It is stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present case as she is neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted premises. It is pleaded that Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY] is claiming his ownership. It is submitted that rent is being received by Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY], but no rent receipt are being issued by him despite requests and demands. It is stated that Mr. [ENTITY] left behind only one son i.e. Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY] who is his only legal heir. It is averred that since Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY] has not been impleaded as a party in the present case, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
7. It is denied that the petitioner is daughter of Mr. [ENTITY] and has right, title or interest in the tenanted premises. It is averred that Mr. [ENTITY], husband of the petitioner was a tenant of Mr. [ENTITY] with respect to first and second floor of the tenanted premises. It is pleaded that after demise of Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY] and the petitioner herein turned dishonest and with the intention of grabbing the tenanted premises, kept forging and manipulating documents for creating first evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner took advantage of the fact that Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY] is a permanent resident of Kolkata and used to visit Delhi occasionally for collecting rent from the tenants. It is submitted that since there are two claimants of title over the tenanted premises, the present petition is not maintainable.
8. It is stated that the petitioner has included chabutra/platform situated in front of the tenanted premises as part of the premises which was let out. It is submitted that the chabutra/platform is owned and vested with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is averred that the respondent is a tenant of MCD in respect of the chabutra and charges for occupation are being paid to the MCD. It is submitted that the petitioner has deliberately filed an incorrect site plan as chabutra has been included in the tenanted premises. Also, the entire commercial accommodation available with the petitioner and her husband on the first and second floors of the property have not been shown. It is submitted that a correct site plan of the entire suit property is being filed alongwith the application for leave to defend.
9. It is stated that the petitioner has concealed the properties available with her to show paucity of accommodation. It is submitted that the following properties are available with the petitioner:-
(i) One big shop on the ground floor and two big halls on the first floor of property no. 987, Balimaran, Delhi from where Mr. [ENTITY], petitioner's husband is running his carpet business under the name & style of M/s Classic Sales Corporation.
(ii) One big shop on the ground floor and two big halls in property no.
988, Balimaran, Delhi which is being used by the petitioner for her business of clothes. It is stated that ground floor shop is being used for selling clothes and first floor is used for storage of goods.
(iii) Two big shops on the ground floor and built up first and second floors in property no. N-9, Sailing Club Road, Batla House, Okhla. It is stated that the two shops on the ground floor are vacant and in possession of the petitioner. It is stated that accommodation is in surplus with the petitioner and her husband does not require additional commercial space. It is pleaded that the petitioner is looking after the prospective customers to encash the ground floor of this property. It is averred that the petitioner and her family are residing in this multi-storied property.
(iv) Two shops on the ground floor in property no. 1901, Chandni Chowk, Delhi which is owned by the petitioner. One shop is being used by the petitioner's husband to do carpet business under the name & style of M/s Royal Carpets while the other shop, which is double the size of the tenanted premises, is vacant and in possession of the petitioner.
(v) Built up property no. 825-826, Balimaran, Delhi which is used by the petitioner and her husband and is being used for the carpet business of the husband of the petitioner under the name & style of M/s Royal India.
(vi) Ground, First and Second floors of property no. 1261, Balimaran, Main Road, Delhi owned by the petitioner which is totally commercial and has a big shop on the ground floor facing the main road. It is pleaded that this property is vacant and in possession of the petitioner.
(vii)Property no. 2245, Gali Balimaran, Delhi owned by the petitioner which is a commercial property and is vacant with two shops on the ground floor.
(viii)First and Second floor of property no. 1204-1207, Chandni Chowk, Delhi in which Mr. [ENTITY], petitioner's husband is a tenant.
10. It is submitted that since the petitioner has the aforesaid properties available for her use, she does not bonafide require the tenanted premises.
11. The respondent has pleaded that the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner is fake and malafide and has prayed that leave to defend the petition may be granted to the respondent as the application/affidavit of the respondent/tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises under [SECTION] of [ACT].
12. The petitioner filed reply to the application seeking leave to defend. The petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of her eviction petition. In particular, it is stated that Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY] is not claiming ownership over the tenanted premises and rather, he has accepted and acknowledged the Will executed by his father by which the tenanted premises was bequeathed upon the petitioner.
13. It is affirmed by the petitioner that she is the real daughter of Mr. [ENTITY]. She has filed certificates of her educational qualifications to substantiate that she is daughter of Mr. [ENTITY].
14. It is stated that as per the municipal by-laws, the occupiers of shops became allottees of chabutras subject to terms and conditions. They were permitted to put up enclosures around the chabutras known as takhatbandi which was used by the person who is in occupation of the shop and paying the user charges in respect of the said chabutra to MCD. It is denied that the respondent is a tenant of MCD in respect of the chabutra or that he has been paying charges for the chabutra to MCD. It is averred that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in respect of the tenanted premises shown in red color in the site plan filed alongwith the eviction petition. It is denied that the site plan filed is incorrect.
15. With respect to the properties no. 987 and 988, Balimaran, Delhi, it is submitted by the petitioner that these are residential properties and are being used for residence by the petitioner's family. It is averred that due to paucity of accommodation, the petitioner is doing her business from her house only. It is denied that the ground floor of property no. 987 has a big shop. It is submitted that there is only a small shop from where the petitioner's husband is doing his business.
16. With respect to property no. N-9, Sailing Club Road, Batla House, Okhla, New Delhi, it is stated that this property belongs to the father-in-law of the petitioner and the petitioner has no title in this property.
17. It is stated that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in property no. 1901, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. It is submitted that this is a rented property which is being used by the husband of the petitioner for doing his business.
18. It is stated that the petitioner has no title or interest in property no. 825-826, Balimaran, Delhi and as per the information of the petitioner, this property belongs to Mr. [ENTITY].
19. It is submitted that the property no. 1261, Balimaran, Main Road, Delhi belongs to the father-in-law of the petitioner.
20. It is averred that the property no. 2245, Balimaran, Delhi belongs to Mr. [ENTITY].
21. It is submitted that the first and second floors of property no. 1204-1207, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was in use and occupation of different tenants, namely, Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY], Mr. [ENTITY] and Mr. [ENTITY].
22. It is denied that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodation for her purpose of expanding business/starting a new business. It is prayed that the application for leave to defend be dismissed.
23. The respondent filed rejoinder to the reply of the petitioner and denied the averments made in the reply of the petitioner and simultaneously reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the application. The respondent averred that Mr. [ENTITY] referred to by the petitioner is real brother of the petitioner's husband. It is averred that Mr. [ENTITY], his wife and children are living jointly with the petitioner and her husband and have a common mess and roof in property no. N-9, Sailing Club Road, Batla House, Okhla, Delhi.
24. I have heard the arguments and have carefully gone through the record. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1)
(e) of the [ACT], the petitioner must establish that:
i. She is owner and landlady in respect of the tenanted premises. ii. She requires the premises bonafide for herself or for any member of her family dependent upon her.
iii. She has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord-tenant between petitioner and respondent:
25. The respondent has stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises. It is stated that she is not the daughter of the erstwhile owner Mr. [ENTITY]. It is pleaded that the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises was Mr. [ENTITY] who has died and had only one legal heir i.e. his son Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY]. It is submitted that rent is being paid to Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY] who has been claiming to be the owner of the tenanted premises. It is the case of the respondent that the Mr. [ENTITY], husband of the petitioner was a tenant in respect of first and second floors of the tenanted premises and he was paying rent to Late Mr. [ENTITY]. It is claimed that after demise of Mr. [ENTITY], the intentions of Mr. [ENTITY] and his wife i.e. petitioner herein turned dishonest and they have forged documents on the basis of which they are claiming ownership over the tenanted premises.
26. Per contra, the petitioner has denied the aforesaid assertions. She has filed documents alongwith reply to the application for leave to defend. These documents pertained to her educational qualifications. It is stated in these documents that she is daughter of Mr. [ENTITY]. The petitioner has also filed copy of her PAN card in which her father's name is stated to be [ENTITY]. On the other hand, the petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate that he has been paying rent to Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY]. Rather, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of Mr. Sheikh [ENTITY] in which he has affirmed that the petitioner is the only owner of the tenanted premises and he has no claim over it.
27. The Court is of the view that a feeble attempt has been made by the respondent to canvas the argument that the petitioner is not the daughter of the erstwhile owner of the tenanted premises. Besides making self-serving statement, no material has been brought on record to substantiate that the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises. The petitioner has filed copy of the Will by which Mr. [ENTITY], the admitted erstwhile owner and landlord of the tenanted premises bequeathed the tenanted premises to the petitioner who is his daughter. The petitioner has also filed receipts issued by DDA and MCD as an acknowledgment of payment of property tax qua the tenanted premises, issued to the petitioner herein. If the receipts filed by the petitioner issued by DDA and MCD were forged and fabricated, the respondent could have easily got a report in this regard from these departments. However, this was not done and now, there is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve that the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises.
28. The respondent has admitted that he is a tenant in the tenanted premises. The petitioner is therefore, the landlady and owner of the tenanted premises and the respondent is her tenant for the purpose of section 14 (1)
(e) of [ACT].
Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioner for herself and non-availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
29. It is claimed by the respondent that the portion shown in red color in the site plan filed by the petitioner comprises also of a chabutra/platform which is infront of the tenanted premises. It is stated by the respondent that this portion is not part of the tenanted premises and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Even though it is claimed by the respondent that he is a tenant for this chabutra/platform under the ownership of MCD and that he has been paying rent to the MCD, he has not filed any document to substantiate the same. It is obvious that the alleged tenancy for the chabutra/platform with a government department like MCD would be incorporated in a document and can never be oral. Also, had the respondent indeed been paying rent to the MCD, receipts of payment would have been issued to him. However, no tenancy agreement or rent receipts have been filed by the respondent to substantiate that he is a tenant for the chabutra under the ownership of MCD and that he has been paying rent for it to MCD. Since no document has been filed by the respondent in support of this argument qua the chabutra/platform, I am unable to accept the contention that this portion forms part of a separate tenancy agreement with the MCD.
30. Having concluded that the respondent is not a tenant qua the chabutra/platform under the landlordship of MCD, he is either a trespasser/unauthorized occupant over this portion of land or it is part of the tenanted premises. If the chabutra/platform is part of the tenanted premises, the petitioner shall be entitled to take back its possession alongwith the tenanted premises. However, even if it is presumed that the portion of chabutra/platform has been encroached upon by the respondent unauthorizedly, the petitioner shall be entitled to have the respondent evicted from it alongwith the tenanted premises. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT] and in the case of [PRECEDENT]. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the decision passed in the case of [PRECEDENT]. was relied upon and the following was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court:-
"8. This plea has also been rejected by the Rent Controller on the following reasoning:-
"Next defence is taken on behalf of the respondent In this regard, the reliance may be placed upon the judgment reported in [PRECEDENT]. Wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that a person claiming to have constructed unauthorized portion has no right, title or interest and it was further held by the Hon'ble High Court that a person in unauthorized occupation qua unauthorized construction has no right to even object the execution and thus, the stand taken by the respondent regarding his unauthorized occupation does not authorized him to retain the possession alongwith the suit property or in isolation of the suit property. Alleged portion in occupation of the respondent over and above the suit property is unauthorizedly occupied by him thus, the said portion cannot be said to be out of purview of [ACT] and respondent is bound to return the possession of the said portion as well. Mere possession cannot said to be hostile that too in proceedings filed for eviction under the [ACT] and there is nothing on record to show that the respondent has ever claimed prior to filing of the present leave to defend application that he has hostile possession of the said portion and therefore, said defence appears to be afterthought only with a view to leave to defend"
9. There is no error in the above approach of the Rent Controller and reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. 121."
31. Since the respondent has failed to place any record to the contrary, there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner that the occupiers of shops become allottees of the chabutras. As such, the petitioner shall be entitled to receive possession of chabutra, if he is held entitled to possession of the remaining premises shown in red color in the site plan. Therefore, no triable issue has been raised by the respondent by taking the plea that the petitioner has incorrectly included the chabutra/platform in the tenanted premises.
32. Since the respondent has admitted that the shop on the ground floor and the two halls on the first floor of property no. 987, Balimaran, Delhi are being already used by Mr. [ENTITY], petitioner's husband for doing his business, it cannot be said that this is an alternative accommodation available with the petitioner for her stated requirement.
33. Similarly, even the shop on the ground floor and the halls in property no. 988, Balimaran, Delhi are being used by the petitioner for her business of clothes. Therefore, even these portions are not vacant and available for the requirement of the petitioner.
34. Besides making self-serving assertions in the application for leave to defend, no material which can be believed by the Court has come on record for the Court to even have a prima facie opinion that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodation available for her requirement. If such oral assertions are believed and on its basis, leave to defend is granted, in all cases, the respondents will be successful in obtaining leave to defend the case by merely alleging that the landlord has other properties available. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the respondents tenants have to place on record some material in support of the assertions made in the application for leave to defend. In this context, the following was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]:
"However, merely because the tenant so disputes and controverts the pleas of the landlord does not imply that the provision of summary procedure introduced in the Act with respect to ground of eviction on the ground of requirement is to be set at naught The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bonafide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
35. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held the following:
"Due to paucity of accommodation in Delhi the tenants are likely to plead facts and if they are held to be raising triable issue in every case, hardly any application seeking leave to defend would fail. This certainly is not the idea behind this provision. While deciding the application seeking leave, what is required of the Rent Controller is to observe the rules of natural justice and to give opportunity to both the parties to produce the affidavits and material on which they rely. When leave to defend is sought, the tenant must make out a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge."
36. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the case of [PRECEDENT] dated 03.11.2016 in which the following was held :-
"19. Mere raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a ground for being granted leave to defend to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the petitioners have given facts or particulars which require to be established by way of evidence. The petitioners have merely made allegations for the sake of making allegation. There is no merit in the said plea of the petitioner.
20. The trial court has rightly concluded that the petitioners have failed to place on record any material to raise a suspicion that the respondents are having a vacant space on the ground floor of the suit property which can be used by them to open his workshop for industrial tools."
37. In the present case, bald assertions have been made by the respondent that the petitioner has property no. N-9 Sailing Club Road, Batla House, Okhla, property no. 1901, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, property no. 825- 826, Balimaran, Delhi, property no. 1261, Balimaran, Delhi and property no. 2245, Balimaran, Delhi which are available for her requirement. In view of the aforementioned decisions, it was for the respondent to place on record material to establish that the petitioner has other accommodations which are indeed vacant and available with her. Having failed to do so, there is no reason to disbelieve the petitioner does not own these properties which could have been alternative suitable accommodations for her business.
38. The petitioner cannot be compelled to do business from properties owned by her father-in-law and brother-in-law. The petitioner owns the tenanted premises and has a right to use it in case she requires it for her business. Merely because the respondent does not wish to vacate the premises, the Court cannot expect the petitioner to take premises from her In-laws for doing a business. Even if the In-laws who have vacant properties available are residing with the petitioner, its still does not imply that the petitioner has these properties available for her own use.
39. Also, it is admitted by the respondent that the petitioner and her husband are already doing her business from Balimaran, Delhi and from other areas of Chandni Chowk. Since they already have business in this part of Delhi, the petitioner cannot be expected to do her other business from the other side of Delhi in Okhla which is far from Chandni Chowk.
40. It is the case of the petitioner that the property no. 1901, Chandni Chowk is a rented property from where her husband is already doing business. Since this property is already being used, it is not vacant and available for the petitioner's requirement. Moreover, since this property is not owned by the petitioner and has been taken on rent, it cannot be held to be alternative suitable accommodation available with the petitioner. Unless a property is owned by the landlord, it cannot be said to be a reasonable alternate accommodation available with him for his requirement. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case titled [PRECEDENT]. The following was held by the Hon'ble High Court in this case:
"26. Respondent is admittedly living in a rented accommodation and has placed various documents on record. Now if respondent wants to live in his own house. i.e. property in question he cannot be compelled to live in rented accommodation when his own accommodation is available even more particularly when he was no alternative accommodation in his possession. Under these circumstance, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the requirement of respondent to live in his own house is not bonafide or genuine. Respondent who is presently living in a rented accommodation has all the right to shift to his own property.
27. In [PRECEDENT], it has been observed that;
"If an owner is living in tenanted premises, he is entitled to seek eviction of his tenant and this desire cannot be held to be imaginary, fanciful or unnatural."
28. Similarly, in [PRECEDENT] and Colonel [ENTITY], JT1991 (1) SC 417 the court observed;
"The landlord cannot be denied possession of his premises under [SECTION] when he is residing in a rented accommodation".
41. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that the desire of the landlord to stay in his own house was bonafide.
42. The respondent has also pointed out certain properties on first floor and higher floors which as per him are available for the requirement of the petitioner. Since the tenanted premises is on the ground floor, the properties which are allegedly available with the petitioner on higher floors cannot be held to be alternative suitable accommodations. In the cases of [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], it was held that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the upper floors are generally not commercially viable and consumers and patrons of the market are reluctant to walk into the same and are more prone to walk into a shop on the ground floor. Relying on these decisions, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of [PRECEDENT]. [CASE NUMBER] dated 31.10.2017 held that availability of upper floors above the tenanted premises on the ground floor cannot be said to be alternate suitable accommodation.
43. Even the property no. 825-826, Balimaran, Delhi is admittedly being used by the petitioner's husband for his business. Therefore, this property also cannot be held to be vacant and available for the petitioner to do her business.
44. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has other premises available for her requirements as stated in the petition, even then the choice is left to the landlord/petitioner to decide as to which of these premises she should use for her requirement of doing business and the tenant does not have any say in this matter. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the following was held:
"Even assuming that other premises are available, then the choice is left to the landlord to decide as to which non-residential premises he should occupy, and the tenant cannot have any say in the matter. If the landlord is able to show the bonafide, then the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord that he should occupy some other building and not the one mentioned in the petition."
45. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme court held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Reference may also be made to the case of [PRECEDENT].
46. In the case of [PRECEDENT], the following was held:
" the crux of the ground envisaged in [SECTION] of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona-fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona-fide.
When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona-fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona-fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself "
47. In the case of [PRECEDENT], it was held as under:
" The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonable suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, the entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonable suitable, obviously in comparison with the suitable accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safely of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come "
48. In view of the settled legal position it is not for the respondent to dictate to the petitioner that she should use any other property for her business, even if they are indeed available with the petitioner. The tenanted premises belongs to the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to see which of her properties is suitable for her business. It is the right of the petitioner to choose a premises which is going to be more profitable and convenient for her use. If the tenanted premises is suitable as per her needs, she has every right to possess the said premises and the respondent cannot contend that she should use any other property for her business. While deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted.
49. Even if the petitioner did not disclose other properties owned by her, the same does not amount to concealment, if the said other properties were not alternative suitable accommodation for her stated requirements. It has already been held hereinabove that the properties referred to by the respondent are not suitable for the requirements of the petitioner. In the case of [PRECEDENT], it was held that non- disclosure of accommodation which the court agrees cannot be alternate suitable accommodation cannot be fatal to the petition for eviction.
50. The net result is that petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted premises is required bonafide for her business and that she has no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for this purpose. The respondent has failed to raise any reasonable triable issue. The application for leave to defend is dismissed.
51. Since the application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed, the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. one shop on the ground floor in property no. 1206, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition, in terms of Section 14 (1)
(e) r/[SECTION] of the [ACT]. The landlord however shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
52. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by [ENTITY] Date: 2018.10.12 16:05:00 [ENTITY] +0530 ARC-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court on 12.10.2018)