In a petition under section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the Landlord can choose from his properties where he intends to carry on business.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Satish Kumar & Anr. vs Kanwar Raj Singh (RC .REV. 571/2015) on 25.02.2020 held that it is the primary duty of the Petitioner to intimate the Ld. Trial Court to take the note of letting out premises to someone during the pendency of the suit, before passing of the judgment but they miserably failed. It is also a trite law while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court will not go beyond what is pleaded in the leave to defend application.

Facts :
The petitioner herein is the tenant of the subject property and was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. The present petition challenges the order dated 18.09.2015 passed by the Ld. ARC, Delhi (i.e. the Trial Court) in Eviction Petition u/s 14 (1) (e) and 25 (B) of DRC Act, 1958 where an application of leave to defend was dismissed and eviction order was passed in favour of present Respondent.

Aggrieved by the decision of Trial Court, the Petitioner herein filed the revision petition and argued that the Respondents also has another property near by the subject property and upper floors in the said property are lying vacant and Respondent can shift there. Further, there is no bonafide necessity for the Respondent as he has let out the adjoining shop during the pendency of this eviction petition to one M/s J.P and Sons and thus his claim for bonafide necessity is frivolous.

Respondent argued that his son is carrying transport business and the vehicles of his son cannot enter or be parked in the small lane/gali and are rather parked in front of this very subject property and that it would have been suicidal to give a property on rent after filing a petition for bonafide need and necessity. Even otherwise, per settled law it is an owner who has to take a call to decide as to which of his shop(s) is most suitable for his business. Even otherwise, the concept of alternative accommodation as to which property is the most suitable for the landlord has to be seen from the point of view of the landlord. The tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner landlord should use his own property. And further on issue regarding letting out one shop to M/s J.P. & Sons, it is submitted that the documents now purported to be shown were never a part of the Lower Court Record, having not filed along with the leave to defend application and thus cannot be looked into at this stage.

Issue:
Whether the Trial Court decision of evicting the present Petitioner from the suit property was correct or not?

Ratio:
The Hon’ble Court also agreed with the Respondent that it is the primary duty of the Petitioner to intimate the Ld. Trial Court to take the note of letting out premises to someone during the pendency of the suit, before passing of the judgment but they miserably failed. It is also a trite law while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction, this Court will not go beyond what is pleaded in the leave to defend application.
The eviction petition has been filed by the Respondent for his need as also for the need of his six other family members. It is settled law a landlord can choose the property from where he intends to carry on his business.