Rajiv Mehra & Anr vs. Ravi Bhushan

Facts

The petitioners, landlords, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking possession of the first-floor portion of property No. 4680, Mahavir Bazar, Cloth Market, Fatehpuri, Delhi. They claimed a bonafide need for the premises for the son of petitioner No. 2, Rahul, who intended to start a cloth business. The respondent, tenant, was granted leave to defend and filed a written statement disputing the bonafide need and alleging that the petitioners had suitable alternative accommodation available. The eviction petition was dismissed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC on the ground of available suitable alternative accommodation. The petitioners filed a revision petition against this order.

Held

The Court held that the learned ARC erred in dismissing the eviction petition without a proper analysis of the evidence. The Court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the petitioners had suitable alternative accommodation. The respondent's claims regarding vacant shops in property No. 1523-1530, Ballimaran, Gali Qasim Jaan, Delhi, were based on hearsay and lacked documentary evidence. The Court noted that no specific questions were put to the petitioners during cross-examination regarding the availability of alternative accommodation in this property, and the petitioners' witness had categorically denied possession of vacant portions. The Court relied on the principle that the respondent must prove the availability of suitable alternative accommodation with sterling evidence. Consequently, the impugned order of the learned ARC was set aside for illegality and being contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. The eviction order was passed in favour of the petitioners, to be executed after six months from the date of the order, as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned ARC erred in holding that the petitioners had suitable alternative accommodation available, thereby dismissing the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the respondent failed to prove with sterling evidence that they possessed suitable alternative accommodation. They argued that the respondent's claims regarding vacant shops in properties like No. 1523-1530, Ballimaran, Gali Qasim Jaan, Delhi, were bald averments based on hearsay and lacked documentary evidence. They asserted that the cross-examination of petitioner No. 1 categorically denied possession of vacant portions in the Ballimaran property, and no specific questions were put to them regarding the availability of alternative accommodation in that property. They relied on the principle that the onus is on the respondent to prove the availability of suitable alternative accommodation. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioners had suitable alternative accommodation available, specifically mentioning properties like shop No. 826/20, New Krishna Market, Chandni Chowk, and portions of property No. 1523-1530, Ballimaran, Gali Qasim Jaan, Delhi. The respondent alleged that the partnership deed relied upon by the petitioners was sham and that the petitioners were in possession of vacant shops in the Ballimaran property, which they had intentionally concealed. The respondent also claimed the petitioners were in possession of a portion of property No. 4679, Mahavir Bazar.