Santosh Bhutani & Anr. vs. Savitri Devi Through Lrs

Facts

The petitioners, tenants of a shop at 201, Bazar Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, challenged an eviction order passed by the ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Delhi. The original landlord, Smt. Savitri Devi, filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking possession for the bonafide need of her son, Mr. Sushil Kumar, to start a business. The tenants' leave to defend was granted on the issue of alternative accommodation. During the trial, the landlord died, and her legal heirs were substituted. An amended petition stated the premises were required for Mr. Sushil Kumar's business, with his brother Mr. Naresh Kumar's assistance. The rent controller found the requirement bonafide and no suitable alternative accommodation available. The tenants raised objections regarding the need for permission under the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, and the applicability of Section 14(1)(e) to commercial premises.

Held

The Court held that the eviction petition was maintainable without prior permission under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. It reasoned that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, with its non-obstante clause, overrides the Slum Act to the extent of inconsistency, as established in Shafait Ali Vs. Shiva Mal and Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Rattan Lai Bhargava. Regarding the applicability to commercial premises, the Court affirmed, citing Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, that Section 14(1)(e) applies to premises let out for commercial purposes. On the issue of bonafide requirement, the Court found that the testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, along with the documentary evidence, clearly established that Mr. Sushil Kumar was neither in possession of shops No. 216 and 160/308 nor running any business from there. It was also noted that the tenant could not point to documents showing the petitioners did not have a bonafide need. The Court reiterated that under the DRC Act, there is no test of comparative hardship, and the landlord only needs to show bonafide requirement and the absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. The impugned eviction order was found to be free from any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting no interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is maintainable without prior permission from the Competent Authority under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956? The petitioner argued that such permission was mandatory. The respondent contended, relying on Shafait Ali Vs. Shiva Mal (Dead) by LRs and Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Rattan Lai Bhargava, that Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, with its non-obstante clause, overrides the Slum Act, rendering permission unnecessary. 2. Whether Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is applicable to premises let out for commercial purposes? The petitioner argued it was only for residential premises. The respondent, citing Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, contended that the provision applies to commercial premises as well. 3. Whether the landlord established a bonafide requirement for the tenanted premises, given the tenant's assertion that Mr. Sushil Kumar was already running businesses from shops bearing No. 216 and 160/308? The petitioner argued that Mr. Sushil Kumar had alternative business locations. The respondent presented evidence from PW-3 and PW-4, who deposed that they were the owners/tenants of shops No. 216 and 160/308 respectively, and Mr. Sushil Kumar had no connection with those businesses, except for a past telephone connection.