Page 1

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

REPORTABALE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 9941 OF 2014

BHUPINDER SINGH BAWA                 ...Appellant

Versus

ASHA DEVI                ...Respondent O R D E R

The  present  appeal  has  been  filed  by  way  of  special  leave

against the final judgment and order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the

High  Court  of  Judicature  of  Delhi  in  R.C.  Rev.  No.245  of  2014

dismissing the revision petition  filed  by the appellant  affirming the

order of eviction passed by the Tribunal and ordering his eviction from

the suit scheduled premises.     2. Briefly, the facts are as follows: The suit scheduled premises,

bearing No. C-1 (old property No. 285) Basai Dara Pur, Sharda Puri,

Ring Road, New Delhi – 110015 comprises of two big rooms and one

small  room as  shown  in  red  colour  in  the  site  plan  Ex.  PW-1/2.

Appellant/tenant  was  inducted  as  tenant  in  the  suit  scheduled

premises by the erstwhile  owner  of  the premises vide Rent  Deed

Page 1 of 9

Page 2

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

dated 20.07.1989.  Subsequently, the  respondent/landlady  acquired

the premises under  a registered sale deed dated 11.12.2002.  The

respondent sought eviction of the appellant from the suit premises by

filing a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

on the ground of bona fide requirement. Respondent claimed that her

son Sh. Vaibhav Maheshwari required the premises for running his

separate  business  of  sanitary  and  hardware  products  as  the  suit

premises has a prime location for the said business. Respondent’s

son was pursuing MBA at the time of the filing of the eviction petition

and completed the same in June, 2011.  

3. The appellant controverted the claim of  bona fide requirement

set up by the respondent by maintaining that the son of the landlord is

employed as a Director in the company M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt.

Ltd.  and  earns  Rs.50,000/-  per  month.  The  appellant  further

contended that respondent’s husband is running business of marble

and granite from several locations in the city which can be preferably

used to accommodate the business of respondent’s son.  Following

premises  were  suggested  as  an  alternative  accommodation  for

running  sanitary  and  hardware  business  of  respondent’s  son:

Property No. 285-B, Basai Darapur, Sharda Puri,  Ring Road, New

Delhi  owned by  husband of  the  respondent,  Property  No.  A-2/53,

Page 2 of 9

Page 3

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

W.H.S., Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent,

Property  No.  D-201,  Mansarovar  Garden,  New  Delhi  owned  by

husband of the respondent, Property Nos. 43, 44, 45 and 46 situated

at Block-A-1, W.H.S., Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by the company

M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd, Property No. D-12, Rajouri Garden,

Ring  Road,  New  Delhi  which  is  the  registered  office  of  the  M/s.

Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd.  

4. On a proper appreciation of facts and evidences available on

record, the Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 26.02.2014 in

E. No. 249/2011, passed an eviction order in favour of the respondent

and directed the appellant to vacate the suit scheduled premises in

accordance with  law. The  Additional  Rent  Controller  held  that  the

respondent has established that the tenanted premise is required for

her  dependant  son  and  that  there  is  no  alternative  vacant

accommodation  suitably  available  for  her  son  for  his  business.

Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed revision petition before the High

Court  challenging  the  order  of  eviction  passed by  Additional  Rent

Controller.  The  High  Court  vide  impugned  order  dismissed  the

revision petition holding that no case is made out to interfere with the

detailed order passed by the Additional Rent Controller decreeing the

eviction  petition  of  bona  fide necessity.  It  was  held  that  the

Page 3 of 9

Page 4

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

respondent-Landlady  and  her  son  are  at  liberty  to  decide  which

premise  is  more  suitable  for  running  business  of  sanitary  and

hardware.  

5. We have heard the parties  at  considerable  length.   No new

contentions  have  been  put  forth  by  the  parties  before  us.  The

appellant  has  alleged  that  the  High  Court  erred  in  affirming  the

eviction decree passed by the Addl. Rent Controller as no case of

bona fide necessity  was established by the respondent.  Allegedly,

alternate  accommodations  were  available  for  occupation  of

respondent’s son which were not  suitable for  running sanitary and

hardware  business  which  the  respondent  neglected  to  consider.

Moreover,  the  appellant  alleged  that  the  High  Court  erred  in  not

noticing that the respondent did not set up her bona fide requirement;

rather she set up a case of  bona fide requirement of her son and

thus, no relief should have been granted to her without keeping in

view the comparative hardship to the appellant/tenant.  

6. On the contrary, the respondent has maintained that the courts

below  have  recorded  concurrent  findings  of  fact  that  no  suitable

accommodation was available for running business of sanitary and

hardware by her son and have rightly passed an eviction order in

Page 4 of 9

Page 5

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

favour of the respondent. More so, the respondent cannot be dictated

the terms of occupation of her self-owned properties.      

7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused

the impugned judgment and materials on record.

8. Both the courts below have allowed the eviction petition filed by

the  respondent  against  the  appellant  on  the  ground  of  bona  fide

requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

by  recording  concurrent  findings.   First  and  foremost,  the

landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The

only dispute relates to  bona fide requirement of the respondent for

business  of  her  son  and  availability/non-availability  of  alternative

suitable accommodation.  

9. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are as

follows:  Firstly,  It  was  held  that  the  fact  that  respondent’s  son  is

engaged as Director in the family company M/s. Jaishree Granites

Pvt. Ltd. and earns a salary of Rs.50,000/- cannot be an impediment

to his running a separate business of  sanitary and hardware.  The

courts held that the law does not provide that if a landlord/landlady

requires the premises for running business of his/her young son who

is an MBA, and is already engaged in some other business, he is

Page 5 of 9

Page 6

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

acting malafidely and thus, no relief  should be granted to him/her.

Secondly,  the  courts  below  considered  the  suitability  of  every

alternative  accommodation  suggested  by  the  appellant  which  can

preferably  be  occupied  by  the  respondent’s  son  for  running  his

business.  The  appellant  had  suggested  following  alternative

premises:  Property  No.  285-B,  Basai  Darapur,  Sharda  Puri,  Ring

Road, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property no.

A-2/53,  W.H.S.,  Kirti  Nagar, New Delhi  owned by  husband of  the

respondent,  Property  No.  D-201,  Mansarovar  Garden,  New  Delhi

owned by husband of the respondent, Property Nos. 43, 44, 45 and

46 situated at Block-A-1, W.H.S. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by the

company M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd, Property No. D-12, Rajouri

Garden, Ring Road, New Delhi which is the registered office of M/s.

Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd.  The courts found that the properties in

the name of  family  company, M/s.  Jaishree Granites Pvt.  Ltd.  viz.

Property  nos.  43,44,45  and  46  situated  at  Block-A-1,  W.H.S.  Kirti

Nagar,  New  Delhi  and  Property  No.  D-12,  Rajouri  Garden,  Ring

Road, New Delhi were not located in a market area and thus, they

were  unsuitable  for  occupation  especially  when  other  suitable

premise was available in the market area.  

Page 6 of 9

Page 7

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

10. The property No. 285-B which was owned by the husband of

the respondent was found already in occupation as a retail outlet for

marble and granite run by the husband of the respondent. The courts

considered the allegation of the appellant that property No. 285-B is

owned by the respondent and not by her husband. The appellant had

produced  a  copy  of  Income  Tax  Returns  of  the  respondent  for

establishing  his  claim.  However,  the  High  Court  rejected  the  said

claim on finding that  the alphabet  ‘B’ appearing after  number 285

under the head of rental incomes  was wrongly written in the Income

Tax Return of the respondent. Moreover, the High Court found that

the appellant  had himself  stated in his pleadings that  property no.

285-B belonged to  the husband of  the respondent  and not  to  the

respondent. Also, with regard to property No. A-2/53 at Kirti  Nagar

which is also owned by the husband of the respondent, the courts

found that  it  is  being used by M/s.  Jaishree Granites Pvt.  Ltd.  as

godown for the stock of the marble and granite.  

11. So  far  as  property  bearing  No.  D-201,  Mansarovar  Garden,

New Delhi is concerned, the appellant made a case that the entire

property  including  the  ground  floor  of  property  No.  D-201  was

available to the respondent which could have been suitably used for

Page 7 of 9

Page 8

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

running her son’s business as it was located on the main road and in

a market area also. The courts noted that the appellant has admitted

in his cross-examination that the first floor and second floor of the

property No. D-201 is in occupation of brother-in-law (Devar) of the

respondent who is carrying on his business in the said premises. The

court  also  noted  that  in  his  cross  examination,  the  appellant  has

suggested that if not on the first or second floor, respondent’s son can

occupy the basement of property No. D-201. Having so noted, the

High Court has observed that the appellant impliedly admitting that

the husband of the respondent is not the owner of the ground floor of

property No. D-201. The courts also noted that the appellant has not

specifically pleaded in his written submissions that the ground floor of

property No. D-201 is owned by the husband of the respondent. In

such facts and circumstances, the courts recorded concurrent finding

of fact that ground floor of property No. D-201 does not belong to

husband of the respondent and thus the question of its suitability as

an alternate accommodation does not arise in the present case.  

12. In light of the above, Additional Rent Controller and the High

Court rightly concluded that no alternative premise was lying vacant

for  running  business  of  respondent’s  son.  The  High  Court  rightly

Page 8 of 9

Page 9

C.A. No. 9941 of 2014

relied on the ratio of  Anil Bajaj & Anr Vs. Vinod Ahuja  2014 (6)

SCALE 572 to hold that it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a

more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and

that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to from

which shop her son should start the business from.

13. The  concurrent  findings  recorded  by  the  courts  below  are

based  on  evidence  and  materials  on  record,  we  do  not  find  any

infirmity warranting interference with the impugned judgment.

14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  Time is granted till 31st

March, 2017 to the appellant to vacate the premises on filing of usual

undertaking in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today.

      …....……………………J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

       …...……………………J.   [R. BANUMATHI]   

New Delhi; November 08, 2016

Page 9 of 9