Neither Tenants Nor Courts Can Dictate To Landlord As To How His Property Should Be Utilized: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that landlords hold absolute discretion in determining the utilization of their properties.
A Tenant was directed to vacate the tenanted premises under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). However, the Tenant approached the High Court, contending that the Landlord was already granted possession of 4813 sq. ft. of the properties, and therefore their need for the Tenanted premises was satisfied.
The Court emphasized that the Landlords were the best judges of their needs and that the tenants could not dictate how their property should be used.
The Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh observed, “Landlords cannot be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of their property. Further, the Court is not to sit in the arm chair of the landlords to dictate as to how the property should be utilized. It is the sole discretion of the landlords to get all the tenanted premises vacated and use as per their need”.
Advocate Medharshu Tripathi appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Nakul Sachdeva appeared for the Respondent.
A Landlord had filed a petition, seeking eviction of the Tenant from the premises for their bonafide commercial use (opening a restaurant). The Tenant had filed a leave to defend application, contending that the eviction petition was nothing but an afterthought as the property and the rent in the area had astronomically risen. The Trial Court had dismissed the leave to defend the application and passed an order of eviction. The Tenant approached the High Court challenging the eviction order.
The Tenant contended that the Landlord was already granted possession of 4813 sq. ft. of the properties, and therefore their need for the Tenanted premises was satisfied. The Tenant argued that the Landlord's need for the Tenanted premises was arbitrary, whimsical, and malafide in light of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) by-laws.
The Court observed that the Landlord had a legitimate need for the tenanted premises, as they were required to establish a posh restaurant by the Landlord's son (Son). The Court determined that the tenant's assertion that Son lacked experience or expertise in operating a restaurant was immaterial, as Son was not required to possess or demonstrate any prior experience to launch a new business. The Court also noted that the Son had been assisting his father in the hotel business after acquiring an MBA degree, which was somewhat comparable in nature.
The Court rejected the Tenant's claim that a restaurant cannot be opened within 100 meters of a place of worship as per the MCD's bylaws. The Court noted that the landlords had already received possession of 4813 square feet of area from other tenants, but that this was insufficient to meet their legitimate need of 5000 square feet of area on the ground floor for operating a restaurant.
The Bench observed that all of the requirements of section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act were met and that the landlords were entitled to evict the tenant.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Manmohan Singh v Arjun Uppal & Anr (2023:DHC:8505)
