* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV.No.331/2014 & C.M.Nos.16745/2014 (Stay),
16746/2014 (Exemption)
% 10th October, 2014
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. ......Petitioner
Through: Ms.Nidhi Jain, Advocate.
VERSUS
SMT. DIVYA KAKKAR ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.S.K.Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 08.7.2014 by which the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been decreed with respect to the tenanted premises being shop no.4 & 4A, HS-1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-48 situated at ground floor.
RC.REV.No.331/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. The respondent/landlady filed the bonafide necessity eviction petition claiming need for the tenanted premises for carrying on the business of a restaurant because she has been associated with the restaurant industry for quite some time as she was working in a Restaurant cum Pub. It was pleaded by the respondent/landlady that, in fact, the tenanted premises is lying closed for the last 6-7 months, and which position is reflected in the electricity bill and showing that the petitioner herein therefore does not require the tenanted premises.
3. The only issue which is urged before this Court is with respect to whether the respondent's/landlady's need for the tenanted premises is bonafide. It is argued that the need of the respondent/landlady is not bonafide because on 15.4.2009 a legal notice had been sent claiming termination of tenancy and claiming user charges @ Rs.45000/- per month, and in which notice bonafide need was not pleaded, hence as per the petitioner/tenant the need of the respondent/landlady is not bonafide.
4. In my opinion, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner/tenant is totally frivolous because sending of a legal notice terminating tenancy on the ground that premises are not covered under the Act and claiming damages @ Rs.45,000/- per month will not take away the bonafide need RC.REV.No.331/2014 Page 2 of 4 once and if the same is found to exist. Sending of a wrong legal notice stating that the tenanted premises are not covered under the Act cannot take away the entitlement to file and succeed in a bonafide necessity eviction petition, once the requirements with respect to bonafide necessity eviction petition are shown to exist.
5. In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent is the owner/landlady and that she has no other alternative suitable accommodation from where she can carry on the business of a restaurant. Merely making bald allegations that the respondent/landlady has other alternative suitable premises will not create a triable issue in the absence of details of the so- called alternative suitable accommodation. It is relevant to note that the respondent/landlady has taken up the categorical stand that she has no other alternative suitable accommodation except the suit/tenanted premises from where she can carry on the business of a restaurant.
6. I may note that it is settled law in terms of the catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court that a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord that the landlord should not quit a private job and start his own business/restaurant. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that there is no requirement to state in the eviction petition that what is the type RC.REV.No.331/2014 Page 3 of 4 of business proposed to be carried out in the tenanted premises and that what is the exact nature of the business to be carried out can be decided after the premises are vacated. Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that in fact no prior experience is required for seeking eviction of a tenant for starting of a business.
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 10, 2014 KA RC.REV.No.331/2014 Page 4 of 4