Delhi High Court
Shri Tilak & Ors. vs Smt. Veena on 8 July, 2010
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
RCR No. 142/2010 and CM No.11531/2010
% Judgment reserved on: 6th July, 2010
Judgment delivered on: 8th July, 2010
1. Shri. Tilak,
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal,
M/s Vijay Industries,
1786-A, Lal Quan,
Delhi.
2. Shri Ashok,
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal,
M/s Vijay Industries,
1786-A, Lal Quan,
Delhi.
3. Shri Vijay,
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal,
M/s Vijay Industries,
1786-A, Lal Quan,
Delhi.
....Petitioners.
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Adv.
With Mr. Manoj Kr. Garg and Mr.
Nitin Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
Smt. Veena
W/o Sh. Rajender Kumar,
R/o E-49, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi.
....Respondent.
Through: Nemo.
RCR No. 142/2010 Page 1 of 6
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
Present revision petition has been filed against judgment and order dated
15th March, 2010, passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide which
respondent‟s eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25B of
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short as „Act‟) was allowed.
2. Brief facts of this case are that one shop situated on ground floor bearing
no. 1786-A, Lal Quan, Delhi was let out by respondent to the petitioners for non
residential purposes and the same is required bonafide by the respondent.
Respondent is the owner of the shop in question and she needs the same for
running a shop by her son as neither she nor her son has any other reasonably
suitable accommodation in Delhi for the said purpose. The premises in dispute
was let out long back to the predecessor in interest of the petitioners for non
residential purposes. In the shop in dispute, son of respondent will run a Kirana
shop.
3 Respondent is also the owner of one half share in property no. 9/26,
Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. There are three rooms on the ground floor of
the said property and one hall each on the first floor and second floor portions of
the said property. One room on the ground floor of the said premises has been let
out by respondent to a tenant and in the other room Smt. Anita-the sister of the
husband of respondent is residing and in the third room situated on the ground
floor Smt. Anita is running a shop. The first floor and second floor portions of the
said property are also in occupation of tenants.
4. The area of Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi is not suitable for
running the said business as there is no market for that business in that area and
also because no space is available in the aforesaid house of the respondent for the
said purpose.
5. The shop in dispute is more suitable for running the business of sale of
spices and dry fruits etc. as the shop in dispute is situated in a commercial market
and is also near to the wholesale market of Khari Baoli, Delhi where business of
wholesale and retails with respect to Kirana goods, spices and dry fruits etc. is
being carried on by large number of shopkeepers.
6. As far as the accommodation available on the back side of the shop in
dispute is concerned, the same is being used by the father-in-law and the husband
of the respondent for grinding of spices since a long time and a grinding machine
is installed in the said space and the spices which are being grinded at that place
are sold by the father-in-law of the respondent and her husband in the shop which
is being run by the father-in-law of the respondent in Khari Baoli, Delhi. For
running the aforesaid business by the son of the respondent about Rs.2,00,000/-
would be needed, respondent and her husband have got necessary funds for the
said purpose.
7. Petitioner filed an application for leave to contest, which was dismissed by
the Additional Rent Controller.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent, her
son, her husband and her father-in-law are members of one joint family and all are
living together, doing business together and earning together. Trial court failed
to deal with this ground, which the petitioners have been taken in their leave
application.
9. Other contention is that respondent including her son, have their one more
shop at Khari Baoli, Delhi, where admittedly family business is being operated by
the respondent. The Court below failed to deal with this ground also.
10. Other contention is that the scope of business of Kiryana and investment
and employment in this business at any shop including the shop of respondent at
Khari Baoli, Delhi is unlimited and area in which the suit premises is situated has
no scope for Kiryana business. The trial court also did not deal with this aspect of
the matter.
11. Lastly, it is contended that further additional commercial/business
accommodation is available with the respondent and trial court did not deal with
this aspect of the defence in the impugned order.
12. Coming to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners that
respondent, her son and her husband and father-in-law are doing business together
and are earning together is just a vague statement. There is no material on record
to show that all of them are doing joint business.
13. Regarding other contention, that respondent is having one more shop in
Khari Baoli, Delhi, where family business is operated by the respondent. There is
nothing on record to show that any family business is being operated at Khari
Baoli Shop.
14. In fact, the case of the respondent is that, her father-in-law has been
running a shop in Khari Baoli, Delhi, which is in his tenancy, which has not been
rebutted by the petitioner.
15. Other ground taken by petitioners is that there is no scope for Kirana
business in the area where suit property is situated.
16. In this respect it may be pointed out, that it is well settled law that
landlady is the master of her choice and it is for her to decide as to what business
she wants to run in her shop. Tenant has no right to dictate to the landlord about
the suitability of the premises.
17. In Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRS. Vs. Union of India and Another,
(2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 287 it was observed that;
"Even a premises let out for commercial purposes
can be got vacated for bona fide requirement and
making distinction between residential and
commercial purposes as envisaged under Section 14
(1 ) (e) of the Act, has been held ultra virus of the
Constitution".
18. Thus, after going through the record, I find that no triable issues have been
raised by the petitioners in their leave application.
19. There is no infirmity. illegality or ambiguity in the impugned judgment
passed by the Additional Rent Controller.
20. Hence, present petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed.
21. No order as to costs.
22. Copy of this judgment sent to trial Court.
CM NO. 11531/2010.
23. Dismissed.
8th July, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J.
ab
