Girdhari Lal Goomer/Pushpa Rani ... vs P.P. Gambhir
2011 Latest Caselaw 903 Del

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT New Delhi



                                   Date of Decision: 15.2.2011



1.    RC.REV. No. 06/2011

      Girdhari Lal Goomer                          ... Petitioner
                                     Through: Mr. Ajay Bhatnagar
                                     for petitioner

                                     Versus

      P.P.Gambhir                                   ...... Respondent

Through:Mr. Sanjay Goswami for respondent

2. RC. Rev. no.07/011 Pushpa Rani Goomer ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Bhatnagar for petitioner

Versus

P.P.Gambhir .... Respondent

Through:Mr. Sanjay Goswami for respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA

1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes S. L. BHAYANA

The present revision petitions under section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 (for short as "the Act") have been filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Additional Rent

RC.REV. Nos. 06-07/2011 P a g e 1 of 6 Controller (for short as "the Controller") Delhi, whereby leave to

defend/contest the eviction petition has been dismissed and an eviction

order is passed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(B) of Act

against the petitioner in respect of suit premises.

2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition

are that the petitioners are tenant in a shop admeasuring 15'X8' (120

sq.ft.) in property bearing No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi at a monthly rent

of Rs. 100/-. The said shop was originally taken on rent on lease from

Shri Om Dutt Malik in the year 1955-56 and for the last 55 years the

petitioners are running the said shop as tenant. The petitioners are senior

citizen aged above 70 years and carrying on business from the tenanted

premises since 1955 onwards. The petitioners have no other sufficient

means to earn their livelihood. The respondent purchased some portion

of the building bearing No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi from its previous

owner Shri Om Dutt Malik S/o Late Shri Raghunath Rai Vide

Agreement to Sell dated 26.11.1996 which included the tenanted shops

on the Ground Floor admeasuring 300 sq.ft., i.e., about 120 sq.ft. under

tenancy of the petitioners and other 180 sq.ft. under tenancy of the

spouse of the petitioners. Shri Om Dutt Malik also executed a Will and

Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent, however, the Agreement

to Sell dated 26.11.1996, last Will dated 06.03.1989 were not registered.

The respondent admitted that "Shri Om Dutt Malik from whom the

respondent had purchased the said property has expired and his Will has

come into operation in favour of the respondent".

RC.REV. Nos. 06-07/2011 P a g e 2 of 6

3. Thereafter, the petitioners/tenants attorned the respondent as the

landlord/owner in respect of the two tenanted premises and started

paying rent of the tenanted premises to the respondent. The respondent is

a practicing Chartered Accountant. As per respondent's eviction petition

he is having his office in the rented premises located in the same

building No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi and the land lady of the respondent

is his own wife who is receiving a handsome rent of more than

Rs.15,000/- per month from her husband without disclosing the portion

of E-3 building in her legal possession.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the

petitioners-tenants under section 14(1) (e) and section 25-B of the Act,

1958 in the year 2009 in the Court of Rent Controller wherein, he

claimed to be requiring the tenanted premises for his bonafide

requirement which was contested by the petitioners by filing a leave to

contest the eviction petition. The Learned Controller by his order dated

13.10.2010 dismissed the application for leave to contest the eviction

petition filed by the petitioners/tenants.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the

respondent/landlord was not at all sure that for what purpose the suit

premises is required by the respondent/landlord.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further vehemently argued

that alternative accommodation is available with the respondent/landlord

in the same city, therefore, respondent is not having a bonafide

requirement.

RC.REV. Nos. 06-07/2011 P a g e 3 of 6

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the

respondent/landlord has desperately wanted to evict the

petitioners/tenants on one ground or the other. Further, he submitted that

the respondent/landlord was unable to satisfy the Learned ARC that he is

having a bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises. The

petitioners/tenants are senior citizen, who have no other means of

livelihood and have been operating their office from the tenanted

premises for the last 50 years and they will suffer hardship if eviction

order is passed.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has

submitted that respondent has no other suitable commercial

accommodation. Property No. E-340, Greater Kailash Part-II is a

residential property and is fully occupied for residential purposes and

there is no other space available for the respondent/landlord.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the

tenanted premises was let out to the petitioners for commercial purpose

and same is required bonafide by the respondent for his own occupation

and respondent/landlord has no other reasonably suitable

accommodation. The respondent/landlord requires the said tenanted

premises for his own professional office as the same is a part of the

property No. E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi where respondent/landlord is

running his office and the respondent need not change his postal address,

telephone numbers etc. and would also be relieved of all types of hassles

RC.REV. Nos. 06-07/2011 P a g e 4 of 6 and harassment in shifting his office and also of losing his clients at any

other new place.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has contended that

there is no leave to defend application filed by the petitioners. But there

is one affidavit filed by Smt. Pushpa Rani Goomer which cannot be

considered as affidavit filed by the petitioners/tenants.

10. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

parties. I have also gone through the documents on record and judgments

relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in cases Umesh Challiyill

vs. K.P.Rajendran, (2008) 11 SCC 740, and Dwarka Nath Pandey vs.

Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D ward and Anr. AIR 1966 SC

81 (V 53 C 22). The facts of both the cases are not applicable to the facts

of the present case.

11. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai

Prabhulal and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 252, it was observed:

"It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business."

12. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent/landlord is in

bonafide need of the rented premises. Because the need of the

respondent is to use that rented premises for his personal commercial use

and the other property available to the respondent in Greater Kailash is

RC.REV. Nos. 06-07/2011 P a g e 5 of 6 purely residential property which does not fulfill the requirement of the

respondent as he cannot start his work from there.

13. Petitioners have failed to raise any triable issue in this case, which

if proved, might disentitle the respondent from getting an order

of eviction in their favour. The trial court has given a detailed and

reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor the same

suffers from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.

14. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the ARC.

15. These revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

16. No Costs.

                                                        (S.L. BHAYANA)
                                                            JUDGE
February 15, 2011




RC.REV. Nos. 06-07/2011                                      P a g e 6 of 6