Delhi High Court
Shri Jagmohan Kashyap vs Smt. Shiv Devi & Ors. on 22 November, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.C.Rev.527/2012, CM 18382-84/2012,
CAV.1107/2012
Date of Decision: 22.11.2012
SHRI JAGMOHAN KASHYAP ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana,
Advocate
Versus
SMT. SHIV DEVI & ORS. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. N.N.Aggarwal and Mr.
Rohit Gandhi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent
Control Act is directed against the judgment and order dated
05.06.2012 of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (South)
whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, who was
respondent in the eviction petition, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is tenant in respect of a shop under the
respondents in property No. 1/17526, Gautam Nagar Road, Yusuf
Sarai, New Delhi. His eviction was sought by the respondents for
bonafide requirement of the said shop for enabling her younger son
Ravi Kumar Meena to set up his business.
3. The main pleas which were taken by the petitioner in the leave
to defend application were that the respondents have reasonably
sufficient accommodation on the ground, first, third and fourth floors
of the suit premises. It was averred that the respondents have got two
shops adjoining the suit shop and have also got another shop measuring
10ft x 10 ft. at the corner.
4. The learned ARC rejected the leave to defend application, filed
by the petitioner, observing that the petitioner has not been able to raise
any triable issue which would disentitle the respondents to seek his
eviction. It was observed that one of the two shops on the ground floor
is with the tenant and other was occupied by her and thus none of these
two shops can be said to be available for setting up a new business by
her son Ravi Kumar Meena. With regard to the third shop at corner, it
was observed that the said shop was of smaller size of 10 ft x 10 ft. and
could not be said to be reasonably suitable for setting up a new
business. It was undisputed that her elder son Ajay Kumar Meena was
running his general store business at the first floor of the suit premises
and that being so, there was no space available for setting up a business
by her younger son Ravi Kumar Meena. It is not in dispute that the
respondents are residing at 2nd floor of the suit premises. With regard
to the third and fourth floors, it was observed by the learned ARC, and
rightly so, that these floors cannot be said to be reasonably suitable for
business purposes. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the
proposition that any business which is running from the ground floor of
the premises would attract more customers than the business running
from basement and upper floors. With regard to the accommodation
available with the respondents in the suit premises, as noticed above, I
do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the
ARC.
5. Further, it was also averred by the petitioner that respondent
Smt. Shiv Devi has acquired another shop in property bearing No. 25
at Central Road, Bhogal and the same is lying vacant and can be used
by her for setting up business by her son Ravi Kumar Meena. Having
regard to the response of the respondents to this plea, the learned ARC
observed, and rightly so, that this shop is located at far away place
from the present business place of the respondent at Yusuf Sarai and
also that this shop is of smaller size than that of the suit shop and thus
cannot be said to be reasonably suitable for setting up a new business.
There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that it is the prerogative
of the landlord to use the premises at a place of his choice and neither
the tenant nor this Court can dictate the landlord as to how and in what
manner he should use his premises. Further, it is also settled
proposition of law that the alternative accommodation which may
disentitle the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, in
comparison to the accommodation from where the tenant is sought to
be evicted. The respondent Smt. Shiv Devi with her family has been
living at the 2nd floor of the suit premises and her elder son Ajay
Kumar Meena is running his business from the first floor and she is
doing the business from the shop at the ground floor. Undisputedly, it
would be convenient and safe for her to enable her younger son also to
set up his business in the same premises. The respondents have been
able to prima facie show their bonafide requirement of the suit
premises. There is no dispute that the landlord is also under a moral
obligation to help her son to set up his business independently. It is not
the case of the petitioner that younger son of the respondent Smt. Shiv
Devi is employed or has any source of income of his own.
From all these, the requirement of the respondents of the
tenanted shop is apparently found to be bonafide, genuine and honest.
From the above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order and thus the petition merits dismissal,
which is accordingly dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
NOVEMBER 22, 2012
awanish
