Mohd Rizwan vs Shujaauddin
2012 Latest Caselaw 5269 Del

*      THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  R.C.REV. 45/2012

                                        Date of Decision: 04.09.2012

MOHD RIZWAN                                         ......Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. Vinay K. Garg & Mr.
                                        Amit Shrivastava, Advocates.

                               Versus

SHUJAAUDDIN                                  ......Respondent
                          Through:      Mohd. Abid, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 03.10.2011 of Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Central, Delhi, dismissing his leave to defend application in the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent.

2. The petitioner is tenant in respect of one room bearing private No. 2 in property No. 2858, Ward No. 9, Gulbuli Khana, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, under the respondent. It was averred in the petition that the family of the respondent consisted of himself, his second wife from whom he has one son aged 12 years, and also two sons Javed Nazir and Nazeem Parvez aged 35 and 34 years, their wives and children, and also one married daughter. The entire family, except

the married daughter, was stated to be residing on the first, second and third floor of the suit premises, built on a plot of 40 square yards. The petitioner with his wife and youngest son is residing at the first floor; his eldest son with his wife and sons are on the second floor; and his son Javed Nazir on the third floor. He has one shop bearing private No. 1 on the ground floor of the suit premises, where he is doing the work of sewing machines. The respondent filed eviction petition seeking eviction of petitioner tenant from the tenanted shop on the ground of bonafide requirement thereof for his younger son Javed Parvez, who was stated to be running his tea vending shop with his friend in a rented small khokha measuring 2 feet x 2 feet in property bearing No. 2841, Gulbuli Khana, Delhi-6. The income from the tea shop being not sufficient for Pervez and his family, and there being no sufficient commercial space available, he intends to settle his son Pervez in the tenanted shop for running his independent business.

3. In the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, it was alleged that all the family members being the owners of the tenanted premises, the respondent alone had no locus standi to file the petition. It was averred that the petitioner's son Nazeem was employed with Rana Silk Store and prior to that was with Alfa Store and is not engaged in any business at premises P-75, Gali No. 18, Brahampuri, Delhi or any other place. It was denied that Pervez is running tea shop as alleged in a khokha. It was averred that he is having a big shop with a built up first floor. The said shop is having

two shutters and was let out on a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/- with first floor to Shakeel, who is using the first floor for the residence of his employees. It was alleged that Pervez and the petitioner are doing business from the shop in premises No. A-75, Gali No. 18, Brahampuri, Delhi and the first floor thereof has been let out to someone recently. Shop No. 1 in the suit premises was also alleged to be lying vacant and the respondent in the process of letting it out to someone else. Then, it was alleged that the respondent and his son Pervez had started the business in this shop in competition with the petitioner.

4. Based on these averments, the learned ARC, vide the impugned order, declined leave to contest and consequently, passed eviction order against the petitioner. The said order is challenged by the petitioner in the instant petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. With regard to the ownership, it is noted by the ARC, and rightly so, that the petitioner himself had admitted that the shop in question was let out to him by the respondent in the year 1983. The petitioner having not disputed the respondent to be the co-owner of the tenanted shop, the contention that their family members were not made the parties, has no substance. It is well settled that the co- owner can file an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement. The respondent being the father and landlord was

competent to file eviction on the ground of requirement of his sons and other family members dependent upon him.

7. The plea of the respondent that Pervez was running a tea shop in a small khokha was controverted by the petitioner alleging this to be a big shop with built up first floor; the shop having two shutters and let out to Shakeel along with first floor at a monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. This was, outrightly, denied by the respondent. There is nothing on record to substantiate the plea of the petitioner that this shop in premises No. 2841 was owned by the respondent or his family member and that this along with first floor was let out to Shakeel at monthly rent of Rs.6,000/-. On the other hand, the respondent had filed rent receipts to substantiate the plea that this was a tenanted small shop. Thus, apparently, this was a vague and bald assertion made by the petitioner that the said shop was a big one and was owned by the respondent and let out to Shakeel. Similarly, the pleas taken by the petitioner that the respondent with his son Pervez is doing the business from shop No. E-75, Brahampuri and the first floor thereof was let out recently and further that Nazeer is employed with Rana Silk Store, are all denied by the respondent. The petitioner had nothing to substantiate these bald and vague assertions, and thus these are without any substance. Likewise, his plea that the shop No. 1 in the suit premises is lying vacant and the petitioner is in the process of letting it out, is again nothing but vague. It is noted that at one place he has averred that the said shop is lying vacant and the respondent is in the process of

letting it out; whereas at another place it is stated that he along with his son Pervez had started business therein in competition with him. All these averments have no substance.

8. Based on the above discussion, the ARC has rightly noted, and which cannot be faulted with, that the respondent was able to show that his son Pervez was running a tea shop in a rented accommodation and that the respondent had no other suitable commercial accommodation to enable his son Pervez to set up his independent business. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition that a father is not only entitled, but is under an obligation to help his son set up his independent business for his livelihood.

9. I could not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of ARC. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 04, 2012 awanish