Delhi High Court
Santosh Chand Goel vs Vinay Gupta on 4 September, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC REV. 254/2010
Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
SANTOSH CHAND GOEL ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog,
Mr.Sushil Jaiswal, Adv.
Versus
VINAY GUPTA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.Yogendra Nath, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent
Control Act (for short the 'Act') impugns the judgment dated
2.7.2010 of the Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), whereby the eviction
petition being E-289/2008 filed by the petitioner, seeking eviction of
the respondent, was dismissed.
2. The respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of
one shop in premises No. 1/9025, Main Babarpur Road, West
Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi @ Rs. 230/- per month exclusive of
electricity charges. The tenanted premises was in fact let out to the
husband of the respondent somewhere in 1973. The eviction of the
respondent was sought by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of
the Act on the ground of bonafide requirement thereof by himself
and his sons, stating them to be dependent upon him. On leave to
defend being granted, the respondent filed written statement and
contested the eviction petition. During the trial, the petitioner
examined himself as PW1 and the respondent examined herself as
RW1. Vide the impugned order, the learned ARC dismissed the
eviction petition holding that the petitioner, being aged person and
not being physically fit, was unable to carry any business and that all
his sons, not being dependent upon him financially or otherwise, and
having their independent businesses, the projected need of the
premises required for himself and his sons, was not made out.
Consequently, he dismissed the eviction petition.
3. The impugned judgment is challenged by the petitioner vide
the instant revision petition.
4. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties, I must reiterate that the power of this Court
under Section 25-B (8) Act are not as wide as those of Appellate
Court, and in case it is found that the impugned order is according to
law and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court must
refrain from interfering with the same. The power under this
provision is limited and supervisory in nature. Only when it is
evident that the Rent Controller has committed grave illegality or
came to a conclusion which was not possible, based on the material
produced, should this Court interfere in the orders passed by the
Rent Controller.
5. The case set up by the petitioner was that he is aged about 64
years and is doing the trading business. He has five sons namely
Sandeep, Rajesh, Praveen, Vikas & Amit. None of his sons has any
shop for trading purpose or for selling electric cables being
manufactured by them. He thus, needed at least six shops for
carrying the business by himself and his sons, who are dependent
upon him for the purpose of business premises. At present, he had
only three shops including the one in the tenancy of the respondent.
6. The respondent has taken preliminary objection that the
petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties as all the LRs
of the deceased/tenant have not been impleaded. On merits, the
relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. It was submitted that
after the death of her husband, the respondent, with her sons and
daughters as also mother, became the tenant in respect of the
tenanted premises. The bona fide requirement of tenanted shop by
the petitioner or for the business purpose by his sons, was denied. It
was alleged that the sons of the petitioner are not dependent upon
him, as they are all carrying their businesses independently, for the
last several years, at different places and living at different places.
7. The submissions which are raised before me by the learned
counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment are
similar to which were raised before the ARC, namely, the petitioner
bona-fidely required the tenanted premises for the trading businesses
of his sons, who do not have any commercial space of their own and
were dependent upon him for their needs for commercial premises.
8. With regard to the plea raised by the respondent regarding the
petition being bad for non-joinder of all the LRs of her deceased
husband, the learned ARC has noted, and rightly so, that the
respondent in her cross examination, has admitted that only she had
been paying the rent to the petitioner, after the death of her husband,
and that, only she had been running the business in the tenanted
shop. Accordingly, this contention of the respondent was rightly
repelled by the learned ARC. With regard to the bona fide
requirement of the petitioner for himself and his sons, the learned
ARC referred to the statement of the petitioner recorded as PW1.
He had stated that he has five sons and none of them had any shop
for trading business or for the sale of electric cables, paint, brush,
PVC components etc. being manufactured by them. Though, he had
stated that he required at least six shops for carrying on the
businesses by himself and by his five sons, he stated that out of
three shops on the ground floor, two were in the possession of other
tenants and one was with the respondent. He had admitted at
different places in cross examination that all his sons have been
doing their independent businesses for the last several years. So
much so, he had stated that none of his sons is financially dependent
upon him. He stated that he had no interest of any kind in the
businesses of any of his sons. He even did not have any knowledge
of the turn-over, production etc. of the businesses of his sons. He
admitted that all his sons were involved in manufacturing of the
aforesaid items at different places under different names and they
were earning their livelihood independently and separately and none
of them was dependent upon him for any purpose. He even
admitted that the business of manufacturing of paint, brush, which
he was earlier doing, is also being looked after by one of his sons
and due to his old age and physical condition, he was not in a
position to carry out any business or work. He has not led any
evidence to prove that his other two shops are with the tenants.
None of his sons has come forward to support his version or claim
that they required the tenanted premises. The petitioner seems to
making wild wishes for his sons, who do not seem to be bothered
about him or his property or even dependent upon him for any
purpose, whatsoever. With this evidence being on record, the
learned ARC recorded, and rightly so, that the needs of the sons of
the petitioner as reflected in the petition, are sham and bogus, and
since the petitioner himself was not able to carry out any business
any longer and was in fact, not doing any work, the tenanted
premises was neither required for himself or for any of his sons, and
further that none of his sons was dependent upon him financially or
otherwise. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the appreciation
of evidence by the learned ARC. In view of all this, finding no
merit in the petition, the same stands dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
akb
