Ashok Kumar Sarna vs Aman Gupta
2014 Latest Caselaw 1834 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                Date of Decision: 03.04.2014
+       RC.REV. 576/2012

        ASHOK KUMAR SARNA                                   ..... Petitioner
                    Through:           Mr. S.C.Singhal, Adv.

                           Versus

        AMAN GUPTA                                          ..... Respondent

                           Through:    Mr. Vinod Kumar Jha, Adv. along
                                       with respondent in person.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

%       MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 06.09.2012 whereby the respondent's petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short 'the Act') was allowed and the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the suit premises, being one shop on the ground floor forming part of property bearing No.1565/30, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005.

2. The leave to defend was denied to the petitioner on the ground that it made out no triable issues. The landlord and tenant relationship was admitted since the tenant was depositing rent under Section 27 of the Act in the name of the eviction petitioner as the landlord. The property was required on the grounds that: the petitioner had no source of income; was unemployed and neither engaged in any business or profession; had no other shop or premises to run his business; his mother was an aged lady not

working anywhere and she was solely dependent upon him. Therefore, there was a bona fide ground for eviction of the tenant from the premises to run a shop there from.

3. The leave to defend application averred that the petitioner and his mother were owners and in exclusive possession of other shops in the premises/ plot bearing No. 1565/29-30; that they were also owners and in exclusive possession of its first floor admeasuring 180 square meters which was sufficient for their requirement, if any. However, the eviction petitioner, however, denied that he or his mother were owners or in exclusive possession of the said shops and that in the first floor of the suit property only 75 sq. meters and not 180 sq. meters was in their possession whereas second floor was in possession of another tenant. Apart from making bald statements that the eviction-petitioner is in possession of the alleged shop and the tenant has brought nothing on record to prima facie substantiate his contention.

4. Having considered the submission of the parties this Court is of the view that it is untenable for the tenant to say that the second floor premises if and when available, would be suitable to the petitioner. It is settled law that the bonafide need has to be tested in presenti; and because the need requires to be fulfilled urgently a provision for meeting the requirement cannot be in futuro. Immediate needs require immediate solutions. That is why the legislative scheme provides a summary procedure to deal with cases of bonafide requirement. Even otherwise, the Trial Court held that first and second floors of the premises were residential in nature therefore they could not be used for commercial purpose. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati

& Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383 which held that in the context of alternative accommodation mere assertion by the tenant apropos the eviction-petitioner being the landlord of other properties could not be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend; only those averments in the affidavit were to be considered by the Rent Controller which had substance in it supported by some material.

5. It is settled law that the landlord is the best judge of how to use which property. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. (Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1998 (8) SCC

119).

6. The petitioner has shown a bona fide need for occupying the tenanted shop on the ground floor and that it would be most suitable for running a shop.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that no triable issues were raised in the leave to defend. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as being without any merit.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) APRIL 03, 2014/acm