Delhi High Court
Sh. Ram Abhilakh vs Sh. Ram Phal Tyagi on 8 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.Rev No. 263/2014 & CM No.12798/2014 (stay)
% 8th August , 2014
SH. RAM ABHILAKH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Narang, Advocate.
versus
SH. RAM PHAL TYAGI ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This revision petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent
Controller dated 6.5.2014, by which the leave to defend application filed by
the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and eviction has been ordered from
the tenanted premises comprising of one room admeasuring 10X9 ft. being
used as godown and one shop admeasuring 9X3ft. in front in the property
RCR 263/2014 Page 1 of 5
bearing no. WZ-80, Basai Darapur, New Delhi-15 as shown in red colour in
the site plan attached with eviction petition .
2. Respondent/landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground that his
family besides himself consists of his wife, four daughters and two sons.
One son had already expired in 2006 and the three daughters were married.
The second son of the petitioner is unemployed. The respondent/landlord is
also unemployed because he was previously working in DTC and he had
retired in 2005. Respondent/landlord is not getting any pension from DTC.
Respondent/landlord therefore required the suit tenanted premises
bonafidely for carrying on business of a property-dealer.
3. The application for leave to defend was filed by the petitioner/ tenant
and in which essentially two main aspects were urged, and which are also
the aspects which have been argued before this Court. The first aspect
which is argued is that the respondent/landlord is already having his
residential premises of 55 sq. yds in house no. WZ-89, Basai Darapur, New
Delhi, and which is said to be an alternative accommodation. The second
aspect and another alternative accommodation is said to be a shop adjacent
to the suit tenanted premises and which according to the petitioner was let
RCR 263/2014 Page 2 of 5
out in the year 2012, showing that there was no bonafide need of the
respondent/landlord.
4. So far as the aspect that the respondent/landlord can carry out his
business from his house is concerned, the argument is misconceived not only
because the business can be carried out from a shop only and not a
residence, but also because of the additional fact that the house of the
respondent/landlord is located in a 4 feet wide gali whereas the suit premises
is located on 20 ft. wide road and hence more suitable. The Supreme Court
recently in the case of Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja 2014(6)
SCALE 572 has in more or less on identical circumstances observed that if
the landlord is carrying on business in a shop which is located in a narrow
lane, he is entitled to evict the tenant of the tenanted premises which is
situated on the main road. Therefore, in my opinion the Additional Rent
Controller has committed no illegality in holding that the premises in which
the respondent/landlord is staying is not an alternative premises.
5. In my opinion, the Additional Rent Controller in this regard has
rightly observed in para 23 that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord not to
carry on business, and it is the right of every person to prosper in life. Para
23 of the impugned judgment dated 6.5.2014 reads as under:-
RCR 263/2014 Page 3 of 5
"23. In the opinion of this tribunal, it is the right of every person to
excel in life. If the petitioner and his son is of the opinion that it would
be better in life to start a new business from the tenanted premises for
themselves, then it would not be just for this court to direct the
petitioner otherwise and thereby stop the financial growth of the
family of the petitioner. The court cannot ask the petitioner and his
son to give up their dreams of excelling in life by establishing their
own business. Though the success of the business to be established
by them is not guaranteed, but, at the same time, the court cannot
predict the failure of the same and thereby decline the petitioner an
opportunity to establish himself and his son by carrying new business
from a premises owned by him."
6. So far as the aspect that the respondent/landlord can carry on business
in a premises adjacent to the suit tenanted shop, and the said shop is an
alternative premises are concerned, the argument is misconceived because
actually the eviction petition is filed in the year 2013, and the adjacent shop
was let out not in the year 2012 as is the case of the petitioner/tenant, but the
other shop was let out in the year 2006 ie over 7 years prior to filing of the
eviction petition. Therefore, an event which has happened much prior to the
filing of the petition, and in view of the fact that bonafide requirement is a
continuous cause of action as also a fresh cause of action on account of
passing of time, the Additional Rent Controller was justified in holding that
the so-called alternative shop adjacent to the tenanted premises is not an
alternative premises. A landlord is surely entitled to augment his income by
carrying on business.
RCR 263/2014 Page 4 of 5
7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is
therefore dismissed, leaving the parties are left to bear their own costs.
AUGUST 08, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
