Smt. Sadhana Gupta vs Sh. Vijay Pal Kathuria
2014 Latest Caselaw 6780 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            RC.REV. No.402/2014 and C.M. No.20518/2014 (stay)

%                                                   15th December, 2014

SMT. SADHANA GUPTA                                  ......Petitioner
                 Through:                Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

                          VERSUS


SH. VIJAY PAL KATHURIA                                     ...... 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 petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control

Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the judgment of the

Additional Rent Controller dated 28.8.2014 by which the Additional Rent

Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the

petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition

filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted premises

being one shop in property no.78, Baldev Park, Delhi-51 as shown in yellow

colour in the site plan annexed along with the eviction petition.
RCR No.402/2014                                                     Page 1 of 4
 2.           The case as set up by the respondent/landlord was that there

were a total of three shops on the ground floor and in one shop his wife is

already carrying on the business of ladies garments under the name and style

of M/s. Famina. The respondent/landlord has two unemployed sons and he

needed the suit premises as well as the adjacent shop which is with the other

tenants for carrying on of businesses by his sons. Against the other co-

tenants, namely Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh. Rakesh Sharma, another

eviction petition for bonafide necesstiy was filed. The present eviction

petition was filed for the need of the younger son Sh. Ajay Kathuria who

wanted to open his independent business of sale and purchase of mobile and

computer related devices.

3.           In a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, there are three

aspects which are required to be seen.      First is whether there exists a

relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlord

is the owner of the tenanted premises. Second aspect to be seen is that the

tenanted premises are required bonafidely by the landlord and/or his family

members. The third aspect to be seen is that whether the landlord has any

other alternative suitable premises.

4.           In the present case, so far as the relationship of landlord and

tenant and ownership of landlord is concerned, the same was not disputed
RCR No.402/2014                                                  Page 2 of 4
 before the Additional Rent Controller and is also not disputed before this

Court.

5(i).        So far as the aspect of bonafide necessity is concerned, counsel

for the petitioner/tenant argues that how can the respondent/landlord

suddenly have a need for the sons to carry on the businesses. It is also

argued that the sons were already assisting the father in his business of auto

parts which was being conducted from a shop/premises bearing no.588, first

floor, Ganda Nala Bazar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006. It is also pleaded in

the leave to defend application that manufacturing of auto parts is being

done by the respondent/landlord at B-1, Patparganj Industrial Area, DSIDC

Complex, Delhi-92.

(ii)         This argument urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant of the

son not requiring the premises is misconceived because it is not the case of

the petitioner/tenant that the son of the respondent/landlord Sh. Ajay

Kathuria is in any manner having any ownership rights in the business of

auto parts. Helping the father in the business is different from having an

independent business of one's own and therefore it cannot be held by this

Court that the son Sh. Ajay Kathuria should not have a shop to start his own

business i.e independent from helping his father in the auto parts business.

This argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is therefore rejected.
RCR No.402/2014                                                   Page 3 of 4
 6.           The only other argument which was urged on behalf of the

petitioner/tenant before this Court is that the manufacturing activities of auto

parts are already being carried out from industrial plot at B-1, Patparganj

Industrial Area, DSIDC Complex, Delhi-92 and therefore the suit shop is not

required, however, even this argument is without any merit because need is

not for any industrial premises but for a shop to carry out the business of sale

and purchase of mobile and computer related devices, and, it is not the case

of the petitioner/tenant that the son Sh. Ajay Kathuria is a co-owner with his

father in the auto parts business. Even for the sake of arguments even if the

son is doing business with his father, surely, the son is entitled to set up and

carry on his own independent business i.e independent from the father. This

argument of the petitioner is also therefore without merit and rejected.

7.           No other argument or issue is urged before this Court.

8.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the

same is therefore dismissed. No costs.



DECEMBER 15, 2014                                VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne