Delhi High Court
Ram Kishore Patel @ R K Patel vs Dr. Jaswant Singh on 31 January, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 31.1.2014
+ R.C.REV.56/2014, CM Nos.1818-19/2014
RAM KISHORE PATEL @ R K PATEL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shamim A. Khan, Adv.
versus
DR. JASWANT SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: None.
% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)
1. This petition impugns an order dated 12.11.2013 whereby the
petitioner was directed to be evicted from Property No. N-156, Vishnu
Garden, New Delhi in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e)
read with Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petition filed
by the respondent/landlord was allowed and the leave to defend was
declined. The relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed, the tenant
sought leave to defend on the ground that the landlord was not a
registered medical practitioner; and an alternate accommodation was
available to him in residential property No. J-10/7, Rajouri Garden, New
Delhi; the landlord had not disclosed the alternate accommodation
available with him in the aforesaid property; the landlord had inducted
more than ten tenants in the suit property; and a separate site plan too had
been filed by the tenant showing the real position at the site. However, in
reply to the leave to defend, the Court found that the eviction petitioner
has placed on record a degree of B.A.M.S. from Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsha
Parishad vide registration No. DA-5643. The property No. J-10/7,
Rajouri Garden was stated to be a residential in nature. The landlord also
filed an affidavit to the effect that after the demise of his father he became
a co-owner of the said property in which he was residing on the ground
floor. The shop on the ground floor occupied by the tenant was earlier
used by the petitioner's mother for running a boutique. The first and the
barsati floors of the said property were occupied by other tenants. After
consideration of the arguments, the Trial Court found that the eviction
petitioner had locus standi to file the petition and he had superior rights
vis-a-vis the tenant; that in the site-plan filed by the tenant, no
accommodation was shown as being available to the landlord to fulfil his
need, therefore could it not be said that an alternate accommodation was
available to the latter. The landlord has also contended that his clinic was
in Sabzi Mandi whereas his residence was in Rajouri Garden and due to a
heart by-pass surgery sometime ago, he was finding it difficult to travel
between the two places. The tenant's bald statement that the suit property
has been let out to ten different tenants was not substantiated by evidence.
The Trial Court further reasoned that the residential accommodation
could not necessarily be put to the use for the eviction petitioner's clinic,
that it was settled law that the landlord is the best judge of his
requirement for residential or business purposes and that he has complete
freedom of choice in the matter; and neither the Courts nor landlord can
dictate as to how a particular premises could be used (Sarla Ahuja vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments
made before the Trial Court. There is nothing new placed on record
which would persuade the Court to come to a different conclusion than
arrived at by the Trial Court. This Court is of the view that just because
the landlord's mother had, sometime in the past, used a portion of the
ground floor for running a boutique shop, the son cannot be compelled, at
the instance of the tenant, to use the same portion for running his medical
clinic. The tenant has no say in how a landlord should use his property.
Gratuitous advice in this regard can be offered after the tenant has
vacated the tenanted premises. It is not for the Court to explore how the
landlord could have adjusted himself without getting possession of the
premises (Sarla Ahuja (supra)). The decision of location of a
professional's office (a medical clinic in this case) is the absolute
prerogative of the professional concerned (the medical practitioner).
He/she is the best judge of the location and use. The reasoning and the
conclusion of the impugned order are correct. This Court finds no reason
to interfere with the same. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 31, 2014/ak
