Delhi High Court
Kashmiri Lal Kataria vs Navneet Gupta on 10 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.Rev.524/2012 & CM No. 18285/2012
% 10th July, 2014
KASHMIRI LAL KATARIA ......Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Adv.
VERSUS
NAVNEET GUPTA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankan Suri, Advocate.
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 25-B (viii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated
21.5.2012 by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord has
been decreed. The respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition for
bonafide necessity for the shop situated on the ground floor and in which
shop on the ground floor the respondent wanted his sons to start business.
2. The eviction petition has been decreed after evidence was led by both
the parties.
RC.Rev.524/2012 Page 1 of 6
3. There is no dispute with respect to the ownership and the purpose of
letting is immaterial in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of
Satya Wati Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 5
SCC 287. The only issue required to be considered in this case is whether
the tenanted shop on the ground floor i.e Shop Nos. 2002 towards Bank
Street and 2051, towards Naiwalan, Gali No.39, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-
110005 is bonafidely required by the respondent/landlord.
4. The relevant portions of the impugned judgment which specifically
and directly deal with this issue of bonafide need are paras 16 to 20 which
read as under:-
"16. After going through the deposition of PW-1, it is proved
that the petitioner has only a shop measuring 37 sq. yards on
the ground floor in the suit property. The shop no. 1431,
Gowardhan Das Trust has already been vacated by the
petitioner. The respondent has not brought anything on
record to show any other suitable available accommodation
with the petitioner. The suit property cannot be used for
doing the business activities. RW-1 also admitted that the
customers always prefer the shop situated at ground floor
instead of the upper two floors. We all are aware that a shop
or any business activity is always run better on the ground
floor then upper floors. The petitioner does not want to start
the business of his son from upper floor and he wants to
provide accommodation to his son on the ground floor. It is
well settled law that a tenant cannot dictate terms to the
landlord to which floor the landlord should use for his
business activities. It is held in Smt. Viran Wali Vs. Sh.
Kuldeep Rai Kochhar, Rev. NO. 124/2010 & C.M No.
10165/2010 decided on 12.11.2010 that any business which
is being run from the ground floor of the premises, will
RC.Rev.524/2012 Page 2 of 6
obviously attract more customers than the business being run
from the basement. It is settled law, that a tenant cannot
dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner the
landlord should use his own property.
17. It is held in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday Shankar
Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, VIII (2009) SLT 429
that once it is not disputed that landlord is in bona fide need
of premises, it is not for courts to say that he should shift to
first floor or any higher floor. Shops and businesses are
usually conducted on ground floor, because customers can
reach there easily. Court cannot dictate to landlord which
floor he should use for his business.
18. The petitioner has two sons of aged about 25 and 24
years. The elder son of the petitioner is working with the
petitioner and the younger son is unemployed. The petitioner
wants to get start the business for his two sons and for this
he needs the shop in question. As the petitioner has no other
alternative accommodation, therefore, his requirement of the
suit premises to get vacate from the respondent is bona fide
one. It is a social duty of a father to provide accommodation
to his grown up children, if he can afford. The contention of
the respondent that the petitioner had let out the first,
second and third floor for commercial purposes has no
substance because the petitioner wants to provide
accommodation for his son for business purposes on the
ground floor and not on the upper floors. It is not in dispute
that when the petitioner filed the present eviction petitioner
he was residing on the upper floors of the suit property. The
further contention of the respondent that the petitioner wants
to let out the suit premises on higher rent or sell it on higher
rate have no substance as there is a protection to the tenant
u/s 19 of DRC Act that in case the landlord let out or sell the
property within three year of its acquisition, tenant can file a
petition to get back the possession.
19. Considering all these aspects, both these ingredients are
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondent. The ruling relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the
respondent are not applicable to the facts of the present case
as the ruling i.e O.P.Gupta Vs. R.K.Sharma (supra) is
regarding the residential requirement of the landlord whereas
RC.Rev.524/2012 Page 3 of 6
in the case in hand the petitioner needs the suit premises for
commercial purposes.
20. In view of the above discussions, petitioner has proved all
the ingredients of section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and
respondent failed to show that the petitioner has any other
alternative accommodation. Accordingly, the petitioner is
entitled for an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Hence
an eviction order is passed in respect of the tenanted
premises i.e shop no. 2002, towards bank street and 2051
towards Naiwalan, Gali No. 39, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, more
specifically shown in red color in the site plan Ex. PW-1/4. It is
made clear that the pettioner shall not be entitled to execute
this execution order before expiry of six months from today."
5. The aforesaid paras rightly conclude that shops on the ground floor
are more feasible for doing business instead of commercial premises in the
basement or on the first floor and above. The court below has in this regard
referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Uday Shankar
Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, VIII (2009) SLT 429 in para 17
of its judgment. The court below has also on this aspect referred to the
judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Viran
Wali Vs. Sh. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar, Rev. No. 124/2010 decided on
12.11.2010. This is the position prevailing in law because a tenant cannot
dictate to the landlord from where he should conduct his business once the
shop on the ground floor is more suitable than the premises other than the
one in the basement or the first floor and above.
RC.Rev.524/2012 Page 4 of 6
6(i) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
respondent/landlord had with him an alternative premises being the shop no.
1431, Goverdhan Dass Trust, Near Jain Mandir, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in
his tenancy which he wrongly vacated, and which would be thus an
alternative accommodation. It is argued that since the landlord-respondent
was a tenant in another premises he should not have vacated, and therefore,
there would be alternative premises.
(ii) I fail to understand this argument because this in fact means that if
landlord is a tenant in another premises which the other landlord wants, the
landlord who is a tenant in that another premises must turn dishonest, should
not vacate the tenanted premises, should force the landlord of another
premises to file eviction petition, that eviction petition should be contested
by further harassing the other landlord right to the Supreme Court.
Obviously, this cannot be and is not the position in law.
7. In view of the above, this petition is clearly misconceived and is an
endeavour by the tenant to illegally hold on to the premises of the
landlord/respondent. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.
50,000/- which shall be paid within a period of six weeks. The respondent-
landlord has incurred legal costs in defending this petition. Supreme Court
RC.Rev.524/2012 Page 5 of 6
has observed in the case of Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors. Vs. Nirmala
Devi & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 249 that it is high time that in certain litigations
appropriate actual costs must be imposed. I am also empowered to impose
actual costs in exercise of powers under Volume V of the Punjab High
Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi) Chapter VI Part I Rule
15.
JULY 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
