Delhi High Court
Shri C.P.Sehgal vs Smt. Archana Gupta on 26 November, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. No. 501/2011 & RC. Rev. No.505/2011
% 26th November , 2014
RC.Rev. No. 501/2011
SHRI C.P.SEHGAL ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate.
VERSUS
SMT. ARCHANA GUPTA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.D.Dixit, Advocate.
RC.Rev. No. 505/2011
SHRI C.P.SEHGAL ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate.
VERSUS
SMT. ARCHANA GUPTA ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.D.Dixit, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
RCR 501/2011 & conn. Page 1 of 7
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
RC.Rev. No. 501/2011
1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC
Act') impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 29.10.2011 by
which the 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 suit
property no. 12 and 13, in the property bearing no. A-14/3, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi (also mentioned as R.No.12, 13, Block No.3, Plot No.14(A),
Municipal No.2523, Ward No.10, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi) and as shown
in red colour in the site plan Ex.C-1.
2. Respondent/landlady had filed the subject bonafide necessity
eviction petition stating that she wants to start her own business of fashion
designing cum boutique but on account of paucity of space she could not
start the business and hence the tenanted premises are required for the
aforesaid business purpose. Respondent/landlady has done MSC
(Chemistry) and she also has a diploma in fashion designing from
Saubhagya Polytechnic for Women and in Systems Management from NIIT.
RCR 501/2011 & conn. Page 2 of 7
Respondent/landlady has also done a one year course of an Office Assistant.
It is stated by the respondent/landlady that except the suit premises she had
no other premises from where the business could be carried out and hence
suit/tenanted premises was bonafidely required.
3. In a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, three
aspects are required to be seen by the court for decreeing of the petition.
Firstly, there has to exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties and that the landlord is the owner of the suit/tenanted premises.
Second aspect to be seen is that the tenanted premises are required
bonafidely by the landlord and/or his family members and the third aspect is
that the landlord has no other alternative suitable accommodation.
4. Before this Court, there is no dispute with respect to the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlady
is the owner. What is essentially argued by the petitioner/tenant is that the
eviction petition is not bonafide because the respondent has alternative
suitable accommodation. One alternative suitable accommodation which is
stated to exist is property no. 3/4, Top Floor, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
Petitioner contended that respondent/landlady and her family members
owned various properties, namely, property bearing no. 3/4, Top Floor, Asaf
RCR 501/2011 & conn. Page 3 of 7
Ali Road, New Delhi, property bearing no.3/8, Asaf Ali Road (entire
property), New Delhi, property bearing no.3/12, Second Floor (two floors),
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, property bearing no.3/17, One floor, Asaf Ali
Road, New Delhi and property bearing no.4/5B, first and second floor, Asaf
Ali Road, New Delhi. It is stated that out of these, some properties are lying
vacant and they are therefore suitable alternative accommodation.
5. So far as the property bearing no. 3/4, Asaf Ali Road, New
Delhi is concerned, the respondent/landlady has stated that the same is
owned by her mother-in-law and in fact the same is in possession of an old
tenant. Whereas the property bearing no. 3/12, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, is
stated to be in possession of an old tenant with respect to whom litigation is
said to be pending due to non-payment of rent. Rent Controller has
therefore held that this property is not an alternative suitable accommodation
because petitioner did not place anything on record to show that the property
bearing no.3/4 is owned by the respondent/landlady or is vacant and
therefore available to the respondent/landlady.
6. So far as the entire list of other properties as stated above which
according to the petitioner/tenant are owned by the respondent/landlady is
concerned, respondent/landlady has taken up a specific stand that she has
RCR 501/2011 & conn. Page 4 of 7
nothing whatsoever to do with any of the properties as those properties are
not owned by her. Therefore, bald assertions that respondent/landlady owns
various properties cannot create a triable issue. The second argument urged
on behalf of the petitioner/tenant is also therefore without any substance and
is accordingly rejected.
7. Once the respondent/landlady has no alternative suitable
accommodation and she wants the suit/tenanted premises for opening of a
business, then, a tenant cannot dictate to the landlady that she should not
open a business which she wants to carry on from the tenanted premises.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. At
the time of dismissing the petition the interim order of user charges passed
by this Court on 9.12.2011 of the petitioner/tenant to pay to the respondent a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of the eviction order, is
confirmed and in case the petitioner has not made any payment under the
same, the respondent can always execute the said order with respect to
payment.
RCR 501/2011 & conn. Page 5 of 7
9(i) Counsel for the petitioner, after the judgment was dictated,
argued two other points being that the respondent/landlady has alternative
premises being a mezzanine floor of the same premises as also the basement.
(ii) So far as basement is concerned, the same is less suitable than
the tenanted premises on the ground floor and it is settled law that a tenant
cannot dictate to the landlord to carry on business from a less
convenient/profitable place once a more suitable place is available.
Reference in this behalf can be made to a recent judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja 2014 (6) SCALE
572 which holds that a landlord is entitled to evict his tenant if the landlord
is carrying on business from a less convenient location and wants to shift to
a more convenient location.
(iii). So far as the mezzanine floor is concerned, the said premises
cannot be an alternative suitable premises because the same is with the legal
heirs of the original tenant Sh. S.P.Gupta and once that is so, surely this
mezzanine floor is also not an available vacant property for the
respondent/landlady to carry on her business from the same.
RCR 501/2011 & conn. Page 6 of 7
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the
same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All
pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
RC.Rev. No. 505/2011
This petition will also stand dismissed in view of the reasoning
given in RCR 501/2011. All pending applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
NOVEMBER 26, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
