National Textile Corporation ... vs Smt. Divya Kakkar
2014 Latest Caselaw 5064 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 RC.REV.No.331/2014 & C.M.Nos.16745/2014 (Stay),
                  16746/2014 (Exemption)

%                                                 10th October, 2014

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD.                 ......Petitioner
                  Through: Ms.Nidhi Jain, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

SMT. DIVYA KAKKAR                             ...... Respondent

Through: Mr.S.K.Singh, 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 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

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

Controller dated 08.7.2014 by which the leave to defend application filed by

the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and the bonafide necessity eviction

petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been decreed with

respect to the tenanted premises being shop no.4 & 4A, HS-1, Kailash

Colony, New Delhi-48 situated at ground floor.

2. The respondent/landlady filed the bonafide necessity eviction petition

claiming need for the tenanted premises for carrying on the business of a

restaurant because she has been associated with the restaurant industry for

quite some time as she was working in a Restaurant cum Pub. It was

pleaded by the respondent/landlady that, in fact, the tenanted premises is

lying closed for the last 6-7 months, and which position is reflected in the

electricity bill and showing that the petitioner herein therefore does not

require the tenanted premises.

3. The only issue which is urged before this Court is with respect to

whether the respondent's/landlady's need for the tenanted premises is

bonafide. It is argued that the need of the respondent/landlady is not

bonafide because on 15.4.2009 a legal notice had been sent claiming

termination of tenancy and claiming user charges @ Rs.45000/- per month,

and in which notice bonafide need was not pleaded, hence as per the

petitioner/tenant the need of the respondent/landlady is not bonafide.

4. In my opinion, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner/tenant

is totally frivolous because sending of a legal notice terminating tenancy on

the ground that premises are not covered under the Act and claiming

damages @ Rs.45,000/- per month will not take away the bonafide need

once and if the same is found to exist. Sending of a wrong legal notice

stating that the tenanted premises are not covered under the Act cannot take

away the entitlement to file and succeed in a bonafide necessity eviction

petition, once the requirements with respect to bonafide necessity eviction

petition are shown to exist.

5. In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent is the

owner/landlady and that she has no other alternative suitable accommodation

from where she can carry on the business of a restaurant. Merely making

bald allegations that the respondent/landlady has other alternative suitable

premises will not create a triable issue in the absence of details of the so-

called alternative suitable accommodation. It is relevant to note that the

respondent/landlady has taken up the categorical stand that she has no other

alternative suitable accommodation except the suit/tenanted premises from

where she can carry on the business of a restaurant.

6. I may note that it is settled law in terms of the catena of judgments of

the Supreme Court and of this Court that a tenant cannot dictate to the

landlord that the landlord should not quit a private job and start his own

business/restaurant. The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that

there is no requirement to state in the eviction petition that what is the type

of business proposed to be carried out in the tenanted premises and that

what is the exact nature of the business to be carried out can be decided after

the premises are vacated. Supreme Court has also repeatedly held that in

fact no prior experience is required for seeking eviction of a tenant for

starting of a business.

7. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 10, 2014 KA