Sh. Ashok vs Sh. Gagan
2014 Latest Caselaw 5376 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          RC.REV.No.237/2013 & C.M.No.10425/2013 (Stay)


%                                                    30th October, 2014

SH. ASHOK                                                     ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr.Durgainder Singh, Advocate.

                          VERSUS

SH. GAGAN                                                   ...... Respondent

                          Through:       Mr.Vikas Aggarwal with Mr.Karan
                                         Arora and Mr.Karan Lamba,
                                         Advocates.
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') is filed by the petitioner/tenant

impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 09.5.2013

by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend

application and decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under

Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the suit/tenanted premises being

one shop on the ground floor of the property bearing no.B-9, Subhash

Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.

2. The case as set up by the respondent/landlord was that he did his B-

Tech in the year 2005 and MBA in the year 2007, whereafter he worked as

an Assistant Marketing Manager with Havells India Ltd. from 2007 to 2010.

The respondent/landlord thereafter in 2010 left the job and got the dealership

of electronic goods with Bluestar and Mitsubhishi Company. He has filed

the documents showing his dealership with the said companies. The

respondent/landlord stated that he had taken on rent a tenanted premises at

471, Patparganj, Delhi as a godown at a monthly rental of Rs.10,000/- and

he wants to use the tenanted shop for electronic goods business inasmuch as

though he has with him two shops, but even if the tenanted shop is vacated,

he will only have an area of 24' x 24' ft., and which area is required for the

showroom/shop of electronic goods. The respondent/landlord also stated

that his wife is an Advocate and she also requires a space for her own office,

and which will be only if the shop with the petitioner/tenant is joined with

two shops which the respondent/landlord has.

3. The petitioner/tenant in his leave to defend application had essentially

pleaded two aspects. The first aspect which was pleaded was that the

respondent/landlord has an adjacent open space on which he can make

construction of shops and the second aspect which was pleaded is that the

respondent/landlord has two shops, and therefore the eviction petition has no

merits. Before me also the aforesaid two grounds are urged for allowing of

the petition by granting leave to defend.

4. In my opinion, both the grounds urged on behalf of the

petitioner/tenant have no merits. Firstly even if the two shops already with

the respondent/landlord are taken along with the tenanted shop with the

petitioner, then the respondent/landlord will only have an area of 24' x 24'

ft. Surely the area of 24' x 24' ft. by no stretch of imagination is an

exceptionally large area for the respondent/landlord not to claim, because

such amount of area/space is bonafidely required for running of a

showroom/shop of electronic goods/items. A tenant cannot dictate to the

landlord that the landlord should not have an area of 24' x 24' ft. for

carrying and continuing with the business of electronic goods because it is

perfectly legitimate for the landlord to claim a reasonable area for conduct of

his business. Secondly the wife of the respondent/landlord is an Advocate

and the desire of the respondent/landlord to have a space where his wife can

run her office of an Advocate cannot also be said to be a malafide demand.

5. I may note that in a bonafide necessity eviction petition under Section

14(1)(e) of the Act, three grounds are required to be seen; firstly there exists

a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; secondly the

premises are required bonafidely for the use of the landlord himself and/or

his family members, and thirdly that the landlord has no other suitable

alternative accommodation. In the present case, there is no issue

raised/argued with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant and that the

respondent is the owner of the suit/tenanted premises. So far as the aspect of

bonafide need and suitable alternative accommodation is concerned, it is

already discussed above that even by merger of the tenanted shop with the

two shops with the respondent/landlord, the respondent/landlord will only

have an area of 24' x 24' ft, and which surely is a reasonable demand.

6. 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 30, 2014 KA