Delhi High Court
Shakuntala Devi & Ors. vs Subhash on 15 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RCR-181/2011
% 15th September , 2014
SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi, Advocate.
VERSUS
SUBHASH ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Review Petition No. 419/2014 & CM No. 15229/14
1. On 28.8.2014, when this three year old matter of the year 2011
came up for hearing, on behalf of the petitioners/tenants no arguments were
addressed and consequently the interim order staying operation of the
impugned judgment dated 7.3.2011 was vacated and the matter was listed on
13.2.2015. Now this application is moved stating that the interim order be
again passed. Counsel for the petitioners/tenants has however argued the
main petition and I have therefore heard the counsel for the
petitioners/tenants at his request on merits with respect to the main petition.
RCR 181/2011 Page 1 of 5
The main petition impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller
dated 7.3.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the
leave to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenants and has decreed
the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') with respect to one shop on
the ground floor admeasuring 90 sq. ft. in the property bearing Municipal no.
A-208, Ground Floor, Shashtri Nagar, Main Road, Delhi-52 as shown in red
colour in the site plan attached with the eviction petition.
2. Before me, three grounds are urged on behalf of the
petitioners/tenants to impugn the judgment dismissing the leave to defend
application:-
(i) The petition is not bonafide because the petition in fact has been filed
simply to get the rent increased.
(ii) The respondent is not the owner/landlord of the suit premises.
(iii) The respondent/landlord is already carrying on business with his other
son in a side lane of the same property, and therefore the need is not
bonafide.
RCR 181/2011 Page 2 of 5
3. Let me first take up the aspect with respect to the bonafide need
because the respondent/landlord has sought eviction from the tenanted shop
not for carrying on his own business and that of the other son with whom he
is clearly carrying on his business from the side lane of the property, but the
tenanted premises are pleaded to be bonafidely required for opening of a
stationary shop for the eldest/other son of the respondent/landlord. The
Additional Rent Controller has observed that in fact the respondent/landlord
could have required the tenanted premises for his own need also because not
only the premises from where the landlord is presently carrying on business
are situated in a side lane but also the premises from where the business is
being carried on are not owned by the respondent/landlord and has been
taken by him on tenancy. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the
case of Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja in Civil Appeal
No.5513/2014, decided on 8.5.2014: 210 (2014) DLT 58 (SC) has held that
if the landlord wants to carry on his business from a more suitable location
on the main road, then, tenants cannot dictate that landlords should not do
so. Therefore, in fact, the bonafide necessity eviction petition was
maintainable even for the need of the respondent/landlord, and which in any
case is only for the need of opening of a stationary shop by the eldest son,
and the pleadings show that there is no dispute in the leave to defend
RCR 181/2011 Page 3 of 5
application or before this Court that the eldest son for whom the tenanted
premises are required is carrying on some other business and therefore does
not want the tenanted premises for opening of a stationary shop. Hence the
respondent/landlord was more than justified in seeking eviction of the
petitioners/tenants for bonafide need.
4. On the aspect that respondent is not the owner/landlord of the
premises, the Additional Rent Controller has referred to the fact that the suit
premises have been purchased by the respondent/landlord by means of a sale
deed dated 6.9.2004. Petitioners/tenants sought to argue by referring to the
directions contained in the sale deed that the tenanted premises are not the
subject matter of the sale deed, however, I find this argument to be totally
frivolous because if seller/mother does not dispute the factum that the suit
property has been sold to the respondent/landlord/son, the petitioners/tenants
would have no locus standi to challenge the sale deed. This defence is only a
malafide defence not having any substance and does not raise a triable issue.
5. The last aspect which is urged is that the respondent/landlord
wants to increase the rent and therefore the eviction petition is pleaded not to
be bonafide. This argument is once again only a misconceived argument
because once it is proved that the respondent/landlord has a bonafide need,
RCR 181/2011 Page 4 of 5
and which bonafide need is for the eldest son to open a stationary shop (and
even the respondent/landlord may want the premises for his own need
because he is not only carrying on the business in the side lane but that too
in a rented premises) and hence clearly the bonafide need is established and
once the bonafide need is established, the stand of the landlord seeking
increase of rent cannot mean that bonafide need if otherwise established can
vanish merely because there is a demand for increase of rent, and which
stand of the petitioner in any case is pleaded to be false by the
respondent/landlord.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
At the time of dismissing of the petition interim order passed by this Court
on 25.11.2011 fixing interim user charges of Rs.3000/- per month from the
date of the eviction order are confirmed. Next date of 13.2.2015 stands
cancelled.
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
