Ramesh Kumar vs Sh. Yoginder Singh Verma
2014 Latest Caselaw 4926 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           RC.REV.No.81/2014 & C.M.Nos.2957 (Stay), 2958
            (Exemption)

%                                                    29th September, 2014

RAMESH KUMAR                                                ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr.Gambhir Chauha, proxy counsel.

                          VERSUS

SH. YOGINDER SINGH VERMA                    ...... Respondent

Through: Mr.Nitin Soam, 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

Additional Rent Controller dated 23.8.2013 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 shop no.3 in property no.1540/109, Tota

Ram Bazar, Tri Nagar, Delhi.

2. At the outset, I may note that on behalf of the petitioner/tenant

adjournment was prayed for, but the adjournment was vehemently opposed

by the respondent/landlord as the petitioner/tenant is enjoying the benefit of

interim order dated 03.3.2014 staying the eviction of the petitioner/tenant

from the tenanted premises. I have therefore heard the counsel for the

respondent and after perusing the record, I am proceeding to dispose of the

petition on merits.

3. Also, I would like to note at the outset that there were a total of three

connected petitions and out of these three, two connected petitions have

been disposed of today in terms of a consent order whereby the

petitioners/tenants in those cases have been granted time to vacate the

suit/tenanted premises on or before 30.9.2015. The impugned judgments

passed in those cases are identical to the judgment which is challenged by

means of the present rent control revision petition.

4. The respondent/landlord filed the subject bonafide necessity eviction

petition pleading that he had retired from Canara Bank as an officer on

29.2.2012 and he wants the suit/tenanted shop along with two other shops

admeasuring approx. 10 ft. x 10 ft. in order to open a finance business. The

bonafide necessity is therefore for a total of 300 sq ft. area comprised in

three shops and of which one shop is the subject/tenanted shop of this

present petition bearing shop no.3.

5. In a petition for bonafide necessity, three aspects are required to be

seen. Firstly, the petitioner in the eviction petition must be the

owner/landlord of the suit/tenanted premises. Secondly, the suit/tenanted

premises are required for the bonafide need of the landlord and/or his family

members. Thirdly, the landlord must not have any other alternative suitable

accommodation.

6. So far as the first aspect is concerned, the Additional Rent Controller

has rightly given a finding in favour of the respondent/landlord and against

the petitioner/tenant because admittedly the respondent/landlord is the son of

Sh.Man Singh Verma, who was the original owner. After the death of

Sh.Man Singh Verma, the property devolved upon the respondent and his

two sisters and both the sisters had executed the relinquishment deed dated

26.9.2012 in favour of the respondent, and therefore the respondent was the

sole co-owner of the suit property.

7. In any case, the trial court has referred to two judgments of the

Supreme Court in the cases of Kanta Goel Vs. B.P.Pathak AIR 1977 SC

1599 and Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh AIR 1989 SC 758 for rightly holding

that even a co-owner can file an eviction petition for bonafide necessity and

which can be decreed unless objections are shown to exist of the other co-

owners. In the present case, admittedly there are no objections of the co-

owners, and therefore the respondent is the owner/landlord of the

suit/tenanted premises.

8. So far as the issue of alternative suitable accommodation is

concerned, it is the admitted position that the respondent/landlord does not

own any other property except the three tenanted shops from which eviction

has been sought; one shop in tenancy with the present petitioner.

9. The only serious issue is with respect to the bonafide need of the

respondent/landlord because it was contended on behalf of the

petitioner/tenant before the Additional Rent Controller below that the

petition is not bonafide because in a notice dated 30.6.2012 given prior to

the filing of the eviction petition, the need which was projected was of the

two sons, however in the present eviction petition the need projected is of

the respondent/landlord only.

10. In my opinion, this stand of the petitioner/tenant does not raise a

triable issue because if it is found that the sons do not require the premises

for carrying on their business, the same cannot mean that the

respondent/landlord does not require the premises for his finance business.

After all, the respondent/landlord is a retired banker and would be well-

versed with the financial world for carrying out the business of finance.

Therefore, merely because in a legal notice given prior to the filing of the

eviction petition, the need is projected to be of the sons of the

respondent/landlord, cannot mean that the respondent/landlord on his

showing bonafide need cannot succeed in the bonafide necessity eviction

petition.

11. 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 SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 KA