Delhi High Court
Shashi Bhushan vs Anita Maharishi on 29 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 1144/2012
% 29th September, 2014
SHASHI BHUSHAN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri and Mr.
Siddharth Sharma, Advocates.
VERSUS
ANITA MAHARISHI ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. N.K.Jain, 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 Article 227 of the Constitution of India
impugns the judgment and order passed by the Additional Rent Controller
dated 30.11.2011 and 28.9.2012. The order dated 28.9.2012 dismisses the
review petition filed by the petitioner herein (respondent in the trial court)
against the judgment dated 30.11.2011. Actually this petition is therefore
really pressed only against a challenge to the main judgment dated
30.11.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave
to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the
CMM 1144/2012 Page 1 of 4
bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') with respect to the
suit/tenanted premises being shop no. 2 on the ground floor of property
bearing no. 77A, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/landlady purchased
the suit property from the original owner Sh. Gur Dutt by means of usual
documents being the agreement to sell, power of attorney, etc dated
7.3.2006. There were earlier proceedings under the DRC Act between the
parties and which culminated in the order passed by the Additional Rent
Controller on 30.8.2010 whereby the petitioner has been held to be the
tenant and the respondent has been held to be the landlord. The
present/subject bonafide necessity eviction petition was filed by the
respondent/landlady on the ground that she requires the suit/tenanted
premises for her husband who wants to start a business. The husband of the
respondent/landlady at the time of filing of the eviction petition in the year
2011 was 56 years of age and it was stated that he cannot get any other
employment at this stage because he has stopped working with his earlier
employer M/s Veera Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. and with whom he was employed.
CMM 1144/2012 Page 2 of 4
3. The Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to
defend application by holding that the respondent is the owner/landlady of
the premises and she requires the premises for the bonafide need of her
husband and neither she nor her husband has any other suitable alternative
accommodation.
4. The only aspect which is argued before me is with respect to the
fact that the husband of the respondent/landlady has not left his job with M/s
Veera Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. and he continues to work with M/s Veera
Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. in spite of the fact that the respondent/landlady had
filed a letter dated 25.2.2011 of M/s Veera Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., showing
that the services of the husband of the respondent/landlady were come to an
end on 31.5.2011. In sum and substance what is pleaded is that since the
husband of the respondent/landlady is employed, hence, there is no need of
the suit/tenanted premises.
5. It is required to be noted that even for the sake of argument if
we take that the husband of the respondent continues as an employee with
M/s Veera Fragrances Pvt. Ltd., that will still not make any difference for
passing of an eviction order pertaining to the suit/tenanted premises because
either the husband of the respondent/landlady has left his job with M/s Veera
CMM 1144/2012 Page 3 of 4
Fragrances Pvt. Ltd. or even if he has not left the job, the law is well settled
that a person who is employed can well leave his job for starting of his own
business. Therefore, the suit/tenanted premises in law are bonafidely
required for carrying on of the business by the husband of the
respondent/landlady, and it is not the law that the husband of the
respondent/landlady should be forced to continue in his job and not start his
business in the suit/tenanted premises.
6. For completion of narration I may note that the Additional Rent
Controller below has rightly held that respondent/landlady is the
owner/landlady of the premises and that the respondent/landlady or her
husband has no other alternative suitable premises.
7. 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.
SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
