Sharda Devi vs Akshay Khandelwal
2015 Latest Caselaw 6439 Del

*                 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             RC. Revision No.410/2014

                                            Decided on : 31st August, 2015

SHARDA DEVI                                          ...... Petitioner
                         Through:   Mr. Mohit Khanna, Advocate.

                           Versus

AKSHAY KHANDELWAL                                    ...... Respondent

                       Through:     Ms. Kamini Sirivastava, Advocate.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC read with

Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by virtue of which

the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.10.2014 passed by the

learned Additional Rent Controller, Central, granting leave to defend to

the respondent/tenant.

2. The reason for grant of leave to defend to the respondent/tenant by

the learned Additional Rent Controller is on account of the fact that it has

been admitted by the petitioner/landlord that the son of the petitioner, for

whose benefit the accommodation has been claimed, is running an

independent business of tents from the first floor of property No.3677 in

the same locality. The said business in the nature of partnership firm is

being carried out by the two sons of the petitioner namely Sh. Deepak

Mehra and Sh. Nitin Mehra. The business has extended to such an extent

that not only the son of the petitioner has purchased a shop bearing No.5

in property No.2287/42, Kouria Pul but even the daughter-in-law has also

purchased two shops in property bearing No.2287/41, Kouria Pul, Delhi.

It has been stated that all the aforesaid shops are being put to use by the

petitioner's son for his partnership business. It is averred that the premise

presently being used for the business is insufficient to meet the

requirements therefore an additional accommodation being the tenanted

premise is required for use as godown. In such a contingency, the case of

the petitioner for bona fide requirement to seek eviction of the

respondent/tenant from a place in the suit premises for the purpose of

storing of goods was held to be a triable issue by the learned Additional

Rent Controller.

3. The aforesaid reasoning has been assailed by the learned counsel

for the petitioner before this court on the ground that the Ld. ARC on an

erroneous interpretation of law has wrongly held that a financially

independent person will not be dependent for the purpose of

accommodation on the petitioner/landlord. The petitioner in support of

his contention has relied upon judgments of this court in Major General

A.K. Verma AVSM (Retd.) & Another vs. Narinder Singh; 110 (2004)

DLT 226, Labhu Lal vs. Sandhya Gupta; 173 (2010) DLT 318, Agya Ram

Arora vs. Surjeet Mech. Tools; 2015 (220) DLT 245 and Vinod Arora vs.

Deepak Aggarwal; 172 (2010) DLT 112.

4. I have perused and analyzed the aforesaid judgments and find them

of no help to the case of the petitioner as each of the aforesaid judgment

are distinguishable on account of completely different factual matrix.

Agya Ram Arora (supra) was a case where the business was originally

started by the landlord/ Agya Ram Arora himself and his wife and later

their two sons joined the said business and the same was run like a joint-

family business. Further it was recorded that the sons were residing with

the landlord Agya Ram Arora as no evidence to the contrary was

adduced. It was in the light of these circumstances that the court held that

two sons although financially settled were dependent on the landlord/

father for their earning and accommodation and the landlord/father was

inter dependent on the sons for the running of their business.

5. The findings rendered in Maj Gen. A.K. Verma AVSM (Retd.)

And Anr. (supra) is also distinguishable as the question of law before the

court in the said matter was whether a married sister who was living with

the landlord/brother could be said to be dependent on him for the purpose

of accommodation. It was a case where the married sister was residing

with her mother in her paternal home for last 20-25 years and had

relinquished her share in favor of her brother only to facilitate the

securing of a government loan required for renovation of the residence

the ground floor of which formed the tenanted premise.

6. Vinod Arora's case (supra) was a case where the tenanted premise

was categorically required for the use of the landlord himself and

therefore has no application to the present case.

7. Reliance placed on Labhu Lal's case (supra) also seems to be

misplaced as in the said case the possession of the tenanted premise was

sought by the landlord for the use of his son and daughter in law who

were both doctors and residing with the landlord. The tenanted premise

being the ground floor of property No. 81-A, Kamla Nagar was to be

used for the expansion of the clinic run by the son and daughter-in-law

which was located at a corner in the rear portion of the ground floor. It is

pertinent to note here that the son and daughter in law of the landlord

were both dependent on him not only for their residential accommodation

but also for running their clinic as the same was being run in a corner

shop in premise no. 81-A, Kamla Nagar which as is recorded above was

owned by the landlord/father. In the instant case the sons of the

petitioner/ landlady are running their own independent business and are

not dependent on the landlady either for accommodation or finances.

Therefore none of the aforesaid judgments have any bearing on the

instant matter and are of no assistance to the petitioner.

8. It is well settled position that in a case of bona fide requirement,

four ingredients have to be satisfied by the landlord before a decree for

eviction is passed. These four requirements being (i) that the

petitioner/landlord must not only be the landlord but the owner, (ii) that

the purpose of letting should not be in dispute, (iii) that the premises are

required bona fide for the purpose of himself or his dependent family

members and (iv) that the existing accommodation is not sufficient

enough to meet his requirement. In the event, all these four conditions

are satisfied then only the petitioner is entitled to a decree of eviction. On

the same note it has also been laid down in a catena of judgments that

where a tenant prima facie makes out a triable issue which, being an issue

if permitted to be proved would disentitle the petitioner/landlord from

claiming eviction of such a tenant then in such an event the leave to

defend of the tenant ought to be allowed and he be permitted to contest

the matter on merits.

9. Coming back to the facts of the present case, the petitioner has

challenged the order only on the ground that the son of the petitioner is

dependent on the petitioner herself for the purpose of additional

accommodation in the form of a godown, which happens to be under the

tenancy of the respondent/tenant.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order.

I am of the considered opinion that analysis of the evidence done by the

Ld. ARC is perfectly justified and is done with great deal of objectivity.

The question which has been decided by the learned Additional Rent

Controller is holding that a person who is financially not dependent on

the petitioner and has admittedly created 2-3 shops during the normal

course of running of his business and therefore cannot be said to be

dependent for the purpose of additional accommodation on the petitioner,

his father. If the petitioner's son and his wife, namely, daughter-in-law of

the petitioner have been generating sufficient finances which have

resulted in creation of immovable assets, where from the business of the

petitioner's son is being run now, then it is very well possible that they

can create additional accommodation for the purpose of godown also and

they cannot be termed to be dependent on the petitioner for the purpose of

the same. Moreover, this is not the case of the petitioner that her son

despite being financially well off and in a position to create additional

accommodation is dependent on the petitioner for the purpose of

additional accommodation. If that be so, there is perfectly no illegality,

impropriety or unreasonability in the leave to defend granted by the

learned Additional Rent Controller to the respondent/tenant.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, I feel that the revision petition filed by

the petitioner is totally misconceived. The impugned order does not

suffer from any jurisdictional error, impropriety or illegality which would

warrant any interference on the part of the court. Accordingly, the

petition is without any merits and the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

AUGUST 31, 2015 'AA' AD