Delhi High Court
Harinder Nagar vs Kusumlata on 27 March, 2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 281/2014
% Decided on: 27th March, 2015
HARINDER NAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arun Kumar Panwar for Dr.
Surat Singh, Adv.
versus
KUSUMLATA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Mr. Pankaj
Singhal, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CM 3362/2015 (restoration)
After hearing learned counsel for the parties RC.REV.281/2014 and
applications are restored to their original position.
Application is disposed of.
RC.REV. 281/2014 & CMs. 13985/2014 (stay), 13987/2014 (addl. doc.)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 1st July, 2014 whereby the leave to
defend application filed by the petitioner Harinder Nagar in an eviction
petition filed by the respondent Kusum Lata was dismissed, the petitioner
prefers the present petition.
2. In the eviction petition Kusum Lata stated that she was the
owner/landlady of property No. IX/3262, Gali No.6, Dharampura, Gandhi
Nagar, Delhi-31. There were three tenanted shops on the ground floor, one
shop was with Harinder Nagar and the other two shops were in possession of
other tenants, namely Akiluddin and Suraj Kalra. Harinder Nagar runs the
business of sweets and dairy products in the name and style of Nagar Dairy
from the tenanted premise which is two side open. Apart from the three
tenanted shops, one shop was in possession of Ms. Jyoti Srivastava, the
daughter of Kusum Lata who was running a beauty parlour business for the
last 10-12 years. Kusum Lata has three sons Hardeep Srivastava, Pradeep
Srivastava and Manoj Kumar Srivastava. Hardeep runs business of
fabrication of baba suits from one shop on the second floor of the suit
property and Manoj does the business of car seat cover from a tenanted shop
in Dilshad Garden. The third son Pradeep runs a business of manufacturing
jeans from a tenanted accommodation at property No. 2980, Gali No.2,
Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar at a monthly rent of `8500/-. The entire first
floor and second floor of the suit property except one room on the second
floor is being used for residential purpose wherein Kusum Lata, her husband
her two sons Hardeep and Pradeep with their respective families are staying.
Manoj is living separately due to shortage of accommodation. As Pradeep is
dependent on Kusum Lata for the purposes of accommodation and intends to
start a shop/showroom of jeans items independently in the shop presently
under the tenancy of the petitioner the shop is required bonafidely. Kusum
Lata has no other alternative accommodation in her name or possession in
Delhi.
3. In leave to defend application Harinder Nagar took the plea that
Kusum Lata was not the owner of tenanted premises. Kusum Lata has let
out one shop on the ground floor to a tenant namely Deepak an year ago and
there was no bonafide requirement of the shop. The room on the ground
floor which is stated to be a store is a hall which is lying vacant and is just
behind the tenanted shop. There is one room and a tin shed on the second
floor lying vacant. The first floor of the suit property is also vacant as Manoj
is not residing with Kusum Lata.
4. After considering the rival contentions, the learned ARC came to the
conclusion that Harinder Nagar has not been able to specify which shop has
been rented out to Deepak an year ago. Kusum Lata specifically stated that
in two shops the tenants were Akiluddin and Suraj Kalra which were much
prior from the date of filing of the eviction petition. The families of
petitioner Hardeep and Pradeep were all living in the suit property is not
disputed. If the contention of Harinder Nagar was to be accepted then the
entire family would be staying in one room which is not acceptable. The
store room which Harinder calls to be a hall has no access from the front side
nor from the back side or the left side. Thus, no showroom could be opened
in the said hall and thus an eviction order was passed dismissing the leave to
defend application.
5. Before this Court two grounds have been urged i.e. one shop had been
let out to Deepak one year prior to the incident and that one shop on the
ground floor had been let out one year back, however no material was placed
by the petitioner in this regard. Further in regard to the plea that Pradeep
Srivastava was carrying on business in Gali No.2 which is in proximity and
thus there was no bonafide requirement, it may be noted that the same is a
tenanted premises. The petitioner has not denied that the same was not a
tenanted premises. Thus, if a person wants to shift to his own or his family
owned properties, when he is operating from a tenanted premises and paying
rent, the bonafide requirement is made out. I find no merit in the petition.
6. In Inderjeet Singh Vs. Harish Chandra Bhutani 192 (2012) DLT 124
this Court repelling the contention of the tenant that the son of the landlord
was not dependent on him as he himself was paying the rent of the tenanted
premises this Court held, "the fact of bonafide requirement and lack of any
other accommodation for business purpose has been amply established by
the petitioner, his son is in fact carrying out his business from a tenanted
accommodation, as he has no other alternative suitable accommodation."
7. The additional documents sought to be placed before this Court cannot
be considered as the same are not subsequent events. The petitioner cannot
be permitted to fill up the lacunae in the leave to defend application.
8. Petition and application are dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MARCH 27, 2015
'ga'
