Delhi High Court
Ram Gopal vs M/S. Ram Swroop Aggarwal & Sons on 26 November, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REVISION 350/2015
Decided on: 26th November, 2015
RAM GOPAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bajaj, Advocate
Versus
M/S. RAM SWROOP AGGARWAL & SONS..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gurmehar S. Sistani, Advocate with
Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 01.06.2015 by virtue of which the learned Additional Rent
Controller-II, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (ARC), has granted leave to
defend to the respondent-tenant in Eviction Petition No.391/14/10
on the ground that the respondent-tenant has been able to raise
triable issue with regard to the bona fide requirement of the
petitioner-landlord.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also
gone through the record including the eviction petition as well as
the leave to defend application.
3. I do not find that there is any illegality, impropriety or
jurisdictional error in grant of leave to defend to the respondent-
tenant to contest the matter on the ground of bona fide requirement
of the present petitioner.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the
owner of property No.2860, Gali Ghasi Ram, Hauz Qazi, Delhi
measuring 80 sq. yds. The property is built up on ground floor,
first floor and the terrace floor. On the ground floor a portion has
been let out to be used as a godown, that is, for non-residential
purposes to the respondent-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.240/-.
The petitioner has stated that his family consists of four sons who
are not having any premises of their own and are dependent for the
purpose of having their own business on the petitioner. It is stated
that because of this reason, the petitioner is suffering financially a
great deal and therefore, wants to evict the respondent-tenant from
the premises in question. The petitioner has also given the details
of his four sons in the eviction petition. It is stated that the eldest
son is named, Ashok Kumar and his wife is one Smt. Anita and he
has two children Rahul and Himanshi. Ashok Kumar is doing the
business of sale of sarees and he gets sarees manufactured from
outside and then supplies it to the wholesale market. It is stated
that there is a paucity of accommodation for him for the purpose of
doing his business.
5. Second son is Anil Kumar and his wife is one Smt. Laxmi Devi.
He has two children Harsh and Krishna. Anil Kumar is doing the
business of selling bathroom fittings at some shop in Chowri
Bazar. The remaining two sons Dhan Prakash and Amit Kumar are
stated to be both unmarried and acting as Tea vendors in a shop
just below the staircase of the suit property which is stated to be
grossly inadequate.
6. In addition to this, it is stated that the petitioner has three married
daughters, namely, Mrs. Vandana, Mrs. Meenu and Manju, who
kept on visiting the petitioner. The family members of the
petitioner are also living in different portions of the house i.e. on
the first floor which consists of two rooms and one newly
constructed room and terrace floor. The petitioner is alleging that
the tenanted premises are being used by the respondent as a
godown for storage of his goods. It is also stated that the residential
premises which are under the occupation of the petitioner and other
family members is grossly inadequate to meet his requirement
hence, the eviction petition has been filed for eviction of the
respondent-tenant from the premises in question.
7. The learned ARC after hearing the arguments has granted the leave
to defend to the respondent-tenant on the ground of bona fide
requirement regarding use of a godown being used for commercial
purpose.
8. I do not find from the facts as have been presented by the petitioner
that there is anything which is illegal or improper or that there is
jurisdictional error on the part of the learned ARC in granting
permission to contest the eviction petition. The reason is that it is
not in dispute that two of the eldest sons who are married are
having children are doing business outside the premises under the
occupation of the petitioner. Therefore, they are established in
their own businesses and in case they want to start the business
from the tenanted premises, they would require accommodation for
commercial purpose which is in the nature of additional
accommodation. So far as two unmarried sons are concerned they
too as per their own averments are running tea vendor shop and
supplying tea to various shops in the vicinity from a small shop
under the staircase in the suit property itself. In their case also
even if it is taken that they require accommodation to be more
comfortable for the purpose of running their commercial activities,
then it becomes a case of additional accommodation.
9. Therefore, in totality of circumstances, the nature of averments
made by the petitioner is such that the retrieval of accommodation
which is in the possession of the respondent-tenant and being used
as a godown, is essentially seeking retrieval of an additional
accommodation. The law is very clear that whenever additional
accommodation is sought by a party, the tenant must be given
permission to contest the matter.
10. Therefore, the learned ARC has rightly given permission to contest
the petition to the respondent-tenant on the ground that he has been
able to raise a triable issue.
11. For the above said reason, I feel that the present petition is totally
misconceived and accordingly the same is dismissed.
12. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
13. Copy of the order be sent to the learned ARC for information.
V.K. SHALI, J.
NOVEMBER 26, 2015
vk
