Anupama Dewan & Ors. vs Vinni Duggal
2015 Latest Caselaw 6810 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                    RC. REV. 482/2015

                                         Decided on : 10th September, 2015


        ANUPAMA DEWAN & ORS.                                    ..... Petitioner

                            Through:      Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate, Neha
                                          Tandon

                            versus

        VINNI DUGGAL                                          ..... Respondent

                            Through:      Mr. Rajiv K Garg, Advocate
                                          Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate

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


V.K. SHALI J. (ORAL)

1.      The     present   revision    petition   has   been    filed        by   the

petitioner/revisionist against the order dated 29.06.2015 passed by

the Ld. CCJ cum Additional Rent Controller -1, Central District,

Tis Hazari Court, Delhi by virtue of which the Ld. ARC dismissed

the petitioner's application for leave to defend and passed the order

of eviction.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlady is the owner

of the property bearing Office Flat no. 172, First Floor, Office

Complex, Cycle Market, Phase-I, Jhandewalan Extension, New

Delhi-110055 (tenanted premises). The aforesaid premises were let

out to the petitioner/tenant herein during the lifetime of the

predecessor in interest of the present respondent. In 2014 the

respondent/landlady filed an eviction petition against the present

petitioner/tenant for securing the occupation and possession of the

tenanted premises. It was stated in the eviction petition that the

petitioner (respondent herein) is nearly 67 years of age and is a

highly qualified and experienced lady with more than 34 years of

experience in teaching. It was further submitted therein that

presently she is unemployed and apart from a meager pension of

Rs. 1504/- per month, has no other source of income or assistance

from anywhere for meeting her day to day expenses and unforeseen

medical bills and is forced to borrow from relatives and friends. In

order to provide for herself the respondent/landlady has desired the

possession of the tenanted premise in order to start a coaching

centre for the children. In light of the aforesaid an eviction order

was sought with respect to the tenanted premises on account of

bonafide requirement of the respondent/landlady u/s 14(1)(e) of the

Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act). Consequently, a leave to defend

application was filed by the respondent/tenant (petitioner herein).

Vide order dated 29.06.2015 the aforesaid leave to defend was

rejected and an order of eviction was passed against the

respondent/tenant (petitioner herein) with a finding that no triable

issue was made out whilst the landlady has been able to establish a

bonafide requirement. Aggrieved, the respondent/tenant (petitioner

herein) filed the present revision petition.

3. The short point raised by the learned counsel for the

revisionist/tenant is with respect to the bonafide requirement of the

respondent/landlady.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner/tenant that the tenanted premises is situated in the cycle

market and is not suitable for running a coaching centre. It is

further averred that apart from the tenanted premises the

respondent/landlady is in possession of the first floor of a

residential cum commercial property bearing No. C9, Block-C,

Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi which is being used by her for her

residence. The said residential premise is built on 1800 sq feet of

area and has four rooms making it a more suitable choice for

running the coaching centre not only on account of availability of

space but also by virtue of location in residential area.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has further averred

that it is pertinent to note that the respondent/landlady is nearing 62

years of age and is not keeping well. In light of the aforesaid, in all

probability it seems highly unlikely, that someone of her age would

travel all the way to the tenanted premise which is at a distance of

nearly 10 kms from the place of residence especially when the

residence has ample space and offers a most suitable location

making it an ideal choice, in the event the landlady genuinely

wants to open a coaching centre. The learned counsel for the

petitioner, in line with the aforesaid contentions states that the Ld.

ARC failed to appreciate that the requirement of the landlady lacks

bonafides and the petition has been filed for ulterior motive.

Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Honorable

Apex Court in Deena Nath vs Pooran Lal, 2001 5 SCC 705

wherein it was held that the the bonafide requirement of the

landlord must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need

which should evidence the court that it is not mere fanciful or

whimsical desire.

6. On the other hand it is the case of the respondent/landlady that the

residential premise being utilized by her is a notified residential

area as per the Master Plan 2021 of Delhi and therefore cannot be

used for commercial activity. Further it consists of only three

rooms wherein one is used as a prayer room, the other as the master

bedroom and the third room as a guest room. Even otherwise the

respondent/landlady lives alone in a city like Delhi, where every

other day there are reports of heinous crimes being committed

against old people who are living alone and in such circumstances

if she is to start commercial activity, in case it is lawfully allowed,

from her residential premise it could be a threat to her safety. For

that reason and considering the fact that the respondent/landlady

has no other source of income to sustain herself except for a paltry

amount as pension, it is stated that the respondent has a bonafide

requirement of the tenanted premise for her own settlement as she

wants to run the coaching classes.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned order and I am in agreement with the findings rendered

by the Ld. ARC. I find no merit in the averment made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/landlady

cannot run a coaching centre merely on account of her age or

because post-retirement she did not desire to do so until now. The

argument with respect to the distance of 10 kms between the two

premises being the residence of the respondent and the tenanted

premise also has no relevance as Delhi is a metro city equipped

with all modern amenities especially for aged people and therefore

such a trifling distance is insignificant. These contentions hold no

water and are baseless and frivolous to say the least.

8. I am in agreement with the view taken by the Ld. ARC with respect

to the safety of the respondent/landlady but even if the same is kept

aside for a moment, the court cannot allow a commercial activity to

be started in a residential premise in complete contravention of the

law. I find no weight in the averment of the petitioner/tenant that

the residence of the respondent/landlady is a residential cum

commercial premise as the petitioner tenant failed to file the

relevant MCD documents or such others so as to substantiate his

argument.

9. Ours is a nation, where teachers are respected and revered. The

respondent/landlady has contributed greatly towards the society for

more than 34 years as a teacher. Today she has no means to support

herself except for her negligible pension and desires to start a

coaching centre which will not only provide for her but also groom

the next generation.

10. As it flows from the aforesaid discussion, the judgment rendered in

the case titled Deena Nath (supra) is of no help to the petitioner as

the respondent/landlady has been able to make out a bonafide

requirement.

11. It is settled law that the High Court does not sit in appeal over the

findings of the Ld. ARC. Reliance in this regard is placed on the

judgment of the Honorable Apex Court in the case titled Sarla

Ahuja vs. united India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100

12. In light of the aforementioned I do not find that there is any

jurisdictional error, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order.

The view taken by the learned ARC is not only a possible one but

also a probable one and therefore, this Court is not required to

interfere with the same.

13. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed.

14. Pending applications also stand disposed off.

V.K. SHALI, J.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 AD