Renu Goel vs Ganga Dass And Anr.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1786 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                   Judgment reserved on : 01.03.2016.
                   Judgment delivered on:04.03.2016

+      RC.REV. 365/2015
       RENU GOEL
                                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through      Mr. Rakesh Tikku, Sr. Adv. With
                                       Mr. Prakash Gautam, Adv.
                          versus

       GANGA DASS AND ANR.
                                                      ..... Respondents
                          Through      Mr Peeyush, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 The petitioner (tenant) is aggrieved by the impugned judgment

dated 19.03.2015. The eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1)(e) of

the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) by the landlord (Ganga Dass) had

been decreed in his favour. Needless to state that the tenant is aggrieved

by this finding.

2 Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by

the landlord against the two tenants. Contention was that it was a joint

tenancy of D.N Singhal and Renu Goel. The tenancy had been created

on 15.06.1982 on the basis of a rent note of the same date. In 2003, the

premises had been illegally and unlawfully sublet to one Surjan Singh

for which a petition under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA had been

filed. He however thereafter vacated the premises in favour of the

tenant. That eviction petition was accordingly withdrawn. The grounds

of eviction are contained in para 18(a). It is stated that the petitioner is

the owner and landlord of part of the building bearing No. G-87, Vijay

Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi. The site plan of the property

has been filed as Annuxure 'A'. The premises let out to the tenant had

been described in red colour in the site plan. The portion shown in

yellow is in the occupation of the landlord from where he is carrying on

his business of dhaba. The portion shown in green colour is the

residential accommodation of the landlord and his family. The portion in

orange colour marked as 'T1' and 'T2' are premises let out to the other

tenants. The petitioner is a retired Government servant. He had retired in

the year 1992. He is receiving a pension of Rs.11,868/- per month. He is

presently running a dhaba and this is to augment the family income as

also to keep himself busy. This dhaba is located in the rear portion of the

premises i.e. the premises depicted in the yellow colour in the site plan.

The location of the property is in the business are of the main bazaar.

D.N. Singhal has now expired and Renu Goel is the sole tenant who is

now in occupation of the premises. The premised tenanted out to the

tenant (depicted in red colour) are required by the landlord bonafide for

his own need and the members of his family for extending his

dhaba/restaurant in order that he can run his business of dhaba in more

lucrative fashion. The business of dhaba is being run from the rear lane

i.e. from the back portion of the property. The disputed premises are

ideally located for running the business of dhaba/restaurant and

thereafter the said premises are bonafide required by the landlord.

Further contention being that the two shops adjoining his dhaba marked

as 'P' and 'S' are in occupation of the petitioner's younger son Jaideep

Raj who is carrying on his business independently from there for the

purpose of their livelihood of himself and his family. He has also

expressed his willingness to join the extended dhaba business of the

petitioner in case he is able to get these tenanted premises back. The

second son of the petitioner Sandeep Raj is presently working as a

'Chef' in Bangalore with the ITDC and he is a specialist in

confectionary items. He has won several awards. He is desirous of

shifting to Delhi but because of a lack of a business space, he is unable

to do so. In case the said premises are made available to the landlord,

Sandeep Raj would be shifting to Delhi. The petitioner has no other

reasonably suitable accommodation for relocating his business of dhaba

which is presently located on the rear side; if the disputed premises are

given back to him, he would have a front coverage and access with his

clients and customers and his business would be more viable from that

front portion.

3 Leave to defend had been filed by the tenant which had been

granted by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC). Written statement was

thereafter filed. Contention in the written statement is that the need of

the landlord and his family is not bonafide. Jaideep Raj is at war with

his father; he does not have cordial relations with him and the petitioner

had in fact filed a suit for mandatory injunction against him and his wife

seeking an eviction decree against them. The so called need of Jaideep

Raj to join the business of his father is incorrect. Jaideep Raj had in fact

been disinherited from the estate of the petitioner and a public notice to

the said effect had also been filed. In fact the business of the dhaba is

being run by Jaideep Raj. The second son Sandeep Raj is also not on

cordial terms with his father and so much so that the plaintiff had not

even attended his wedding as Sandeep Raj had got married to a person

from different a caste which was a bone of contention between the father

and the son; Sandeep Raj is living in Bangalore since the last 15 years

with his family and is earning a handsome income by working in a five

star hotel. The need of Sandeep Raj to come to Delhi is false. The

landlord is even otherwise having huge rental income and is well

established in life which is apart from his pension. He does not need to

augment the family income. The landlord had in fact filed an eviction

petition under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA against the tenant which

was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter a second litigation ensued

which was a false suit against the petitioner wherein the BSES was also

made a party. Another suit claiming damages followed by another

eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(j) of the DRCA was also preferred

by the petitioner. The petitioner is in the habit of pursuing false and

malafide litigations. On no count, is a bonafide need made out in favour

of the landlord.

4 Evidence was led by the parties. On behalf of the landlord, one

witness was examined. He was landlord himself. He reiterated the

averments contained in his eviction petition. In his cross-examination,

he admitted that he has two sons Jaideep Raj and Sandeep Raj as also

two daughters. His younger daughter is a widow. His elder son and

widowed daughter are living with him and his younger son was living in

Bangalore. He has a two floor accommodation on the ground floor and

the first floor. There are three shops in front of the suit premises out of

which one shop has been sold to one Surinder Kumar which was in the

year 1979-1980. The present premises are three side open. He admitted

that he had differences with his elder son but they have now been

resolved. He admitted that Jaideep Raj is doing an independent business.

He denied the suggestion that the dhaba was being run by Jaideep Raj.

He reiterated that he was running the dhaba which was from the back

portion depicted in yellow colour. His younger son was working in

Bangalore but he was unaware of his income. He admitted that he had

not attended the marriage of his younger son who is working in

Bangalore. He admitted that his health had declined but he was normal

and was able to run the business of a dhaba.

5 Per contra, the respondent has examined herself as RW-1. She

also reiterated the defence taken by her in the written statement. In her

cross-examination, nothing could be elicited which was new and which

could demolish the case of the landlord. The fact that another eviction

petition had been filed by the landlord qua another shop under Section

14 (1)(e) of the DRCA wherein he had set up a plea that the need of the

shop was for his widowed daughter had been admitted.

6 This Court notes that the ARC had examined the evidence in the

correct perspective. The site plan which is an undisputed document

depicts the picture correctly. The portion in yellow colour which is on

the rear side of the building with a back narrow gali run in front of it is

the place from where the dhaba/restaurant is being run by the landlord.

The disputed premises are in red colour. They face the front side i.e. the

main market road of Laxmi Nagar. This shop which is required by the

landlord for the purposes of running a dhaba and if this is made

available to the petitioner (measures 10" X 20" feet) along with a

covered verandah in front (exclusive of this measurement), the petitioner

would definitely have a front coverage which would definitely be more

conducive and viable for his business purpose ie the purpose of running

his dhaba/restaurant. The fact that he is running his dhaba from since the

year 1992 is an undisputed fact. The other fact that the shops marked 'P'

& 'S' (shown in site plan) are in the independent domain of his elder son

Jaideep Raj. Jaideep Raj has a family comprising of his wife and two

children. The fact that he is carrying on his independent business is also

admitted. PW-1 in a part of his cross-examination admitted that he had

differences with his son but they have now been resolved. The elder son

was in fact present in Court at the time when the hearing was going on.

The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that

differences do arise in a family and they do get resolved is a position

which cannot be ignored. Inter-se grievances between the family

members do come and go; this is not something unusual. This

submission endorsed by the fact that the elder son of the petitioner

Jaideep Raj was present in Court on the date of hearing as also the

categorical stand of the petitioner that he has no differences left with his

son is a categorical answer to the submission of the learned counsel for

the tenant that the parties are at war with one another. The younger son

of the landlord who is presently a resident of Bangalore is working as a

'Chef'in a five star hotel. He has done a specialized course in

confectionary. He is in fact the Chief 'Chef' in this five star hotel. The

submission of the landlord that his younger son is also willing to come

back to Delhi if he is able to find a viable accommodation to start a

restaurant/dhaba business is also a submission which is noted and

cannot be dismissed. There is no reason as to why he cannot start his

own business or expend his food knowledge which he has gained from

his employment of 15 years and help his father in the business of

running his dhaba which he is admittedly running since1972.

7 The residential accommodation available with the petitioner is not

relevant for the purposes of this eviction petition as this shop which is

required bonafide by the petitioner for his own need and also the need of

his younger son Sandeep Raj. The submission of the tenant that the

petitioner is well placed in life and apart from pension (Rs.11,868 per

month), he is also getting rentals cannot discourage a person from

carrying on business if he has a will and the skill to do so. The fact that

the petitioner is already carrying on this business being an admitted

position and he also being in the pink of health, there is no reason as to

why this need qua the petitioner himself cannot be held to be a genuine

need. This need for running the dhaba/restaurant is not only for

expanding his business carrying it on front side from the main market of

Laxmi Nagar, it would also most certainly be commercially more viable.

This need which is true and bonafide not only for himself but also for

his son who wishes to come to Delhi and join the business of his father

is thus established.

8 The differences inter-se the family members have also been

resolved and there is no reason to doubt this. The landlord is also the

best Judge of his requirement and how and in what manner he wishes to

make use of his accommodation.

9 The need of the petitioner for a shop for his widowed daughter is

also a genuine need; that was a separate eviction petition and the Court

need no delve into the other earlier litigations detailed supra have no

bearing into the present case.

10 Reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon a

judgment reported in R.C. Rev. 180/2013 Deepak Gupta Vs. Sushma

Aggarwal is misplaced. The facts of each case are distinct. Paragraphs

11, 12 & 13 highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner only

lay does the procedure which is required to be followed in a petition

under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA which procedure has been

engrafted in Section 25-B. This procedure has been followed. The

parties had pleaded their respective cases and after evidence, the Court

has returned a fact finding which in view of this Court is wholly

justified.

11 This Court is sitting in a revisional jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution of India and until and unless there is a patent

illegality or a perversity which is apparent on the face of the record, this

Court may not interfere.

12 In this background, the impugned judgment suffers from no

infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 4th, 2016 A