Ravi Kumar Garg vs Seema Gupta And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 3197 Del

$~6
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                         Date of Judgment on : 03.5.2016


+ R.C.REV No.95/2015

RAVI KUMAR GARG                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through      Mr.R.Aggarwal, Advocate.
                         versus
SEEMA GUPTA AND ORS.                        ..... Respondents

                         Through     Mr.Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J (oral)

1      Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 23.9.2014

wherein in the eviction petition filed by the landlord Mukesh Kumar seeking

eviction of his tenant Ravi Kumar Garg under Section 14(1)(e) read with

Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) stood decreed. This

was after trial.

2 Petitioner/tenant is aggrieved by this finding. This Court has been

informed that in the course of these proceedings execution of the decree had

been effected and suit property had been taken over by the landlord on

17.9.2015.

3 Record discloses that an eviction petition had been filed by the

landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA. The petitioner claimed

himself to the owner of the premises. The premises have been described as

premises no.3649, Gali Rura Achar Wali, Chawri Bazar, Delhi comprising of

two rooms bearing no.3649/14 and 3649/16; these two properties had been

let out by two separate rent agreements entered inter se the parties. There is

no dispute about the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord has described

his bona fide need in para 18(a) of the petition. His bona fide need is

encompassed on the facts that his daughter-in-law who is a law graduate

requires the premises to establish her practice as an advocate; her husband is

also an advocate; both of them wish to carry on the same profession; her

husband is carrying out chamber practice from the same floor of the building

in an adjacent room.

4 Leave to defend had been filed by the tenant. It had been granted.

This was primarily on the issue that there might be alternate reasonable

accommodation available with the landlord. Trial had progressed.

5 In the course of trial two witnesses were examined on behalf of the

landlord. The son of the petitioner (Pankaj Gupta was examined as PW-1

and his advocate wife namely Rimpy Gupta was examined as PW-2).

The bona fide need is for the need of PW-2 to start her chamber practice as

an advocate from the aforenoted suit property. Per contra, the evidence of

the respondent/tenant was also recorded through the testimony of tenant Ravi

Kumar Gupta which was examined as RW-1.

6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground on which

the eviction petition premises is the need of his daughter-in-law to set up her

own independent practice. The impugned order had recorded a finding to the

contrary. The impugned order had noted that the daughter-in-law of the

petitioner wishes to set up an independent practice away from her husband

and not in collaboration with her husband. This is based on incorrect facts.

Attention has been drawn to the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 as also their

cross-examination to substantiate this submission. Learned counsel for the

petitioner additionally submits that the site plan Ex.PW-1/7 depicts that there

is sufficient accommodation available with the landlord. It is pointed out

that on the ground floor there are 11 shops of which 7 shops already stand

vacated and are in possession of the landlord. This fact is not in dispute.

Additional submission being that the landlord after the vacation of these

shops could have used these shops for the purpose of the need which has

been projected in the eviction petition. It was not necessary for him to obtain

the possession of the second floor of the property from the tenant to fulfill

this need. The need in fact is not genuine; it is mala fide; it has been created.

It is pointed out that even on the first floor there is enough accommodation

which is being used by the landlord only for the purpose of a godown. He

has adopted a pick and choose policy. The first floor can be used for the

purpose of running the chamber practice of the daughter-in-law of the

landlord. The need is in fact mala fide; it is not genuine. Impugned order

is liable to be set aside.

7 Respondent has controverted these arguments. His submission is that

the daughter-in-law of the petitioner is admittedly an enrolled advocate; she

was enrolled in the year 2005 at the Punjab and Chandigarh High Court and

then she shifted to Delhi where she wishes to practice along with her

husband but because of paucity of place as he is practicing from only one

room which is not a sufficient accommodation for both the professionals to

carry out their work.

8 The status of the landlord as owner/landlord is however not disputed.

Additional submission being that there were other properties available with

the landlord which can fulfill this projected need. Submission being that he

is also owner of an industrial plot allotted by the DSIDC at Bawana besides

owning a property at Sita Ram Bazar, property bearing no.1090 as also

property bearing no.3663, Chawri Bazar.

9 In the replication filed by the landlord, it had been stated that the

industrial plot at Bawana will not be suitable for the purpose of establishing

practice as an advocate by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The

property bearing No.1090, Sita Ram Bazar was a residential property used

by the petitioner and his family; property bearing no.3663 at Chawri Bazari

is being used by the petitioner for business purpose.

10 Arguments have been heard. Record has been perused.

11 The eviction petition discloses that the petitioner is the owner of the

suit property i.e. the property bearing no.3649, Gali Rura Achar Wali,

Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The tenant had been given two rooms

bearing no.3649/14 and 3649/16 on the second floor of the property by two

separate rent agreements. The petition had been preferred under Section

14(1)(e) of the DRCA projecting a bona fide need which was for the

daughter-in-law of the petitioner who is stated to be a law graduate and

requires the premises for the purpose of establishing her practice as an

advocate.

12 In the course of the evidence, apart from the oral testimony certain

documents were exhibited which included the "Advocate on Record slip" of

the PW-1 showing that he is an advocate on record; this was proved through

Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/2; enrolment of PW-2 (wife of PW-1) through her

Identity Card of the Bar Council of Delhi was proved as Ex.PW-1/6. The

photographs depicting the suit property including the ground, first floor and

the third floor as also the report of the local commissioner showing that the

entire ground, first and third floor were occupied by the goods of the

petitioner {as was his submission that he was carrying on his business from

the aforenoted premises was proved through Ex.PW-1/12 to Ex.PW-/65

(collectively)}

13 PW-2 was the daughter-in-law of the petitioner; she was also

examined on oath. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination either

of PW-1 or PW-2 to discredit this version as was contained in the eviction

petition and which has been reiterated on oath in their deposition. In fact, a

specific query has been put to the learned counsel for the tenant on this score

to which he has candidly replied that there is no contradiction which had

appeared in their testimony.

14 RW-1 is tenant; he had also been examined on oath. He had disputed

the bona fide need. Submission being that the need of the landlord is not

bona fide. The cross-examination of RW-1 has been perused. He admitted

that from the shop no.1 on the ground floor business of M/s M.K.Enterprises

is being run. He also admitted that a local commissioner had been appointed

at his request to inspect the first floor of the suit property wherein it was

revealed that goods were stored therein. He did not file any document to

show that prohibited items were stored there or that they cannot be stored.

He admitted that the plot at Bawana is an industrial plot and industrial

activities have in fact been stopped in those premises in view of the order

passed by the Competent Authority.

15 Pleadings of the parties as also oral and documentary evidence was

marshelled by the Trial Court in the correct perspective. A categorical fact

finding had been returned that the need of the landlord is in fact bona fide.

The aforenoted two rooms i.e. room nos.3649/14 and 3649/16 are adjacent to

the room where PW-1 is already carrying on his law practice. The fact that

his wife is an enrolled advocate and earlier was carrying on her practice at

Punjab and Haryana High Court is an admitted fact. Her enrolment card

shows that she is a professional and her submission that she wants to set up

her own independent practice in conjunction with her huband is adequently

proved through aforenoted oral and documentary evidence. For fulfilling

this need the aforenoted two rooms in the suit property are immenently

required by the petitioner/landlord for his daughter-in-law. The need

projected by the landlord in these circumstances become genuine and the fact

that there is no other alternate accommodation has been proved. The four

shops on the ground floor are tenanted out; the other seven shops are those

where the goods of the business activities of the petitioner and his other sons

are stored. The report of the local commissioner who had visited the

property at the ground floor, first and the third floor had answered this in the

documentary evidence which is the report of the local commissioner. RW-1

in his cross-examination had admitted that there is no document which he

has placed on record to support the argument that these stored goods were

either prohibited or that they cannot be stored. This is the business house of

the landlord; the business being of hardware. The accommodation on the

ground floor, first and the third floor is being used by him for storing

prohibited goods. At the cost of repetition this has been established through

the relevant piece of evidence which has been adduced in the report of the

local commissioner and which stands unrebutted. This Court cannot ignore

this fact finding.

16 It is thus established that the second requirement of Section 14(1)(e)

of the DRCA also stands met with. The landlord has no other reasonably

suitable accommodation which can fulfill the need of his daughter-in-law to

set up her own independent practice.

17 The impugned order in this background had correctly decreed the

eviction petition. There is no infirmity in this finding. It is as per the record.

18 That apart this Court is sitting in its power of revision. Unless and

until there is a patent illegality or a glaring perversity in the fact finding

returned by the court below interference is not called for. This Court has

been informed that the suit property has already been taken over by the

landlord.

19 The impugned order calls for no interfence. This petition is without

any merit. It is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

MAY 03, 2016 ndn