Delhi High Court
Sumer Singh & Anr. vs Sunder Lal Gupta & Anr. on 5 April, 2018
$~15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 5th April, 2018
+ RC Rev. 107/2016
SUMER SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Deepak &
Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advs.
versus
SUNDER LAL GUPTA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Nishtha Garg, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The respondents concededly are the owners of property
described as bearing no.489, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi - 110031, of
which one shop at ground floor (the subject premises) forms a part.
The petitioners were concededly inducted as tenants in the said
premises wherein they would run business in the name and style of
Binni Garments. The respondents had instituted eviction case (E-
105/14) on 01.10.2014 against the petitioners under Section 14 (1) (e)
of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 primarily on the ground that they
required the subject premises for purposes of accommodating the need
of Ms. Bharti Gupta, daughter of the second petitioner, who intended
to set up a homeopathic clinic after completion of the course of study
leading to the degree of Bachelor in Homeopathic Medicine and
Surgery (BHMS) by February, 2015, the plea also being that, for such
purposes, the respondents (landlords) do not have any suitable
alternative accommodation. The petitioners (tenants), upon being
summoned under Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 filed
an application for leave to defend, the prime contention being that
sufficient accommodation is available but the utilization thereof had
not been properly explained. The Additional Rent Controller
considered the said application but dismissed it by order dated
29.10.2015 consequently granting an order of eviction in favour of the
respondents. It is the said order, the correctness, legality and propriety
whereof is challenged by the petition at hand.
2. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone
through the record, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition
which consequently is liable to be dismissed.
3. It is clear from the pleadings and submissions of both sides that
the respondent landlords have available to them four other properties
including one described as C-66, Gali No.8, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara,
Delhi, which is residential, no part whereof can be cited as an
alternative accommodation for aforementioned needs of Ms. Bharti
Gupta. The properties owned also include one room measuring 18
square yards situate at ground floor in property bearing no. 329,
Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi which is under mixed land use, it presently
being utilized by Smt. Nisha Gupta, daughter-in-law of the first
respondent for her legal practice since 2008.
4. Thus, there are primarily two properties which are under the
scanner for examining the plea of the petitioners as to the availability
of sufficient place, one bearing no. 489, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi of
which the subject premises is a part and the other closely located
property bearing no. 487, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi. While property
no. 489 is jointly owned by the respondents, property no. 487 is jointly
owned by their respective wives. The second said property is used by
the said wives of the respondents for running their respective
businesses in the name and style of Handloom Emporium and
Vandana Cloth House from the ground and first floor portion, the
entire second floor stated to be in use as a godown.
5. The property no. 489 also comprises of ground floor, first floor
and second floor. The portion other than the subject premises at the
ground floor is stated to be in use of the respondents for purposes of
their businesses in the name and style of M/s Aggarwal Textile and
M/s Garg Textile. It has been explained by the respondents that the
first floor of this property is used by Harish Gupta, son of the first
respondent for running his business in the name and style of M/s
Aggarwal Sarees. It is explained that the entire second floor is used
by all the said three business firms commonly as godown.
6. The thrust of the argument of the petitioners has been that there
is no clear explanation as to the use of the second floor of property
numbers 487 or 489, nor the claim of such portions being used as
godown having been substantiated by any material. It is their
submission that real facts are being concealed and that the second
floor accommodation in either of the two properties is the alternative
accommodation available for purposes of Ms. Bharti Gupta.
7. In considered opinion of this Court, the above argument only
needs to be noted and rejected. Noticeably, Ms. Bharti Gupta intends
to set up a medical clinic. It is inconceivable that a medical clinic
would be established at the second floor level of any property as that
can hardly be described as an appropriate place for the patients to be
expected to come up to.
8. Thus, the impugned order is found to be not suffering from any
error or infirmity. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 05, 2018
nk
