Delhi High Court
Tara Chand (Deceased) Thru. Lrs. vs Suman Lata (Deceased) Etc. on 14 March, 2018
$~15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 14th March, 2018
+ RC REV. No. 109/2016
TARA CHAND (DECEASED) THRU. LRS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raj K. Mittal & Mr. Nitin
Mittal, Advs.
versus
SUMAN LATA (DECEASED) ETC. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Shukla, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The revision petition challenges the eviction order granted in
favour of the respondent/landlady, on her petition on ground of bona
fide need of the portion in tenancy of the petitioner.
2. The petition (E No. 132/2008) was instituted by Suman Lata,
the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein, against Tara
Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein, on
26.04.2008 seeking an order of eviction on the ground under Section
14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of tenanted
premises described as shop shown in colour red in the site plan
(Ex.PW-1/5) attached to the petition, it forming part of property
municipal no, 54/VIII Kesri Mohalla, Gali Jain Mandir, Shahdara,
Delhi. Both the said original petitioner before the Rent Controller and
the respondent have since died and they have been substituted by their
respective legal representatives.
3. The fact that the said shop was in the tenancy of Tara Chand
under Suman Lata, the original petitioner before the Rent Controller is
not in dispute. Neither the petitioners nor their predecessor-in-interest
raised any dispute about the fact that the property was owned by
Suman Lata and after her demise, the same has devolved on the
respondents herein.
4. The case presented by the landlord-cum-owner for eviction was
on the ground that there are two shops in the subject property, the
other having been shown as Mark C in the site plan (Ex.PW-1/5), the
shop in colour yellow marked as shop no. C was stated to be in use
and occupation of Bishan Swaroop, the eldest son of Suman Lata for
purpose of his business of electrical appliances and work of supply of
sound systems on rental basis. The landlady sought eviction of the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on the ground she required the
tenanted premises shown in colour red marked B in the site plan
(Ex.PW-1/5) for purposes of her other two sons Anand Swaroop and
Lalit Swaroop who were dependent on her, they intending to set up on
their own business for which there is no alternative suitable
accommodation. As per the pleadings of the landlady and the
evidence adduced on her behalf, the property of which the tenanted
portion forms a part is primarily a residential building, the only said
two portions mark B and C being put to commercial use.
5. The Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence led, found the
landlady to have succeeded in establishing her case and, thus, granted
the eviction order by judgment dated 08.09.2015 which is assailed by
the petition at hand.
6. The prime contention raised at the trial before the Rent
Controller was that another part of the same property, it having been
shown as room marked A in Site Plan (Ex.PW-1/5) had also fallen
vacant, the tenant Sant Ram who was earlier occupying that portion
having vacated and handed over possession thereof to the landlady,
the dimensions of the said room, having been shown as 13 feet x 3
inches x 8 feet x 6 inches. The said room marked 'A' abuts and opens
onto the public street on the southern side of the property. The rent
controller, however, was not impressed with the said argument.
7. The petitioner before this Court seeks to assail the eviction
order and, with reference to availability and current use of aforesaid
portion i.e . room marked A, contending that the said room had been
put to use by the younger sons of the landlady for commercial
purposes and, therefore, the need for which the eviction was sought
stands fulfilled.
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds
no merit in the contention raised by the petitioners. The tenant Sant
Ram, who was occupying portion marked A, stood vacated from the
said portion on 20.07.1999 by an order or the Rent Controller in
another eviction case E-421/1989. It may be that Sant Ram was using
the said portion for commercial purposes, he being a person earning
his livelihood by ironing of clothes. But then, it is the prerogative of
the landlord as to how to use such portion in a property which is
primarily residential in nature.
9. The shop marked C in use and occupation with the elder son of
the landlady abuts the main street on the eastern side of the property in
question. The tenanted portion in occupation of the petitioner herein
adjoins the said shop and apparently is more suitable for use for
commercial purposes. As regards the portion marked A, sufficient
explanation has been given in the evidence by the sons of the landlady
that the same, after being vacated by Sant Ram, is being used as a
store room. Some evidence was led by the petitioners, particularly
through the testimony of Khurshida Khatoon (RW-7) to bring on
record that the room marked A was also used for commercial
purposes, the said witness having claimed to have visited the said
portion to make booking of a disc-jockey in connection with a
marriage ceremony in her family. But then, during her cross-
examination she conceded that she would not even know the name of
the person who had made the said booking, no formal receipt having
been issued for the payments made. The evidence apparently has no
legs to stand on, to be acceptable as credible.
10. The petition is, thus, found to be devoid of substance. It is
dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MARCH 14, 2018
nk
