Delhi High Court
Gulshan Arora vs Ramesh Chander on 31 October, 2019
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 31.10.2019
+ RC.REV. 422/2019 & CM APPL. 31713/2019
GULSHAN ARORA ..... Petitioner
versus
RAMESH CHANDER ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Mr. Sanyam Tandon,
Advocates with petitioner in person.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Gupta, Ms. Surbhi Gupta, Ms. Aishwary Jain
and Mr. Shubham Prasad, Advocates. with respondent in
person.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 16.03.2019 whereby leave to defend
application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order
passed.
2. Respondent had filed the subject petition seeking eviction of the
petitioner from one shop in property bearing No. E-16/930, Tank Road,
Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh. New Delhi-l 10005 on the ground of bonafide
necessity under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
3. Respondent has filed the subject petition contending that the
respondent is the owner of two shops situated at ground floor and one of the
shops is in possession of the respondent and other shop is the subject
tenanted premises.
4. It is contended that respondent bonafidely requires the shop for his
sons who are dependant upon him and do not have any other reasonable
and suitable accommodation as they are doing business of commissioner
agent and now want to do their own business from the tenanted shop and
they have no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
5. Petitioner filed the subject leave to defend application. Petitioner has
not denied that the relationship of landlord-tenant exists between the
parties. Rent Controller by the impugned order dated 16.03.2019 has held
that the relationship of landlord-tenant exists between the parties.
6. Before this Court, it is not disputed that there is a relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties and that the respondent is the owner
of the property.
7. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that the sons of the
respondent are carrying on business with him. Rent Controller, based on the
record produced before his held that the respondent was carrying on the
business as a sole proprietor concern and not in partnership with his
children. Rent Controller has noticed that petitioner has not set up a case
that the sons of the respondent are engaged in any independent business in
any other accommodation.
8. With regard to the bonafide necessity, the only ground taken by the
petitioner is that one shop adjacent to the rented shop is in possession of the
respondent who is running business from there and his sons are working
with him. Petitioner has further contended that the respondent wants to
expand its business and therefore wants the tenanted shop.
9. Even before this Court, the only case set up by the petitioner is that
sons of the respondent as allegedly carrying on business of commission
agents but, in fact, are assisting the respondent in his business.
10. It is not the case of the petitioner that the sons of the respondent are
carrying on any independent business from any other property or that any
suitable alternative accommodation is available to them from where they
can start their business.
11. Respondent has three sons and it is conceded by the counsel for the
petitioner that all are married and have children also. It is not disputed that
they are dependent upon their father for the purpose of accommodation.
12. Petitioner has not been able to show any material that the sons of the
Respondent are carrying on any business or are having any other alternative
accommodation. The only case set up by the petitioner is that the sons are
assisting their father i.e. respondent in the business.
13. When the respondent is carrying on business as a sole proprietor and
he has three sons who are married and have their respective families, it is
well within the right of the respondent-landlord to seek eviction of the
petitioner from an accommodation for the purpose of commencing/setting
up of a business for his sons.
14. Rent Controller has rightly held that the need as propounded by the
respondent is bonafide and respondent was well within his right to seek
eviction of the petitioner from the tenanted premises for setting up of an
independent business by his children.
15. Petitioner has not been able to show any material that there is any
other commercial space available either with the respondent or his children
from where they can start their business.
16. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Rent Controller that the
petitioner has not been able to show any prima facie case or plead any
ground, which if proved, would disentitle the respondent-landlord from an
order of eviction.
17. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition is
accordingly dismissed.
18. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 31, 2019
'rs'
