Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
SHANTI DEVI & ORS – Petitioners
Versus
RAKSHA AHLUWALIA – Respondent
RC.REV. 45 of 2017 & CM Nos.4263-4264 of 2017
Decided On : 07-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Thakur Sumit & Mr. Naveen Yadav
The main legal point established is that the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act should be assessed based on genuine need, without being influenced by the landlord's age, lack of experience, or the nature of the intended business.
Headnote:
DRC Act - Eviction Petition - Section 14(1)(e) - Summary of Acts and Sections: DRC Act, 1958, Section 25-B(8), Section 14(1)(e) - The court discussed the application of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and the legal principles related to the landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction, alternative suitable accommodation, and the scope of revisional powers under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, claiming the need for two shops for running a coaching institute. The petitioners contested the eviction, arguing the respondent's lack of preparation and an alternative suitable accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's desire to start a coaching institute was bona fide, rejecting the petitioners' arguments about the respondent's age, lack of experience, and alternative accommodation. The court also dismissed the petitioners' claim of deliberate delay in taking possession of another shop.
Issues: The issues revolved around the respondent's bona fide requirement for eviction, the availability of alternative suitable accommodation, and the petitioners' allegations of delay in taking possession of another shop.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the landlord's age and lack of experience do not bar the bona fide requirement for eviction. It also highlighted that the landlord is not required to show evidence of experience in the intended business. Additionally, the court stressed that the choice of premises by the landlord cannot be deemed whimsical if it is based on genuine reasons.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present Revision Petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRC Act’) seeking to challenge an eviction order dated 06.09.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ARC’) in the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
2. The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act regarding two shops bearing Nos.6 and 7 which are located in Property No.7, Partap Marg, Kewal Park, Azad Pur, Delhi-110 033.
3. The respondent contended that she was the owner of the full property. Referring to the site plan, it was stated that the son of the respondent Sh.Rajiv Walia is using the portion shown in black colour for commercial activities from where he is running the business of distributorship for certain companies; in portion marked as Z-1, the son of the respondent had installed computers and printer etc. and portion marked as Z-2 is being used for the storage purposes; the potion marked as X is in dilapidated condition and is having height of only 7 ft. from road level and is being used by the respondent and her son for the purpose of parking. This area is also being used by two other employees for parking; the portion marked as Y is used by the son of the respondent as his office-cum-godown for the last 20 years and the portion marked as Z is used as washroom and toilet by the staff, visitors and by the son of the respondent; the portion marked as W is used as pantry-cum-kitchen for preparing tea etc. One shop No.3 is said to be in tenancy of Sh.Sohan Lal. Another shop No.4 is in possession of Sh.Anil Kumar against whom a suit for possession is pending. The shop Nos.6 and 7 are in possession of the petitioners.
4. It is further stated that the respondent being a retired school teacher requires the said shops for running a coaching institute as because of passage of time, the price index has increased and the respondent is unable meet her expenses in a meagre pension. The daughter-in-law of the respondent Smt. Rakhi Walia is also a well educated and a qualified teacher as her educational qualification is M.A., B.Ed. The respondent and her daughter-in-law plan to run a coaching institute. The family of the respondent is residing on the first floor of Property No. B-255, Street No.3, Majlis Park, Delhi-110 033. The respondent has also a small shop near Gaushala, which is known as 17-C Gaushala, Kewal Park, Azad Pur, Delhi110 033 but the shop has front of just 7 ft. which cannot be used for a coaching centre. The said place is much away from the disputed property and has no electricity, no sewerage and no water connection and no wash/bath room at the property. It is an old construction and is in dilapidated condition. Further, even the location of the said shop is in a remote area surrounded by hawkers, bad elements and rickshaw pullers etc. which is not suitable for running a coaching centre which would have a lot of young girls studying. On the other hand the tenanted property is situated in the heart of a heavily populated area with a government secondary school almost next door at just one minute walking distance.
5. The ARC by the impugned order noted that there is no quarrel regarding relationship of the landlord and the tenant. On the issue of bona fide requirement and alternative suitable accommodation, it noted the objection of the petitioner regarding the age of the respondent and held that the age cannot be barrier to start a new business. In any case, the daughter-in-law would be there to assist the respondent who had the qualification of B.Ed. and M.A. Degree. Regarding shop No.5 which is lying vacant, it noted that the same is being used for parking by the son of the respondent. The son has three scooters, in addition large numbers of visitors of the son also park their personal vehicles there. The ARC noted that the petitioners themse
