Important Point – Landlord is best Judge of his requirement.

Jayant Nath, J.

1. This 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 impugn the eviction order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ARC) under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend.

2. The respondent filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act regarding property being 1/3rd portion of the shop on the ground floor of the property No. 26, Ground Floor, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. It was stated that the petitioner is the tenant in use and occupation of the said 1/3rd portion of the ground floor. It is the case of the respondent that the entire shop was let out by the erstwhile owner Sh. Suraj Prakash Pahawa to a partnership firm by the name of Navrattan Arts. The Partnership Firm comprised of two partners, namely, Sh. Joginder Singh Negi and Sh. Naresh Tolani. On 16.03.1999, the partnership firm was dissolved and a wooden partition was erected in the shop. 1/3rd portion of the shop went to the share of Sh. Joginder Singh Negi, the petitioner and the remaining 2/3rd portion went to the share of Sh. Naresh Tolani, the other partner of the partnership firm in the name of Navrattan Arts. On 08.10.2003, the erstwhile landlord Sh. Suraj Prakash Pahawa sold the entire building where the shop premises is located by a registered sale deed to the respondent Company.

It is pointed out that the earlier owner Sh. Suraj Prakash Pahawa had filed an eviction petition against the Firm on the ground of sub-letting under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act stating that the partners have partitioned the shop and that Sh. Naresh Tolani has sub-let the premises to the petitioner. The respondent moved an application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC which was allowed. However, the respondent chose to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file a fresh one. The request of the respondent is said to have been allowed on 30.09.2009. It is further stated that the Managing Director of the respondent Sh. Kunal Tolani is a graduate from Paris in Fashion Retail Management. He seeks to transfer his registered office from Chandigarh to Delhi and wants to expand his business by opening a fashion retail showroom in the tenanted premises. It is also stated that the respondent is the owner of a residential premises on the first floor of the shop premises with terrace which is also on rent and for which an eviction petition has been filed. However, the said first floor being a residential property is not suitable for carrying on commercial activities.

3. The petitioner filed his application for leave to defend where various pleas were taken including (a) that the eviction petition is not maintainable as the respondent is a private limited company (b) that the respondent has a commercial premises at 40, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi and at Village Chandan Hola, ahead of Chhattarpur Mandir (c) that the petition is bad as it seeks partial eviction of the property.

4. The ARC by the impugned order relying upon various judgments including the judgment of this court in the case of Madan Mohan Lal, Sri Ram Pvt. Ltd. vs. P. Tandon, 1981 (2) RCR 516 concluded that the respondent company can prefer an eviction petition under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act.

On the issue of partial eviction, the impugned order noted the contention of the petitioner that the petition ought to have been filled against the petitioner and the other erstwhile partner Sh. Naresh Tolani. However, the impugned order notes that as per the dissolution deed, 1/3rd of the property has come to the share of the petitioner and the rate of rent was also to be divided at the rate of 1/3rd and 2/3rd. The impugned order also notes the written statement filed by the Firm Navrattan Arts in the erstwhile eviction petition where it was stated that the shop which was let out co