Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
Neelam Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Ekant Rekhan - Respondent
RC.REV. 398 of 2018 and CM APPL.33400 of 2018
Decided On : 10-01-2019
Eviction Petition - Bonafide Requirement - Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 14(1)(e) - [Section 14(1)(e)] - The court discussed the respondent's bonafide requirement for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, emphasizing the need for showroom space and the respondent's ownership of the property. The court also addressed the attornment requirement and the devolution of tenancy rights upon the death of the original tenant.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, claiming bonafide requirement of a corner shop for a showroom of fancy lights. The petitioner contested the eviction, alleging fake need and alternative accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent's need for showroom space to be bonafide, emphasized the respondent's ownership of the property, and dismissed the petitioner's objections regarding fake need and alternative accommodation.
Issues: Bonafide requirement for eviction, ownership of the property, attornment requirement, devolution of tenancy rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the respondent's bonafide need for showroom space and his ownership of the property, while also addressing the attornment requirement and the devolution of tenancy rights upon the death of the original tenant.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the pending application was disposed of.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
1. This petition challenges an order dated 16.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller/Pilot Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (the learned Trial Court) in Eviction Petition No.E-594/2017 titled Ekant Rekhan vs Neelam Sharma.
2. The respondent instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act for seeking eviction/possession in respect of corner shop bearing No.12-A/2, built on Plot No.2, in Block 12-A, situated at WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 10 x 12 sq. ft. (hereinafter as ‘shop in question’) against the petitioner, leave to defend application of the petitioner having been dismissed.
3. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent on account of bonafide requirement stating interalia :-
(a) The petitioner is the owner/landlord of corner shop bearing No.12-N2, built on Plot No.2, in Block 12-A, situated at WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 20 x 12 sq. ft., as shown in red colour in the site plan;
(b) The deceased husband of the respondent, namely, Sh Rattan Kumar was the original tenant in respect of the suit property inducted by predecessor-in-interest and after his death, his legal heirs have inherited the tenancy rights and the respondent is now running a confectionery shop in the suit property in the name and style of "Gujrat Stores".
(c) The property bearing No.12-A/2, Built on Plot no.2, in Block 12-A, situated at WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, admeasuring 256 Sq. Yds. in Khasra No.5050/2619 was purchased by the petitioner from Sh. Jitender Kumar Sachdeva and Smt. Iqbal Kaur, predecessor in title vide Sale Deed dated 02.06.2012. The copy of the Sale Deed is annexed with the petition.
(d) The petitioner is residing at E-4/23, Model Town-I, Delhi alongwith his family. The said property is jointly owned by the father of the petitioner, namely, Sh.Pawan Rekhan and other paternal uncles, namely, Rajinder Rekhan and Subhash Rekhan. All are living in the said property alongwith their family members.
(e) The petitioners started his business of Fancy lights in the name and style of "Concept Lighting Solutions" from his residence which is jointly occupied by other family members. The petitioner does not have any office space, facility of displaying lights as well as godown and the suit premises is urgently required for the business of the petitioner.
(f) The petitioner wants to open a showroom in the premises bearing No.12-A/2, built on Plot No.2, in Block 12-A, situated at WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, part of which is a tenanted shop. As per the proposed site plan of the showroom got prepared from the architect, the petitioner required 1800 sq. ft. area on the ground floor for the said purpose. The proposed site plan is also annexed by the petitioner with the petition.
(g) The petitioner is the owner of the suit premises which is a comer plot on the main road, visible to public at large and is best suitable for running a showroom of fancy lights.
(h) The petitioner is already in possession of first floor, which will be used as a godown for keeping the goods and the ground floor will be used as a showroom for selling the said goods. The ground floor area will be used for display of goods, bill counter, office, waiting area, as per the proposed site plan.
(i) The suit property is located at Karol Bagh, which is a famous commercial market and the suit property is having a good location and is most appropriately located to start the showroom of fancy lights.
(j) The petitioner does not have any other suitable, 'alternative, appropriate commercial accommodation available with him to start his showroom at ground floor except the present suit property. The adjoining shop in the suit property, which is 'occupied by one tenant, namely, Sh. Jagdish Nath Kapoor and for which another separate petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act has been filed by the petitioner for his bonafide requirement of a showroom-cum-office.”
4. Summons w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
