Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Sushil Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
Rama Mehta And Others - Respondent
R C Rev No. 285 of 2018; Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 25577 of 2018, 46813 of 2018
Decided On : 09-10-2019
For the Appellant : Praveen Suri, Adv., Komal Chhibber, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ashwini Mata, Adv., Karan Gaur, Adv., Seema, Adv.
The landlord has the discretion to determine the use of the accommodation, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's decision. Additionally, the tenant must provide evidence to challenge the landlord's bonafide necessity for the premises.
Headnote:
Eviction Petition - Bonafide Necessity - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an eviction petition seeking the eviction of the petitioner from a shop on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide evidence to support their contention that the tenancy was created by the predecessor in interest of the respondents in favor of the petitioner and another individual, and that the respondent's bonafide necessity for the premises was not adequately challenged.
Issues: The issues revolved around the tenancy agreement, the bonafide necessity of the respondent, and the availability of alternative accommodation for the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord is the best judge of their requirement and suitability for the premises, and that the tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should use the accommodation. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner failed to show any prohibition for the respondent to open her office or practice law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Rent Controller's decision to decline to grant leave to defend.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Petitioner impugns order dated 16.05.2018 whereby leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from one Shop on the South-West corner of the building bearing No. 13/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on the ground of bonafide necessity under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the eviction petition.
3. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition contending that they are owner/landladies of the suit property and the tenanted premises were required bonafidely for their personal use, particularly for the use of respondent no. 3 who does not own or possess any other commercial accommodation to establish her office. It is contended that respondent no. 3 is a qualified Advocate and at the time of filing of the eviction petition was working with Press Trust of India (P.T.I.) as a Legal Consultant and she was desirous of opening an independent office in the tenanted premises as she had no other independent office/accommodation available anywhere in the city of Delhi.
4. Further, it is contended that she wanted to set up her office in the subject premises so that she could take care of her mother i.e. respondent no. 1 who resides on the first floor of the said property and being an aged lady suffers from age related issues.
5. Leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner, interalia, contending that tenancy was created by the predecessor in interest of the respondents in favour of the petitioner as also one Shri Raj Kumar and being co-tenants, the petition filed only against one of the co-tenants was not maintainable.
6. Further it is contended that there are six shops on the ground floor and built-up back portion of the suit property is vacant which could be used by the respondents for the purposes of opening a lawyer's office. It is further contended that besides the ground floor, the first and second floor are also constructed and could also be used for a lawyer's office.
7. It is contended that on the ground floor, behind the shops there is a big hall/drawing room which could be used as an office.
8. Respondent-Landlord has contended that none of the shops on the ground floor are vacant and all the shops on the ground floor are tenanted and further it is contended that rear portion of the ground floor comprises of one hall and entrance to the same is through a small lane on the back side of the property and the entrance also passes the staircase leading to the residential accommodation on the first floor and is not suitable.
9. Rent Controller has noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. With regard to the plea of the petitioner that rent deed was executed by the predecessor of the respondent in favour of two tenants i.e. petitioner and one Shri Raj Kumar, the Rent Controller has noticed that as per the eviction petition, earlier the business was being carried out under the name and style of M/s Aggarwal Sweets by the petitioner and his partner Raj Kumar. Subsequently, name and style of the business was changed to M/s Bikaner Sweets. It is contended that in the eviction petition that thereafter Raj Kumar stopped working from the said premises.
10. Rent Controller has noticed that the petitioner had not filed any document to show that the business was being carried on as a partnership business or that Shri Raj Kumar was still a partner in his business. Rent Controller was of the view that nothing has come on record to show that Shri Raj Kumar had continued to have any connection with the property.
11. Rent Controller has found that respondent no. 3 was practicing as an Advocate and was working as a Legal Consultant with P.T.I. Rent Controller has held that she being a legal consultant is not barred from carrying on a private independent practice and petit
