Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 3296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Yogesh Khanna, J.
Naveen Prakash Gupta - Appellants
Vs.
Deepak Aggarwal - Respondent
RC. Rev. 140/2018, C.M. Appl. Nos. 13899-900 and 31065/2018
Decided On : 12-12-2018
For the Appellant :R.P. Lao and Poonam Lau, Advocates
For the Respondents:Tanvi Sapra and Manish K. Bishnoi, Advocates
The bonafide requirement for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is not negated by the landlord's lack of experience in the specific business.
Headnote:
Eviction - Bonafide Requirement - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought eviction of the petitioner from an industrial shed for the bonafide requirement of his wife and daughter to start a business of manufacturing ladies handbags. The petitioner challenged the eviction on the ground that the respondent did not require the premises bonafide and the issue raised by the petitioner should have been treated as a triable issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's bonafide requirement for the premises was genuine, considering the qualifications and intentions of the wife and daughter to start the business. The court also emphasized that the financial dependency under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act includes dependency for accommodation, not just financial dependency.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's requirement for the premises for starting a business of manufacturing ladies handbags was bonafide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to establish that the landlord's lack of experience in the specific business does not negate the bonafide requirement for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Final Decision: The petition challenging the eviction was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Yogesh Khanna, J.
1. This revision petition challenges the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2018 passed by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissing an application for grant of leave to defend filed by the petitioner herein and passing of an eviction order. The judgment is being challenged on ground of illegality and it is urged the learned ARC has erred in determining the bonafides of the petitioner.
2. The eviction was sought by the respondent/landlord/owner of industrial shed bearing No. 55, category III, DSIIDC Industrial Area, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041 under the tenancy of the petitioner. The grounds upon which the eviction of the tenant was sought are as under:
"a) Landlord Deepak Agarwal is the owner of shed No. 35 mentioned above. It was purchased by Deepak Agarwal landlord by virtue of irrevocable power of attorney, agreement to sell, receipt of consideration, deed of will etc. on 21.05.1997 from Shri Ashok Kumar Garg son of Shri Ratan Lai R/o. C-397, Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi for valuable consideration. Copies of aforesaid documents are also being filed. The will executed by Ashok Kumar Garg was a registered will and it was last will of Ashok Kumar Garg who has later on died. The will was voluntarily executed according to law and was attested by two witnesses according to Law.
ii) Respondent Naveen Prakash Gupta @ Naveen Gupta is the tenant of petitioner Deepak Agarwal. This Tenant is already doing business in the industrial shed No. 11, 33, 34 also. This tenant is also using the shed No. 35 which is in his tenancy as Godown/Store. The said shed No. 35 is bonafidely required by the landlord Deepak Agarwal and his family members. There is no other suitable industrial accommodation/premises in the ownership and possession of the landlord and his family members suitable for the manufacture of ladies hand bags business/industry,
iii) Smt. Roopali Agarwal is the wife of the petitioner. She wants to do business and has decided to do business of manufacturing of Ladies Handbag. She is financially dependent upon the petitioner. Kumari Damini Aggarwal is the eldest daughter of the petitioner. She has also decided to do business. She is also financially dependent upon the petitioner. Both Smt. Roopali Agarwal and Kumari Damini Aggarwal who are dependent upon the petitioner and are family members of the petitioner for doing business of Manufacturing of and sale of Ladies Handbags. Industrial shed no. 35 which is in the tenancy of respondent Naveen Prakash Gupta @ Naveen Gupta is very suitable. This shed is also in front of shed no. 36, where the petitioner is doing business. There is only common passage between shed no. 35 and 36. Nowadays government is also encouraging and helping to ladies to do business. Smt. Roopali Agarwal has already done M.Sc. (PG) in Chemistry. She is young lady aged about 47 years of age. Kumari Damini Aggarwal has already done her B. Tech and MBA and she is aged about 23 years. Both of them shall be doing business of manufacturing ladies handbags in the Industrial Shed No. 35, which has got area about 48 sq.mtr. The need/requirement of the premises in dispute to the petitioner and his family members is genuine and bonafide.
iv) The petitioner at present is doing business in industrial shed no. 36 which is also having area of about 48 sq.mtr. In this shed no. 36, the petitioner is doing the business of leather embossing on job work basis. This accommodation is not even sufficient for doing the business of artificial leather embossing on job work basis. There is no regular office in this industrial shed no. 36 for office purposes. There is already wooden office cabin in built in shed no. 35 which is in the tenancy of the respondent. The wife of the petitioner and the daughter of the petitioner shall also be having her office in this wooden cabin for running her business. The petitioner shall also be using that office accommodation for running the business of the petition
