The principle of 'once a tenant always a tenant' and the landlord's discretion in assessing the suitability of the premises for their business were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 02.05.2019 whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed.

2. Subject eviction petition was filed by the respondents in respect of the premises bearing Shop No. 863, Ground Floor & Basement, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi-110006.

3. It is contended in the eviction petition that respondent is the co-owner and co-landlord of the entire property. Said property was owned by Amar Singh Sethi, father of the respondent and his brother and sisters, which was allotted to him by Ministry of Home Affairs (Rehabilitation Division). Mr. Amar Singh Sethi expired on 09.10.2009 bequeathing the subject property by way of a registered Will in favour of his wife and children and thereafter his wife expired, intestate, and accordingly respondent and his brother and two sisters became one-fourth owner each of the subject property.

4. It is contended that the tenanted premises was let out by father of the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/- to petitioner. Subsequently, rate of rent was enhanced by 10% to Rs. 2200/-. It is contended in the eviction petition that respondent was carrying on his business of repairing television sets from his residential house at 2404, Hudson Lane, Delhi. Said house was owned by Shri Amar Singh Sethi. He during his life time sold the basement and second floor with roof rights to a third party and the ground floor and first floor was sold to the respondent.

5. It is contended that respondent is residing with his family in the said premises and also carrying on his business of television repair and there is an acute paucity of space. Further it is contended that the said property is purely a residential house, however, respondent is carrying on commercial activity and intends to shift the commercial activity to the tenanted premises which is situated in Old Lajpat Rai Market; a market of electronics and is best suited place for opening of a showroom.

6. It is contended that the respondent has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for opening a showroom and workshop repair of television and other electronic items.

7. Subject leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner. Petitioner though admitted that the property was initially let out by the father of the respondent to the petitioner, it was contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. It is contended that the property is owned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It is contended that respondent has no right, title or interest in the property as the owner of the market is MCD after transfer of the same from Department of Rehabilitation.

8. It is further contended that the petitioner had applied to MCD to get his name endorsed in the record of the MCD in respect of the said shop, however, that application is still pending.

9. It is further contended that the respondent is carrying on his business from a property at Hudson Lane which is a four-storied property and sufficient accommodation is available for carrying on the business activities there from.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier a Suit for recovery of possession and damages was filed by the father of respondent no. 1 contending that petitioner is a licensee and unauthorized occupant.

11. Judgment of the said Suit has been produced. Perusal of the judgment dated 20.11.2004 in the said Suit shows that the said Suit was dismissed by the Court holding that petitioner was a tenant under the father of the respondent and the tenancy was protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and a civil suit for possession was not maintainable under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

12. None of the parties challenged the said Judgment dated 20.11.2004 and accordingly, said judgment has became final and accordingly the status of the petitioner as a tenant under the father of the respondent was confirmed by the Court and said finding operates a