R.C. Rev. 36/2014

Page 1 of 12

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 20.01.2014

+

RC.REV. 36/2014

SHRI RAVINDER BAGGA

..…Petitioner

Through:

Rajnish Kumar Gaind and Mr. Hemant

Kaushik, Advocates

Versus

SHRI VED PRAKASH TYAGI

..… Respondent

Through:

None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

%

MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)

1.

This petition challenges an eviction order dated 28.10.2013 which

rejected the petitioner’s (tenant’s) application seeking leave to defend in an

eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The

tenant has been directed to be evicted from the ground floor shop of property

identified as WZ-47, Bundela Market, Vikas Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter

referred to as „‟the tenanted premises‟). The property was let out by the

respondent (landlord) to the tenant’s father in the year 1986, who started an

electrical shop in the tenanted premises and the present tenant has inherited

the tenancy after the demise of his father.

2. Landlord’s case was that the aforesaid property being an ancestral

R.C. Rev. 36/2014

Page 2 of 12

property devolved upon him through the inheritance. It was owned by his

grandfather Shri Badlu Ram Tyagi. He had four sons namely Jai Prakash,

Mahavir, Ved Prakash and Shri Krishan (the respondent herein). Jai Prakash

was survived by his wife Smt. Krishna who was remarried to Mahavir. The

later had let out the premises in and about 1986 to the late father of the

tenant tenant Shri A.C. Bagga. The tenanted shop fell into the share of the

landlord in pursuant to a family settlement in 1990. Shri Mahavir gave a

letter-cum-receipt dated 13.05.1990 in favour of Ved Prakash (respondent-

landlord) declaring that the tenanted shop had fallen into his share. Pursuant

to this family settlement, the respondent became the owner of the tenanted

premises and the tenant’s father had started paying rent to the landlord.

3. The eviction was sought on the ground that there was a bonafide need

of the landlord for the tenanted premises for starting a tea shop since his

family consisting of his wife and five children required additional income

for their upkeep. It was stated in the eviction petition that the petitioner

being a heart patient required extra income to maintain his health; that due to

shortage of funds his daughter Ms. Chandni was unable to continue her

studies; that he was working as Chowkidar in a government school on

temporary basis and was getting salary of Rs.6,000/- p.m.; that due to heart

R.C. Rev. 36/2014

Page 3 of 12

illness doctor had advised him to take rest and so he was planning to leave

his present job where his working hour was more than 12 hours; that he had

no other suitable accommodation for starting his tea stall business except the

tenanted premises.

4. The tenant sought to contest the claim of bonafide need on the

grounds that the landlord had optimum property which were suitable for

establishing his own business; that the tenanted shop was taken on a Pagri of

Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 1983; that property No. WZ-47, Budella Market is

a big property having three floors where the petitioner has constructed three

shops over the roof of the Malik Tailor and Unique Paints; that the petitioner

has also constructed six shops on the third floor of the said premises out of

which three had been let out by him and other three shops were lying vacant;

that the petitioner is the owner of another property bearing No. B-336, Vikas

Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi which property is more suitable for commercial

purpose and for the alleged bonafide need; that the petitioner was a

permanent employee in a government school and was earning monthly

salary of Rs.12,000/-; that in addition to his salary of Rs.12,000/-, the

petitioner is having rental in