Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs Sunil Kumar & Ors on 2 April, 2014
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 02.04.2014
+ R.C. Rev. No.7 of 2014 & CM No.123 of 2014
+ R.C. Rev. No.10 of 2014 & CM No.188 of 2014
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta & Mr. Manish Gupta,
Advs.
versus
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Savita Rustogi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This petition impugns order dated 3.10.2013 passed by the learned ARC-1/Central Delhi in eviction petition Nos.E-77/12 & E-78/12 whereby the petitioner‟s application under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was dismissed and an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to property No.2987, Kucha Mai Dass, Bazar Sita Ram, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006. The respondents/eviction petitioner had sought the said premises for the bona fide need for respondent/landlord No.2 who is a senior citizen. Earlier the respondent No.2/eviction-petitioner had stopped his business of kirana store pursuant to the demise _____________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. Nos.7 & 10 of 2014 Page 1 of 6 of his wife and started assisting his son, eviction-petitioner No.1, in the latter‟s business of cosmetics. With the passage of time the widower came to terms with his loss and with a view to carry on with life wanted to set up his own retail business in cosmetics. The eviction-petitioners had averred that they had no other suitable alternate commercial accommodation.
2. The tenant had sought leave to contest the eviction petition on the ground that they had been inducted into the tenanted premises in the year 1994 by Smt. Kusum Lata for commercial purposes only and were paying rent to her. After her demise in the year 2001, the claim for the suit property became disputed as one Shri Anil Kumar claimed exclusive ownership of the entire ground floor; that the said Anil Kumar had not been impleaded; that a wrong site plan regarding the ground floor had been filed by the eviction-petitioners, hence the tenant had filed a "correct" site plan of the entire ground floor and the first floor; the eviction- petitioner Nos.1 & 2 were in occupation and possession of the commercial ground floor portion of the property bearing No.2987, Kucha Mai Das, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006; that they were both engaged in the business of ladies garments and cosmetics. Furthermore it was contended that the eviction- petitioner No.2 had started his independent business from shop No.1054, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006 from where he ran his business under the name & style of „Shingar Sadan‟ with eviction-petitioner No.2 as its sole proprietor. Therefore, both _____________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. Nos.7 & 10 of 2014 Page 2 of 6 petitioner Nos.1 & 2 had surplus commercial accommodation available with them. It was also contended that the petitioners owned shop No.491, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006, which had been let out to Ranjit Water Supply; that they had also built up another commercial property bearing No.4273, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006; while petitioner No.2 was carrying on the business of perfumery, soaps, and toiletry items from shop No.1436/2, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006. In addition, eviction-petitioner No.4 had the ownership of property No.1303, Bagichi Tansukh Rai, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, which consisted of commercial ground floor apart from first and second floor and lastly, that the shop on the ground floor of the said property was lying vacant.
3. The eviction-petitioners, however, refuted the ownership of any of the aforesaid properties. To prove their ownership of the tenanted premises they relied upon the registered Sale Deed in favour of Late Smt. Kusum Lata. The Trial Court was of the view that the mention of telephone No.23219405 on the cash memo of eviction-petitioner No.4‟s business card was incorrectly printed, because the said telephone number was found to be installed in property No.4273. The correct telephone number was 23219406 with respect to eviction- petitioner No.4‟s premises No.1436/2, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. This was proven by the eviction- petitioners bringing on record copies of telephone No.23219406 for the years 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2012 & 2013. With _____________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. Nos.7 & 10 of 2014 Page 3 of 6 respect to property No.1303, Bagichi Tansukh Rai, the eviction- petitioners had brought on record a copy of the sale deed dated 27.8.1984 in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi. Upon perusal of copy of the registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Urmila Devi, mother-in-law of eviction-petitioner No.4, the Trial Court rested the argument raised by the tenant. With respect to property No.1436/2, the Trial Court found it to be tenanted premises on the basis of rent receipts issued by the owner/landlord thereof. The Trial Court went on to hold that the eviction-petitioners were seeking the ownership on the basis of a Will executed in favour of eviction-petitioner No.1 by his mother, late Smt. Kusum Lata.
4. Apropos the dispute sought to be raised with respect of Shri Anil Kumar, the tenants had not placed any material on record or a copy of the Will which could be said to grant or confer any right, title or interest in favour of Shri Anil Kumar nor had any document been produced to show that the dispute had indeed been raised by said Shri Anil Kumar with respect to the suit premises. The veracity of the registered sale deed dated 29.7.1992 in favour of Smt. Kusum Lata had not been challenged by the tenants. The Trial Court found that the rent receipts showed Smt. Kusum Lata and Shri Sunil Kumar as the landlords whereas the tenants accepted the tenancy only with respect to Kusum Lata.
5. The Trial Court found that the old electricity bills as well as rent _____________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. Nos.7 & 10 of 2014 Page 4 of 6 receipts of 1984-85 in favour of tenants Rajinder Kumar and Devender Kumar had been issued by Smt. Urmila Devi. With respect to property No.1436/2, Gali Arya Samaj, Delhi-110006 the Trial Court concluded that Ms. Seema Aggarwal was the tenant in the said property which was owned by one Shri Rajiv Dawar and the rent receipts ranging from the year 2008, 2010 and 2012 were shown. Therefore, in the absence of any document being filed by the tenant, their bald assertions that these rent receipts were forged and fabricated, were of no consequence. The Trial Court found that with respect to four properties, i.e. Shop No.491, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006; Property No.4273, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006; Shop No.1436/2, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006; and Property No.1303, Bagichi Tansukh Rai, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, the eviction- petitioners had sufficiently show that they were not the owners thereof or that the same were not available to them as an alternate accommodation. The Trial Court found the need of the eviction- petitioner No.2 as bona fide and no triable issue was raised which could be shown to prevent the grant of an eviction order as sought in the petition for bona fide need.
6. The selective acceptance of the one landlord only was contrary to the rent receipts which showed that Mr. Sunil Kumar also as the landlord. This Court is of the view that if the tenants had any objection regarding the rent receipts showing Mr. Sunil Kumar too as a landlord, then protest could have been raised.
_____________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. Nos.7 & 10 of 2014 Page 5 of 6 Admittedly, no objection was raised. The tenant had, by their silence acquiesced to Mr. Sunil Kumar also as their landlord during the lifetime of Smt. Kusum Lata herself. Hence, the landlord-tenant relationship stood established in favour of Shri Sunil Kumar, eviction-petitioner No.1.
7. This Court finds that insofar as the eviction-petitioners had shown that they had no suitable alternate accommodation whereas the bona fide need was established, the eviction order necessarily had to follow. Age has no bearing on the requirement of commercial accommodation of a person. The need to start a new business cannot be doubted solely because such need is of a person who is a senior citizen. The impugned order is based upon the records. There is no material irregularity. The reasoning for and the conclusion arrived at are based on the record. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
APRIL 02, 2014 NAJMI WAZIRI, J. b'nesh
_____________________________________________________________________ R.C. Rev. Nos.7 & 10 of 2014 Page 6 of 6