Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta vs M/S Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass on 18 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR, COMMERCIAL CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No.- 26159/2016
Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta,
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan,
R/o WZ-1661, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046. ...... Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass
Shop forming part of
Property No.WZ-1661, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046. .... Respondent
Date of filing : 15.12.2011
Date of decision : 18.12.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Present case is a petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of one shop measuring 13' x 20' forming part of property bearing no. WZ-1661, Nangal Raya, New Delhi as shown red in the site plan attached (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner is the owner and landlord of the property bearing no. WZ-1661, Nangal Raya.
ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 1/21That the petitioner has been carrying on his property business from the shop bearing no. WZ-285, Nangal Raya which is on the opposite side of tenanted premises across the fly over. The petitioner requested the respondent tenant to vacate the tenanted premises as the petitioner requires the same for establishing business of readymade garments for his son Sh. Aditya Gupta who is 25 years of age. At present, his son is going to Faridabad and is helping his uncle in his business and facing a lot of inconvenience while commuting to Delhi.
That the petitioner requires both the tenanted premises including the other tenanted shop forming part of the property No.WZ-1661, Nangal Raya, New Delhi for setting up business of ready made garments etc. for his son Sh. Aditya Gupta after making necessary changes and reconstructing the said two shops/premises in a big show room. That there are many big show rooms in the said market for which the petitioner would not have to take any extra efforts for getting clients.
That the tenanted premises under respondent are required bona fide by the petitioner for setting up business for his son Sh. Aditya Gupta. That the said shops are more suitable for carrying on the business as the residential house of the petitioner is on the rear side of the said shops. That the petitioner's son can easily go to his home from the shops. That he has no other suitable commercial accommodation to accommodate his son for carrying his business independently and earn livelihood. That the son Sh. Aditya is totally dependent upon the petitioner.
ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 2/21Lastly, petitioner prays that an order of eviction of the respondent/tenant from the tenanted premises be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent/tenant.
Notice of the eviction petition was sent to the respondent. In response to which, the respondent filed his detailed leave to defend application which was allowed by my Ld. Predecessor and the respondent was given an opportunity to file W.S.
3. In the Written Statement, the respondent has contended that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant viz-a-viz petitioner and the respondent. That there is no entity or firm by the name of respndent. The same was neither formed nor was ever in existence. That petitioner has many vacant commercial properties available to him in the vicinity belonging to him and/or his wife. That no firm by the name of M/s Babulal Ghanshyam Dass having two partners namely Sh. Babu Lal and Sh. Ghanshyam Dass ever existed or ever came into being.
That tenancy was created by the father of the petitioner Sh. Suraj Bhan jointly in favour of two brothers. It is wrong, incorrect and denied that the petitioner has ever carried on any property business from the shop WZ-287, Nangal Raya which is located just opposite to the tenanted premises. The above shop is lying vacant. There was no signboard displayed or fixed in front of the shop WZ-287, Nangal Raya. After 15.12.2011 the date of filing of the petition on 06.04.2012 at 6.30 p.m., the petitioner has fixed the signboard and Sh. Manoj Kumar took photographs of fixing the board and filed the same before this court. That Sh. Aditya Gupta is permanently settled in business and admitted by the petitioner that he is assisting his uncle in Faridabad in his business. The petitioner also has commercial ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 3/21 property at A-89-90, Gali No.3, Dashrathpuri, Palam Road, New Delhi which is a corner property. That the petitioner also has vacant commercial property on ground floor and first floor bearing no.WZ-1409, Nangal Raya, New Delhi which was initially with the petitioner and lying vacant and has been recently rented out creating self scarcity after the date of filing of petition. That the petiioner has not shown the address/place actual capacity or occupation where his son does business nor has he disclosed name, style, address, status where his son is gainfully employed or other properties owned and possessed by his son/himself/ his wife which are reasonably suitable. That Sh. Aditya Gupta is also the owner of Adroit Auto Tech Private Ltd. having registered office at WZ-287, Nangal Raya, New Delhi which is a property owned by Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta/the petitioner. Even the residential address of Ms. Archana Gupta who is Managing Director is the residential address of the petitioner. The above company is engaged in Steel Metal components and is doing busines from Basai Enclave behind Shrinagar Gas Godown, Gurgaon admeasuring 2000 sq.yds. And it is owned by Sh. Aditya Gupta. Sh. Aditya Gupta is associated with his uncle Sh. Dev Dutt for the last 11 years as a senior and experienced industrialist in the line of sheet body parts of vehicles and carrying on the business under the trade name of "Rajdhani Industrial Corporation".
4. Replication was filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respnodent wherein the petitioner has refuted the stand of the respondent and reaffirmed his orignal stand as well as the petitioner has clarified the stand taken by him. In his ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 4/21 replication, the petitioner has reasserted his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.
5. Thereafter, after completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for Petitioner Evidence/P.E. Petitioner examined himself.
Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta/petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and relied upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2. PW-1 was cross-examined at length.
6. Evidence was led by the respondent who examined himself as RW-1 being only witness. Respondent/RW-1 was also cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Thereafter, Respondent's evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments at length advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and also gone through the entire record and case law relied upon.
8. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 5/21 him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i)There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii)Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii)That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv)Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
9. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 6/21i) & ii). LANDLORDSHIP/OWNERSHIP:-
10. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner is claiming that he is owner and landlord of the property bearing No. WZ-1661, Nangal Raya, Delhi wherein the tenanted premises is situated.
On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that no such entity or firm exists or existed by the name of M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass and the tenanted premises was let out to two individuals i.e. Sh. Babu Lal and Sh. Ghan Shaym.
As such, perusal of the record shows that the respondent has admitted that he is the tenant in the tenanted premises but he has asserted that the tenanted premises was let out to individuals and not to the firm. Perusal of record further shows that the respondent has admitted that the tenancy was created by the father of the petitioner Sh. Suraj Bhan in favour of two brothers i.e. Sh. Babu Lal and Sh. Ghanshyam Dass.
I have perused the testimonies of all the witnesses and material on record.
In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162 a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 7/21 proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & ors 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: -
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
The RW-1/respondent has inter-alia deposed during his cross examination that:-
"Sh. Suraj Bhan had let out the tenanted shop to me in the year 1966.
At this stage, the witness is shown the court file and asked whether the rent receipt Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly.) are issued to you by the petitioner.
The witness replied that the said rent receipt has been issued to me by the petitioner with regard to the tenanted premises. It is also correct that the rent receipts Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly.) bears my signatures at point A on each receipt. It is correct that rent receipts were issued in the name of Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass. It is correct that there are two shops in the building where the tenanted shop is situated."
Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has been able to prove that he is a landlord and owner of the tenanted premises. It is well settled proposition of the law that the petitioner need not prove his ownership in the absolute term. It is sufficient for the petitioner if he is able to prove that he is something more than the respondent/tenant.
ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 8/2111. In my view, the petitioner has been able to prove that he is something more than the respondent. Moreover, the respondent has also admitted that the was paying rent to the petitioner.
As such, ingredients in respect of landlordship and ownership are satisfied.
(iii) & (iv). BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT/ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION:
12. It is expedient to discuss some case law on these ingredients which are as under:-
In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
In case titled as "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta"
[2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi)], it has been held that the ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 9/21 children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one.
In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come."
In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 10/21 Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
The moral duty of a father/mother to help establish his/her son/daughter was also recognized by the Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal" [AIR 2002 SC 2256] in the following words:
"24........Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter- relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
13. Record shows that the petitioner has sought the tenanted premises for bonafide commercial requirement of his son Sh. Aditya Gupta and has claimed that he does not have any ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 11/21 alternative suitable commercial accommodation to accommodate his son for carrying his business independently.
On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his son and the son of the petitioner Sh. Aditya Gupta is well settled and earning a handsome salary and the petitioner is having a number of alternative accommodation.
14. I have carefully perused the testimonies of all the witnesses and material on record. I have also gone through the case law relied upon.
15. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has disclosed a number of properties claimed to be owned by the petitioner or his family.
I have also gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses on record.
RW-1/respondent has inter-alia deposed as under:-
"It is correct that the rent receipts were issued in the name of Babu Lal Ghan Shyam Dass. It is correct that there are two shops in the building where the tenanted shop is situated. The other shop is adjacent to my shop. It is correct that the petitioner is residing in the rear side of the building in which the tenanted premises is situated since the very beginning. The tenanted shop is facing the Janak Setu Fly Over.
It is correct that in the market in which the tenanted shop is situated, at the back there is a dense residential population of Nangal Raya, Bhup Singh Basti, Padam basti, Ram chander basti, Braham Puri, Tulsi Ram Baghichi, Ambedkar Basti, Lajwanti Garden upto Pankha Road, entire ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 12/21 Sagarpur area belt as well as part of Janak Puri D- Block and other apartments flats. It is correct that the tenanted shop is in the main market of Nangal Raya. It is correct that the tenanted shop falls on commercial road. It is correct that the area in which the tenanted shop is situated is a busy market and very much footfall of the people.
It is correct that the petitioner is working as a property dealer from the premises No. WZ-287, Nangal Raya. It is correct that the petitioner is running a shop namely R.K. Properties from the premises no. WZ-287, Nangal Raya. It is correct that the only the ground floor of the above said premises is commercial and the rest of the floor is residential. It is correct that the abovesaid premises is opposite to the tenanted shop. However, a flyover is to be passed to reach the said premises from the tenanted premises. It is correct that there is a cremation ground behind the premises No. WZ-287, Nangal Raya. (Vol. The distance between the premises No. WZ-287, Nangal Raya and cremation is around 15-20 feet)....
I am not aware whether the property No. WZ- 289, Nangal Raya is in the name of the wife of the petitioner. It is correct that the property No. WZ-289, Nangal Raya was let out to M/s Just In. It is correct that abovesaid property is also exists on the opposite side of the tenanted shop. The above said property is vacant now a days. I do not know that when the above said premises was let out to the M/s Just In by the petitioner.
At this stage, the witness is shown the document i.e. Mark-X is shown to the witness and asked that is it correct that the above said premises is let out to M/s Just in by the wife of the petitioner vide ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 13/21 registered lease deed dated 10.02.2010 for a period of 9 years to which the witness replies in affirmative.
It is correct that the property bearing no.911, Khazan Basti, opposite Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi is a junk/scrap market. It is correct that the entire market is of junk and scrap dealers. It is correct that the shop bearing no.911, Khazan Basti can not be used for any other purpose other than scrap/junk dealing. I have not visited the premises bearing no.911, Khazan Basti and therefore I can not tell whether the premises exist on a open area and there is hardly 15' vide passage. I am not aware of the dimensions of the above said premises. I am also not aware of the contents of my affidavit of para no.16 clause 2 which is mark as Mark X to X-1. I am not willing or ready to work in the above said premises even if the petitioner is ready to give me the same on rent for running my business/shop.
It is correct that the property bearing no.89-90, Gali No.3, Dashrath Puri, Palam Road, New Delhi falls in a residential locality. I am not aware of the fact that whether the above said property as lies in a residential locality therefore no commercial work is carried out in the said locality....
It is correct that the property bearing no.WZ-1409, Nangal Rai is situated in a residential area....
I am not aware that whether the property bearing no.H-3/54, Bengali Colony behind Sulab International is residential in nature and also lies in a residential colony. I am not aware that till which floor the property has been constructed....
I have seen/visited the property no.WZ-346/F, Nangal Rai, N.D.-46. The property is constructed ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 14/21 upto 4th Floor. Vol. The same was given on tenancy by the petitioner. I can not tell to the court as whether there any commercial activity running near the property no.WZ-346/F, Nangal Rai, N.D....
I am not ready and willing to shift my tenancy in the premises no.WZ-346/F even if the petitioner is ready to give me the same on rent...
It is correct that there is salvage park behind the premises no.WZ-287 and WZ-289, Nangal Rai. The salvage park covers the area in the rear portion of the property no. WZ-287 and WZ-289, Nangal Rai upto 8 to 9 kilometers....
It is correct that there is a number of show rooms in the lane where the tenanted shop exist in the name of Goyal Sons, L.N Square, Goyal Handloom etc...
I am not ready and willing to work in the property no. WZ-287 Nangal Rai even if the petitioner is ready to give me the same on rent. I do not want to shift there because I am running the tenanted shop from the last so many years....
It is correct that the rent receipts was given in the name of Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass. Only the receipt was given in the name of Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass but I am working in the name of Modi General Store since beginning. It is correct that I am working in the tenanted premises in the name of Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass....
It is correct that the shops shown in the document/photo Ex.RW1/P1 and at point A & B is having the board of to let. It is around one kilometer away from the premises no.WZ-289 and WZ-287. It is correct that the photographs Ex.RW1/P2 is the photographs of the premises no.WZ-289 & WZ-287, Nangal Rai shown at point A and B respectively...ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 15/21
It is correct that the son of the petitioner is not having any property in his name and the properties is in the name of the petitioner and her wife. The son of the petitioner is only doing a private job. I am not aware of any property mentioned in the para no.12 of my affidavit by way of evidence at point A to A1. I do not know about any property in Village Mohammad Pur, near Shani Mandir, Gurgaon as stated by me in my affidavit. I can not tell right now any particulars of the same as who is the owner of the property of the said property and what is the measurement of the same....
I do not know regarding any 'Quality Equipments' at 16/5, Kharkhanna plot no.14, Mathura Road, Haryana. The same is not in my knowledge as there is no such firm with the name of "Quality Equipments"....
It is correct that this petition has been filed for the bonafide need of the petitioner but I will not vacant the same. I am not aware of the fact that the petitioner wants to open for ready-made garment show room in the tenanted premises along with the adjacent shop....
It is correct that the son of the petitioner namely, Sh. Aditya Gupta resides with the petitioner in the rear portion of the tenanted premises..."
16. I have carefully and minutely gone through the testimony of RW-1 and other witnesses on record. Perusal of the record shows that the respondent has claimed that the petitioner is having number of properties with him and there is no bonafide requirement for his son Sh. Aditya Gupta but perusal of testimony of respondent/RW-1 shows that all the properties as alleged by the respondent are either residential properties or ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 16/21 non suitable properties for the purposes of starting ready made garment business.
It is well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of the property should be available to the petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. The property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be reasonably suitable property. If the petitioner/landlord has filed the eviction petition for commercial bonafide requirement but the property available with the petitioner is residential one, it cannot be said that the petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation.
It is well settled whether the property available with the petitioner is convenient and suitable or not is to be determined from the point of view of the petitioner/landlord and not from the point of view of the tenant/respondent. The respondent/tenant cannot dictate the terms to the petitioner to use the property in the particular manner. The petitioner/landlord is the best judge of his requirement.
As such in my view, the petitioner is not having the alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with him which can be utilized for starting the ready made garments business by his son Sh. Aditya Gupta.
One of the contentions of the respondent is that the son of the petitioner Sh. Aditya Gupta is already working and having a handsome salary.
In case titled as "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta"
[2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi)], it has been held that the children are very much dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one.ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 17/21
In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 wherein it was held that:-
"It will be seen that the trial court and the appellate court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement"
to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity". According to them, if the plaintiff had not permanently lost his job on account of the lockout or if he had not resigned his job, he could not be treated as a person without any means of livelihood, as contended by him and hence not entitled to an order for possession of the shop. This test, in our view, is not the proper test. A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. The manner in which the courts have gone into the meaning of "lockout" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 appears to us to be nothing but a perverse approach to the problem. One cannot imagine that a landlord who is in service should first resign his job and wait for the unknown and uncertain result of a long-drawn litigation. If he resigned his job, he might indeed end up in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the long-drawn litigation he started some other temporary water business to sustain himself, that would not be an indication that the need for establishing a grocery shop was not a bona fide or a reasonable requirement or that it was motivated or was a mere design to evict the tenant".
In the case titled as Ram Babu Agarwal vs. Jay kishan Das 2009(2) RCR 455, the Apex Court observed as under:-
"However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 18/21 helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also."
In the case titled as Lajpat Rai Vs Raman Jain 2012 Law suit (Del) 1439, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court as under:-
"The facts have been disclosed by the petitioner himself in the eviction petition; the petitioner also being a commerce graduate from the Shri Ram College of Commerce seeks an independent business of his own; thus this need to set up a business of his own cannot be in any manner be said to be imaginative or a need which is moonshine; it is a genuine need; the present petitioner having inherited this shop from his grandmother by virtue of the aforenoted Will wishes to set up his own business of rubber and latex which he was earlier carrying on with his father and in which he has gained expertise and knowledge. Thus in no manner can it be said that this need of the landlord is not a bonafide need. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement; it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to him; neither the Court tell him the manner he wishes to set up his business."
17. In my view, this contention of the respondent that the son of the respondent is already working and is gainfully employed, does not have any merit as the son of the petitioner is not supposed to wait the disposal of the present eviction petition and is not required to sit idle merely to show the bonafide requirement. In my view, everyone has a right, as well as duty to work for himself/herself and for the family members dependent on them. It is well settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments of Hon'ble superior courts that bonafide ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 19/21 requirement of a person does not become malafide merely because he/she is working somewhere. As far as dependency of the son of the petitioner is concerned, the children of a person are always dependent upon their parents. Moreover, in my view everyone has a right to excel in his/her life. A person is not supposed to be stagnated in the same position and status in the entire life, otherwise there will be monotony in the life. It is also on record that the son of the petitioner is residing in the same premises where is tenanted premises is situated. As such, it is not the case of the respondent that he will not be able to commute easily to tenanted premises to run the business of ready made garments at tenanted premises.
As such, these two ingredients in respect of bonafide requirement and non-availability of alternative reasonably suitable accommodation are also satisfied.
CONCLUSION:-
18. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled proposition of law and the reasons as discussed earlier, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has proved all the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. Consequently, the present eviction petition is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of one shop measuring 13' x 20' forming part of property bearing no. WZ-1661, Nangal Raya, New Delhi as shown red in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1.
ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 20/2119. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 18th December, 2018 AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY NAGAR (This judgment contains 21 pages) NAGAR Date: 2018.12.18 16:29:39 +0530 (Ajay Nagar) Commercial Civil Judge-Cum Additional Rent Controller, West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No.26159/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass Page 21/21