Delhi District Court
Dr. Gopal K. Gupta E131/08 vs Shashi Kapoor on 14 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SANDEEP YADAV, Sr. CIVIL JUDGE cum RENT
CONTROLLER (SOUTH), SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Dr. Gopal K. Gupta E131/08
S/o. Late Sh. R.B. Gupta
R/o. E6A, Hauz Khan
New Delhi ..... Petitioner
Vs.
Shashi Kapoor
S/o. Sh. R.C. Kapoor
E6A, Hauz Khas Main Market
New Delhi
Also at :
S384 Panchshila Park
New Delhi ..... Respondent
Petition u/s. 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act
(a) Date of institution : 17.07.08
(b) Date when judgment reserved : 13.12.11
(c) Date of Judgment : 14.12.11
JUDGMENT
The eviction petition filed by Dr. Gopal K. Gupta u/s. 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent Shashi Kapoor, is being taken up for disposal. The case of petitioner in a nutshell is as under : 02403C0979052008 1/21
1. Petitioner is the owner and landlord of one shop bearing no. 2 situated on the Ground Floor in property bearing no. E6A and the mezzanine above it, Hauz Khas Main Market, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the demised property"). Respondent was inducted as a tenant in the demised property in the year 1988. The rate of rent payable by the respondent is Rs. 440/ per month exclusive of electricity and water charges. The property bearing no. E6A Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi, was owned by the father of petitioner Lt Sh.
R.P. Gupta who expired on 15.12.1977. After his death mother of petitioner namely Smt. Manorma Gupta let out the demised property to the respondent in the year 1988. Mother of petitioner also died on 07.11.97 living behind the petitioner and his other brothers and sisters as legal heirs who succeeded to the demised property. Petitioner is thus one of the coowners of demised property. After the death of the mother of petitioner, respondent has been treating the petitioner has his landlord by paying rent to him. However, other co owners do not have any objection to the filing of the present eviction petition against the respondent. Petitioner is in possession of whole of the property bearing no. E6A Haus Khas Market, New Delhi, except the demised property. Petitioner is a medical practitioner having done his MBBS from Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi and MD in Radiology from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. Petitioner is having his residence on the mezzanine floor, first floor and barsati floor of property bearing no. E6A, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi and he is 02403C0979052008 2/21 running his clinic under the name "Ultra Sound cum Xray clinic" from ground floor, part of mezzanine floor of the property bearing no. E6A, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi since 1994. In the rest of mezzanine floor, petitioner is having his drawing cum dinning room and a toilet for the guests. The ground floor of the property consists of two rooms privately numbered as 1 and 2 and the area behind these shops. The ground floor of the property is meant for shop/commercial purposes and the upper floors are meant for residence and storage purpose etc. The space which is presently available with the petitioner for running his clinic is highly insufficient and the petitioner requires additional space for the same. Petitioner has installed two machines, one xray machine and one ultrasound machine and has hired two employees one of whom is receptionist and another is technician. In front of shop no. 1 , petitioner is having small covered varandah which is being used as reception which can accommodate only a table and chair of receptionist and one bench where 23 patients or their relatives can sit. Just behind the reception, there is one small room which is being used by the petitioner as waiting room having the capacity to accommodate six patients and their relatives. Behind the waiting room, petitioner is having small passage which leads to the ultrasound room. There is a toilet which opens in the ultrasound room. Petitioner has installed xray machine in another room. Petitioner has put one small table in the passage leading from one room to the ultrasound room and it is the only area where petitioner examines the reports and discusses 02403C0979052008 3/21 the patient's problem and their reports. Petitioner does not have doctor's cabin in his clinic due to lack of space. Petitioner is not having any privacy for himself and or for patient's while discussing the case. Petitioner thus urgently needs an independent doctor's cabin. During the clinic timing, there are 1520 persons including patients and their relatives present in the clinic. However, the clinic of petitioner can accommodate only nine persons at a given time and hence most of the patients have to stand outside the clinic on the main road. There is only one small toilet in the whole of the clinic of petitioner which is situated in the ultrasound room. The access to the toilet is through the ultrasound room and the use of the toilet thus renders the clinic unhygienic and causes inconvenience to patients. Petitioner requires one toilet which can be used exclusively for patients and their relatives. With the advancement of technology it has become imperative for the petitioner to install a Digital System which is more modern system than the conventional xray machine. The Digital System can be attached to the present xray machine. Few xray clinics in the vicinity have already installed the Digital System and these days doctors and specialists prefer only those reports which are given after examination on digital system. Hence, the petitioner is left with no option but to install the same in his clinic. The installation of Digital System will itself require space of 6 x 10 ft and due to present lack of space the petitioner has not been able to install the Digital System resulting in loss of practice to the petitioner. Petitioner is in need of two more 02403C0979052008 4/21 employees i.,e, one nurse and one typist but he has not been able to hire these employees because of lack of space. Petitioner is also planning to install a High Speed Dual CT System for which he has already asked for the estimates from the reputed company. Again it is not possible for the petitioner to install the Digital System on account of paucity of space. Thus petitioner has been compelled to work in a congested space and on the conventional machines. Practice of petitioner is diminishing day by day as the other xray and ultrasound clinics in the vicinity are offering all facilities to the patients. Petitioner thus sought the eviction of respondent from the demised property on the ground of bona fide requirement.
2. Respondent filed written statement and vehemently opposed the eviction petition. The averments and defence put forth by the respondent in the written statement are as under :
3. The space already available to the petitioner in the property bearing no. E6A, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi, has not been correctly disclosed in the petition. The judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213, is not applicable to the facts of the present case and the eviction petition filed for eviction of tenant from the premises which were let out for commercial purposes is not maintainable u/s. 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Petitioner is having sufficient accommodation for running his clinic. The property comprising of ground floor, mezzanine floor, first floor and second 02403C0979052008 5/21 floor having covered area of 3960 sq. ft. is commercial in nature out of which respondent is in possession of 6.8 % of the entire covered area. Petitioner has deliberately omitted to state the detail of machines, cost of same, his financial capacity to purchase the machines and the space that shall be required to accommodate such machine in his clinic. The nature of profession of petition is such that patients will come randomly and not at one time. The space presently available with the petitioner is sufficient to accommodate 56 patients at one time which is more than the expected number of patients who may visit the ultrasound clinic at a time. The premises bearing no. E6A, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi, of which the demised property forms part, falls in local shopping centre in Zone E, South Delhi and per the provision of master plan 2001 and approved zonal plan of Zone F, commercial activities are allowed on all floors except basement. Even if, petitioner makes his doctor's cabin and typist cabin and dark room on mezzanine, he can expand his business and have ample sufficient space to run his business. It is the admitted fact that petitioner was also doing his business from mezzanine floor as back portion of ground floor was in possession of another tenant and same has been recently vacated. Petitioner has concealed from the Court that he is the owner of property no. 83, Krishna Part, Khanpur, New Delhi which was purchased by the petitioner in September 1993 along with his wife. Petitioner is not only the owner of demised property and respondent is treating the petitioner as one of the landlords only for paying rent. Petition is liable to be 02403C0979052008 6/21 dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties i.e, brothers and sisters of petitioner who have relinquished their right in the demised property. Had the requirement of petitioner been bona fide , he could have shifted his residence as building is commercial in nature and living in a commercial building is not a wise step.
4. I have heard Mr. N.N. Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for petitioner as well as Mr. G. P. Theraja, Ld. Counsel for respondent at length. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. I have carefully perused the records particularly the evidence adduced by both parties. Ld. Counsel for respondent argued at length to emphasis that Satyawati Sharma judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213, whereby Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act has been partially struck down, is not binding on this Court and is not applicable to the facts of present case. Ld. Counsel for respondent in this regard relied upon the following judgments :
(i) (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 578 - P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka,
(ii) (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 683 - Divisonal Manager, Aravali Gold Club and Another Vs. Chander Hass and Another.
(iii) AIR 1992 Supreme Court 96 - Union of India and Another Vs. Deoki Nanda Aggarwal.
(iv) AIR 2006 Supreme Court 258 - State of Orissa and Ors Vs. Md.
Illiyas.
02403C0979052008 7/21
5. I am in disrespectful disagreement with Ld. Counsel for respondent. This Court being subordinate Court is bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Article 141 of Constitution of India lays down as " The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India "
6. Ld. Counsel for respondent next argued that even if it is held that the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213 is binding on this Court, same will not apply as the factual matrix of this case is different from the facts of Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2008 V AD (SC) 213, the premises which were residential in nature were let out for commercial purpose and therefore, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati will only apply in such situations. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that in the present case, the premises are commercial in nature and has been let out for commercial purposes and hence the facts are distinguishable and the ratio in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213, will not apply to the present case.
7. In Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213, in para 38 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 02403C0979052008 8/21 "Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and nonresidential purposes when the same are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any members of his family dependent on him and the restricts the latter's right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let out for residential purposes only".
Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in para 39 in the aforesaid judgment as under :
" However, the aforesaid declaration should not be misunderstood as total striking down of Section 14 (1)(e) of the 1958 Act because it is neither the pleaded case of the parties nor the learned Counsel argued that Section 14 (1)(e) is unconstitutional in its entirety and we feel that ends of justice will be met by striking down the discriminatory portion of Section 14 (1)(e) so that the remaining part thereof may read as under :
'that the premises are required bona fide 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.' "
02403C0979052008 9/21
8. Therefore, the present eviction petition which has been filed u/s. 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act as it stands after the judgment in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213, is maintainable. The purpose of letting has become irrelevant after the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213. Once the distinction between the premises let out for residential purposes and the premises let out for commercial purposes law was done away by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2008 V AD (SC) 213, the present eviction petition cannot be thrown away on the ground that essential ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act which still stands on the statute have not been fulfilled in the present case.
9. Therefore, after the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr 2008 V AD (SC) 213, the landlord has to prove the following ingredients for obtaining an order of eviction in a petition u/s. 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act.
(a) That he is the owner and landlord of the suit property.
(b) That he requires the premises bona fide for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him.
(c) That he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available with him.
02403C0979052008 10/21 Ownership
10. Petitioner claimed himself to be the owner and landlord of the demised property in the eviction petition. Respondent in the written statement stated that petitioner is not the only owner of the demised property and the respondent is treating the petitioner as one of the landlords only for paying rent. Respondent sought the dismissal of the eviction petition on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties viz. brothers and sisters of petitioner who have relinquished their right in the demised property.
11. Once the respondent admits the petitioner to be his landlord, he is estopped from denying the ownership of petitioner in view Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. It was held in a case reported at 65 (1997) DLT 313 D. Rani Puri Vs. Chanan Lal that the tenanted inducted by landlord is estopped and could not dispute the title of his landlord in view of the provisions of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act without their being any subsequent change in the situation. Legal proposition of law in this regard was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 614 - Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh.
12. Therefore the challenge to the ownership of petitioner is not tenable under the law. It is also a settled law that one of the coowners can file the eviction petition against a tenant. Therefore, there is no need for the petitioner to implead his brothers and sisters as parties in 02403C0979052008 11/21 the present eviction petition.
Bona fide requirement
13. Petitioner in the eviction petition as well as in his evidence by way of affidavit stated that he is Doctor by profession and is running his clinic by the name of Ultrasound and Xray Clinic from the ground floor of premises bearing no. E6A, Hauz Khas Market, New Delhi. Petitioner stated that he is also using mezzanine floor over the shop no. 1 for storage purposes, for keeping old clinic records and other goods related to the clinic. Petitioner deposed that he is having residence on the part of mezzanine, first floor, barsati floor of property bearing no. E6A, Haus Khas Market, New Delhi. In the rest of mezzanine floor, petitioner is having drawing room, toilet for guests. Petitioner categorically deposed that the mezzanine floor is not a fit place to be used by a doctor for running the practice of radiologist. Petitioner deposed that the space which is presently available to him for running his clinic is highly insufficient and petitioner require additional space. Requirement of space for hiring/employing additional employees and for installation of latest modern machines were reiterated in the evidence by way of affidavit of petitioner. Petitioner also deposed that the first floor, barsati floor and mezzanine floor is used for residence of petitioner and his family members and there is no space for using the same for clinic purposes.
14. Mr. G.P. Thareja, Ld. Counsel for respondent, submitted that the need of petitioner is not genuine. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted 02403C0979052008 12/21 that to ascertain whether the need of petitioner/landlord is bona fide or not, the mind of landlord/petitioner has to be seen. Ld. Counsel for respondent in this regard referred to para 4 of petition, receipt Ex. PW1/D2 and notice Ex. PW1/D6. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that in the notice/letter Ex. PW1/D6, petitioner has demanded the rent @ Rs. 4000/ which according to him shows that the intention of petitioner is to pressurize the respondent to increase the rate of rent. Respondent in his cross examination deposed that that market rate of the demised property when same was let out to him should have been between Rs. 6,000/ - Rs.7,000/ per month. It is, therefore, obvious that the demand of petitioner to increase the rate of rent to Rs. 4000/ per month was not an unjustified demand and same cannot give rise to an inference that the need of petitioner is not genuine. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that petitioner has alleged in para 16 of the petition that respondent has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the demised property to his brother Deepak Kapoor without oral or written consent of petitioner. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that there is no mention of subletting in the notice/letter Ex. PW1/D6 and the allegation of subletting was made by the petitioner only to mislead the Court.
15. Ld. Counsel for respondent also referred to the relevant para's of eviction petition wherein it is stated that respondent has not been paying the rent to the petitioner and has frivolously deposited rent in the Court of Ld. ARC. So far as the averments regarding non payment 02403C0979052008 13/21 of rent/deposit of rent in the Court are concerned, these are general allegations which are levelled by the respondent in such cases. It cannot be inferred from these allegations that the need of petitioner is not genuine. Omission on the part of petitioner to mention subletting in the notice/letter Ex. PW1/D6 will not create any doubt about the bona fide need of petitioner qua the demised property. The position would have been different had the eviction petition been filed under section 14(1)
(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of subletting.
16. Ld. Counsel for respondent referred to the cross examination of petitioner wherein petitioner has deposed that xray machine has already been installed in the year 2010. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that after installation of xray machine, there is no need of any more space. Petitioner is seeking more space for installation of Digital System which can be attached to the present xray machine. Petitioner has also deposed that he is planning to install High Speed Dual CT System in his clinic. Therefore, the need of petitioner does not get wiped out on the installation of xray machine in the year 2010. Petitioner will need space for installation of Digital System and High Speed Dual CT System. A person in medical profession has to keep pace with the latest development in technology as applicable in medical science otherwise he will not survive in his profession in this age of stiff competition. Therefore, when the petitioner says that he needs the demised property so that he can install the Digital System and High Speed Dual CT System which is required for the advancement of his 02403C0979052008 14/21 profession, the requirement of petitioner qua the demised property cannot be said to be unreal, mala fide or fanciful. In AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100 - Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. In this case it was further held that it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is 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.
17. The next contention of respondent is that the mezzanine floor is being used by the petitioner for running his clinic. Respondent has stated that before the ground floor was vacated by other tenant, petitioner was running his clinic from the mezzanine floor and therefore, the petitioner can still use mezzanine floor for running his clinic. With a view to emphasis this point Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that there are staircases leading to mezzanine floor from inside which only goes to show that mezzanine floor is being used by the petitioner for clinic purposes.
18. Mezzanine floor is not as convenient a place to run a clinic as is ground floor. A tenant cannot ask the landlord to run his clinic from the mezzanine floor or use any part of mezzanine floor for meeting the 02403C0979052008 15/21 requirement of his medical profession. It is a common knowledge that clinic which is being used from the ground floor will attract more patients then a clinic being run from mezzanine floor. Reference in this regard can be made to a judgment reported at 2007 (2) RCR 6, Suresh Kumar Kothari Vs. Dr. T. Ramachandra & Anr. In this case the requirement of petitioner/landlord that the premises required for establishing Traume Care Unit and opening of ICU was held to be bona fide. In another case reported at 174 (2010) DLT 328 - Viran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar that any business which is being run from the ground floor of the premises, will obviously attract more customers than the business being run from the basement. It was further held that a tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner the landlord should use his own property.
19. Coming to the employees of petitioner, two employees i.e, receptionist and technician, are stated to have been employed by the petitioner. Petitioner deposed that he needs two more employees i.e, one nurse to assist him in the ultrasound room and a typist who can prepare reports. Ld. Counsel for respondent referred to the cross examination of petitioner wherein there is no mention of any receptionist and typist. Ld. Counsel for respondent also submitted that on the one hand, petitioner says that his practice is diminishing and on the other hand petitioner has come out with a case that he needs to employ two additional employees. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that these 02403C0979052008 16/21 contradictory claims show that the need of petitioner is not bona fide. Petitioner in his cross examination deposed that his receptionist left the job on 01.12.04. However, this does not mean that the petitioner does not need receptionist for his clinic. Additional employees may be needed to conduct medical profession in a more efficient manner and therefore, it is not necessary that in a case of diminishing practice, a doctor does not need additional employees.
20. Another contention of respondent was that property bearing no.
E6A, Haus Khas Market, New Delhi, is located in a local shopping center and the entire property can be used for commercial purposes.
21. This contention of respondent can not be accepted. Respondent has not come out with the case that petitioner is having any other property wherein he can reside with his family. Therefore, the petitioner has no option but to reside on the mezzanine floor, first floor and barsati floor of the property and the tenant cannot ask the petitioner to squeeze himself in a portion of the property. In 1999 RLR (SC) 417 Shiv Swarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand, it was held that if the landlord is professional (like Doctor), then he would need one or more rooms for clinic and consultation with patients. It was further held that if the landlord wishes to live with comfort in his own house then the law does not compel him to squeeze tightly in present premises to protect tenant's occupancy
22. In the written statement respondent has detailed the space that will be required for installation of Digital System and High Speed Dual 02403C0979052008 17/21 CT System, ultrasound machine, doctor's room, typist & nurse room, toilet and a dark room. A tenant cannot calculate and assess the area which is required or which will be required by the petitioner in his medical profession. Tenant may have the knowledge of the area required for running his business but he cannot estimate the area/space which may be required by the petitioner. Bona fide need is to be judged form the point of view of landlord and not from the point of view of tenant. In 1999 RLR (SC) 417 Shiv Swaroop Vs . Dr. Mahesh Gupta , The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "What is a bona fide requirement is not defined in the Act. The words 'need' and 'require' both denote a certain degree of want with a thrust within demanding; fulfillment. 'Need' or 'requirement' qualified by word 'bona fide' or 'genuine' proceedings as an adjective is an expression often used in Rent Control Laws' Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in this case that judge of the facts should place himself in the armchair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. In the case in hand, after considering the evidence led by both parties, the Court finds the need of landlord is natural, real, sincere and honest.
Alternative Accommodation
23. Respondent has come out with a plea that petitioner is the owner of property no. 83, Krishna Park, Khanpur, New Delhi, which was 02403C0979052008 18/21 purchased by the petitioner in September 1993 along with his wife. Ld. Counsel for respondent forcibly argued that petitioner has deliberately not disclosed this property in the eviction property and in the reply to leave to defend application. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that this property was disclosed by the petitioner for the first time in the replication. Non disclosure of property at 83, Krishna Park, Khanpur, New Delhi, on the part of petitioner is not such a material concealment as will non suit the petitioner. Petitioner stated in the replication that from the property at 83, Krishna Park, Khanpur, New Delhi, only the wife of petitioner who is a registered medical practitioner, is running her gynae clinic. Petitioner stated that he has nothing to do with the same as he occasionally visits the clinic of his wife to do ultrasound of patients of his wife.
24. Mr. N.N. Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for petitioner referred to the specific words occurring in Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act and submitted that there is no averment in the written statement that petitioner has more reasonably suitable accommodation than the demised property. Ld. Counsel for petitioner further submitted that even in the cross examination of PW 1 no suggestion was put to him that the property at 83, Krishna Park, Khanpur, New Delhi, is a reasonably suitable accommodation for the petitioner. I find substance in the contention of Ld. Counsel for petitioner. The crucial words occurring in Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act are that 'landlord or such other person has no other reasonably suitable 02403C0979052008 19/21 accommodation'. Respondent neither in the evidence nor in the pleading has stated that property at 83, Krishna Park, Khanpur, New Delhi, is reasonably suitable accommodation or that it will be more conducive for the practice of petitioner than the demised property. In fact a suggestion was put to the respondent for cross examination to the effect that the locality in which the property at 83, Krishna Park, Khanpur, New Delhi is situated is an unauthorised colony. Respondent deposed that he cannot say whether the said property is located in an unauthorised colony. Therefore, even the respondent is not sure whether the property, which according to the respondent is an alternative accommodation for the petitioner, is located in an authorised or unauthorised colony. Ld. Counsel for petitioner further submitted that it has come in the evidence that patients from Khanpur are coming to the clinic of petitioner located at Hauz Khas which shows that petitioner is not doing any practice at 83, Krishna Park, Khapur, New Delhi. Ld. Counsel for petitioner referred to the document Ex. PW1/D1. This submission is found to be convincing as no patient from Khanpur would find it convenient to visit petitioner's clinic at Hauz Khas, if he can get the service of petitioner at Khanpur. Hence, it stands proved on record that the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation than the demised property. Petitioner has proved all the essential ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
25. Accordingly, the petition filed by Dr. Gopal K. Gupta u/s. 14 (1) 02403C0979052008 20/21
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent Shashi Kapoor is held to be successful and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner Dr. Gopal K. Gupta and against the respondent Shashi Kapoor, with respect to the demised property i.e, one shop bearing no. 2 situated on the Ground Floor in property bearing no. E6A and the mezzanine above it, Hauz Khas Main Market, New Delhi, more particularly shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the petition. However, this eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six month from the date of the order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANDEEP YADAV)
on 14.12.11 Sr. CIVIL JUDGE cum RENT
CONTROLLER (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
02403C0979052008 21/21