Delhi District Court
Sh. Balwant Kumar Khosla vs (1)M/S Textile Emporium on 31 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA LD. ACJ,ARC,CCJ: PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
E NO. 28/13
UID No. 02403C0085622012
Sh. Balwant Kumar Khosla
S/o. Late Sh. Sohan Lal Khosla,
26, Bungalow Road,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi ............Petitioner
Vs.
(1)M/s Textile Emporium
K39, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi.
Second Address
Shop No. 4, BlockM,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
(2)Sh. H.S. Singhal
(3)Sh. Om Prakash Singhal
(4)Mr. Anand Prakash Singhal
(5)Mr. Viney Kumar Singhal
(6)Mr. Anshul Singhal
No. 2 to 6 are partners of
M/s. Textile Emporium
K39, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi
Second Address
Shop No. 4, BlockM,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi. ...........Respondents.
E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 1
Date of Institution of the petition : 21.12.2012 Date on which Judgment was reserved : 12.01.2015 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 31.01.2015 Cases referred:
1) Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 2008(5) SCC 287.
2) Aggarwal Papers Vs. Mukesh Kumar(deceased) through LR's 194 DLT 605..
3) Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand, 21 (1982) DLT 378.
4) Inderjeet Kaur V. Nirpal Singh, VII(2001) SLT 602=(2001) 1 SCC 706.
ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND, FILED BY RESPONDENTS
1. Vide this order I will decide an application of respondents for leave to defend present eviction petition filed by petitioner Sh. Balwant Kumar Khosla. For appreciating the rival contentions, it is worthwhile to mention here the facts, based on which petitioner claimed that he has bonafide requirement, to occupy shop no. 4, Block - M, Connaught Circus, New Delhi(hereinafter shop in question), said facts are mentioned in brief below;
That petitioner Balwant Kumar Khosla is the landlord of shop in question. That the shop in question was initially let out to M/s Textile Emporium ( hereinafter respondent no. 1) by previous owner vide lease deed dated 30.05.1980. Petitioner purchased the shop in question from previous owner and subsequently, respondent no. 1 started paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1757.86 paisa/ ( inclusive of water charges) to the petitioner. That shop in question is a non residential property which is being used for the business of retail garment and other ladies wear. That Sh. H. S. Singhal (respondent no. E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 2
2), Sh. Om Prakash Singhal (hereinafter respondent no. 3), Sh. Anand Singhal (hereinafter respondent no. 4), Sh. Vinay Kumar Singhal (hereinafter respondent no. 5) and Sh. Anshul Singhal (hereinafter respondent no. 6) are partners in respondent no. 1 Firm. That shop in question is required by the petitioner for his occupation so that he can run a shop for himself and for his daughter namely Smt. Vani Kumra who is dependent on petitioner for accommodation, for running her business. That Smt. Vani Kumra is presently running an export business alongwith her husband Sh. Sumeer Kumra for the last more than five years and is doing the export business of ladies garments. Presently she is operating from the factory built at B23, Hosiery Complex, Phase - 2, Noida under the name and style of Pinnacle Lodhi Company. That Smt. Vani Kumra is exporting Garments to foreign countries and her business has crossed Rs. 14 crores during the financial year of 201112. That Smt. Vani Kumra presently has no place for marketing of ladies garments in Delhi and for displaying of the said garments. Hence she urgently and bonafidely required for displaying ladies garments for marketing and outlet of ladies garments in Delhi. Shop in question is most ideally situated as it is located in best commercial place in Delhi, which meets out the bonafide need of Smt. Vani Kumra dependent of petitioner. Petitioner alleged that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for the said business in Delhi and hence preferred present eviction petition.
E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 3
2. In response to the aforesaid version of petitioner, respondent no. 1 & 5 preferred an application in question craving leave of this Court for contesting eviction petition. In the affidavit filed by respondent no. 5, in person and on behalf of respondent no. 1, following submissions were made, so that leave for contesting eviction petition, may be granted to the respondent.
(a) That law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case law of Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 2008(5) SCC 287 is not a good law for various reasons mentioned in the application.
(b) That petitioner wants to earn pugree from the shop in question, which is placed in a money fetching commercial area from New Delhi, as petitioner has ill design to relet/sale shop in question on huge prevailing prices.
(c) That petitioner has deliberately concealed the fact that premises bearing M5, Connaught Place, New Delhi comprising of ground and mezzanine, has been recently let out by him to one Company M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. w.e.f. 27.03.2012 just about nine months prior to filing of present eviction petition. Had there been any bonafide need of petitioner, he would not have let out the said premises to M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd and would have utilized the same for his own alleged bonafide need. Therefore the said factum of letting out aforesaid premises recently by petitioner indicates that he has no bonafide need with regard to premises in question.
E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 4
(d) That premises bearing no. M5, M6, M5/1, M64, M65, M105 and M106 all located in Connaught Place, New Delhi are vacant properties of petitioner which can be utilized by him for meeting out his alleged bonafide need. Apart from that petitioner also owns a huge commercial place at Mathura Road, New Delhi measuring about one lac Sq.ft which has been recently let out to various persons by petitioner.
(e) Petitioner has also recently let out property bearing Municipal no. M14, Okhla industrial area, New Delhi to DHL Ltd. which shows that he has no bonafide need.
(f) That daughter of petitioner has no bonafide need with regard to shop in question as she is well settled in business of export of garment and is well settled in her matrimonial home. She is not dependent on petitioner with regard to occupation of shop in question. As per Hindu Law daughter of petitioner is not a family member of petitioner and hence she is not dependent on family member in terms of Section 14(1) (e) DRC Act.
(g) That Smt Vani Kumra is not an active partner in the garments business, which is solely run by her husband Sh. Sumeer Kumra. same can be seen from the partnership deed of Sh. Sumeer Kumra and Smt. Vani Kumra.
E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 5
(h) That the photographs of premises where Smt. Vani Kumra is presently doing business indicate that they are huge premises. That, coupled with the fact that Smt. Vani Kumar is well settled in the business under the name and style of Ms Pinnacle Clothing Company which is being run since 2005 and is churning out business of crores of rupees only shows that the alleged business of Smt.Vani Kumra is not in loss, rather is a high profit bearing business. Therefore in the background of aforesaid facts requirement of Smt. Vani Kumra appears to be a case of additional accommodation, in which leave to defend may be granted.
(i) It is no where stated in the petition that neither Smt. Vani Kumra nor her husband Sh. Sumeer Kumra owns any other property in Delhi. As per respondents both of them owns various commercial properties in Delhi.
(j) Respondents challenged the ownership of the petitioner though admitted to him to be a their landlord.
(k) That Site Plan filed by petitioner is not correct and the correct Site Plan is filed by petitioner is annexure IV. There are various shortcomings in the Site Plan filed by petitioner which includes non proper description of portions of shop in question, E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 6 mentioning of passage to mezzanine which does not exist in reality, dispute with regard to stairs, improper measurement, non mentioning of mezzanine floor and non description of shops owned by petitioner, adjacent to the shop in question. (L) That present petition is malafidely filed by petitioner against Sh. H. S. Singhal, who has already expired on 10.11.1989 and regarding which petitioner has the knowledge since the very beginning. Further respondent no. 3 has expired on 26.11.1993 leaving behind various legal heirs on whom tenancy rights of respondent no. 3 have devolved. Death of respondent no. 3 is also with in the knowledge of petitioner but he has malafidely not mentioned the same in his petition.
(m) That after considering the contents of eviction petition which is not the contents of bonafide need of petitioner rather is desire to occupy premises in question which is being reflected.
(n) That petitioner wrongfully stated in his petition that liability of payment of House tax of shop in question is rests on respondent no. 1 as clause 3(c) of lease deed shows that it is the responsibility of petitioner to pay the said House Tax to the concerned authority.
(O) Respondents also disputed the legality of partnership E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 7 deed dated 20.09.2005 which is prepared by petitioner, for maintaining present petition.
(P) Lastly it is alleged that petitioner being an old aligning person who is not physically fit to do any business as alleged by him and therefore he has no bonafide need for running any business.
(q) Respondent no. 4 and 6 also filed their application for leave to contest present eviction petition, on the same lines, on which respondent no. 1 & 5, as mentioned above. Contents of said applications accompanied with affidavit are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. In response to the aforesaid version of respondents, petitioner filed his counter affidavit in which he refuted the version of respondents and asserted following averments, based on which he prayed that no leave to defend may be granted to the respondents for contesting present eviction petition.
3.1) That law laid down in Satyawati Sharma(Supra) is proper and is not applicable to the shop in question. Pleas raised by respondents while appreciating the judgement Satyawati case(Supra) cannot be appreciated by this Court as it is not the proper forum.
3.2) That premises bearing M5, Connaught Place, New Delhi had been let out to M/s. Bharti Airtel in the year 2000 E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 8 and not recently, as alleged by the respondents. It is the lease with the said company which was renewed on 27.03.2012 for further three years. Therefore it is not proper to say that the said premises were let out by petitioner, recently, without utilizing it for the alleged bonafide need. Apart from that shop in question is more positively situated as compare to premises in question M5, Connaught Place, New Delhi. 3.3) That bonafide need of petitioner and his daughter, has arisen because of the expansion of Export Business of his daughter.
3.4) That premises bearing No. M5, M6, M64, M65, M105, M106, Connaught Place, New Delhi are part of one building and different numbers are given to different portions on the said building mentioned above. Therefore petitioner has stated that he has no other commercial property in Delhi as aforesaid portions are part of one building only where shop in question is situated.
3.5) That aforesaid building in which aforesaid portions are present is owned by petitioner as lessee and as per the lease deed of L & DO office, ground floor of the said property has to be used for commercial use and all upper floors are used to be residential purposes. That petitioner has three tenants E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 9 on the upper floors namely Garg Associates, ACT Developers and Sapient Company, against whom petitioner as already filed three separate eviction petitions, which are pending adjudication. So the said properties are of no relevance for the alleged bonafide need of petitioner. Further shop in question is in Ground floor and is therefore more than feasible for being utilization for the bonafide need of petitioner. In this regard petitioner relied upon case law reported at 2010 (1) SCC 523.
3.6) So far as factory premises at Mohan Cooperative Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi measuring about 10000 sq. ft. each floor factory premises bearing Municipal No. B17 at Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseI, New Delhi are concerned, petitioner asserted that both the said properties are located at some distance from Connaught Place and are therefore not suitable for the business of display of Lady Garments. Further said premises are factories and not shops and are located in Industrial are which are no feasible from the commercial perspective. Apart from that petitioner has already let out the premises as the said premises are a property at Okhla Industrial Area. Property at Mathura Road, mentioned above is an Industrial Property, having no relevance with regard to the usage of petitioner. Petitioner clarified that he has only three shops on the ground floor of E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 10 M Block Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi which includes shop no. 5(under the tenancy of Bharti Airtel Limited), shop no. 6(under the tenancy of Basim Press) and shop no. 4 which is the shop in question. Petitioner further claimed that a tenant cannot dictate him as to which particular property he should choose for running his business and in this regard relied upon judgement reported in 157 (2008) DLT 690 and 1995 RLR 24.
3.7) Petitioner reasserted that his daughter is dependent on him and denied that under Hindu Law a married daughter does not remain family member of her parents.
3.8) Petitioner denied that his daughter and/or husband of his daughter have number of commercial properties in their names and therefore do not require the shop in question.
4. In response to the reply of petitioner, respondent no. 1 and 5 filed their rejoinder affidavit in which they refuted the version of petitioner and reasserted their own claim as mentioned in their leave to defend accompanying affidavit.
5. Before deciding the application in question, it is noteworthy to mention here the yardstick which should be borne in mind by the Court, while deciding such like allegations.
E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 11
6. The principals requiring considerations for grant of leave to defend application in the eviction petition have been laid down by the Hon'nble Supreme Court wayback in the year 1982 in the case of Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand, 21 (1982) DLT 378 and which have been reiterated in various judicial pronouncements and can be noted thus:
What should be the approach when leave to defend is sought for? There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that stage makes out such a strong case as would nonsuit the landlord, leave to defend is sought for, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action. At that stage of granting the leave parties rely in support of their rival contentions on affidavits and assertions and counterassertions on affidavits may not afford such incontrovertible evidence to lead to an affirmative conclusion one way or the other. Conceding that when possession is sought for on the ground of personal requirement, an absolute need is not to be satisfied but a mere desire equally is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire. And being an enabling provision, the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively."
It is also settled that the at the stage of granting leave to defend, the test that is applied is whether in the facts disclosed in the affidavit, filed seeking leave to defend, prima facie shows that the landlord would be dis entitled to obtain an eviction order and not, where at the end, the defence taken by the tenant may fail. If the application filed under Section 25B disclosed some substantial triable issues, then it would be grave injustice to brush them outrightly, without testing the veracity of the claims made by the tenant/applicant. The law in this regard is well settled in various pronouncements and reference can also be made to E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 12 Inderjeet Kaur V. Nirpal Singh, VII(2001) SLT 602=(2001) 1 SCC 706, wherein it was held as under:
" A landlord, who bona fidely requires a premises for his residence and occupation should not suffer for long waiting for eviction of a tenant. At the same time, a tenant cannot be thrown out from a premises summarily even though prima facie he is able to say that the claim of the lanlord is not bona fide or untenable and as such not entitled to obtain an order of eviction. Hence the approach has to be cautious and judicious in granting or refusing leave to defend to a tenant to contest an eviction petition within the board scheme of Chapter IIIA and in particular having regard to the clear terms and language of section 25B(5).
7. In Aggarwal Papers Vs. Mukesh Kumar(deceased) through LR's 194 DLT 605, it was observed by Hon'ble Justice M.L. Mehta that Though, I am conscious of the fact and to which, there is no dispute that the landlord is the best judge of his affairs and also choices, and the tenant cannot dictate as to how the landlord has to live and utilize his premise; but, at the same time, it is also settled principles of law in such cases that the mere wish or desire of the landlord or his decision to get the tenanted premises vacated is not the decisive factor. It is not that whatever he would say, in every case, would be taken to be s gospel truth. If that was so, then, on the mere asking of every landlord that he needs the premises for setting up an office for his or his family member's business and he is the judge and master of his decisions and choices, the statutory protection afforded to the tenant, would become meaningless. That is not the intent of the legislation. The applicability of above proposition is only after the landlord is able to demonstrate that his assertion of requirement of the tenanted premises is authentic and genuine. If he is able to show and demonstrate so, then certainly neither the tenant nor this Court could dictate terms upon him as to how and in what E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 13 manner he should utilize his premises. The projected requirement of the tenanted premises, based on his subjective decision, is required to be tested by the Court..............it is necessary to bear in mind that when leave to defend is refused the party seeking it is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments of the opposite party by cross examination and rival affidavits may not furnish reliable evidence for concluding the point one way or the other."
8. Therefore, in view of aforesaid observations of higher echelon of judiciary, it is clear that the Controller shall give to the tenant, leave to contest the application, if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession. If disputed question of facts are raised and their decision is necessary to grant relief to the landlord, then those questions should not be decided on affidavits and leave to contest should be granted. At the same time bare denial of facts by the tenant will not be sufficient. The tenant must give detailed facts substantiating the grounds taken by him.
9. Coming back to the facts of the present case, I find that petitioner requires the shop in question, so that he can utilize the same for her daughter, who in turn wants place for marketing ladies Garments in Delhi and as such she has no other place for displaying said garments. Admittedly, daughter of petitioner is married and is doing business of export of garments to foreign country, which was to the tune of Rs. 14 crores, in 20112012. Respondents primarily, have rested their case on the argument that petitioner is having vacant possession of premises bearing no. M5, M5/1, M6, M64, M65, M105 and M106, Connaught Place, New Delhi, in addition to premises Municipal No. 40, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi and a space of about 1 lac sq. ft, at Mohan Cooperative Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Petitioner has disputed the E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 14 availability and feasibility of the said properties, which are owned by him. Petitioner, in his reply to the leave to defend application, has categorically specified that none of the aforementioned shops are occupied by him rather are occupied by his tenants. So far as properties at Okhla Industrial Area and Mathura Road, mentioned above are concerned, he disputed the fact that said properties are feasible for his requirement. Considering the rival contentions, I find that appreciation of availability and feasibility of the aforesaid properties, cannot be decided at this stage, without evidence. More so, where petitioner has not specified details of the space, required by him, for display of garments business, to be done by his daughter. Petitioner, on the other hand had made a sweeping statement in his petition that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation, in his possession. He did not mention the fact that aforesaid properties are not available with him or cannot be utilized for some specified reasons, in his petition. He mentioned the same, only when he is confronted with availability of said properties, by the respondents in their application in question. So far as property at Mathura Road and at Okhla, is concerned, petitioner has alleged that said properties are not suitable for the display of ladies garments business, as they are factories and not shops. Availability of the said factories and their viability, cannot be appreciated and concluded in favour of petitioner just like that, without any evidence, at this stage.
10. So far as shops in block M, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, at ground floor, are concerned, there is evidently dispute with regard to availability of the said shops, firm which cannot be decided at this stage.
11. Petitioner alleged, in his reply to the version of respondent, that as per perpetual lease dated 13.08.1941, pertaining to block M, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 15 there is restriction, with regard to usage of said property, as residence, on first and second floor. Therefore, he cannot utilize the shops at first and second floor, for the purpose of business of his daughter. Said argument, did not shunt out the argument of respondents, with regard to availability of shops at first and second in M block, for the reason that the perpetual lease deed, referred above mandates that the portions in block M, at site in question have to be used for shops with residence. Now, how the said expression of "shops with residence" has to be seen and appreciated for which evidence is needed.
12. So far as site plan of shop in question is concerned, respondents have filed their own site plan, based on their own understanding, thus disputing the site plan, filed by petitioner. Both the site plans cannot be appreciated at this stage, without evidence.
13. Petitioner has alleged shop no. M5, in block M, already rented out to M/s Bharat Airtel Ltd., way back in the year 2000, for three years and the said lease deed, had been renewed time, as per copies of various lease deeds. It was last renewed, nine months back. In the light of non disclosure of exact and/or tentative time when bonafide need of petitioner had arisen, there appears to be certain unearthed facts regarding the nature of bonafide need of petitioner, which need evidence, so that this court can appreciate the bonafide need of petitioner, in complete perspective.
14. Petitioner, in his petition, has mentioned that shop in question is required so that he can run business. He has also stated that his daughters requires the said shop for display of ladies garments. He has alleged that he wants to open a showroom, to be run by him alongwith his daughter. It is his own case that business of his daughter is E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 16 churning out crores of rupees. In such situation how far shop in question will meet out the high apparent demand of business of daughter of petitioner, cannot be appreciated, without evidence. Said aspect is relevant as landlord is not supposed to show his desire for getting the requisite property rather is required to show his need. Distinction between desire and need of petitioner, in this case is very thin line and cannot be distinguished, without evidence.
15. Proofs of other shops in question , being occupied by different tenants, though belonging to petitioner, also need appreciation, based on evidence.
16. Respondents have also challenged the need of Smt. Vani Kumra, daughter of petitioner with respect to shop in question. They have pointed out facts viz. that business of Smt. Vani Kumra is self sufficient and there is no need of additional shop by her. That Smt. Vani Kumra is not an active partner with her husband in the business of ladies garments, that she is not dependent on petitioner for accommodation and that she is not legally entitled to get shop in question. All the aforesaid issues, can be tested on the bed rock of evidence and cannot be decided, just like that, on the basis of rival contentions only. Said issues are significant, as there answers will further clarify and explain the alleged bonafide need of petitioner.
17. Petitioner has stressed in his arguments, that shop in question is best suited for running the business of display of ladies garments, but failed to explain, as to how shop in question is best suited, for the said purpose. Availability of shop in question in Connaught place, which is a commercial hub, is only one aspect with regard to feasibility of running the business of ladies garments. Its area and over all structure, needs to be E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 17 appreciated, as at this stage, this court has no yardstick, to compare the utility of shop in question, with other commercial properties of petitioner. Therefore, it is required, that evidence should be recorded, in this case.
18. Petitioner has argued that as per settled proposition of law he being a landlord, is the best person to identify the property, for running his business and he therefore can not be dictated, as to which property to occupy for running his business, by respondents who are tenants. Aforesaid proposition of law as observed by Hon'ble Apex Courts in various judgements is correct, but the said arguments entails the availability of alternative suitable accommodation. If that be so, then I find that petitioner tacitly, agrees that other commercial properties, are available to him, but he is interested in occupying them, as they are not suited for his need. Without evidence, I cannot appreciate the said version of petitioner, at this stage.
19. Petitioner has relied upon certain case laws, to argue that application in hand should be dismissed, but said cases are distinguishable on facts.
20. In Shanti Devi Vs Rajesh Kumar Jain, 2012(9) AD (Delhi) 246, landlord was able to give detailed account of the property of tenant, which he needed for running his business. Tenant did not dispute the description of property given by landlord, unlike present case, where respondents/tenants have disputed the site plan of the petitioner. Further in aforementioned case, the industrial plot at Bawana, which belongs to the landlord was not possessed by landlord. In the present case, properties at Okhla and at Mathura Road, are available to petitioner.
E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 18
21. In Bata India Ltd. Vs Anil Kumar Bahl, 2012 RLR, 29(N), landlord required the property occupied by tenant for providing infrastructure to his daughter to start her own business. In the preset case, it is the expansion of business of daughter of landlord which is the fact in issue and not commencement of the said business. Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in aforementioned case law, landlord had retired from service in Banking sector after 32 years and wanted the property of tenant, for starting business of his daughter who was professionally qualified to do the business of entrepreneurship and wanted to join her in the said business. Daughter of landlord,, in the said case was not married. In the present case, daughter of petitioner is married and is admittedly running business of ladies garments, to the tune of crores of rupees. Now whether her business needs expansion in the light of area for displaying clothes and utility of shop in question with regard to said need, are questions, which needs to be appreciated, on the touchstone of evidence.
22. In Anil Bajaj & Anr. Vs Vinod Ahuja, 210 (2014) DLT 58(SC) bonafide need of landlord was based on insufficient business, which was causing acute hardship to him, in maintaining his large family. Same is not the situation, in the present case.
23. In A. K. Jain Vs Prem Kapoor AIR 2008 SC 3194, bonafide need of landlord was pertaining to residential property and not commercial property. Present case is not based on personal necessity of petitioner with respect to residential property, rather it is the commercial property which is required by petitioner.
24. Similarly Mahinder Trivedi Vs Jai Prakash Verma, 157(2009) DLT 690, landlord wanted residential property and not commercial property for his bonafide need. E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 19
25. In Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503, landlord wanted shops for setting up business of his two sons. In the present case it is no the setting up of business rather expansion of business, which is in dispute.
26. In Krishan Lal Vs R. N. Bakshi 169 (2010) DLT 769 commercial property was required by the landlord personally, for maintaining himself and his dependent family members which is not the issue in the casein hand.
27. In Labhu Lal Vs Sandhya Gupta 173(2010) DLT 318 landlord required the premises, for expanding the business of his daughter in law and so pertaining to diagnostic clinic for which more space was required for necessary amenities for patients. In the said case, Court did not find the reason behind the assertions of tenant, with regard to why son and daughter in law of landlord were not dependent on landlord. In the present case, daughter of petitioner is admittedly doing business, in crores. Her requirement of additional space for expansion of her business, has to be appreciated, with respect to the space of shop in question. Further, in aforementioned case , Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that tenant had not disputed the fact that son and daughter in law of landlord were living with the landlord. In the present case respondents have asserted that daughter of petitioner is married, living separately with her in laws. Therefore, need of daughter of petitioner, in the light of her independent business, cannot be appreciated, at this stage without evidence.
28. In Kishori Lal Krishan Kumar Vs Ankit Rastogi 184(2011) DLT 130, landlord wanted premises for starting his own business, which is not the situation, in the E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 20 present case.
29. In the light of aforesaid appreciation of affidavits of respondents and reply of the same by petitioner, application in hand stands allowed. Respondents are given permission to contest present eviction petition.
Announced in open Court (PRASHANT SHARMA)
on 31th January 2015 ARC/ACJ/CCJ: New Delhi
Patiala House Courts/31.01.2015
E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 21
E NO. 28/13
31.01.2015
Present : Proxy counsel for petitioner.
Proxy counsel for respondents.
Application of respondents for grant of leave for contesting present eviction petition stands allowed, vide my order of even date.
Respondents are given 30 days from now, for filing written statement, by supplying advance copy of the same to the petitioner, failing which cost of Rs. 5000/ shall be imposed on each respondent.
Matter adjourned and be listed on 23.03.2015.
(PRASHANT SHARMA) ARC/ACJ/CCJ: New Delhi Patiala House Courts/31.01.2015 E No. 28/13 Sh. Balwant Singh Khosla Vs. M/s. Textile Emporium & Ors. Page No. 22