Delhi High Court
Smt. Sadhana Gupta vs Sh. Vijay Pal Kathuria on 15 December, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. No.402/2014 and C.M. No.20518/2014 (stay)
% 15th December, 2014
SMT. SADHANA GUPTA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
VERSUS
SH. VIJAY PAL KATHURIA ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 28.8.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted premises being one shop in property no.78, Baldev Park, Delhi-51 as shown in yellow colour in the site plan annexed along with the eviction petition. RCR No.402/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. The case as set up by the respondent/landlord was that there were a total of three shops on the ground floor and in one shop his wife is already carrying on the business of ladies garments under the name and style of M/s. Famina. The respondent/landlord has two unemployed sons and he needed the suit premises as well as the adjacent shop which is with the other tenants for carrying on of businesses by his sons. Against the other co- tenants, namely Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh. Rakesh Sharma, another eviction petition for bonafide necesstiy was filed. The present eviction petition was filed for the need of the younger son Sh. Ajay Kathuria who wanted to open his independent business of sale and purchase of mobile and computer related devices.
3. In a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, there are three aspects which are required to be seen. First is whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the landlord is the owner of the tenanted premises. Second aspect to be seen is that the tenanted premises are required bonafidely by the landlord and/or his family members. The third aspect to be seen is that whether the landlord has any other alternative suitable premises.
4. In the present case, so far as the relationship of landlord and tenant and ownership of landlord is concerned, the same was not disputed RCR No.402/2014 Page 2 of 4 before the Additional Rent Controller and is also not disputed before this Court.
5(i). So far as the aspect of bonafide necessity is concerned, counsel for the petitioner/tenant argues that how can the respondent/landlord suddenly have a need for the sons to carry on the businesses. It is also argued that the sons were already assisting the father in his business of auto parts which was being conducted from a shop/premises bearing no.588, first floor, Ganda Nala Bazar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006. It is also pleaded in the leave to defend application that manufacturing of auto parts is being done by the respondent/landlord at B-1, Patparganj Industrial Area, DSIDC Complex, Delhi-92.
(ii) This argument urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant of the son not requiring the premises is misconceived because it is not the case of the petitioner/tenant that the son of the respondent/landlord Sh. Ajay Kathuria is in any manner having any ownership rights in the business of auto parts. Helping the father in the business is different from having an independent business of one's own and therefore it cannot be held by this Court that the son Sh. Ajay Kathuria should not have a shop to start his own business i.e independent from helping his father in the auto parts business. This argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is therefore rejected. RCR No.402/2014 Page 3 of 4
6. The only other argument which was urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant before this Court is that the manufacturing activities of auto parts are already being carried out from industrial plot at B-1, Patparganj Industrial Area, DSIDC Complex, Delhi-92 and therefore the suit shop is not required, however, even this argument is without any merit because need is not for any industrial premises but for a shop to carry out the business of sale and purchase of mobile and computer related devices, and, it is not the case of the petitioner/tenant that the son Sh. Ajay Kathuria is a co-owner with his father in the auto parts business. Even for the sake of arguments even if the son is doing business with his father, surely, the son is entitled to set up and carry on his own independent business i.e independent from the father. This argument of the petitioner is also therefore without merit and rejected.
7. No other argument or issue is urged before this Court.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed. No costs.
DECEMBER 15, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
RCR No.402/2014 Page 4 of 4