Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta vs Sh. Manoj Kumar on 3 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR, COMMERCIAL CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No.- 25415/2016
Sh. Ram Kumar Gupta,
S/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan,
R/o WZ-1661, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046. ...... Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Manoj Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
M/s Lalu Prasad Babu Lal
Shop forming part of
Property No. WZ-1661,
Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046. .... Respondent
Date of filing : 12.07.2012
Date of decision : 03.01.2019
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 12' 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 and has been issuing rent receipts earlier to M/s Lalu Prasad Babu Lal and now the respndent has not tendered rent since 01.01.2007, no rent receipts have been issued to the ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 1/19 respondent tenant. That the said property consists of two shops which were let out to the tenants- one to M/s Babu Lal Ghanshyam Das and other to M/s Lalu Prasad Babu Lal, in the year 1966.
That the petitioner and his family members have the following properties:-
i) Shop bearing No. WZ-287, Nangal Raya, in the name of the petitioner on the opposite side of tenanted premisesacross the fly over. That the petitioner has been carrying his business of property dealer from the said premises.
ii) Shop bearing No. WZ-911, Khazan Basti, opposite Mayapuri Industrial Area, having an area of 9' x 25'. That this shop is in the locality of 'Kabari Market' and is not suitable for setting up the business of readymade garments.
iii) Shop bearing no. WZ-289, measuring 18' x 28' Nangal Raya is in the name of Smt. Sumitra Gupta wife of the petitioner. That the said shop on the ground floor and first floor have already been let out to different tenants namely M/s JUST IN and M/s Hilton Institute of Fashion Airlines & Academy long back and are not vacant at the moment.
That the petitioner requires the tenanted premises including the shop of other tenant forming part of the property no. WZ-1661, Nangal Raya, New Delhi for setting up the business of ready made garments or any other kind of business for his son Sh. Aditya Gupta after making necessary changes ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 2/19 and reconstructing the said two shops 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 his clients. That he has no other suitable commercial accommodation to accommodate his son for carrying on his business independently and earn livelihood. That the son Sh. Aditya is totally dependent upon the petitioner.
3. 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.
4. In the Written Statement, the respondent has inter-alia contended that petitioner with malafide intention has converted the above joint tenancy into a partnership firm. That the petitioner has concealed the vacant accommodation in his name or in the name of his wife lying vacant and available to them. That there exist no firm at any point of time under the name and style of M/s Lalu Prasad Babulal and now both Sh. Lalu Prasad and Sh. Babulal have expired. That Sh. Manoj Kumar being the son of late Sh. Babulal inherited the tenancy of the tenanted premises. That there has never been any landlord/tenant relationship between the petitioner and non- existent self styled created firm. Sh. Aditya Gupta is gainfully employed being a manufacturer. That there are no arrears of rent in respect of the tenanted premises. Rather the respondent is depositing rent in advance in bank account of petitioner. It is admitted that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of suit property but it is absolutely wrong, incorect and denied ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 3/19 that the rent receipts were ever issued in the name of M/s Lalu Prasad Babulal and now has not been tendered since 01.01.2007. That Shop no. WZ-287, Nangal Raya, New Delhi is lying vacant and no property business is being carried out by the petitioner. That the building no.WZ-285, WZ-287 and WZ- 289 are located just opposite and across the road of the suit property WZ-289, four storey building. That WZ-911, Khazan Basti, opposite Mayapuri Industrial Area, is having area of about 12'x45' consisting of shop and it is not located in the Kabari Market or suitable for kabar as mentioned in the petition. That WZ-289, Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046 is in the name of Smt. Sumitra Gupta wife of the petitioner having area of about 22' x 30' consisting of shop on G.F. previously let out to 'Just In' and is now lying vacant w.e.f. December, 2011. That apart from above properties, the petitioner also has the following properties lying vacant, ready for his use and concealed by him.
i) A-89-90, Gali No.3, Dasrath Puri, Palam Road.
ii) WZ-1409., Nangal Raya, New Delhi.
iii) H-3/54, Bengali Colony behind 'Sulabh
International' New Delhi.
That Sh. Aditya Gupta is 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. That Sh. Aditya Gupta has been associated with his uncle Sh. Dev Dutt for the last 11 years as a senior and experienced industrialist.
5. Replication was also 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 ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 4/19 well as the petitioner has clarified the stand taken by him. In his replication, the petitioner has also reasserted bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.
6. Thereafter, after completion of pleadings, matter was fixed for Petitioner Evidence/P.E. 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.
Evidence was led by the respondent also 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.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 5/19 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:-
i) & ii). LANDLORDSHIP/OWNERSHIP:-ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 6/19
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 under the name and style of M/s Lalu Prasad Babu Lal and both of them i.e. Sh. Lalu Prasad and Sh. Babu Lal have expired. That Sh. Manoj Kumar/ respondent being the son of late Sh. Babu Lal inherited the tenancy of tenanted premises.
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 in favour of his father.
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 proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors.
ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 7/19Vs 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:-
"it is correct that the tenanted premises in question was let out to late Sh. Lalu Prasad, Babu Lal. It is correct that the documents Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) rent receipts bearing the signatures of late sh. Lalu Prasad and Babu Lal."
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.
11. 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 tenanted premises was let out to his predecessors Sh. Lalu Prasad and Sh. Babu Lal. Moreover, rent receipts have also been admitted by the respondent.
As such, ingredients in respect of landlordship and ownership are satisfied.
(iii) & (iv). BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT/ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION:
ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 8/1912. 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 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 ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 9/19 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 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 ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 10/19 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 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 there is dense residential area behind the tenanted shop. Vol. There is also commercial area in the rear portion of the tenanted shop. It is correct that there is dense residential ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 11/19 population of Nangal Raya in the rear portion of the tenanted shop. There is also residential portion/population of Bhoop Singh Basti, Padam Basti, Ram Chandra Basti, Brham Puri, Tulsi Ram Bagichi, Ambedkar Basti,around 1 to 1.5 kilometer far away from the tenanted premises in the rear portion. It is correct that the tenanted shop falls in the Market area of Nangal Raya. It is also correct that the tenanted shop also falls on the commercial road. It is correct that the area is situated in a busy market and there is very much footfall of the people on the road....
It is correct that opposite to the tenanted premises there are the properties of the petitioner bearing No. WZ-287 and WZ-289. It is correct that the person has to cross the Janak Setu Flyover to reach the opposite side of the tenanted shop. It is wrong to suggest that the petitioner is working in the premises No. WZ-287, Nangal Raya. At this stage, the photographs Mark-H are shown to the witness and the witness is asked whether there is a board with the name of "R.K. Properties" on the property bearing No. WZ-287, Nangal Raya and the witness stated that the board with the name of "R.K. properties" is there. (Vol. The board has been affixed later on)....
It is correct that there is another property bearing No. WZ-289, Nangal Raya in the name of the wife of the petitioner. It is wrong to suggest that the property bearing No. WZ-289 was let out to "M/s Just In" by the wife of the petitioner. At this stage, the witness is shown the document Ex. RW-1/P-1 and asked whether it is correct that the property bearing No. WZ-289 has been let out to M/s Just In vide this registered lease dated 10.02.2010 to which the witness replied in affirmative. Behind the premises No. WZ-289 and WZ-287, there is only industrial area.....
It is correct that the Khajan Basti Scrap market lies in the rear portion of the premises No. WZ-287 & 289. (Vol. It is around half kilometer away from the aforesaid properties). It is correct that there is no residential area area behind the properties No. WZ-287 & 289.... It is wrong to suggest that the property bearing No. WZ-911, Khajan Basti, Opposite Maya Puri Industrial Area is a Junk Market and the entire market is of Junk and Scrap dealers. There are Kiryana shops, clothes shops etc. in the Khajan Basti Market. (Vol. Near Railway Station).
Que: Have you placed any document, photograph on record to show that there is any work of Kiryana Shops or clothes shops in the Khajan Shop are being run ?
ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 12/19
Ans: We have placed on record a photograph
Mark-J.
Que: Whether can you tell the name of any
kiryana or clothes shop as alleged by you in the Khajan Basti ?
Ans: There are shops but no boards have been affixed therein and no name has been given to those shops...
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 did not place any photograph or document on record to show that any commercial activities are being conducted nearby the aforesaid premises. I cannot tell the name of any shop or any activities being conducted nearby the aforesaid premises.... It is correct that the photograph Mark-G placed by me on record clearly shows that the property No. 1409 is on a residential area. It is wrong to suggest that the area in which the property No. 1409 falls is only used for residential purposes and no commercial activities have ever been conducted in the said locality. I do not remember the name of any shop or commercial activities being conducted in the nearby area as alleged by me. (Vol. There is a bank, courier office etc.). It is wrong to suggest that the road on which the aforesaid property falls was not a commercial road neither a mixed land used road. It is correct that the petitioner has nothing to do with the property bearing No. WZ-285, Nangal Raya. It is wrong to suggest that the property bearing No. WZ-346/F is a residential property being located in a residential colony. (Vol. The said property is a mixed use land). It is correct that I have not placed on record any document/photograph on record to show that any commercial activity has been conducted, as alleged by me above nearby the abovesaid property. I cannot tell the name of any shop or any commercial activity being conducted nearby the abovesaid premises/locality.....
At this stage, the witness is shown the Memorandum and Article of Association of Adroit Autotec Pvt. Ltd. Ex. RW-1/P-5 and asked whether this is related to the same which you have referred above, to which the witness states that I do not know about the same. It is correct that the name of Sh. Aditya Gupta, son of the petitioner has not been there in the Ex. RW-1/P-5. I got to know about the same from the Internet about the abovestated statement. I visited the said firm 2-3 times to ascertain the fact that he was working there. I ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 13/19 cannot tell the exact time, date, month or year of my visit to the said firm but it is before 2012.... It is wrong to suggest that the property bearing No. H-3/54, Bangali Colony, Behind Sulabh International is a residential colony and no commercial activities are being conducted there. The property is on the mixed land use. I have not seen any document regarding payment of any conversion charges of this property by the petitioner. I have no knowledge about whether any conversion charges is levied on this property. I do not know on which mixed land used road it falls. I have not filed any document to show that any commercial activities are being conducted nearby the said property.....
It is correct that the tenanted shop of Sh. Babu Lal is adjacent to my shop. It is correct that counsels in my case and the case of Sh. Babu Lal are the same from the beginning and in all the matters including bonafide, rent matters, subletting and petition for repair U/sec. 45 of D.R.C. Act. It is correct that I was present on 01.12.2018 when the cross examination of Sh. Babu Lal conducted in the another matter filed against Sh. Babu Lal Ghanshyam Dass. It is wrong to suggest that I am purposely and deliberately showing ignorance of the cross examination of Sh. Babu Lal. It is further wrong to suggest that I have gone through the whole cross examination of Sh. Babu Lal conducted on 20.11.2018 and 01.12.2018 and even Sh. Babu Lal had discussed all his cross examination and offering of the other sites to him. It is further wrong to suggest that in order to take a false defence, I accepted the offer of the petitioner..... I have not filed any document to show that M/s Rajdhani Industrial Corpn. belongs to Sh. Dev Dutt, the brother of the petitioner. (Vol. I have seen on the Internet). I have not verified anything from any government department with regard to payment of income tax, VAT, GST in respect of M/s Rajdhani Industrial Corpn. and who is paying the same and any firm with this name is registered with these authorities or not. I do not know whether Sh. Aditya Gupta is getting any amount from his Uncle Sh. Dev Dutt. It is wrong to suggest that the aforesaid averment in para 12 of my affidavit are on no basis. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Aditya Gupta is not having any property in Delhi or outside Delhi or is not Director of any of the companies as stated in my affidavit and contents of my affidavit in this regard are without any basis.....ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 14/19
It is correct that the tenanted premises are on the ground floor and the residence of the petitioner including the son is on the first floor."
16. I have carefully and minutely gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses including RW-1 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 and record show that all the properties as alleged by the respondent are either residential properties or 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 that 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.
17. As such in my view, the petitioner is not having the ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 15/19 alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation with him which can be utilized for starting the ready made garments business by his son Sh. Aditya Gupta.
18. 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.
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 ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 16/19 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 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."ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 17/19
19. In my considered view, this contention of the respondent that the son of the respondent is already working and 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 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 the 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.
20. As such, these two ingredients in respect of bonafide requirement and non-availability of alternative reasonably suitable commercial accommodation are also satisfied.
CONCLUSION:-
21. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled proposition of law and ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 18/19 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 12' 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.
22. 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.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court AJAY by AJAY NAGAR on 3rd January, 2019. NAGAR Date: 2019.01.03 16:26:23 +0530 (This judgment contains 19 pages) (Ajay Nagar) Commercial Civil Judge-Cum Additional Rent Controller, West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No.25415/16 Ram Kr. Gupta vs. Manoj Kumar Page 19/19