Delhi District Court
Dheeraj Khosla vs (I) Prince Kumar on 10 March, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS CHARU AGGARWAL, SCJCumRC (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
E 40/13
Dheeraj Khosla
S/o Sh. Vinod Khosla
R/o H. No. 5172, Kohlapur Road,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi 110 007. ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
(i) Prince Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Vijay Kumar
(ii) Smt. Saroj Kapoor
W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar
Both are R/o: H. No. 2/C,
Harphool Singh Building, Clock Tower,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi 110 007. .... Respondents
Date of institution : 06/01/2012
Date of order : 10/03/2014
JUDGMENT
1. The present eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been filed by the petitioner against 2 respondents for their eviction from one shop bearing no. 5189, Kohlapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred as tetnanted shop) on the ground of bonafide requirement of himself.
2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner is the owner and landlord of the tenanted shop. Originally, the tenanted shop was owned by late grandfather Sh. R. L. Khosla of the petitioner. The late grandfather of petitioner executed a Will dt. 05/02/1986 in favour of petitioner bequeathing the tenanted shop in favour of petitioner thereby petitioner became the owner of the tenanted shop since 15/12/1986 when the grandfather of the petitioner expired. The tenanted shop was let out to Page 1 of 5 respondent no. 1 and his late father vide rent agreement dt. 08/04/1991. The rent agreement was executed by the petitioner through his mother as petitioner was minor at that time. The rate of rent is stated to be @ Rs. 350/ per month. After the death of father of respondent no. 1, the tenanted shop was inherited by respondent no. 2 also. The respondents are running a shop in the name and style of "Shakti Bag" from the tenanted shop. The grandfather of the petitioner was also owner of properties bearing no. 5171, 5174 and 5175 which were divided by the petitioner's father and paternal uncle (chacha) by executing a partition deed. The said partition deed has been placed on record by the petitioner. Earlier also, the petitioner filed the suit for possession against the respondents, however, the said suit was withdrawn by the petitioner on 14/12/2011.
3. It is stated that the petitioner bonafidely reuqires the tenanted shop for himself as he is unemployed. The petitioner is 35 years old and has completed specialized training course from "Sita Travel & Tourism Academy". The petitioner has also done his graduation in commerce from Delhi University. He has also done Post Graduate Diploma in Advertising & Marketing from Institute of Media Studies and Information Technology, YMCA. The petitioner has also passed "Jyotish Visharada Examination" from Indian Council of Astrological Sciences, Chennai. It is stated that the petitioner is also a chronic Asthma and Juvenile Chronic Arthritis patient due to which he cannot do private job of long hours, therefore, the only survival for the petitioner is to set up his business and generate his income. It is further stated that the petitioner is unemployed. The tenanted shop is just adjacent to the residence of the petitioner from where the petitioner wants to start his business in the fileds of Advertising and Marketing, Tour and Travelling or in the filed of Astrology. It is stated that earlier the petitioner was employed with "Xploit News", however, the said job has been quit by him. The father of the petitioner has 2 shops at the ground floor from where he was running the business of repair of weights, measures and weighting Page 2 of 5 instruments. Since 2007, the said shops are lying vacant as the license to do the said business has lapsed. It is stated that said 2 shops of petitioner's father are not suitable or sufficient for the petitioner to set up his business. It is further stated that there is one big room and one another room on the mezzamine floor of the premises. The said big room is under the use of petitioner's mother who is running the business of baby and ladies items from there. One room of the said mezzanine floor is under the tenancy of Sh. Rajiv Singhal, who is using the same as drug store. The remaining property is used by the petitioner and his famly for their residence. The shops no. 5174 and 5175 are in use and occupation of petitioner's chacha "Naresh Khosla". The petitioner has no other suitable alternate accommodation available with him. Hence, the petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted shop to set up his business.
4. Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the respondents in the prescribed format which was duly served on them. The respondents/tenants have filed their joint leave to defend application alongwith their detailed affidavits setting out various grounds. The application for leave to defend is within limitation. The petitioner has filed his reply to the leave to defend application and has disputed the assertions made by the respondents in their leave to defend application. In his reply, he has reasserted his bonafide requirement of the suit shop for himself. No rejoinder was filed by the respondents.
5. In leave to defend application, the respondents have disputed the ownership of the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner is taking condictory stand regarding his ownership qua tenanted shop. It is further stated that at one place, the petitioner has stated that the tenanted shop was bequeathed to him by his grandfather, however, the partition deed placed on record shows that his father is the owner of the tenanted shop. The respondents have not stated anything about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is futher stated that the alleged rent agreement Page 3 of 5 was executed by the petitioner's mother on his behalf rather the said agreement was dispusted by the petitioner himself in the suit for possession filed by him. It is further stated that the petitioner is employed with "Xploit News" and is getting a handsome salary. It is further stated that the petitioner wants to relet the tenated shop after getting it vacated.
6. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the file.
7. In order to succeed in the cases u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients:
(a) Ownership in resepct of tenanted premises.
(b) Relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties.
(c) Petitioner bonafidely requires the tenated
premises.
(d) Petitioner does not have any other alternate
accommodation with him.
8. The respondents have disputed the ownership of the petitioner in respect of suit property. Regarding the ownership, the contention of the respondents is that petitioner is taking contradictory stand regarding his ownership qua tenanted shop. As per respondents, at one place the petitioner had stated that he is the owner of the tenanted shop by virtue of Will dt. 05/02/1986 of his late grandfather, however, as per the partition deed placed on record by the petitioner, his father is owner of the said shop. The contention of the respondents regarding ownership of the petitioner has no substance since in the earlier suit admittedly filed by the petitioner against the respondents, they (Respondents) themselves have admitted that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the tenanted shop, therefore, now in this case the respondents estoped from taking the contradictory plea and admission once made by them in other civil litigation. Hence, it stands proved that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted shop and consequently there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner is not having Page 4 of 5 any other alternate accommodation. The only dispute between the parties is regarding the alleged bonafide need of the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that he is 35 years old and is unemployed, therefore, wants to set up his own business in the tenanted shop. The respondents have stated that the petitioner is working with "Xploit News" and getting a handsome salary. The said contention of the respondents is denied by the petitioner as he has stated that earlier he was working with the said firm, however, now he has quit the said job. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner himself has admitted that 2 shops of his father are lying vacant in the same property and the petitioner may very well set up his business from those 2 shops. This plea of the respondents regarding 2 shops of petitioner's father has no merit since the father has no legal obligation to provide accommodation to his son. At best, a father may permit his son to use the premises owned by him (father) and that permission will be nothing but will confer only relationship of licensor and licensee between father and son, therefore, in my view even if the shops of the petitioner's father are lying vacant, then also they are not of any use for the petitioner. The other plea taken by the respondents is that the petitioner wants to relet the suit shop on higher rent after getting it vacated. The said plea is moonshine, whimsical and fanciful which has no merits. Nothing has been placed on record to substantiate this contention. I am satisfied that petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted shop to set up his business, hence, I hereby pass eviction order in respect of tenanted shop bearing no. 5189, Kohlapur Road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi 110 007 (as shown yellow in colour in the site plan). However, this order shall not be executed prior to six months from today. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court (Charu Aggarwal)
10/03/2014 SCJ/RC (Central), THC/Delhi
Page 5 of 5