Delhi District Court
Smt. Anita Arora vs Sh. Om Prakash Puri on 7 July, 2015
1
In the Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
CCJ Cum Additional Rent Controller1 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Case No. E 11/14
Unique I.D. No. 02401C0645802014
In the matter of :
Smt. Anita Arora
Wife of Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora
R/o B3/8C, Keshav Puram,
Delhi110035. ...........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Om Prakash Puri
S/o Late Sh. Rattan Chand Puri,
4086, Nai Sarak,
Delhi110006. ...........Respondent
ORDER
07.07.2015
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application moved by the respondent for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner u/s 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 [in short, 'the DRC Act'].
Page 1 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 2
2. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Anita Arora against the tenant/respondent Sh. Om Prakash Puri for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., shop bearing no. 4086 situated on the ground floor, Nai Sarak, Delhi, as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner of the tenanted premises having purchased the same from Alpine Properties (P) Ltd. vide Sale Deed dated 20.11.2008. That the respondent has been depositing rent in the name of the petitioner u/s 27 of the DRC Act. That the family of the petitioner consists of the petitioner herself, her husband Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora, one daughter Deepshikha Arora aged 22 years studying at IIT Roorkee, one son Harsh Arora aged about 15 years studying in 9th class, motherinlaw Smt. Kailashwati Arora aged 70 years and brother of the motherinlaw of the petitioner namely, Salamat Rai Kapur aged about 75 years. That the entire family of the petitioner lives at B3/8C, Keshav Puram, Delhi, which is a DDA Flat on the 2 nd floor and is owned by petitioner's husband Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora.
4. That petitioner's husband Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora presently carries Page 2 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 3 on business in calendars, stationary, diaries, paper, etc. under the name & style of Central Book Depot at premises no. 2589, Nai Sarak, Delhi, which is a very small place measuring 10 ft. by 3 ft. 6 inches. That the petitioner's husband is occupying the said place as a subtenant of LR's of Sh. Ram Narain Jaiswal, who are tenants under Smt. Shashi Bala in respect of 258990, Nai Sarak, Delhi. That the said landlady has filed an eviction petition in respect of aforesaid premises no. 258990, Nai Sarak, Delhi, under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act and even an eviction order has been obtained by her vide order dated 15.03.2014, after which the petitioner has been given time till December, 2015 to vacate the said premises, being the subtenant and in occupation of the said premises. Therefore, the petitioner wants her husband to shift his business to property bearing no. 40854086, which are adjoining shops under the tenancy of the respondent and one other tenant. This would give security to the husband of the petitioner as then, he would not have to vacate the premises. Besides this, the premises bearing no. 2589, Nai Sarak, Delhi is a small shop of 10 ft. by 3 ft. 6 inches, whereas the husband of the petitioner needs bigger space. Also there is no proper place for storing and also no place to even sit properly. It is stated that the tenanted premises is just opposite to the present place of work of Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora and therefore, it would suit him better to carry on his Page 3 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 4 business from the suit premises as then, he would not loose his customers. It is averred by the petitioner that the upper floor, i.e., the terrace floor of 4085 & 4086, Nai Sarak, Delhi is owned by petitioner's husband Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora vide duly registered Sale deed dated 20.11.2008. At the time of purchase, it comprised of a Barsati and open terrace. In course of time, Barsati gave away and it is now a terrace. Further, it is averred that Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora also has in his tenancy first floor of property bearing no. 2555, Nai Sarak, Delhi, consisting of two rooms, kothri, kitchen, verandah & chajja under the landlordship of Sh. Magan Chand Jain, Sh. Sumer Chand Jain and Sh. Rajinder Kumar Jain sons of late Sh. Roop Chand Jain at the rental of Rs. 250/ per month. That the said premises is on the first floor and located at the back of property no. 2555 and is dark and dingy. That the said premises is used as a godown by Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora, where even rickshaws do not ply. Although, the said premises on the first floor is used as godown by Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora, but the petitioner understands that first floor cannot be used as godown suitably and thus, the petitioner wants to shift his shop to the premises bearing no. 40854086, Nai Sarak, Delhi. Further, it is stated that the petitioner owns a room bearing no. 120 on the second floor in DSIDC Shed at Sangam Park, Near Railway Line, Delhi, which is surrounded by Safari Karamchari Colony. Page 4 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 5 The said property is at a distance of about 10 Km from the suit property and is not suitable for petitioner's husband business. It is further averred by the petitioner that neither petitioner nor Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora has any other alternative suitable accommodation in order to meet out their bonafide requirement.
On the above stated grounds, the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent for vacation of the tenanted premises.
5. Summons were served upon the respondent who filed leave to defend application taking various grounds interalia :
a) That Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora is carrying on business in property no. 2589, Nai Sarak, Delhi for the last several years since the said business was started by the father of Sh. Vinod Kumar who died about 20 years ago and after his death, Vinod Kumar is continuing his business and is already having sufficient reasonable accommodation for his business in the said property.
b) That the husband of the petitioner is also a tenant with respect to property no. 2555, Naiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The material details of this tenanted premises has not been properly and completely mentioned by the petitioner. In fact, there are three Page 5 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 6 rooms in the tenancy of Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora in the said property alongwith a big hall. The area of this tenanted premises is 1000 sq. ft. and the said premises is situated at a distance of 100 meters from the suit property. That this property is also situated in a business area of Nai Sarak, where number of persons are doing their business. Infact, this tenanted premises is being used by Sh. Vinod Kumar and the petitioner as a office in part and the remaining part of the tenanted premises is being used for godown purposes.
c) That the petitioner is also owner of the property bearing no. 120, 2nd floor, DSIDC Shed, Sangam Park, Near Railway Line, Delhi. It is stated that the said premises is owned and possessed by the petitioner and her husband and is very suitable place for starting business by the husband of the petitioner. Further, it has been averred that it has been falsely stated by the petitioner that the said premises is surrounded by Safai Karamchari Colony or that it is at a distance of about 10 Kms from the suit property. Infact, the said property is 6 Kms from the suit property and 4 Kms from the residence of the petitioner.
d) That the tenanted premises is situated in slum area, however, the petitioner has not obtained permission of slum authority before Page 6 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 7 filing the present eviction petition.
e) That the petitioner has stated in the petition that size of the shop bearing no. 2589 is 10' x 3'6", whereas, in reality, the size of the said shop is 12' x 4'.
f) That the litigation between Smt. Shashi Bala, i.e., owner of property bearing no. 2589, Nai Sarak Delhi and Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora is collusive. That the petitioner has admitted that the upper floor, i.e. terrace floor of 4085 & 4086, Nai Sarak, Delhi, is owned by her husband. This place is also very suitable for running business by the husband of the petitioner.
g) That the husband of the petitioner is not dependent upon the petitioner within the meaning of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
6. Reply to the application for leave to defend has been filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner has denied all the averments made by the respondent in his leave to defend application. It is reaverred by the petitioner that her husband is only a subtenant in respect of premises occupied by him at 2589, Nai Sarak, Delhi, which is a small shop and even an eviction order has been passed and the husband of the petitioner has undertaken to vacate the said premises till December, 2015. Further, it is averred that as far as property bearing no. 2555, Page 7 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 8 Naiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi is concerned, the said property is on the first floor and located at the back of property no. 2555 and thus, it is being used as godown by the husband of the petitioner. It is denied that the said property has three rooms or it is partly used as an office and partly as a godown by the husband of the petitioner. Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora remains at the shop at Nai Sarak, Delhi right from the time it is opened until closing time and therefore, there is no question of office at property no. 2555. It is also denied that property no. 120, DSIDC Shed, Sangam Park, Near Railway Line, Delhi is owned and possessed by the petitioner and her husband. It is stated that the said property is under sole ownership of the petitioner. It is further averred by the petitioner that there is no requirement of obtaining permission of slum authority before instituting an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Further, it is denied that the size of the shop bearing no. 2589, Nai Sarak, Delhi is 12' x 4'. Petitioner has also denied that the litigation between Smt. Shashi Bala and Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora is collusive. It is denied that the upper floor of property bearing no. 4085 and 4086, Nai Sarak, Delhi is suitable for petitioner's husband's business. It is stated that the upper floor consists of terrace only and that with the course of time the barsati gave away and that is a terrace only and thus, not suitable for carrying on business activities. Further, it is stated that Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora is the Page 8 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 9 husband of the petitioner and thus, part of the petitioner's family and dependent upon the petitioner for accommodation.
7. Rejoinder has been filed by the respondent wherein, the respondent has reaverred what was averred by him in his leave to defend application. Further, it is stated that the petitioner had applied to the VAT Department on 02.11.2007 and in the said application, the petitioner has mentioned the alternative business premises as shop no. 120, DSIDC Shed, Sangam Park, Delhi and the premises bearing no. 2555, Naiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi.
8. That after filing of the rejoinder, the respondent has filed application for filing of two additional affidavits. The said applications were considered and respondent was given liberty to argue on the point of complete income tax return of the petitioner and her husband as well as the application moved by the petitioner before the VAT department.
9. It has been clearly stated in the said order that the petitioner has already admitted in the original eviction petition that he is the owner of property bearing no. 120, 2nd Floor, DSIDC, Sangam Park, Delhi and also tenant with respect to property bearing no. 2555, Naiwara, Chawri Bazar, Page 9 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 10 Delhi. The petitioner has also admitted the same facts in Form DVAT7 filed before Income Tax Department. Since the said properties have already been disclosed by the petitioner in the eviction petition and even the said property is being used as godown and therefore, there is no material concealment of any fact by the petitioner. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner has intentionally not filed complete income tax return before the court in order to mislead the court is baseless and without any ground because complete income tax return only shows that the husband of the petitioner is paying rent for the premises bearing no. 2589, Nai Sarak, Delhi, whereas, the petitioner is receiving rent with respect to the premises in her ownership. Hence, there is no concealment of any fact in these documents.
10. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record.
11. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are : Page 10 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 11
a) The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b) The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
12. The satisfaction of the two requirements of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus: "The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim Page 11 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 12 or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in subsection (e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is dutybound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but Page 12 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 13 also whether any other reasonably suitable non residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
Page 13 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 14
13. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean "in good faith and genuine i.e. without fraud or deceit". Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide" is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.
Page 14 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 15
14. The meaning of "bonafide" in the context appears to be in two folds. (a) the need of the landlord must be a genuine one and not a frivolous one. (b) landlord is not motivated by extraneous considerations in trying to recover the possession from the tenant with a view to let it out again to another tenant at a higher rent. Ownership as well as landlordtenant relationship :
15. The respondent has not challenged the ownership as well as landlordtenant relationship in the entire application. However, during the course of the arguments, it is averred by the respondent that as per the Sale Deed M/s Standard Marriage Accessories is a tenant with respect to one shop on the ground floor bearing Municipal No. 4086, Nai Sarak, Delhi and not the respondent Sh. Om Prakash Puri. It is also averred by the respondent that even as per the record of Custodian, the amount has been received from Sh. Mehar Chand of Standard Marriage Accessories House with respect to property bearing no. 4085 & 4086, Nai Sarak, Delhi. Per contra, it is averred by the petitioner that the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in the tenanted premises. The petitioner has also filed copy of the DR petition, by virtue of which the respondent only has been depositing the rent in the court to the landlord, i.e., the Page 15 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 16 petitioner.
16. I have heard the contentions of both the parties and have also gone through the record.
17. Perusal of the DR petition clearly shows that the respondent Sh. Om Prakash Puri has deposited rent with the petitioner Smt. Anita Arora with respect to premises bearing no. 4086, Nai Sarak, Delhi, by way of DR petition before the Court. The petitioner has also filed the copy of the Sale Deed, by virtue of which the petitioner purchased the property from M/s Alpine Properties Pvt. Ltd. and thus, it was not necessary for the petitioner to especially implead M/s Standard Marriage Accessories House as the respondent. In these circumstances, ownership as well as landlordtenant relationship stands established. Bonafide requirement :
18. It is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the husband of the petitioner Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora for starting stationary business in the said premises alongwith premises no. 4085, Nai Sarak, Delhi. It is stated that the said two Page 16 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 17 properties are under the ownership of the petitioner and thus, there will no threat of eviction, if the husband of the petitioner shifts his business to the said premises and even otherwise, no rent would have to be paid by the husband of the petitioner for the said premises. Further, the tenanted premises is located just opposite the present place of business of the husband of the petitioner and thus, there will be no threat of loosing customers in any case. It is also submitted that the tenanted premises is located at Nai Sarak, Delhi, which is a hub of stationary material. Per contra, it is averred by the respondent that the petitioner's husband is already carrying on his business from property bearing no. 2589, Nai Sarak, Delhi. However, it is not disputed by the respondent that the said premises is tenanted premises and not under the ownership of the petitioner or her husband. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of eviction order, wherein, the husband of the petitioner, being a sub tenant in the said premises has been ordered to vacate the said tenanted premises and time has been given till 31.12.2015 to the husband of the petitioner to vacate the said premises. In these circumstances, it has been proved that the petitioner's husband would have to vacate the premises bearing n. 2589, Nai Sarak, Delhi, till December, 2015 and after that he has no suitable place to run his business. It is also not disputed that the tenanted premises in question is situated in a hub of commercial Page 17 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 18 place in Delhi and is situated on the ground floor. The said tenanted premises is much bigger than the premises bearing no. 2589 and thus, would definitely be beneficial for the husband of the petitioner in order to expand his business. The petitioner cannot be denied of her right to make her husband start his business from the place which is under ownership of the petitioner rather than to carry on business from the tenanted premises, wherein, there is always a threat of eviction. It is nowhere denied that Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora is the husband of the petitioner, and thus, it stands established that being a family member of the petitioner, the petitioner has right to seek eviction of the tenanted premises for the bonafide requirement of her husband, who does not have any other premises in his ownership from where he can start his stationary business at a bigger scale. Thus, the bonafide requirement of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises to make her husband start his stationary business duly stands proved.
Availability of alternative suitable accommodation :
19. It is averred by the respondent that the husband of the petitioner is also a tenant in property bearing no. 2555, 1st Floor, Naiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. It is further averred that the said property is a big property Page 18 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 19 comprising of three rooms and a big hall, which is used by the husband of the petitioner partly as an office and partly as a godown. Per contra, it is averred by the petitioner that the said premises is on the first floor and is located in a narrow gali at the back of property no. 2555 at a dark and dingy place, which is being used as a godown by Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora, where even rickshaws do not ply and thus, not suitable for running business and for not even being used as a godown. Petitioner has also denied that the said property comprises of three rooms and a big hall or that the same is being used partly as a godown and partly as an office by the husband of the petitioner.
20. I have heard the contentions of both the parties.
21. It is clear that it has nowhere been disputed by the respondent that the said property is located on the first floor and not on the ground floor. It is also not disputed that the said property is at a distance from present place of work of the petitioner and therefore, there would always be a threat of loosing customers by the husband of the petitioner if the husband of the petitioner shifts his business from the present place to this premises. It is also not disputed that the said premises is a tenanted premises. Petitioner's husband cannot be forced to run his business Page 19 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 20 from a tenanted premises situated on the first floor when his wife is having under her ownership a better located shop on the ground floor, which can be used by him more profitably. It cannot be disputed that the shop on the ground floor would definitely fetch much more customers as compared to a shop on the first floor. Even otherwise, the location of the tenanted premises is such that if the husband of the petitioner has to shift his business from the present place of his work to the tenanted premises, he would not loose his customers since the tenanted premises in question is just opposite to the present place of his work. However, premises bearing no. 2555 is located at a distance from the present place of work of the husband of the petitioner and thus, there would always be a threat of loosing customers. Thus, the property bearing no. 2555, 1st Floor, Naiwara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, cannot be termed as alternative suitable accommodation which can be used by the husband of the petitioner to start his business.
22. It is averred by the respondent that the petitioner has in her ownership property bearing no. 120, 2nd Floor, DSIDC Shed, Sangam Park, Near Railway Line, Delhi. Further, it is stated that the said property is used by the petitioner and her husband for business purposes and is very suitable place for business and is not located in slum area. Per Page 20 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 21 contra, it is averred by the petitioner that the said property at a distance of 10 Km from the suit premises and is not suitable for carrying on business being not in a commercial hub of Delhi.
23. I have heard the contentions of both the parties.
24. It cannot be denied that Nai Sarak is a commercial hub of sale of stationary items. Shop in Nai Sarak cannot be replaced by shop at Sangam Park, which is at a distance of 10 Kms from Nai Sarak, Delhi and is not a commercial hub of Delhi. Even otherwise, it is not disputed that property bearing no. 120, DSIDC Shed, Sangam Park, Delhi is located on second floor and thus, not suitable for the husband of the petitioner as ground floor shop at Nai Sarak, Delhi is much more profitable as compared to shop on 2nd floor at Sangam Park, Delhi. Even in the DVAT Form submitted by the petitioner before the Income Tax Department, it has been clearly mentioned by the petitioner that the said property is being used as godown and not as a shop and thus, it has been proved that the said property is also not an alternative suitable accommodation which can be used by the husband of the petitioner to start his business of stationary items.
Page 21 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 22
25. Further, it is averred by the respondent that the petitioner has herself admitted that the upper floor of property bearing no. 4085 & 4086 is owned by the husband of the petitioner Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora and thus, the said can be used by the husband of the petitioner to start his business. Per contra, it is averred by the petitioner that the said terrace was earlier comprising of a barsati only and with due course of time barasti gave away and now there is only terrace left which cannot be used by the husband of the petitioner to start his business. The petitioner has also relied upon the photographs filed by the respondent himself, wherein, it is clear that terrace floor over property no. 40854086 is in a dilapidated condition and barsati has given way. I have seen the photographs. There is no barsati over property bearing no. 40854086. Even otherwise, shop on terrace floor would not fetch as many customers as compared to shop on ground floor, which would fetch much more customers and would be more profitable for the husband of the petitioner to start his business of stationary items. Thus, the terrace floor of property bearing no. 40854086, Nai Sarak, Delhi also cannot be termed as alternative suitable accommodation for meeting out the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
26. Further, the respondent has vaguely stated that there is also an Page 22 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 23 alternative suitable accommodation available to the petitioner and her husband at Nai Sarak but the respondent has failed to give address of the said property. Thus, the said contention of the respondent remains to be a mere bald averment without any substantive proof and thus, cannot be relied upon.
27. The other averment made by the respondent is that the tenanted premises is located in slum area and it is mandatory to seek permission of the slum authority before filing an eviction petition. However, it is well established law that for filing an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, no permission from slum authority is required and therefore, the present petition is maintainable.
28. It is also averred by the respondent that the petitioner has malafidely filed separate eviction petition for properties bearing no. 4085 & 4086, Nai Sarak, Delhi, whereas, the requirement of the husband of the petitioner is not of both the properties. Per contra, it is averred by the petitioner that her husband wants to expand his business and also wants to shift his godown to property bearing no. 4085 & 4086, Nai Sarak, Delhi. In the judgment titled as "Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary reported as AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 534", the Hon'ble Page 23 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 24 Supreme Court held that: "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."
Thus, if the husband of the petitioner wants to expand his business and wants to shift his godown as well as shop to the property bearing no. 40854086, Nai Sarak, Delhi, then the tenant cannot stop the husband of the petitioner from expanding his business or to start business from a more convenient place which would be more profitable to him.
29. Thus, from the discussion made above, respondent has failed to raise any triable issue, which requires evidence to be proved. The petitioner, on the other hand, has clearly established her bonafide requirement regarding tenanted premises. Hence, the application for leave to defend filed by respondent is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, eviction order is liable to be passed against the respondent u/s Section 25 B (4) of the Act. In view of above, petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e., shop bearing no. 4086 situated on the ground floor, Nai Sarak, Delhi, as shown in red Page 24 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14 25 colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
on 07 Day of July, 2015.
th
CCJ cum ARC1 (Central)
[This order contains 25 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Page 25 of 25 Anita Arora Vs. Om Prakash Puri E - 11/14