Delhi District Court
Unknown vs Mrs. Meeta Aggarwal on 10 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA,
ARC01, EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Unique Case Identification No. : 02402C0020742011
E198/11
1. Sh. Mukesh Bhatnagar
S/o Late Sh. S.B.L. Bhatnagar,
R/o 7/108109, Circular Road,
Shahdara,
New Delhi 110 032.
2. Sh. Kamal Bhatnagar
S/o Late Sh. S.B.L. Bhatnagar
R/o 7/108109, Circular Road,
Shahdara,
New Delhi 110 032.
3. Mrs. Shashi Prabha Bhatnagar
W/o Dr. Dinesh Bhatnagar,
R/o 4/512, Ground Floor,
Park Avenue Street,
Sector4, Vaishali,
Ghaziabad201010 (U.P.)
4. Mrs. Chander Prabha Bhatnagar
W/o Mr. R.S. Bhatnagar
R/o House no. 4512, Nai Basti
Street No. 2, Main Road,
Bathinda151001
Punjab.
E198/11 Page 1 of 12
5. Mrs. Renu Verma
W/o Late Mr. Kamal Verma
R/o H95, New Bapu Nagar
Defence Colony.
Bhilwara311001
Rajasthan. ........Petitioners
Versus
1. Mrs. Meeta Aggarwal
W/o Late Sh. Subhash Aggarwal,
2. Ms. Lemina Aggarwal
D/o Late Sh. Subhash Aggarwal,
3. Sh. Aman Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Subhash Aggarwal,
All respondents nos. 1 to 3
R/o H15, Street No. 7,
Old Govind Puri Extn.,
Parwana Road, Delhi110 051.
Also at:
Shop no. 7/108, Circular Road,
Shahdara, Delhi110 032. ........ Respondents
Application for leave to defend moved on behalf of respondents in
eviction petition no. E198/2011
Date of institution of petition : 19/11/2011
Date on which Order was reserved : 05/05/2012
Date of Order : 10/05/2012
Final Order : Application for leave to
defend has been dismissed
and eviction petition is
allowed.
E198/11 Page 2 of 12
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the respondent u/s 25B of the Act, seeking leave to defend and contest the eviction petition in hand.
2. Petitioner has filed present petition for eviction of respondents u/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
3. Briefly stated, the relevant contentions of the petitioner are as follows:
a) Late. S.B.L Bhatnagar was the owner and landlord of shop number 7/108, Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi32. Late Subhash Aggarwal was inducted as tenant in the aforesaid shop, which is shown in the red colour in the site plan.
b) Sh. S.B.L. Bhatnagar expired on 02.11.2010 and after his demise, the property in question devolved upon the petitioners. Sh. Subhash Aggarwal also expired and after his demise the tenancy rights in respect of aforesaid property devolved upon his legal heirs i.e. respondents.
c). The present rate of rent is Rs. 500/ p.m excluding other charges. The tenanted property is required by petitioner no.1, who is unemployed at present and who had been working with various printing presses. Petitioner no. 1 has acquired sufficient knowledge and experience in the field of printing and intends to settle his own printing units. He has already E198/11 Page 3 of 12 applied for a loan to arrange finance and the tenanted premises is the only suitable space to settle this business.
d). Petitioners do not have alternate reasonable accommodation for aforesaid purpose, hence this petition.
4. In application for leave to defend and affidavit, respondent has taken following plea:
a) Petitioners are not the owners/landlords of the tenanted premises and there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Sh. S.B.L. Bhatnagar had been receiving the rent of the tenanted property from the respondent and had been issuing the rent receipt under his own signatures.
b) The property in question is built up in a plot measuring 120 sq. yards and is used for commercial and residential purposes. Petitioner no. 1 is carrying his business of handicraft in the name of M/s. Sundaram Overseas from the premises no. 7/108109. Petitioner is also owner of shop no. 2, Dr. Ambedkar Stadium, New Delhi from where he is operating a firm under the name and style of M/s. Sundaram Hastkala. Petitioner no. 1 is residing on the first floor of property no. 7/108109 and is operating firm on the second floor of the property. He is also running a firm namely M/s. Allied Trad Services from the same property and thus is gainfully employed.
c) The drawing room, dining room, two bed rooms, kitchen, WC on the E198/11 Page 4 of 12 ground floor of this property is in possession of petitioner no.2, which are lying vacant.
d) The application for loan as filed by the petitioner no. 1 does not reveal the particulars of equipment to be purchased and petitioner has not mentioned as to what type of machine he is trying to install in the premises. Petitioner has sufficient accommodation available to him and this property is not allowed to be used for any industrial purpose. The running of a printing unit is not allowed in this area, hence he can not be allowed to run illegal activity from the tenanted property.
e) The site plan filed by the petitioners is incorrect and the site plan filed by the respondents shows the portion in green colour in possession and occupation of petitioner no.1. The portion shown in red colour is lying vacant being in possession of the petitioners.
f) The letters and experience certificate filed by the petitioners are false and fabricated.
5. In reply and counter affidavit, petitioner no. 1 reiterated the stand taken in the petition and pleaded that there is no other portion available in this property, which can be used for the requirement as stated in the petition. He denied that petitioner no. 2 is residing at Kaushambi, U.P and pleaded that there is only one shop in the entire premises and the requirement of petitioner no.1 is for a commercial accommodation. He denied that he is carrying on the business in the name of M/s. Sundaram E198/11 Page 5 of 12 Overseas or in the name of M/s. Sundaram Hastkala or in the name of M/s. Allied trade services. He pleaded that M/s. Sundaram Hastkala is being operated by petitioner no.2 and petitioner no. 1 has no relation with the same. He further denied that the business intended to be run by petitioner no. 1 does not fall under industrial activity.
6. Petitioner filed a site plan; certificate of experience of the petitioner no.1; evaluation in respect of property in question; copy of partnership deed of M/s. Sundaram Overseas; copy of CST and registration of M/s. Sundaram Overseas; copy of form DVAT06 of M/s. Sundaram Overseas; copy of importexport code of M/s. Sundaram Hastkala; registration certificate of Sales Tax department of M/s. Sundaram Hastkala; registrationcummembership certificate of M/s. Sundaram Hastkala.
7. On the other hand, respondent also filed site plan, internet downloaded copy of just dial, copy of electricity bills and copy of part of Master Plan Delhi2012; cash receipts of Subhash Studio.
8. Ld. counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following case laws:
1. Tarsem Singh v. Gurvinder Singh RC Rev. 137/2010
2. Sh. Labhu Lal v. Smt. Sandhya Gupta RC Rev. 20 5/2010.
3. John Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Surinder Singh 135(2006) DLT 265.
4. Rajinder Kumar Sharma v. Leela Wati 155(2008)DLT 383. E198/11 Page 6 of 12
5. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Assurance AIR 1999 SC 100.
6. Nem Chand Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana 94(2001) DLT 683.
7. Mukesh Kumar v. Rishi Prakash 2009(2)RCR 485.
8. Sarwan Das Bange v. Ram Prakash 2010 IV AD(Delhi)252.
9. Ram Babu Agarwal v. Jay Kishan Dass 2009(2) RCR 455.
10.Yadvendra Arya v. Mukesh Kumar Gupta AIR 2008 SC 773.
11. Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Aarti Tekchandani 153(2008) DLT 247.
12. Sahu Basheshwar Dayal Bankers v. Sujata Nath 152(2008) DLT 18.
13. Ranjit Kumar Chopra v. Virinder Khosla 155(2008) DLT 658.
14. Bhagwat Prasad Sharma v. Pinky Aggarwal RC Rev. 28 and 29 of 2007.
15. Munni Devi v. Manmohan Verma RC Rev. 135 of 2005.
16. K.C. Aggarwal v. Hardeep Singh 116(2005) DLT 41.
17. Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan AIR 2003 SC 2024.
18. Shri Ram Niwas v. Laxmi Narain 100(2002) DLT 252.
19. Om Prakash Bajaj v. Chander Shekhar 102(2003) DLT 746.
20. Bhimanagauda Basanagauda Patil v. Mohd. Gudusaheb AIR 2003 SC 1634.
21. Mohd. Yameen v. Mohd. Saleem Khan 98(2002) DLT 476.
9. I have given due attention to the rival contentions and perused the record of this case as well as caselaws. I don't intend to reproduce decision in all caselaws and shall refer to the relevant principle at E198/11 Page 7 of 12 appropriate place, if so required.
Findings:
10. I shall first deal with the requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act to seek eviction of a tenant. Under Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act, petitioner has to satisfy the following ingredients:
i) Petitioner has to be landlord as well as owner of the tenanted property.
ii) The premises should be required bona fide by the landlord for his occupation or for occupation of any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii) Landlord or such person dependent upon landlord should not have other reasonable or suitable accommodation in Delhi.
11. In the present case, respondents have disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. They pleaded that Sh. S.B. L. Bhatnagar was the landlord/owner, who had been issuing the receipt. However, respondents have not disputed that the petitioners are legal heirs of Sh. S.B.L Bhatnagar. Respondents have also not disputed the factum of death of Sh. S.B.L Bhatnagar. In these circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the property in question, has devolved upon the petitioners by operation of law of inheritance. Therefore, the petitioners are owners of property in question. Being owners they are well covered E198/11 Page 8 of 12 within definition of landlord as well. Hence the aforesaid objection of respondents can not be sustained.
12. Respondents have pleaded that the petitioner no.1 is also running three different firms in the name of M/s. Sundaram Overseas, M/s. Sundaram Hastkala and M/s. Allied Trade Services. In respect of their such claim, respondents have placed only a copy of advertisement in just dial.com, which shows the address of Sundaram Overseas at the property in question. In my opinion such document can not be entertained to show that the given firm is owned by petitioner no. 1. On the other hand, the documents filed by the petitioner show that the firm namely M/s. Sundaram Overseas is a partnership firm of Ms. Sushma Bhatnagar and Mr. Karun Bhatnagar. His documents further show that firm namely M/s. Sundaram Hastkala is owned by Mr. Kamal Bhatnagar. Therefore, the aforesaid plea of the respondents also can not be sustained.
13. The respondents have taken another plea that petitioner no. 1 has sufficient accommodation in the property in question. They have filed their own site plan showing the accommodation available in the whole building. The site plan filed by the petitioner does not show the accommodation available in the whole building. Therefore, I rely upon the site plan filed by the respondents itself and find that this site plan as well does not show any other commercial accommodation in this property to be available to the petitioners. It is settled law that respondents being tenant can not E198/11 Page 9 of 12 dictate their landlord to change user of any particular portion of this building, in order to satisfy their requirement and to keep the tenant in the tenanted premises. The other portions of this property are shown to be residential and the petitioners can not be dictated either by this Court or by the respondents to change the user of such portion. Therefore, even if it is assumed that any other portion of this property is vacant, it can not be said that the same provides alternate reasonable accommodation for the projected need of petitioner no. 1.
14. It was also argued on behalf of respondents that the petitioner no.1 is not unemployed and that the loan application field by him does not show that what kind of machine he wants to install in property in question. In my considered opinion, no such contentions are sufficient to contest this petition because making arrangements of finance to run his business is the liability of petitioner no.1 and he has to take care that how he is going to arrange his finance. He can even seek finance from other sources and therefore, it is not required for the petitioners to show that they are going to get loan from bank, to which application has been made by petitioner no.1. In fact such question should not be a matter of concern either for the respondents or for the Court until unless it is established on the record that by no means petitioner no.1 can have the financial resources to run the proposed business. In my considered opinion, while examining the financial capacity of petitioner no.1, it is not required to make a detailed E198/11 Page 10 of 12 inquiry to the minutest details in order to find due possibility of getting finance by petitioner no.1. It is also not logical that without any premises, the petitioner no.1 would be able to proceed further actively in order to take loan and other steps, to establish his business. What is required in the present proceedings is bonafide projection of the need/requirement. Even such need is not required to be assessed on the basis of financial condition of the petitioner no.1, because it is nowhere laid down that a landlord would not be entitled to earn beyond a particular limit. Meaning thereby a landlord is well entitled to decide his carrier and the sources of his income and to utilise his own property to earn for himself. Therefore, the question of being employed or unemployed of petitioner no. 1 does not become a relevant question. Hence, I find that the aforesaid contentions of the respondents are also not sustainable in order to contest this petition.
15. Another question has been raised by the respondents that as per Master Plan for Delhi 2021, the activity of printing, dying and varnishing is not covered under mixed use and therefore, such business is not allowed to be undertaken in the property in question. In respect of such contention, it has to be seen that the concerned authority of the Govt. shall have the option to analyse the projected business of petitioner no. 1 on the parameters of the rules. This Court is not supposed to frame any opinion in respect of the same until unless it is shown that the petitioner no.1 can not be allowed to do any kind business in the given premises. Even if it is E198/11 Page 11 of 12 assumed that a work of printing by establishing a particular kind of machine and using particular kind of chemicals, would not be allowed in the tenanted premises, that does not washes off the requirement of petitioner no.1 and it shall be always open for the petitioner no.1 to make modification in respect of nature of his business in order to bring it within the parameters of prescribed rules. At this stage, this Court is not supposed to frame a particular impression regarding the nature of proposed business of petitioner no.1. Hence, even this contention is not found to dislodge the requirement of petitioner no.1 to run his own business of printing.
16. In view of my aforesaid findings and observations, I find that respondents have failed to disclose any fact in their affidavit to disentitle the petitioners from seeking eviction order in this case.
Hence, Application for leave to defend is dismissed. Eviction pe tition is hereby allowed and eviction order is passed against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners, in respect of shop number 7/108, Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi32 as shown in green colour in the site plan filed by respondents and marked as Mark 'A' by me today.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open (PULSTYA PRAMACHALA)
Court on 10.05.2012) ARC01, East, Karkardooma,
This order contains 12 pages 10.05.2012
E198/11 Page 12 of 12