Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

WRITTEN STATEMENT

6) Thereafter, written statement was filed by the respondent no.1 and 2 wherein they have denied the contentions of the petitioner and stated that the eviction petition is not maintainable. Firstly, it is contended that petitioner is neither the owner nor landlord of the property but only a Rent Collector on behalf of the owner /landlord Johri Lal. Secondly, it is contended that the tenancy is commercial in nature and respondents are running grocery/parchune shop for the last 70 years and therefore, dependent upon it whereas earning of the petitioners is not less than Rs. 15,00,000/- per month. Thirdly, it is contended that petitioner is in possession of about 800 sq. ft. of the area on the ground floor and more than 1100 sq. ft. on the first floor and more than 1000 sq. ft on the second floor. Fourthly, it is contended that the petitioner is having alternative accommodation in the form of three properties bearing no. 65,76, and B-15/3, each in DLF, Ankur Vihar; one double storey well built property in Anand Vihar, Delhi; 50% share in two plots D-27/C5, RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 6 of 27 and 21/B1 and B-68/C7 in Tronica City. It is stated that the petitioner has not disclosed in the entire petition as to how the said properties are not suitable for the projected business. Fifthly, it is contended that the petitioner himself has stated that the requirement is for expansion of business but has not shown as to how the existing accommodation is insufficient. Sixthly, it is contended that the property falls in slum area and therefore, for integrating the tenanted premises and adjoining yellow colour portion with the green colour portion, structural change would be required for which slum permission is necessary, however, the same has not been obtained. Seventhly, it is contended that Alka Gupta is not dependent upon the petitioner for her bonafide need because she has been running her own business. Eighthly, it is contended that the need is not bonafide as the petitioner has mechanically shown his nephew Nitin Gupta in occupation of the blue portion of the first floor and duchhatti whereas the same is in the possession of the petitioner only. Ninethly, it is contended that the petitioner has already obtained the vacant possession of paan shop bearing no. 3/4334 and the same has been concealed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has sold out his property bearing no. 4766/23, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Lastly, it is contended that the tenanted premises is not suitable for the projected bonafide need since the tenanted premises as well as adjoining portion as shown in yellow colour consists of area of around 40 sq. yard only and therefore, the machines projected to be installed would not fit in the said area. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition may be liable to be dismissed.

23) Accordingly in view of the above law, no permission was required by the petitioner before filing the present petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. As far as, the claim regarding the structural changes is concerned, it is pertinent to note that PW1 has clarified in his cross examination, that no structural changes are required to made. He categorically deposed that to access the adjoining portion and the same can be done by opening a door in the partition wall between the premises. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that that the DRC act is silent about any requirement of the landlord for giving details/divulging anything qua the nature/purpose of the proposed business. Hence, the landlord is not required to disclose the exact nature of use of premises in eviction petition. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in H S Banka vs Mohan Lal 2025 SCC Online Del 6372. Even otherwise, in the case of Raj Kumar Khaitan & Ors. Vs. Bibi Zubaid Khatun & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 576, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the nature of business would have been indicated, nobody could bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated. Thus, it is the prerogative of the landlord to determine which business he intends to start and whether the tenanted premises is suitable or not for said purpose. Thus, the said contention is also devoid of merits.