Anil Bajaj & Anr vs Vinod Ahuja on 8 May, 2014
5. In my opinion, the premises at Karol Bagh is not a suitable alternative
accommodation for the reason that surely a landlord can choose a premises
which is more conveniently located for carrying on his professional work
instead of carrying on his professional work from a premises which is not
only situated at a far away distance from his residence but which is on the
second floor of the property as compared to the tenanted premises which are
RC.REV.No.203/2012 Page 4 of 11
situated on the first floor. Of course, it would have been better if the
respondent/landlord had himself stated in the eviction petition that the
premises from where he is presently carrying on his professional work of a
chartered accountant is owned by his wife, however, in my opinion this
aspect not being stated will not make any significant difference with respect
to the issue of grant of leave to defend, because, even if we take against the
respondent/landlord that he has the Karol Bagh premises but these premises
cannot be termed as alternative suitable accommodation because admittedly
the premises at Karol Bagh is situated at a place which is located almost at
three times more of the distance from the residence of the
respondent/landlord then as compared to the suit/tenanted premises. The
premises at Karol Bagh are also not alternative suitable accommodation
because the said premises are located at the second floor and which floor
would not be convenient to the aged clients, which the
respondent/professionals/chartered accountants would have. Also, there is no
rebuttal of any substance by the petitioner/tenant to the averment made on
behalf of the respondent/landlord that most of the clients of the
respondent/landlord are situated in and around Nai Sarak area where the
tenanted premises are situated. Therefore, in my opinion the Rent Controller
RC.REV.No.203/2012 Page 5 of 11
below has rightly concluded that the premises at Karol Bagh on the second
floor are not suitable alternative accommodation, and I thus uphold this
conclusion of the Rent Controller especially in view of the recent judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja 2014 (6)
SCALE 572, and which holds that a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord to
carry out his business from a less convenient location once the landlord
wants to carry on his business/work from a more suitable accommodation.
6 (i) Now the issue which requires examination is whether there are any
portions available in property bearing no. 4161, Nai Sarak, Delhi, and which
are allegedly available as vacant portions to the respondent/landlord for
carrying on his professional work from such portions.