Girdhari Lal Goomer and anr. Vs. P.P.Gambhir - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[mr. justice .b.manohar, j.] this w.p. filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying ,to direct the respondent police to give police protection to the officials. staff and workmen of the petitioner company and also the officials of the ing vysya bank to shift and transport materials from the factory premises situated at no.7 kiadb industrial area. 2nd phase. jigani anekal taluk. bangalore 562106.1. whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? yes2. to be referred to the reporter or not? yes3. whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? yes1. the present revision petitions under section 25-b(8) of delhi rent control act, 1958 (for short as "the act") have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by additional rent controller (for short as "the controller") delhi, whereby leave to defend/contest the eviction petition has been dismissed and an eviction order is passed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(b) of act against the petitioner in respect of suit premises.2. the brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners are tenant in a shop admeasuring 15'x8' (120 sq.ft.) in property bearing no.e-3, kalkaji, new delhi at a monthly rent of rs. 100/-. the said shop was originally taken on rent on lease from shri om dutt malik in the year 1955-56 and for the last 55 years the petitioners are running the said shop as tenant. the petitioners are senior citizen aged above 70 years and carrying on business from the tenanted premises since 1955 onwards. the petitioners have no other sufficient means to earn their livelihood. the respondent purchased some portion of the building bearing no.e-3, kalkaji, new delhi from its previous owner shri om dutt malik s/o late shri raghunath rai vide agreement to sell dated 26.11.1996 which included the tenanted shops on the ground floor admeasuring 300 sq.ft., i.e., about 120 sq.ft. under tenancy of the petitioners and other 180 sq.ft. under tenancy of the spouse of the petitioners. shri om dutt malik also executed a will and power of attorney in favour of the respondent, however, the agreement to sell dated 26.11.1996, last will dated 06.03.1989 were not registered. the respondent admitted that "shri om dutt malik from whom the respondent had purchased the said property has expired and his will has come into operation in favour of the respondent". 3. thereafter, the petitioners/tenants attorned the respondent as the landlord/owner in respect of the two tenanted premises and started paying rent of the tenanted premises to the respondent. the respondent is a practicing chartered accountant. as per respondent's eviction petition he is having his office in the rented premises located in the same building no.e-3, kalkaji, new delhi and the land lady of the respondent is his own wife who is receiving a handsome rent of more than rs.15,000/- per month from her husband without disclosing the portion of e-3 building in her legal possession.4. thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners-tenants under section 14(1) (e) and section 25-b of the act, 1958 in the year 2009 in the court of rent controller wherein, he claimed to be requiring the tenanted premises for his bonafide requirement which was contested by the petitioners by filing a leave to contest the eviction petition. the learned controller by his order dated 13.10.2010 dismissed the application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the petitioners/tenants.5. learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent/landlord was not at all sure that for what purpose the suit premises is required by the respondent/landlord.6. learned counsel for the petitioners has further vehemently argued that alternative accommodation is available with the respondent/landlord in the same city, therefore, respondent is not having a bonafide requirement.7. learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondent/landlord has desperately wanted to evict the petitioners/tenants on one ground or the other. further, he submitted that the respondent/landlord was unable to satisfy the learned arc that he is having a bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises. the petitioners/tenants are senior citizen, who have no other means of livelihood and have been operating their office from the tenanted premises for the last 50 years and they will suffer hardship if eviction order is passed.8. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that respondent has no other suitable commercial accommodation. property no. e-340, greater kailash part-ii is a residential property and is fully occupied for residential purposes and there is no other space available for the respondent/landlord.9. learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the tenanted premises was let out to the petitioners for commercial purpose and same is required bonafide by the respondent for his own occupation and respondent/landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. the respondent/landlord requires the said tenanted premises for his own professional office as the same is a part of the property no. e-3, kalkaji, new delhi where respondent/landlord is running his office and the respondent need not change his postal address, telephone numbers etc. and would also be relieved of all types of hassles and harassment in shifting his office and also of losing his clients at any other new place.10. learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has contended that there is no leave to defend application filed by the petitioners. but there is one affidavit filed by smt. pushpa rani goomer which cannot be considered as affidavit filed by the petitioners/tenants.11. i have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. i have also gone through the documents on record and judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in casesumesh challiyill vs. k.p.rajendran, (2008) 11 scc 740, and dwarka nath pandey vs. income tax officer, special circle d ward and anr. air 1966 sc 81 (v 53 c 22). the facts of both the cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case.12. in sait nagjee purushotham and co. ltd. v. vimalabai prabhulal and ors. (2005) 8 scc 252, it was observed: "it is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at chennai and hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. it is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. it is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business."13. therefore, i am of the opinion that the respondent/landlord is in bonafide need of the rented premises. because the need of the respondent is to use that rented premises for his personal commercial use and the other property available to the respondent in greater kailash is purely residential property which does not fulfill the requirement of the respondent as he cannot start his work from there.14. petitioners have failed to raise any triable issue in this case, which if proved, might disentitle the respondent from getting an order of eviction in their favour. the trial court has given a detailed and reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor the same suffers from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.15. therefore, i find no infirmity in the order passed by the arc.16. these revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.17. no costs.

Judgment:
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the Digest? Yes

1. The present revision petitions under section 25-B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as "the Act") have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as "the Controller") Delhi, whereby leave to defend/contest the eviction petition has been dismissed and an eviction order is passed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25(B) of Act against the petitioner in respect of suit premises.

2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioners are tenant in a shop admeasuring 15'X8' (120 sq.ft.) in property bearing No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The said shop was originally taken on rent on lease from Shri Om Dutt Malik in the year 1955-56 and for the last 55 years the petitioners are running the said shop as tenant. The petitioners are senior citizen aged above 70 years and carrying on business from the tenanted premises since 1955 onwards. The petitioners have no other sufficient means to earn their livelihood. The respondent purchased some portion of the building bearing No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi from its previous owner Shri Om Dutt Malik S/o Late Shri Raghunath Rai Vide Agreement to Sell dated 26.11.1996 which included the tenanted shops on the Ground Floor admeasuring 300 sq.ft., i.e., about 120 sq.ft. under tenancy of the petitioners and other 180 sq.ft. under tenancy of the spouse of the petitioners. Shri Om Dutt Malik also executed a Will and Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent, however, the Agreement to Sell dated 26.11.1996, last Will dated 06.03.1989 were not registered. The respondent admitted that "Shri Om Dutt Malik from whom the respondent had purchased the said property has expired and his Will has come into operation in favour of the respondent".

3. Thereafter, the petitioners/tenants attorned the respondent as the landlord/owner in respect of the two tenanted premises and started paying rent of the tenanted premises to the respondent. The respondent is a practicing Chartered Accountant. As per respondent's eviction petition he is having his office in the rented premises located in the same building No.E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi and the land lady of the respondent is his own wife who is receiving a handsome rent of more than Rs.15,000/- per month from her husband without disclosing the portion of E-3 building in her legal possession.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners-tenants under section 14(1) (e) and section 25-B of the Act, 1958 in the year 2009 in the Court of Rent Controller wherein, he claimed to be requiring the tenanted premises for his bonafide requirement which was contested by the petitioners by filing a leave to contest the eviction petition. The Learned Controller by his order dated 13.10.2010 dismissed the application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the petitioners/tenants.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the respondent/landlord was not at all sure that for what purpose the suit premises is required by the respondent/landlord.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further vehemently argued that alternative accommodation is available with the respondent/landlord in the same city, therefore, respondent is not having a bonafide requirement.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the respondent/landlord has desperately wanted to evict the petitioners/tenants on one ground or the other. Further, he submitted that the respondent/landlord was unable to satisfy the Learned ARC that he is having a bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises. The petitioners/tenants are senior citizen, who have no other means of livelihood and have been operating their office from the tenanted premises for the last 50 years and they will suffer hardship if eviction order is passed.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that respondent has no other suitable commercial accommodation. Property No. E-340, Greater Kailash Part-II is a residential property and is fully occupied for residential purposes and there is no other space available for the respondent/landlord.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that the tenanted premises was let out to the petitioners for commercial purpose and same is required bonafide by the respondent for his own occupation and respondent/landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. The respondent/landlord requires the said tenanted premises for his own professional office as the same is a part of the property No. E-3, Kalkaji, New Delhi where respondent/landlord is running his office and the respondent need not change his postal address, telephone numbers etc. and would also be relieved of all types of hassles and harassment in shifting his office and also of losing his clients at any other new place.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has contended that there is no leave to defend application filed by the petitioners. But there is one affidavit filed by Smt. Pushpa Rani Goomer which cannot be considered as affidavit filed by the petitioners/tenants.

11. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the documents on record and judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in casesUmesh Challiyill vs. K.P.Rajendran, (2008) 11 SCC 740, and Dwarka Nath Pandey vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D ward and Anr. AIR 1966 SC 81 (V 53 C 22). The facts of both the cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

12. In Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 252, it was observed: "It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this is no ground to say that the landlords are already having their business at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine need. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of business."

13. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent/landlord is in bonafide need of the rented premises. Because the need of the respondent is to use that rented premises for his personal commercial use and the other property available to the respondent in Greater Kailash is purely residential property which does not fulfill the requirement of the respondent as he cannot start his work from there.

14. Petitioners have failed to raise any triable issue in this case, which if proved, might disentitle the respondent from getting an order of eviction in their favour. The trial court has given a detailed and reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor the same suffers from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction.

15. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the ARC.

16. These revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

17. No Costs.