RAMESH CHAND GULATI Vs. LALIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the impugned judgment dated 14.10.2011, the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed. The disputed premises comprise of a shop on the ground floor measuring 550 square feet, an area of 775 square feet on the first floor and also an area of the same configuration (775 square feet) on the second floor of a part of property bearing No. 2435-2438, Gali Nos. 10 & 11, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. The tenant is aggrieved by this finding.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord Lalit Kumar on the ground of a bonafide need; the petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA discloses that the premises had been let out to the respondent by the erstwhile owner; the petitioner along with his brother Anil Kumar and mother Kamla Devi had purchased the entire aforenoted built up property from the earlier owner vide a registered sale deed dated 04.03.1993. The respondent had attorned in favour of the petitioner. Further contention is that the tenant is in arrears of rent. Further submission being that the mother of the petitioner Kamla Devi had died on 18.01.2004 bequeathing her 1/3rd share in the aforenoted entire property vide a registered Will dated 19.12.2003 in favour of her two sons i.e. the present petitioner Lalit Kumar and his brother Anil Kumar in equal shares; suit premises had been let out for non-residential purpose; they are bonafide required by the petitioner for carrying on the business for himself as he has no other place to carry on his business. Further contention in the eviction petition discloses that the petitioner and his brother along with their mother were earlier carrying on a business of clothes under a partnership dated 12.08.1996 under the name and style of 'M/s Dalchand Gupta and Company'; this was from a portion/shop situated on the ground floor of the same larger property (as depicted in blue colour in the site plan). On 18.01.2004 after the death of his mother, the brothers entered into a fresh partnership dated 20.01.2004. In August, 2007, the wife of his brother started interfering in the business and so much so that the matter had to be reported to the police. Since July, 2009, there have been contumacious litigations raging between the two brothers in various forums. To support this submission, the petitioner along with the eviction petition has placed on record the record of the litigations pending inter-se between the parties which included a petition filed by the present petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') which was on 15.07.2009. In the course of these proceedings, the seal of the Karol Bagh shop was broken by his brother Anil Kumar and a complaint was lodged with the police against which an appeal was filed. Thereafter a second petition under Section 9 of the said Act was also filed on 08.05.2010 which litigation also travelled up to the appellate forum. Further contention of the petitioner is that the pursuant to these litigations, the petitioner has been denied access to this shop where the brothers were carrying on business and which is now in exclusive control of his brother Anil Kumar. Further contention is that the brothers had also been carrying on a trade business under the name and style of 'M/s Dalchand Gupta and Sons' from a neighbouring shop which is a shop bearing No. 2774/1, Gali Nos. 20 & 21, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh which premises were taken on tenancy from one Smt. Saroj Gaur; the fact that these premises are tenanted premises is not disputed. The submission of the petitioner is that because of the acrimony between the brothers, the petitioner was denied access to these premises also and litigation qua these premises i.e. shop No. 2774/1 is also pending. A suit for injunction filed by the petitioner against his brother seeking a prayer injuncting his brother from parting with possession of the aforenoted premises (shop No. 2774/1 admittedly a tenanted premises) is also pending between the parties; record of that suit is also a part of the trial court record. Further submission of the petitioner is that the wife of the petitioner namely Reeta and their elder son Pulkit are carrying on a separate business of ladies suits and sarees from the ground floor, City Square Marg, Rajouri Garden; this is under the name of 'M/s DCG Fabs Pvt. Ltd.'; the petitioner has no right or interest in this business which is being conducted exclusively by his wife and his elder son. These premises is owned by his wife and his son; documents of title of this property as also the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company 'M/s DCG Fabs Pvt. Ltd' is also a part of the trial Court record to substantiate the submission that the present petitioner Lalit Kumar has no right or interest in this business. Further submission of the petitioner (as borne out from the eviction petition) is that two other premises have also been taken on rent by his wife Reeta and his elder son Pulkit which are premises bearing No. J-109, main market, Rajouri Garden and property bearing No. 18, Kapil Vihar, Pitam Pura which had been taken at a monthly rent of Rs.2,80,000/- and Rs.2,25,000/-; from these aforenoted tenanted premises, the business of 'M/s DCG Fabs Pvt.' (business of his wife and son) is also being run. Contention of the petitioner is that he alone does not have any business place from where he can carry out his business; the aforenoted business houses are of his wife and his son who are independent individuals. The business which the petitioner was running along with his brother from the portion (depicted in blue colour in the site plant) and property bearing No. 2774/1, Beadon Pura are no longer accessible to him; the petitioner to support the submission has placed on record the list of the aforenoted litigations pending inter-se between the two brothers as also the fact that even qua the tenanted premises at 2774/1, Beadon Pura (tenanted property), litigation is pending between the two brothers. In fact the whole crux of the eviction petition and the arguments urged by the learned counsel for the landlord being to the effect that the brothers being in inter-se litigations, there is no business place from where the petitioner can run his business. The aforenoted premises which are on the ground, first and second floors are accordingly required by the petitioner for running his business.

(3.) It is not in dispute that in the course of proceedings before the trial Court, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') had been filed by the brother Anil Kumar seeking impleadment in the aforenoted proceedings; this application was allowed; contention of the brother of the petitioner was to the effect that he is also a co-owner in the suit property and as such be permitted to be impleaded as a necessary/property party.