RAKESH SUD Vs. ARUN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned is the order dated 22.02.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Arun Kumar Gupta seeking eviction of his tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) on the ground of bonafide requirement had been decreed. Record shows that the petitioner was the landlord of shop No. 4997, Ward No. XI on plot No. 57, Daya Nand Marg, Darya Ganj; this property has been let out to the tenant at monthly rent of Rs.50/-. Contention of the petitioner is that he had a shop in the basement of B-43, Greaker Kailash-I from where he was carrying on his business of sale of electronic articles like DVD player/LCD/TV for the last 15 years; this shop was located in a residential area and under the orders of the Apex Court had been ordered to be sealed; petitioner is in dire need of space to run his business; he has no other means of livelihood; this is the only commercial property available with him which is required for his bonafide need to carry on his business. Present petition was accordingly filed. Further contention in the eviction is to the effect that the tenant had in fact purchased a portion of this property from Rajesh Luthra who in turn had purchased this portion from the present petitioner. Further contention is to the effect that an earlier eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRCA had been filed by the landlord against the father of the respondent in which the tenant had initially opposed the landlord-tenant relationship but thereafter in the course of those proceedings he had himself moved an application admitting the status of Arun Kumar Gupta as landlord/owner.

(2.) To support this submission attention has been drawn to the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in proceedings under Section 15(1) of the DRCA (dated 27.5.1985) wherein the submission of the father of the tenant (Nanak Chand Sud) that there is no relationship landlord and tenant had been repelled; as an interim measure Nanak Chand Sud (in those proceedings) had been directed to pay interim rent. Attention has also been drawn to the application filed by Nanak Chand Sud (father of the tenant) wherein he had himself had admitted that he was satisfied about the title of the petitioner (Arun Kumar Gupta); his prayer in that application had sought a dismissal of the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRCA. This submission of the counsel for Nanak Chand Sud has also been recorded on 09.4.1986 before the ARC in those proceedings which was to the same effect.

(3.) All these facts had been noted by the ARC in the correct perspective. These orders in fact become relevant in view of the vehement submission made by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court today that the relationship of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties. This submission has little force as in view of the aforenoted orders, the father of the tenant (tenant is deriving his title only from his father) had himself made a submission in writing that he had satisfied himself about the title of Arun Kumar Gupta; in fact, in those proceedings he continued to pay rent to the present landlord. Thus this submission that Arun Kumar Gupta is not the owner/landlord of these premises is bereft of all force. The additional submission made by this tenant on this count that even otherwise in the eviction petition it has not been specifically pleaded that Arun Kumar Gupta is owner of the suit property is also without merit. The form in which the present eviction proceedings have been filed (under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA) have been perused; Column 3 specifies the name and head of the landlord; the name of Arun Kumar Gupta finds mention; para 18 contains the grounds of eviction; they have specified that the tenant (Rakesh Sud) had purchased the adjoining central shop from Rajesh Luthra who in turn had purchased it from Arun Kumar Gupta; this was vide a registered sale deed; it is implicit from a reading of this document that Arun Kumar was the owner and that is how vide a registered sale deed he had sold this central shop to Rajesh Luthra who in turn had sold it to the present tenant Rakesh Sud. The tenant Rakesh Sud has in fact admitted that Arun Kumar Gupta was the owner of four shops one of which has been purchased by his wife from the intervener Rajesh Luthra.