NAVEEN ARORA AND ORS. Vs. SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition impugns an order of 30th July, 2013 which allowed the respondent'/landlord's eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the 'Act'). The petitioners/tenants have been directed to be evicted from the suit premises i.e. Shop No. 683/2, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The order has been assailed on the following grounds: -

(2.) THE leave to defend was allowed and the eviction order was passed after complete trial. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court fell into error in returning a finding which is not supported by evidence. He submits that the record would clearly establish that the landlord was not engaged in the business of cloth trade. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order be set aside. It was the petitioners'/tenants' case that the landlord owned four DDA flats in Dilshad Garden area bearing Nos. A -391, L -21 -A, H -85 -A and R -29 -A. He argued that while the landlord resided at A -391 which comprised of three bedrooms, a drawing -cum -dining room; the petitioner had constructed numerous shops on the remaining ground floor flats. He further contended that the shops were misuser of the residential premises. Furthermore, he alleged that the landlord did not disclose the nature of business which was sought to be run from the tenanted premises in case it was vacated. In reply thereto, the landlord asserted that all the DDA flats were residential properties which could not be used for commercial purposes. He denied the existence or construction of any shop in any of his flats and considered the tenanted premises as the most suitable for his bonafide need for running a cloth trade. The landlord further contended that the said accommodation could not be considered as a commercial accommodation till the requisite sanction from the DDA is obtained. Further for the sake of arguments he contended that even if it could be used for commercial purposes he did not consider them suitable for his need. According to the landlord, the most suitable place/accommodation for carrying out a business of cloth trade was at Chandni Chowk which is a well known market for the said trade. He reiterated that he has no alternate accommodation for carrying out the said business.

(3.) THE Trial Court also considered that of the six residential flats admittedly owned by the landlord, three were situated on the ground floor which were being used for commercial activities by his tenants. Flat No.R -29 -A was vacated about two years ago and the remaining two flats were occupied by other tenants. However, the landlord denied the suggestion that he was in possession of the two or three commercial shops at the time of filing the petition. The tenant had contended that though the flats owned by the petitioner and his wife were residential in nature, they were put to commercial activities by their tenants. He relies upon photographs to emphasize his point. The Trial Court was of the view that question of conversion of these three flats into shops and the running of the commercial activities therefrom by the tenants would be of no significance since the landlord had let them out as residential accommodation and change of user or irregular user by the tenant cannot be said to have changed the intrinsic character of the property: i.e. from residential to commercial from there loses its significance. This Court is of the view that the property could not be legitimately considered a commercial accommodation without prior sanction of the authority concerned.