SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS Vs. SUBHASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review Petition No. 419/2014 & CM No. 15229/14

(2.) Before me, three grounds are urged on behalf of the petitioners/tenants to impugn the judgment dismissing the leave to defend application:-

(3.) Let me first take up the aspect with respect to the bonafide need because the respondent/landlord has sought eviction from the tenanted shop not for carrying on his own business and that of the other son with whom he is clearly carrying on his business from the side lane of the property, but the tenanted premises are pleaded to be bonafidely required for opening of a stationary shop for the eldest/other son of the respondent/landlord. The Additional Rent Controller has observed that in fact the respondent/landlord could have required the tenanted premises for his own need also because not only the premises from where the landlord is presently carrying on business are situated in a side lane but also the premises from where the business is being carried on are not owned by the respondent/landlord and has been taken by him on tenancy. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja, 2014 210 DLT 58 in Civil Appeal No.5513/2014, decided on 8.5.2014: has held that if the landlord wants to carry on his business from a more suitable location on the main road, then, tenants cannot dictate that landlords should not do so. Therefore, in fact, the bonafide necessity eviction petition was maintainable even for the need of the respondent/landlord, and which in any case is only for the need of opening of a stationary shop by the eldest son, and the pleadings show that there is no dispute in the leave to defend application or before this Court that the eldest son for whom the tenanted premises are required is carrying on some other business and therefore does not want the tenanted premises for opening of a stationary shop. Hence the respondent/landlord was more than justified in seeking eviction of the petitioners/tenants for bonafide need.