DINESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SUNIL GUPTA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition impugns an order dated 9.12.2013 whereby the petitioner (tenant) has been directed to be evicted from the tenanted premises being property No.2841, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Khazi, Delhi- 6. The order was passed in the petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956 wherein the eviction petitioner/landlord had claimed the premises for his bonafide need. He claimed that his family had eleven members and all of them were dependent on the earnings of the firm being run by him; he was desirous of separating the business of his three sons and required more commercial space; that on the front side of the property had two shops, one of which was got vacated wherein his eldest son had been installed to open and run a sanitary ware business; now the petitioner needed the tenanted premises to settle his other sons and all his grandsons who lacked commercial space. The application for leave to defend disputed the eviction petitioner as a landlord; denied the alleged bonafide need and contended that there was sufficient commercial space available with the eviction petitioner on the ground floor of the property No.2841, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Khazi, Delhi-6 of which the petitioner became owner by way of a Will dated 6.1.1990 executed by his mother. The petitioner/tenant claimed that rooms marked as Mark A, B, C & D were being used for commercial space and for storage purposes; that shop shown as Mark E was being used by the eldest son to run his business.

(2.) In the application for leave to defend, the present petitioner denied the ownership of the tenanted premises of the eviction petitioner. He further denied the dependency of the eviction petitioner's sons upon him for starting their respective businesses. It was contended that the sons of the eviction petitioners were well-settled running their respective business of sanitary paint and hardware and therefore the requirement was not bonafide. It was further contended that the eviction petitioner had required a complete floor at premises No.2841, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Khazi, Delhi-6 which was being used for commercial purpose and finally it was argued that the eviction was sought only with a view to re-let the premises at exorbitant rate of rent prevailing in the market. In reply however, the eviction petitioner reiterated grounds made in the eviction petition and stated that he had become owner of the ground floor of the property by way of Will dated 6.1.1990 executed by his mother and the rooms shown as Mark A, B, C, D & E had been put to use as already averred in the petition; that the first and the second floor of the property were being used only for residential purposes; that he had sufficient funds to support the businesses of his sons.

(3.) He further explained that the third son will take over the firm which was being run by him and finally that the property bearing No.2841, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Khazi, Delhi-6 did not belong to him but to one Smt. Madhu. Mr. G.L. Rawal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner argues on behalf of the petitioner that this was a case for requirement of additional space for commercial purpose and the leave to defend ought to have been granted. He submits that not only more than sufficient but excess accommodation was available with the respondent/landlord and in such circumstances where additional accommodation is sought, the leave to defend out to have been granted. In support of his arguments, he relied upon Santosh Dev Soni vs. Chand Kiran, 2001 1 SCC 255; S.M. Mehra vs. D.D. Malik, 2001 1 SCC 256; Rajpal Singh vs. Gurmeet Kaur,2009 5 SLT 142; Mohd. Jaffer & Others vs. Nasra Begum, 2012 191 DLT 401 & S.K. Sethi; Sons vs. Vijay Bhalla, 2012 191 DLT 722 & Gangadas vs. B.N. Singh & Anr. in RC Rev. NO.276/2012.