MAN MOHAN DASS Vs. AJAY TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition impugns an eviction order dated 5.12.2012, whereby the defendant's application for leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction order apropos property No.WZ -48, Basai Darapur, New Delhi - 110015, comprising one hall admeasuring 26.6 ft. X 23 ft. was passed. The case of the landlord/eviction -petitioner was that the tenanted premises were let out in the year 1975 to the deceased brother of the present tenant (petitioner herein) for godown purposes wherefrom the latter had been running a small casting unit at a monthly rent of Rs.225/ -. After the demise of the said brother, the present tenant took over the possession of the suit premises, his tenancy was accepted at an enhanced rent of Rs.700/ - per month and currently the rental is Rs.800/ - per month. The landlord issued rent receipts as and when the rent was paid by the tenant. The last rent was paid on 31.12.2009. The tenant has been in arrears of rent since 1.1.2010. According to Government policy of relocation of industrial units operating from non -conforming areas an industrial plot bearing No.218/D had been allotted to the tenant in the name of his proprietorship firm, viz. M/s. Janta Foundry Works in the year 1995 -96 in Bawana Industrial Area -II (Bhorgarh) measuring 100 sq.mtrs. vide his application No.19488 under the relocation scheme by the DSIIDC to protect the residents of the area from pollution. The eviction -petitioner claimed that he requires the premises for starting his own business of electrical spare parts to meet the demands of his ever -increasing daily expenses and the tenanted premises being a hall would most aptly be suited for the purpose; that the petitioner was a graduate from Delhi University and MBA from Sikkim Manipal University and previously he had worked in the banking sector as well as in sales and marketing; that he had good education but was not gainfully employed to take care of his old and ailing parents, who were living with him and were dependent on him, besides his wife too was not keeping good health, thus, need to augment his income from a business enterprise was most urgent and bona fide. The landlord further contended that he had no other suitable accommodation for doing the business; therefore, the eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises was sought.

(2.) IN the application seeking leave to defend, the tenant had stated that the landlord had several other residential premises in the same area which were let out for industrial or commercial purposes, therefore, his bona fide need was not made out and since the premises were leased out for residential purposes and not required for residential purposes, the same could not be sought for starting a business; that Section 14(1)(e) of the Act does not cover commercial accommodation, therefore, the petition would not be maintainable; that the tenanted premises did not fall into the share of the eviction -petitioner in the 'family settlement'; that the tenanted premises were let out for non -residential purposes for the last 36 years and being so used; the monthly rental of Rs.800/ - was admitted; that the rent was being deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller and stands paid up till 31.5.2011; that the industrial area where the tenant has been allotted an alternate plot is still not developed and, in any case, the unit at the tenanted premises caused almost no pollution for which safety measures had been taken by the Government and it does not cause any inconvenience to the neighbours; that the petition has been filed primarily to evict the petitioner and deprive him of his livelihood and the reasons mentioned in the eviction petition are all fanciful.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.