ANU MANGALANI Vs. RAJIV GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act), impugns an order dated 5 th May 2011, by which the petitioner's (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) application for leave to defend was dismissed. Consequently, an eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) in respect of one shop admeasuring 30 feet x 15 feet on the Ground Floor (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises) in property bearing No. M-72, Greater Kailash-I (Market), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property). Background of the case

(2.) The landlord had sought eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The landlord averred that he and his mother, Mrs. Nirmal Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the mother) were joint owners of the tenanted premises, two godowns/shops behind the tenanted premises and the entire front portion of the first and second floors of the property; that the property of the said description had been gifted to him and his mother vide registered gift deed dated 20.10.1995 and the second floor had been added to by him in the year 1998/2000; that his father, Mr. Ved Prakash Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the father) and his brother, Mr. Pankaj Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the brother) jointly own a shop in the front portion and a godown in the rear portion (occupied by a tenant) on the ground floor and half portions (rear side) each on the first and second floors of the property vide gift deeds dated 11.08.2006; that the three godowns on the ground floor had been amalgamated into one. Similarly, the front and rear portions on the first and second floors too had been amalgamated into one suit; that the entire rear portion on the ground floor, entire first and second floors had been let out to M/s Titan Industries (hereinafter referred to as Titan) as a single tenant; that he was 30 years old was a commerce graduate and had been assisting his father in his garments business since the year 2000, being carried out at 16- H/47, Gali No. 4, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tank Road property); that he had undergone optimum training in running a garments business and wanted to start his own garment business/showroom from the tenanted premises; that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation for the same; that the other shop on the front side of the property was jointly owned by his brother and his father and not by him; that the rear portion on the ground floor, entire first and second floors were jointly owned by himself, his brother, mother and father, which was in possession of Titan; that the location of the tenanted premises (on the front side of the main market) was most suitable for the proposed business since that portion had the maximum footfalls; he required the tenanted premises bona fide for himself and his family members (including his wife, who would assist him in the proposed business and two daughters, who were dependant on him) for commercial purposes. It was finally averred that his mother, being the co-owner of the tenanted premises had no objection to the institution of the eviction petition. Consequently, the landlord prayed for an order of eviction in his favour and against the tenant.

(3.) An application for leave to defend was filed by the tenant and 'landlord-tenant' relationship was denied. It was submitted that the landlady of the tenanted premises was the mother, to whom the rent was being paid, who had also been dealing with the tenant as the landlady; that rent was never paid to the landlord and that the landlord had gifted his share in the tenanted premises in favour of his brother, divesting himself of all the rights; that the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed as the mother hadn't filed the same and was malafidely instituted by the landlord; that the mother had deliberately not been accepting the rent as the rental value in the locality had drastically increased; that the tenant, several years ago had turned down the demand of the mother for increasing the rent of the tenanted premises to Rs.50,000/-; that the father told the tenant that they would be interested only on a sum of Rs.50,000/- as rent and would continue to refuse accepting the rent, in case the tenant was not agreeable to the said sum; that in January, 2009, the landlord demanded a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as rent; that the eviction petition had been instituted only with a view to satisfy the greed for higher rental value.