RENU GOEL Vs. GANGA DASS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (tenant) is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19.03.2015. The eviction petition filed under Sec. 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) by the landlord (Ganga Dass) had been decreed in his favour. Needless to state that the tenant is aggrieved by this finding.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by the landlord against the two tenants. Contention was that it was a joint tenancy of D.N Singhal and Renu Goel. The tenancy had been created on 15.06.1982 on the basis of a rent note of the same date. In 2003, the premises had been illegally and unlawfully sublet to one Surjan Singh for which a petition under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the DRCA had been filed. He however thereafter vacated the premises in favour of the tenant. That eviction petition was accordingly withdrawn. The grounds of eviction are contained in para 18(a). It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of part of the building bearing No. G -87, Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi. The site plan of the property has been filed as Annexure 'A'. The premises let out to the tenant had been described in red colour in the site plan. The portion shown in yellow is in the occupation of the landlord from where he is carrying on his business of dhaba. The portion shown in green colour is the residential accommodation of the landlord and his family. The portion in orange colour marked as 'T1' and 'T2' are premises let out to the other tenants. The petitioner is a retired Government servant. He had retired in the year 1992. He is receiving a pension of Rs.11,868/ - per month. He is presently running a dhaba and this is to augment the family income as also to keep himself busy. This dhaba is located in the rear portion of the premises i.e. the premises depicted in the yellow colour in the site plan. The location of the property is in the business are of the main bazaar. D.N. Singhal has now expired and Renu Goel is the sole tenant who is now in occupation of the premises. The premised tenanted out to the tenant (depicted in red colour) are required by the landlord bonafide for his own need and the members of his family for extending his dhaba/restaurant in order that he can run his business of dhaba in more lucrative fashion. The business of dhaba is being run from the rear lane i.e. from the back portion of the property. The disputed premises are ideally located for running the business of dhaba/restaurant and thereafter the said premises are bonafide required by the landlord. Further contention being that the two shops adjoining his dhaba marked as 'P' and 's' are in occupation of the petitioner's younger son Jaideep Raj who is carrying on his business independently from there for the purpose of their livelihood of himself and his family. He has also expressed his willingness to join the extended dhaba business of the petitioner in case he is able to get these tenanted premises back. The second son of the petitioner Sandeep Raj is presently working as a 'Chef' in Bangalore with the ITDC and he is a specialist in confectionary items. He has won several awards. He is desirous of shifting to Delhi but because of a lack of a business space, he is unable to do so. In case the said premises are made available to the landlord, Sandeep Raj would be shifting to Delhi. The petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for relocating his business of dhaba which is presently located on the rear side; if the disputed premises are given back to him, he would have a front coverage and access with his clients and customers and his business would be more viable from that front portion.

(3.) Leave to defend had been filed by the tenant which had been granted by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC). Written statement was thereafter filed. Contention in the written statement is that the need of the landlord and his family is not bonafide. Jaideep Raj is at war with his father; he does not have cordial relations with him and the petitioner had in fact filed a suit for mandatory injunction against him and his wife seeking an eviction decree against them. The so called need of Jaideep Raj to join the business of his father is incorrect. Jaideep Raj had in fact been disinherited from the estate of the petitioner and a public notice to the said effect had also been filed. In fact the business of the dhaba is being run by Jaideep Raj. The second son Sandeep Raj is also not on cordial terms with his father and so much so that the plaintiff had not even attended his wedding as Sandeep Raj had got married to a person from different a caste which was a bone of contention between the father and the son; Sandeep Raj is living in Bangalore since the last 15 years with his family and is earning a handsome income by working in a five star hotel. The need of Sandeep Raj to come to Delhi is false. The landlord is even otherwise having huge rental income and is well established in life which is apart from his pension. He does not need to augment the family income. The landlord had in fact filed an eviction petition under Sec. 14 (1) (b) of the DRCA against the tenant which was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter a second litigation ensued which was a false suit against the petitioner wherein the BSES was also made a party. Another suit claiming damages followed by another eviction petition under Sec. 14 (1) (j) of the DRCA was also preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner is in the habit of pursuing false and malafide litigations. On no count, is a bonafide need made out in favour of the landlord.