SAROJ AGGARWAL Vs. NIMISH SINGHANIA HUF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "The DRC Act") seeking to impugn the Eviction Order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as "The ARC") under section 14(1)(e) of The DRC Act.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant of the property being ground floor A-14/3, Jamna Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The premises was let out to the petitioner on 1.1.1974 at the rent of Rs.400/- per month. The respondent has filed the Eviction Petition stating that the premises are required bona fide by the respondent for running business and that the respondent does not have any other reasonable suitable accommodation in Delhi for the said purpose. The petition is filed on behalf of Nimish Singhania HUF stating that the Karta of the said HUF is running a Business of Human Resource Services with his wife at 516, Udyog Vihar Industrial Area, Phase-III, Gurgaon. The said petitioner is paying rent of Rs.1,00,000/- per month for the property in Gurgaon which is an area of 2000 sq.ft. Twelve employees are working for the respondent over there. The respondent also states that he is residing at Ali Pur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi which is more than 40 kms away from the property in Gurgaon and it takes almost two hours for the respondent and his wife to reach their business premises. Hence, he desires to shift the business from Gurgaon to the suit premises at Asaf Ali Road. It is pointed out that the respondent is owner of two other portions of the property No.A-14/3, Jamna Bhawan, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi which are in occupation of two other tenants. The petitioner is also contemplating to file eviction petitions against the said tenants.

(3.) The ARC by the impugned order noted that there is no serious dispute about the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The submissions of the petitioner that other members of the HUF have not been impleaded was rejected, inasmuch as none of the members of the HUF have filed any objection to the present petition. The ARC also noted the various properties allegedly owned by the respondent which had been claimed by the petitioner to be alternative suitable accommodation available to the respondent and held that the property in Faridabad and Noida were not suitable to the needs of the respondent. Regarding the property at Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, admittedly it was a residential property of the respondent and other family members. Similarly, the ARC noted that the other properties in Sector 51, Gurgaon, Greater Noida, Karol Bagh, Dwarka do not belong to the respondent.