RAM KUMAR Vs. MITTER SAIN GUPTA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the DRC Act) seeking to impugn the order dated 03.03.2016 by which the application filed by the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend was dismissed. An eviction order was passed in favour of the respondents/landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

(2.) The respondents/landlords filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stating that the premises comprising one room and bathroom on the first floor and one barsati room on the second floor of the property No. 952-A, Ward No. 7, Khasra No. 1151/3 min. Village Mehrauli, New Delhi was let out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 66.50 per month. It is stated that the said property was purchased by the respondents by a registered sale deed dated 25.10.2005 along with other co-owners. The family of respondent No.1 is said to comprise himself, his wife Smt. Madhu Rani Gupta, his married son Sh.Deepak Gupta and married daughter-Swheta Gupta. The premises are stated to be required by the son of respondent No.1 who is a practising advocate and enrolled with the Delhi Bar Council vide enrolment No. D-1206/2006. It is stated that the property in question is more suitable for respondent No.1 as respondent No. 1 is also carrying on the business of jewellery under the name and style of M/s R.S. Jewellers from the shop on the ground floor of the said property which business is being done since the last 40 years. Setting up of an office for the son of respondent No. 1 in the property in question would be extremely convenient as he can also take care of the well being of his father i.e. respondent No. 1 who is 61 years of age. The son of respondent No. 1 is said to be not having any office or chamber and he is constrained to deal with his clients either at home or at some other place. It is stated that the son requires one room to be converted into an office, one room as waiting area for the clients, one room for the staff/junior advocates/associate colleagues, one room for record room of files and for library, etc. Another eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is also said to have been filed against another tenant, namely, Sh. Ishwar Dass who is the brother of the petitioner and is the tenant in respect of two rooms, kitchen, verandah, bathroom and latrine on the first floor of the said property.

(3.) The ARC by the impugned order noted the defence raised by the petitioner and rejected the said defence. It noted the contention of the petitioner denying the relationship of landlord-tenant. It noted that the respondents have in support of their contention placed on record a copy of the sale deed dated 25.10.2005 for the tenanted property in question. It also noted that the respondents had filed a copy of the judgment/decree passed in CS(OS) 339/2008 titled as Madan Lal Digani and Anr. v. Ram Kumar and Anr . where the petitioner has admitted the factum of the respondents being the owners/landlords qua the tenanted suit premises. The suit had been filed by respondent No. 2 for injunction. The ARC also noted the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has alternative suitable accommodation for commencing an office for his son-Sh. Deepak Gupta. It was urged by the petitioner that the house where respondent No.1 is residing is a huge house measuring 200 sq. yards abutting a 30 feet road comprising ground floor, first floor and second floor and the same would be more suitable for opening of an office for his son. This contention was rejected noting that it was the prerogative of respondent No.1 being the landlord to commence an office for his son at the place that he finds more suitable or convenient. It also noted the submission of respondent No. 1 that the said property belongs to his wife and is fully occupied. Ground Floor is occupied by respondent No.1 and his wife whereas the first floor is occupied by his married son-Deepak Gupta who is residing there along with his wife and son. The second floor comprises only one room which is used as a guest room for his married daughter and son-in-law whenever they come to visit. The ARC accepted this explanation and rejected the said contention of the petitioner. The ARC also noted the contention of the petitioner that the premises where the tenanted property exists measures 215 sq. yards and is having five shops in front and a big hall/godown on the back side which can be used by Sh.Deepak Gupta, the son of respondent No.1 for his office. The ARC did accept his contention noting the submission of respondent No.1 that he has no concern with the four shops and owns only one room shop where he is carrying on his jewellery business. As far as the hall/godown is concerned, it noted the submission of respondent No.1 that the same is under the tenancy of Sh. Padam Chand, Shri Rakesh Kumar and Sh.Ajay Kumar and it is under joint ownership/landlordship of four owners, namely, respondent No. 1, Sh.Nand Lal Digani, Sh.Madan Lal Digani i.e. respondent No.2 and Sh. Surender Jain and hence, the said hall cannot be used by the son of respondent No.1-Deepak Gupta. Hence, the contention of the petitioner regarding availability of alternative suitable accommodation was rejected. The ARC also noted that respondent No. 1 has given the enrolment number of his son (D-1206/2006) i.e. Sh. Deepak Gupta to show that he is a practicing advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi. It noted that except from making bald averments, the petitioner had made no other relevant submissions. It also noted that the requirement spelt out by respondent No. 1 of converting the tenanted area into an office for his son showed that the requirement was bona fide. Accordingly, keeping in view the above conclusions, the ARC dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner and passed an eviction order against the petitioner.