SH. RAM ABHILAKH v. SH. RAM PHAL TYAGI

1. This revision petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.5.2014, by which the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and eviction has been ordered from the tenanted premises comprising of one room admeasuring 10X[9] ft. being used as godown and one shop admeasuring 9X3ft. in front in the property 2014:DHC:3794 bearing no. WZ-80, Basai Darapur, New Delhi-15 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with eviction petition.

2. Respondent/landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground that his family besides himself consists of his wife, four daughters and two sons. One son had already expired in 2006 and the three daughters were married. The second son of the petitioner is unemployed. The respondent/landlord is also unemployed because he was previously working in DTC and he had retired in 2005. Respondent/landlord is not getting any pension from DTC. Respondent/landlord therefore required the suit tenanted premises bonafidely for carrying on business of a property-dealer.

3. The application for leave to defend was filed by the petitioner/ tenant and in which essentially two main aspects were urged, and which are also the aspects which have been argued before this Court. The first aspect which is argued is that the respondent/landlord is already having his residential premises of 55 sq. yds in house no. WZ-89, Basai Darapur, New Delhi, and which is said to be an alternative accommodation. The second aspect and another alternative accommodation is said to be a shop adjacent to the suit tenanted premises and which according to the petitioner was let out in the year 2012, showing that there was no bonafide need of the respondent/landlord.

4. So far as the aspect that the respondent/landlord can carry out his business from his house is concerned, the argument is misconceived not only because the business can be carried out from a shop only and not a residence, but also because of the additional fact that the house of the respondent/landlord is located in a 4 feet wide gali whereas the suit premises is located on 20 ft. wide road and hence more suitable. The Supreme Court recently in the case of Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja 2014(6) SCALE 572 has in more or less on identical circumstances observed that if the landlord is carrying on business in a shop which is located in a narrow lane, he is entitled to evict the tenant of the tenanted premises which is situated on the main road. Therefore, in my opinion the Additional Rent Controller has committed no illegality in holding that the premises in which the respondent/landlord is staying is not an alternative premises.

5. In my opinion, the Additional Rent Controller in this regard has rightly observed in para 23 that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord not to carry on business, and it is the right of every person to prosper in life. Para 23 of the impugned judgment dated 6.5.2014 reads as under:- “23. In the opinion of this tribunal, it is the right of every person to excel in life. If the petitioner and his son is of the opinion that it would be better in life to start a new business from the tenanted premises for themselves, then it would not be just for this court to direct the petitioner otherwise and thereby stop the financial growth of the family of the petitioner. The court cannot ask the petitioner and his son to give up their dreams of excelling in life by establishing their own business. Though the success of the business to be established by them is not guaranteed, but, at the same time, the court cannot predict the failure of the same and thereby decline the petitioner an opportunity to establish himself and his son by carrying new business from a premises owned by him.”

6. So far as the aspect that the respondent/landlord can carry on business in a premises adjacent to the suit tenanted shop, and the said shop is an alternative premises are concerned, the argument is misconceived because actually the eviction petition is filed in the year 2013, and the adjacent shop was let out not in the year 2012 as is the case of the petitioner/tenant, but the other shop was let out in the year 2006 ie over 7 years prior to filing of the eviction petition. Therefore, an event which has happened much prior to the filing of the petition, and in view of the fact that bonafide requirement is a continuous cause of action as also a fresh cause of action on account of passing of time, the Additional Rent Controller was justified in holding that the so-called alternative shop adjacent to the tenanted premises is not an alternative premises. A landlord is surely entitled to augment his income by carrying on business.

7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties are left to bear their own costs.

AUGUST 08, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib