Vinod Arora v. Deepak Aggarwal

V.B.GUPTA, J. ab

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI RCR No. 52/2010 & CM No. 4459/2010 (Stay) % Judgment reserved on: 29th July, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 30th Aug, 2010 Shri Vinod Arora, S/o Late Sh. Chiman Lal Arora, Resident of 12, New Colony, Model Basti, New Delhi- 110 005 ….Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Pawan S. Bindra & Mr. Ankit Jain, Advs. Versus Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, S/o Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Resident of 12, New Colony, Model Basti, New Delhi-110 005 ….Respondent Through: Mr. J. S. Bakshi, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. By way of present petition filed under Section 25B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as "Act") petitioner has challenged eviction order dated 2nd February, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as "Controller") Delhi. 2. Respondent/landlord filed petition for eviction under Section 25B read with Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act against petitioner/tenant stating that he is owner/landlord of entire ground floor of premises bearing no. 12 New Colony, Model Basti, New Delhi. A portion of ground floor measuring 254 sq. feet, is under his occupation, while Petitioner is a tenant under him and area under his tenancy is 1224 sq. feet. 3. It is further stated that respondent is running sanitary and hardware business and is agent of companies namely Polycrete Enterprises, Astro Age Cast Tech. Ltd. etc. His wife Smt. Kavita Jain, is in the business of manufacturing and retail of sanitary and hardware goods under the name of M/s Rishab Enterprises. Respondent is also agent of courier company M/s Overnite Express. All the aforesaid businesses are being carried out from the said small portion in occupation of the respondent on the ground floor. 4. Respondent and his dependent family members are facing great difficulty in carrying out the said business due to paucity of space so much so the respondent has to keep stocks of the hardware and sanitary items at his residence at 1C/47, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi at a distance of 5 Km from his business place which is causing great financial loss to him. He is also suffering in his business because he cannot display his articles for want of appropriate showroom and a contiguous godown as is normally required in such businesses. 5. Respondent also wants to expand the business with his daughter Ms. Samiksha aged 19 years, a final year graduation student and his son Master Nirransh aged 17 years, a 12th class student. His daughter would join him in the business full time after her graduation and the son part time after his 12th class after college hours and full-fledged after three years when he completes his graduation. 6. Respondent requires the tenanted premises bonafide for himself and his dependent family members. He wants to make a proper showroom to display the goods. A separate counter for business of courier is also required. 7. Respondent or anyone of his dependent family members have no other reasonably suitable accommodation for the purpose for which the tenanted premises are required. Respondent"s residential premises is 5 Km away from the suit premises and is not a reasonably suitable alternate accommodation. 8. In the leave application, petitioner took the plea that respondent is in habit of filing petitions on false and frivolous grounds which were earlier dismissed by various courts. Respondent has filed present petition on the false ground that he is running sanitary and hardware business. Respondent has also falsely alleged that he is the agent of companies namely Polycrete Enterprises and Astro Age Cast Tech Ltd. etc. Respondent never carried on any business whatsoever of sanitary and hardware and was not the agent of alleged companies or any other company. 9. Wife of the respondent is not dependent upon him. She is ind