T R Sharma v. Kamlesh Sharma & Anr

NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 23.04.2014 Date of Decision: 30.09.2014 + RC.REV. 152/2014 T R SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Aggarwal and Mr. Vinay Tripathi, Advocates. versus KAMLESH SHARMA &ANR .... Respondents Through: Mr. Rohit Gandhi with Mr. Varun Garg, Advocates for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI 1. Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the Caveator. The caveat stands discharged. 2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally. 3. The petitioner (tenant) has challenged the eviction order of the learned Additional Rent Controller dated 30th of October 2013 in respect of the tenanted premises being Shop Number 3, in property Number C-43, Nehru Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi - 33. The tenant's application for leave to defend was rejected. This revision petition has been preferred under section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 4. The respondent (landlady) had filed an eviction petition under section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25B of the Act for eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises for her bona fide need. The ground being that after her superannuation from employment with a bank in May 2011, she wanted to start a business of ready-made garments along with her younger son Mr. Sachin Sharma. It was her case that of her 3 sons the elder one, namely Mr. Amit Sharma, was married and had two school going children. However, his salary from his employment in the private sector was insufficient for the maintenance of his family, therefore the petitioner assisted him financially. The youngest son Mr. Atul Sharma was married and had a daughter. He ran a confectionery and bakery shop from one of the shops in the aforesaid property, which according to her, had been inherited by her husband, who had since deceased. It is her second son namely Mr. Sachin Sharma with whom she wanted to start her business, since this son was a freelancer, did not have a permanent employment and would often be idle. It was further submitted that this son was unmarried and totally dependent upon the petitioner for his financial needs. The respondent/landlady had contended that because of her age, she was suffering from various ailments, the treatment of which and the support given to her elder son was a constant drain on her resources which needed to be augmented. She had submitted that by settling and doing business with her second son she would augment her finances. She further submitted that she did not have any other accommodation to start the proposed business whereas the tenant had another shop at D- 2/17, Main Rd., Model Town-3, Delhi from where he was running a business of dry-cleaning. 5. In the leave to defend application, the tenant had sought to contest the eviction petition essentially on the ground that: i) the eviction-petitioner was not the exclusive owner of the tenanted premises, ii) there wasn"t any relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties and iii) that the said need was not bona fide. The tenant also referred to some alleged dispute between the legal heirs of Mr. Meghraj Sharma the first landlord, regarding the succession/ownership of the suit premises. He contended that the landlady had sought a rent of Rs.200/- per month from him. He further contended that there was no bonafide need since Mr. Sachin Sharma, for whose benefit the premises were sought, was settled in Mumbai where he was engaged with a television channel called "Colors" TV and engaged in a TV show called "Big Boss" and other TV serials and in the process was earning a handsome amount. It was further submitted that this son visited Delhi only occasionally, therefore the alleged need for settling him in Delhi was fabricated. 6. The Trial Court determined the matter on the aforesaid three grounds raised by the tenant. It noted that