Labhu Lal v. Sandhya Gupta

V.B.GUPTA, J. mw/ab

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI R.C.R. No. 205/2010 & CM No. 15626/2010 (stay) % Judgment reserved on: 30th August, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 28th September,2010 Sh. Labhu Lal S/o Jeevan Lal R/o 2/90, Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007 ….Petitioner. Through: Mr.K.Sunil, Advocate. Versus Smt. Sandhya Gupta W/o Luxmi Dutt Gupta R/o 8/6, Alipur Road, Delhi 110054. ….Respondent Through: None 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. Present revision petition under Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as "Act") has been filed against impugned order dated 13th July, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller (for short as Controller) Delhi, vide which application for leave to defend of petitioner was dismissed and eviction order has been passed. 2. Brief facts are that, respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25-B of the Act for recovery of possession of portion on the ground floor of property no. 81-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi as shown in red in the site plan attached with the petition. It is stated that premises in suit are required bonafide by respondent (owner/landlady) for her own use and for the use of her family members for expanding their business of Diagnostic Clinic and/or starting new business. Respondent is not in use and occupation or even physical possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation for meeting the needs of her aforesaid requirement. Respondent and her family members are residing currently at Alipur Road, which accommodation is not suitable at all for expansion of the existing clinic. 3. Family of respondent comprises of herself, her husband, her son Dr. Mohit Gupta, daughter-in-law Dr. Swaran Gupta and two granddaughters. Son and daughter-in-law of respondent are carrying on business/practice in the name and style of Samadhan Diagnostic Clinic at the corner room in rear portion of ground floor and they both are practicing Radiologists. The aforesaid business of Diagnostic Clinic is being run by them with all the necessary and prescribed permission. Son and daughter in law of respondent with extraordinary labour and effort put in the aforesaid professional activity business had generated a large quantum of goodwill for the processional practice of clinic, in as much as the same is doing well, but urgently requires creation of necessary amenities for patients in terms of better examination rooms, cosier reception area and spacious patients area space, separate space for pathological laboratory which is out sourced at present for paucity of space, installation of new equipment and creating of examination rooms and rest room for staff as the expansion will require more employees. 4. Petitioner in his affidavit has stated that respondent is not the owner of premises in question. The alleged requirement is not for any of the member of the family dependent upon the respondent. The son and daughter in law are not dependent upon respondent and they are having independent sources of income. 5. It is further stated that respondent had allegedly sold the upper floor portion of the property in question to Smt. Swaran Lata Gupta and thereafter filed petition for eviction against the tenant who are occupying second floor portion of the property. Other portion of the property was sold by respondent to some other person on 2nd June, 2003, when respondent already knew that her son has already become a doctor in 2003. 6. It is also stated that daughter-in-law of respondent visits the said portion only on few occasions in a month and son of respondent never work from the clinic. In fact, he regularly visits Nodia, Gurgaon and Rohini, where he is working. The bona fide requirement is not genuine inasmuch, as the Diagnostic/Pathological Lab is at the corner and there is one more s