Sanjeev Sachdeva JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 01.12.2015 whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed.
2. Subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent on bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking eviction of the petitioner from one room measuring 9 feet x 10 feet besides bathroom on the first floor in property No. 1878, Gali No. 2 & 3, Kailash Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031.
3. Subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent contending that the respondent along with his son and son's family is residing in the subject property. It is contended that respondent is doing his independent business along with his brother from another property in Pahari Dheeraj and the son of the respondent was doing fabrication business from adjoining property which is a rented accommodation. It is contended that the respondent requires six rooms for residence and the son of the respondent wants to expand his business and to shift to the ground floor of the subject property.
4. It is further contended in the eviction petition that the son of the respondent is doing well in his fabrication business and wants to install fabrication machine in the tenanted property and he wants to expand due to increase in family expenditure. It is contended that he has separated his business and started the business of readymade garments about three years back and installed three sewing machines but said business did not yield profitable results and went into loss. Accordingly he purchased a second hand fabrication machine and started the business of fabrication and had taken on rent a property bearing No. IX/1868, Gali No. 2, Kailash Nagar, Delhi and since then has been doing fabrication business in the rented property. It is contended that the business of fabrication is going well and he was planning to purchase another fabrication machine to increase his business.
5. It is contended that the respondent required the entire ground floor of the subject property for his son to run his business of fabrication. It is contended that one fabrication machine requires at least 40 sq.yards of property on the ground floor and also space for keeping raw material and pieces of clothes. It is contended that the son of the respondent wants to install two fabrication machines on the ground floor of the subject property. It is contended that the son of the respondent is doing well in the aforesaid business of fabrication and plans to install and purchase another fabrication machine and the area of his rented accommodation is highly insufficient for the business of the son of the respondent and does not have space for additional fabrication machines. Apart from the machine, space is required for office and restroom of the labours. Besides space for keeping raw material and clothes as godown. Accordingly, the entire ground floor was required for the purposes of housing the fabrication unit that the son of the respondent wants to set up and the entire first floor of which the tenanted premises is a part is required for the purposes of residence by the respondent his wife, his son and son's wife and children and that they have no other alternative suitable accommodation.
6. Subject leave to defend application has been filed by the petitioner contending that apart from the subject property respondent is also owner of three other properties. It is also contended that apart from the five rooms on the ground floor of the subject property there are four rooms on the first floor of this property which are vacant and not being occupied by the respondent. It is further contended that the need as projected by the respondent is moonshine. It is contended that there is sufficient space available with the respondent for carrying on his business.
7. With regard to the son of the respondent it is contended that the son of the respondent does not bonafidely require the entire ground floor portion for running his business and that he is doing his business independently and is well settled in the said business. It is contended that the installation of two fabrication machines on the ground floor of the subject property is moonshine and only an imagination of the respondent. It is further contended that the alleged need is not bonafide but malafide.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that what respondent has contended is a mere desire as distinct from a bonafide necessity to expand. He submits that no material has been placed to even prima facie show that there is any bonafide need.
9. Perusal of the eviction petition shows that the respondent has contended that the son of the respondent is doing well in his business and wants to expand his business due to the fact that the business of fabrication was doing well. The respondent has contended that the business of fabrication of the son is doing well and accordingly the son is planning to purchase another fabrication machine to increase his business.
10. A petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bonafide necessity would lie only if there is a bonafide need as distinct from a mere desire for additional space.
11. Perusal of the eviction petition as also the material annexed to the eviction petition, shows that respondent has not placed on any material to even prima facie establish that there is a bonafide need to expand the business as distinct from mere desire or wish to expand the business.
12. Though, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that there is sufficient material available for the respondent to show that the need is bonafide and there is a need for expansion in as much as the income from the existing business is not sufficient to meet the day to day expenditure of the respondent in view of the growing family requirements of the family, however no material has been placed on record and accordingly the same become a triable issue.
13. As the plea of the Respondent is that material is available to establish that there is a genuine and bonafide need for expansion of business and for additional accommodation and no material is filed on record, an opportunity would be required to be given to the respondent to place on record additional material and to lead evidence.
14. Further, perusal of the application for leave to defend shows that triable issues arise in the case and that petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of his application seeking leave to defend has raised grounds which, if proved, would disentitle the landlord of an order of eviction.
15. In view of the above, impugned order dated 01.12.2015 declining leave to defend is set aside. Leave to defend the eviction petition is granted to the petitioner.
16. List the Eviction Petition before the concerned Rent Controller on 25.11.2019. Petitioner shall file his written statement before the Rent Controller on the said date.
17. Keeping in view the fact that petition was filed in the year 2013 and the respondent is aged 77 years, Rent Controller is directed to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date fixed before the Rent Controller.
18. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
19. Order dasti under signature of the Court Master.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.