JUDGEMENT
Indermeet Kaur, J. -
(1.)IMPUGNED order is dated 24.01.2012; eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord -Raman Jain (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') seeking eviction of his tenant -Lajpat Rai (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') from godown No. 2720, 2721 and 2722 on the ground floor of plot No. 5, ward No. XIV, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi -110006; the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the disputed premises having inherited the said property by virtue of a Will dated 13.4.1984 of his grandmother Susheela Wanti; ground of bonafide requirement has been pleaded. Contention is that the premises had been let out for a commercial purpose i.e. for running a shop; the petitioner is a graduate from the Shri Ram College of Commerce, Delhi; he is presently engaged in wholesale trade of natural rubber and latex; this business is being run by the family since the last several years; local and outstation buyers from distant places require this material which has to kept in a godown as the material is packed in huge iron drums; natural rubber is received from the manufacturers/suppliers from Kerala and thereafter stored here in the godown before it is supplied to the purchasers. The petitioner has no space from where he can carry out this business. The petitioner is presently working with his father under the name and style of 'M/s Khazanchi Mal Jain and Company' from shop No. 2666, plot No. 31, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi which is a 6'x 8' feet wide shop; premises are required bonafide by the petitioner in order that he can carry out an independent business of his own from the disputed premises. Shop bearing No. 2723, Sadar Thana Road, Delhi is owned by respondent No. 2 Reena Jain (other co -sharer in the property) and is in exclusive occupation and use of her husband Rajiv Jain who is also carrying on the same business under the name and style of M/s J.K. Enterprises; this shop/godown is not available for use to the present petitioner. Present petitioner has no other alternate accommodation from where he can carry out his business which he wishes to start independently. Eviction petition has accordingly been filed.
(2.)THE averments made in the application seeking leave to defend have been perused. The first and foremost contention raised by the petitioner is that the status of the landlord as owner/landlord is not confirmed and in the absence of which, an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA would not be maintainable; submission on this count being that the Will upon which reliance has been placed upon by the petitioner does not match with the averments contained in the subsequent document created by the co -sharers i.e. the memorandum of understanding; the title of the landlord being under a cloud, eviction petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The second submission of the petitioner is that the accommodation of which the landlord is seeking eviction is only 3 feet high and cannot be used for storage of iron drums which are huge in size; further submission on this count being that this is a chemical industry and such chemical works being a pollutant industry cannot be carried out in said premises; on this ground, a triable issue has arisen; the eviction petition being decreed without affording an opportunity of trial to the petitioner thus suffers from an infirmity. Attention has been drawn to a public noted dated 04.11.2009 issued by the MCD, Delhi showing that the godowns which are doing the business of chemical have to shut their business by 31.12.2009.
(3.)CORRESPONDING paras to this reply have been perused.
The petitioner has derived title in the premises by virtue of a Will of his grandmother Susheela Wanti; this Will is dated 13.04.1984; by virtue of this Will, certain properties have devolved upon the present petitioner namely Raman Jain and 50% shareholding has been bequeathed to Reena Jain (arrayed as respondent No. 2). Raman Jain is the grandson of Shusheela Wanti and Reena Jain is the wife of the grandson of Shusheela Wanti i.e. her grand daughter -in -law. The aforenoted co -shares Reena Jain and Raman Jain had entered on 16.7.2008 into a memorandum of understanding whereby 50% of the certain properties had fallen to the share of Reena Jain and balance had fallen into the hands of Raman Jain; the disputed premises (which is the subject matter of the present eviction petition) have fallen to the share of Raman Jain. This memorandum of settlement has been duly notarized and in fact has been acted upon by the parties. It is even otherwise not for the tenant to challenge either the Will or this memorandum of understanding. Even presuming there is an imperfectness in the title of the landlord it would not affect the rights of the landlord in his capacity as owner to recover the suit premises and it is thus clear that no issue had arisen on this count.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.