R.C. Rev. 512/2012. Case: Manika Rani Ghosh & Ors. Vs Dharwinder Kaur. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | R.C. Rev. 512/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. M.M. Kalra & Mr. Kunal Kalra, Advs. |
| Judges | Mr. M. L. Mehta, J. |
| Issue | Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(b), 14(1)(e), 25B, 25B(8) |
| Judgement Date | December 05, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
M. L. Mehta, J.
-
The present petition has been filed under Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the order passed by the Ld. Rent Controller Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Saket Court in Eviction Petition No. 32/10, decided on 08.06.2012; whereby the Ld. RC has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Briefly stating the facts, the landlady/respondent herein, a senior citizen filed petition for eviction before the Ld. RC under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, stating that the tenanted shop was bona fide required by her to start a business of wholesale and retail selling of readymade ladies/gents suits, with the help of her retired husband. The landlady/respondent submitted that she wanted to start the aforesaid business in order to earn livelihood to meet the increasing need of old age. Since she has no other commercial premises from where she can start the business, and also because she possesses the adequate financial capacity and business equipment to start the new business, the landlady/respondent sought the eviction of the petitioners on the ground of bona fide requirement.
-
Sh. Amaresh Ghosh filed a counter affidavit required under Sec. 25B on behalf of the other tenants/petitioners herein. It was contended before the Ld. RC that the landlady/respondent had tried evicting the tenants/petitioners vide an eviction order under Sec. 14(1)(b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act dated 21.07.2001. However, the tenants/petitioners preferred an appeal to the Rent Controller Tribunal against the order, wherein the eviction order dated 21.07.2001 was set aside. Thereafter, the landlady/respondents filed a CM(M) in this Court which was dismissed on 09.04.2006. A subsequent SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the landlady/respondents, was also dismissed.
-
It was the primary contention of the tenants/petitioners before the Ld. RC that the landlady/respondent has been persistent to evict the tenants/petitioners herein and that there is no bona fide requirement of the landlady/respondent to start a new business. It was contended by the tenants/petitioners that the landlady/respondent is merely trying to take advantage of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision allowing landlords to seek eviction of the tenant even in respect of commercial property on the ground of bona fide necessity. In this regard, the tenants/petitioners contended that the landlady/respondent was more than 62 years old and has never...
To continue reading
Request your trial