Case: Bhupinder Singh Bawa Vs. Asha Devi

On the contrary, the respondent has maintained that the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that no suitable accommodation was available for running business of sanitary and hardware by her son and have rightly passed an eviction order in favour of the respondent. More so, the respondent cannot be dictated the terms of occupation of her self-owned properties.7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgment and materials on record. 8. Both the courts below have allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondent against the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by recording concurrent findings. First and foremost, the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The only dispute relates to bona fide requirement of the respondent for business of her son and availability/non-availability of alternative suitable accommodation. 9. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are as follows: Firstly, It was held that the fact that respondents son is engaged as Director in the family company M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd. and earns a salary of L 50,000/- cannot be an impediment to his running a separate business of sanitary and hardware. The courts held that the law does not provide that if a landlord/landlady requires the premises for running business of his/her young son who is an MBA, and is already engaged in some other business, he is acting malafidely and thus, no relief should be granted to him/her. Secondly, the courts below considered the suitability of every alternative accommodation suggested by the appellant which can preferably be occupied by the respondents son for running his business. The appellant had suggested following alternative premises: Property No. 285-B, Basai Darapur, Sharda Puri, Ring Road, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property no. A-2/53, W.H.S., Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property No. D-201, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property Nos. 43, 44, 45 and 46 situated at Block-A-1, W.H.S. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by the company M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd, Property No. D-12, Rajouri Garden, Ring Road, New Delhi which is the registered office of M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd. The courts found that the properties in the name of family company, M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd. viz. Property nos. 43,44,45 and 46 situated at Block-A-1, W.H.S. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and Property No. D-12, Rajouri Garden, Ring Road, New Delhi were not located in a market area and thus, they were unsuitable for occupation especially when other suitable premise was available in the market area. 10. The property No. 285-B which was owned by the husband of the respondent was found already in occupation as a retail outlet for marble and granite run by the husband of the respondent. The courts considered the allegation of the appellant that property No. 285-B is owned by the respondent and not by her husband. The appellant had produced a copy of Income Tax Returns of the respondent for establishing his claim. However, the High Court rejected the said claim on finding that the alphabet `B appearing after number 285 under the head of rental incomes was wrongly written in the Income Tax Return of the respondent. Moreover, the High Court found that the appellant had himself stated in his pleadings that property no. 285-B belonged to the husband of the respondent and not to the respondent. Also, with regard to property No. A-2/53 at Kirti Nagar which is also owned by the husband of the respondent, the courts found that it is being used by M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd. as godown for the stock of the marble and granite.11. So far as property bearing No. D-201, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi is concerned, the appellant made a case that the entire property including the ground floor of property No. D-201 was available to the respondent which could have been suitably used for running her sons business as it was located on the main road and in a market area also. The courts noted that the appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that the first floor and second floor of the property No. D-201 is in occupation of brother-in-law (Devar) of the respondent who is carrying on his business in the said premises. The court also noted that in his cross examination, the appellant has suggested that if not on the first or second floor, respondents son can occupy the basement of property No. D-201. Having so noted, the High Court has observed that the appellant impliedly admitting that the husband of the respondent is not the owner of the ground floor of property No. D-201. The courts also noted that the appellant has not specifically pleaded in his written submissions that the ground floor of property No. D-201 is owned by the husband of the respondent. In such facts and circumstances, the courts recorded concurrent finding of fact that ground floor of property No. D-201 does not belong to husband of the respondent and thus the question of its suitability as an alternate accommodation does not arise in the present case.12. In light of the above, Additional Rent Controller and the High Court rightly concluded that no alternative premise was lying vacant for running business of respondents son. The High Court rightly relied on the ratio of Anil Bajaj & Anr v. Vinod Ahuja, 2014(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 484 : 2014(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 974 : 2014(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 220 : 2014 (6) SCALE 572 to hold that it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to from which shop her son should start the business from.13. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based on evidence and materials on record, we do not find any infirmity warranting interference with the impugned judgment.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]10. The property No. 285-B which was owned by the husband of the respondent was found already in occupation as a retail outlet for marble and granite run by the husband of the respondent. The courts considered the allegation of the appellant that property No. 285-B is owned by the respondent and not by her husband. The appellant had produced a copy of Income Tax Returns of the respondent for establishing his claim. However, the High Court rejected the said claim on finding that the alphabet `B appearing after number 285 under the head of rental incomes was wrongly written in the Income Tax Return of the respondent. Moreover, the High Court found that the appellant had himself stated in his pleadings that property no. 285-B belonged to the husband of the respondent and not to the respondent. Also, with regard to property No. A-2/53 at Kirti Nagar which is also owned by the husband of the respondent, the courts found that it is being used by M/s. Jaishree Granites Pvt. Ltd. as godown for the stock of the marble and granite.11. So far as property bearing No. D-201, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi is concerned, the appellant made a case that the entire property including the ground floor of property No. D-201 was available to the respondent which could have been suitably used for running her sons business as it was located on the main road and in a market area also. The courts noted that the appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that the first floor and second floor of the property No. D-201 is in occupation of brother-in-law (Devar) of the respondent who is carrying on his business in the said premises. The court also noted that in his cross examination, the appellant has suggested that if not on the first or second floor, respondents son can occupy the basement of property No. D-201. Having so noted, the High Court has observed that the appellant impliedly admitting that the husband of the respondent is not the owner of the ground floor of property No. D-201. The courts also noted that the appellant has not specifically pleaded in his written submissions that the ground floor of property No. D-201 is owned by the husband of the respondent. In such facts and circumstances, the courts recorded concurrent finding of fact that ground floor of property No. D-201 does not belong to husband of the respondent and thus the question of its suitability as an alternate accommodation does not arise in the present case.12. In light of the above, Additional Rent Controller and the High Court rightly concluded that no alternative premise was lying vacant for running business of respondents son. The High Court rightly relied on the ratio of Anil Bajaj & Anr v. Vinod Ahuja, 2014(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 484 : 2014(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 974 : 2014(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 220 : 2014 (6) SCALE 572  to hold that it is perfectly open to the landlord to choose a more suitable premises for carrying on the business by her son and that the respondent cannot be dictated by the appellant as to from which shop her son should start the business from.13. The concurrent findings recorded by the courts below are based on evidence and materials on record, we do not find any infirmity warranting interference with the impugned judgment.