M/S Sehgal Sanitary Store vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the landlord's son being gainfully employed in his own business was baseless. The Rent Controller correctly found that 'M/s Shree Krishna Tools' was a proprietary concern of the landlord, Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, and his son had no share in it, as supported by the GST Certificate. Regarding alternate accommodation, the Court affirmed the Rent Controller's finding that a tenant cannot dictate to a landlord where to conduct business. Relying on established precedents, the Court reiterated that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements and the suitability of accommodation. The Court also noted that the tenant's other grounds were bald assertions without supporting material, citing Krishan Kumar Gupta vs. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta. Consequently, the Court found no triable issues raised by the tenant and upheld the Rent Controller's dismissal of the leave to defend petition. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sehgal Sanitary Store, a tenant, filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 31.07.2020 passed by the Additional Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had dismissed the petitioner's 'leave to defend' petition in an eviction case filed by the landlord, Sh. Lalit Kumar Sharma. The landlord sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for bonafide requirement. The tenant argued that the landlord's son was already gainfully employed in his own business, 'M/s Shree Krishna Tools', and that the landlord had alternate accommodation. The Rent Controller rejected these arguments, finding them baseless and untenable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the landlord's son was gainfully employed in his own business, thus negating the landlord's bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? 2. Whether the landlord had suitable alternate accommodation, which would preclude granting leave to defend under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the landlord's son was already running his own business, 'M/s Shree Krishna Tools', for the past two years, as evidenced by photographs and a GST Form. They also argued that the landlord possessed alternate accommodation that could satisfy his requirement. Respondent's (Landlord's) Arguments: The respondent argued that 'M/s Shree Krishna Tools' was a proprietary concern of the landlord himself, not his son, and the GST certificate confirmed this. Regarding alternate accommodation, the landlord asserted that he was the best judge of his business needs and location, and a tenant could not dictate where or how he should conduct his business. The respondent relied on Supreme Court decisions in Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimlabai Prabhulal and Ors. and High Court decisions like M.C. Goyal vs. Sardar Mehar Singh, Gulab Chand Pukhraj v. R.B. Jinender Raj & Anr., Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors. v. Naveen Maheshwari, and Viran Wali v. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar.