In a recent legal case before the Delhi High Court, a dispute arose between a landlord and a tenant over the usage of a garage. The landlord, seeking possession of shop no. 2063, Ground Floor, Main Road, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, claimed a bona fide requirement for her husband’s business. On the other hand, the tenant contested the eviction proceedings, arguing that the garage in question could be used for parking vehicles. The court granted leave to contest the eviction but upheld the Additional Rent Controller’s findings regarding the matter. This case sheds light on the complexities of property disputes in metropolitan cities like Delhi.
Facts
- The respondent/tenant entered appearance through counsel upon service of notice.
- The respondent/tenant was granted leave to contest the eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
Issue
- The petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for shop no. 2063, Ground Floor, Main Road, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.
- Petitioner claimed ownership of the subject premises after purchase and stated that the respondent became a habitual defaulter on rent.
- Petitioner stated a bona fide requirement for the subject premises for her husband’s business of computer stationery and gift items, as they have no other suitable accommodation.
- The first and second floor above the subject premises are tenanted, while petitioner and her family reside in property no. 2064-2071, where they run a business and use a garage for parking.
- Petitioner’s husband lost his job and she is now the sole earner for the family.
Arguments
- The Additional Rent Controller accepted the contention that the garage owned by the petitioner’s husband could be used as a shop.
- A triable issue was recognized regarding the usage of the garage as a shop and parking the vehicles elsewhere.
- It is mentioned that the landlord has the right to decide the premises’ suitability for business and cannot be compelled by the court to operate a business from the garage.
- The learned counsel for the respondent argued that parking of vehicles can be done by the petitioner in the portion behind the subject premises.
- The respondent’s counsel contended that the portion marked as Mark B in the site plan could be used by the petitioner for parking their vehicles.
- The respondent’s argument was based on the fact that the petitioner had filed photographs showing their vehicles parked in the said garage, emphasizing its use for parking.
Analysis
- Landlord has the right to decide the suitability of premises for his requirements.
- Neither the tenant nor the court can dictate the landlord on which premises to use.
- The petitioner cannot park her vehicles in the portion behind the subject premises as it belongs to someone else.
- The grounds raised by the petitioner for seeking leave to defend would deprive the landlord of the garage for parking, which is not reasonable.
- The garage space cannot be considered reasonably suitable alternate accommodation to disentitle the landlord to relief under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
- The dimension of the garage is equivalent to a shop and can be used as a shop.
- The roads in Delhi are congested with increasing vehicular traffic
- Parking space on the roads has reduced due to development work and road expansion
- Living in a metropolitan city like Delhi is stressful and visible on the roads
- Competing claims on the roads often lead to conflicts resolved by muscle power
- Leave to contest was granted only on the grounds mentioned in the judgement.
- The stay application is disposed of.
- The petitioner will not be entitled to possession of the premises for six months from the date of the judgement.
- The premises in question is shop no.2063, Ground Floor, Main Road, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.
Decision
- The learned Additional Rent Controller’s findings have been upheld.
- The specific findings mentioned in paragraph have been found to be correct and well-reasoned.
- There is agreement with the conclusions drawn in the said paragraph.
- The decision regarding the matter in paragraph has been affirmed.
Case Title: VANDANA GUPTA Vs. SURENDER KUMAR SINCE DECEASED THR LRS (2024:DHC:4010)
Case Number: RC.REV.-274/2023
