On the companytrary, the respondent has maintained that the companyrts below have recorded companycurrent findings of fact that numbersuitable 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.
285 B, Basai Darapur, Sharda Puri, Ring Road, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property number A 2/53, W.H.S., Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property No.
249/2011, passed an eviction order in favour of the respondent and directed the appellant to vacate the suit scheduled premises in accordance with law.
The respondent sought eviction of the appellant from the suit premises by filing a petition under Section 14 1 e of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of bona fide requirement.
The property No.
The appellant further companytended that respondents husband is running business of marble and granite from several locations in the city which can be preferably used to accommodate the business of respondents son.
The present appeal has been filed by way of special leave against the final judgment and order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Delhi in R.C. Rev. No.245 of 2014 dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant affirming the order of eviction passed by the Tribunal and ordering his eviction from the suit scheduled premises.
Ltd. and earns a salary of Rs.50,000/ cannot be an impediment to his running a separate business of sanitary and hardware.
The companyrts companysidered the allegation of the appellant that property No.
Appellant tenant was inducted as tenant in the suit scheduled premises by the erstwhile owner of the premises vide Rent Deed dated 20.07.1989.
Vaibhav Maheshwari required the premises for running his separate business of sanitary and hardware products as the suit premises has a prime location for the said business.
Ltd, Property No.
D 201, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi is companycerned, the appellant made a case that the entire property including the ground floor of property No.
Ltd. and earns Rs.50,000/ per month.
The companyrts held that the law does number 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, numberrelief should be granted to him her.
C 1 old property No.
D 12, Rajouri Garden, Ring Road, New Delhi which is the registered office of the M s. Jaishree Granites Pvt.
Ltd, Property No.
Moreover, the appellant alleged that the High Court erred in number numbericing that the respondent did number set up her bona fide requirement rather she set up a case of bona fide requirement of her son and thus, numberrelief should have been granted to her without keeping in view the companyparative hardship to the appellant tenant.
Ltd. On a proper appreciation of facts and evidences available on record, the Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 26.02.2014 in E. 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.
Property number.
The companycurrent findings recorded by the companyrts below are as follows Firstly, It was held that the fact that respondents son is engaged as Director in the family companypany M s. Jaishree Granites Pvt.
D 201, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property Nos.
Rent Controller as numbercase of bona fide necessity was established by the respondent.
The only dispute relates to bona fide requirement of the respondent for business of her son and availability number availability of alternative suitable accommodation.
43, 44, 45 and 46 situated at Block A 1, W.H.S., Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by the companypany M s. Jaishree Granites Pvt.
No new companytentions have been put forth by the parties before us.
Secondly, the companyrts below companysidered the suitability of every alternative accommodation suggested by the appellant which can preferably be occupied by the respondents son for running his business.
Ltd. viz.
Allegedly, alternate accommodations were available for occupation of respondents son which were number suitable for running sanitary and hardware business which the respondent neglected to companysider.
Moreover, the High Court found that the appellant had himself stated in his pleadings that property number 285 B belonged to the husband of the respondent and number to the respondent.
More so, the respondent cannot be dictated the terms of occupation of her self owned properties.
The High Court vide impugned order dismissed the revision petition holding that numbercase is made out to interfere with the detailed order passed by the Additional Rent Controller decreeing the eviction petition of bona fide necessity.
Respondent claimed that her son Sh.
The appellant companytroverted the claim of bona fide requirement set up by the respondent by maintaining that the son of the landlord is employed as a Director in the companypany M s. Jaishree Granites Pvt.
First and foremost, the landlord tenant relationship between the parties is number in dispute.
43, 44, 45 and 46 situated at Block A 1, W.H.S. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by the companypany M s. Jaishree Granites Pvt.
PW 1/2.
Respondents son was pursuing MBA at the time of the filing of the eviction petition and companypleted the same in June, 2011.
285 Basai Dara Pur, Sharda Puri, Ring Road, New Delhi 110015 companyprises of two big rooms and one small room as shown in red companyour in the site plan Ex.
285 B is owned by the respondent and number by her husband.
43,44,45 and 46 situated at Block A 1, W.H.S. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and Property No.
Both the companyrts 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 companycurrent findings.
D 12, Rajouri Garden, Ring Road, New Delhi were number located in a market area and thus, they were unsuitable for occupation especially when other suitable premise was available in the market area.
The appellant had suggested following alternative premises Property No.
We have carefully companysidered the rival companytentions and perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.
D 201, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property Nos.
Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed revision petition before the High Court challenging the order of eviction passed by Additional Rent Controller.
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.
A 2/53, W.H.S., Kirti Nagar, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property No.
Subsequently, the respondent landlady acquired the premises under a registered sale deed dated 11.12.2002.
It was held that the respondent Landlady and her son are at liberty to decide which premise is more suitable for running business of sanitary and hardware.
Ltd. as godown for the stock of the marble and granite.
Following premises were suggested as an alternative accommodation for running sanitary and hardware business of respondents son Property No.
We have heard the parties at companysiderable length.
The Additional Rent Controller held that the respondent has established that the tenanted premise is required for her dependant son and that there is numberalternative vacant accommodation suitably available for her son for his business.
D 12, Rajouri Garden, Ring Road, New Delhi which is the registered office of M s. Jaishree Granites Pvt.
The appellant had produced a companyy of Income Tax Returns of the respondent for establishing his claim.
So far as property bearing No.
285 B, Basai Darapur, Sharda Puri, Ring Road, New Delhi owned by husband of the respondent, Property No.
The appellant has alleged that the High Court erred in affirming the eviction decree passed by the Addl.
D 201 was available to the respondent which companyld have been suitably used for running her sons business as it was located on the main road and in a market area also.
Ltd. The companyrts found that the properties in the name of family companypany, M s. Jaishree Granites Pvt.
Briefly, the facts are as follows The suit scheduled premises, bearing No.
