KHANNA vs S C KHANEJA RCREV 299/16 24/05/23 [ MANMEET JJ ]

[ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

Section 14(1)(e) Eviction Alternate accommodation Premises located on Kasturba Gandhi Marg in New Delhi Held, respondent (property owner) and other members of the HUF own several office premises on KG Marg and Naurang House Plea of landlord that these offices are not suitable for starting a coaching center because they are already let out to corporate tenants and don’t provide the required contiguous area Basement portion of subject property is mentioned, but it is stated to be affected by serious seepage issues and sewage water, making it unsuitable for use First-floor portion is occupied by HDFC Bank and is not available Portions on second floor fell vacant at different times, but respondent either re-let them or used them for personal purposes or a record room These portions are considered unsuitable for coaching center due to separate access and lack of contiguous space Thus, respondent doesn’t have any suitable alternate accommodation and eviction order upheld. [Paras 26 to 36]

Relevant Paras 

26. With respect to the office premises owned by the Respondent and the other members of the HUF in buildings located on K.G. Marg, though oral arguments were not addressed by the Petitioner however, in the tabulated list filed on 18.02.2023, the said offices are enlisted, which are as under:
Sl. No. 1.
2.
3.
4. 5.
Property Address
712, Kailash Building, KG Marg, New Delhi
408, Kailash Building, KG Marg, New Delhi 407, Kailash Building, KG Marg, New Delhi 310, Naurang, House, KG Marg, New Delhi 309, Naurang House, KG Marg, New Delhi
Area
1015 Sq. ft 707 Sq. ft 1211 Sq. ft 486 Sq. ft 486 Sq. ft
26.1. In the tabulation filed on 03.02.2023, the Respondent has explained that the commercial offices located on K.G. Marg are neither available nor suitable for the reasons set out therein.

26.2. The Respondent has explained the unsuitability and unavailability of each of the premises specifically. It has been pointed out that the area of each of the said premises is in the range of 486 sq. ft. to 1211 sq. ft. It is stated that there is no contiguous area of 3800-4000 sq. ft. owned by the Respondent (and his family members) in any one building and therefore it is not suitable for starting the coaching centre. The Respondent has also explained that the said office premises have been let out along with other co- owners of adjoining spaces, to corporate tenants, as per the market practice prevalent in such buildings located on K.G. Marg.
26.3. In the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid premises in the buildings on K.G. Marg are firstly, not available to the Respondent since they have already been let out to corporate tenants. The Respondent herein in the eviction petition(s) as well as the present revision petition(s) has laid great emphasis on the fact that a contiguous area of 3800 sq. ft. to 4000 sq. ft. area is required to run and operate the coaching centre. In contrast, the premises situated on Kasturba Gandhi Marg, admeasure within the range of 486 sq. ft. to 1211 sq. ft. and therefore, as well the said premises cannot be considered as suitable alternate accommodation.
Portions in subject property
Basement portion
27. The Petitioner(s) have contended that the basement in the subject property which admeasures, 7500 sq. ft., was vacated by the tenant in December 2014, however, the said portion is presently, lying vacant and is under the possession of the Respondent.

27.1. With respect to the availability of the basement in the subject property, the Respondents have stated that the said portion of the building has been adversely affected by serious seepage issues and is gutted with sewage water making it unfeasible for use and occupation.
27.2. This Court is of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid facts, the basement (which is affected with seepage) cannot be considered to be an alternate accommodation available to the Respondents. Further, it is trite that a 1st floor premises would be a preferential location in terms of sunlight, fresh air, and less traffic noise pollution, which would be conclusive for running a coaching centre; and if the landlord has the option to operate from the 1st floor, this Court fails to find any lack of bona fide in the said preference of the landlord.
First floor portion
28. The Petitioner(s) have averred that one portion (admeasuring 1250 sq. ft.) on the 1st floor was let out to HDFC Bank. The Respondent has clarified that the said portion was let out the HDFC Bank two (2) years prior to the filing of the eviction petition and the same is not vacant and therefore not available. The Petitioner(s) have not disputed the said submission and therefore, this Court finds the said submission without any merit.
Second floor portion (s)
29. The Petitioner(s) have contended that the eviction order was passed on 11.02.2016, however, by then one (1) portion admeasuring 1250 sq. ft., on the 2nd floor (on the front side) had fallen vacant in the year 2013; however, the said portion was let out by the Respondent in 2017 and not used for starting the coaching centre.

 

for read the judgment click here 

judgement KHANNA & ANNADHANAM versus S C KHANEJA & SON (HUF) DELHI HIGH COURT
all rights reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)