New Delhi : Landlords were free to choose properties for doing business wherever they want, a Delhi court has held while allowing the eviction plea of a woman, based in Jaipur, seeking rights over her property for starting her son’s business here.
Administrative Civil Judge and Additional Rent Controller Judge Sandeep Garg allowed the eviction petition filed by Sartaj Begum, who resides in Jaipur, in Rajasthan.
Begum requested the court to ask her tenant Mohammad Ali to vacate her property in Old Delhi so that her 24-year-old son Wasim Alam can start a business of silver and artificial jewellery.
Garg ordered Mohammad Ali to vacate the premise, observing that the woman is not having any other accommodation in Delhi.
“…the landlord is free to choose the property and place where he/she or any family member dependent upon him/her wants to carry on their business and the tenant cannot suggest as to where the landlord or her son should commence their business,” the court said.
The court said it did not find any merit in Ali’s contention that Begum has failed to give any reason as to why jewellery business is brighter in Delhi than in Jaipur or her son is having any problem in running his business in Jaipur.
“Petitioner’s son (Alam) is having an unfettered choice of place where he will like to commence his business. Respondent (Ali) has got no business to dictate terms to petitioner’s son,” the court said.
Ali has also asked Begum to file a document to establish experience of her son in the jewellery business, which was turned down by the court.
Begum with her sister is a co-owner of the two-floor residential property in Lal Kuan in central Delhi.
Ali has been running a shop on the ground floor of the resident for the last 30 years and he is paying Rs.140 per month as the rent of the premises.
Begum has alleged that Ali did not pay the rent after August 2012.
She said that her son is a commerce graduate and his knowledge will be an asset to him in his venture.
Begum, claiming that she keeps on visiting Delhi on and off, said that on January 1, 2013, she asked Ali to vacate the shop as she required the same for her son.
However, Ali refused to leave the premises and claimed that he was the owner of the property.