A
person can't be deprived of right to livelihood and to live with dignity merely
on account of old age and frail health, the Delhi High Court has observed while
upholding an order directing eviction of a tenant from a property which is now
required by a landlord for carrying out his business.
The
high court rejected the stand taken by the tenant that looking at the old age
and health of the landlord, it was not believable that he would carry out any
business from the premises which was sought to be vacated.
The
high court dismissed the petition by the tenant challenging an order of an
additional rent controller (ARC) which had passed the eviction order.
"The
bona fides of the requirement set up by the landlord cannot be shrouded with
doubts on such presumptive arguments. Merely because the landlord suffers old
age and frail health, it cannot be presumed that he does not require the
tenanted premises to run his business or is not capable of earning
livelihood," Justice Girish Kathpalia said while upholding the ARC's
order.
The
high court said there was nothing on record to feebly suggest that the landlord
was bedridden or being taken care of financially by his son engaged in an
independent business.
"Merely
on account of old age and frail health, a person cannot be deprived of the
right to livelihood and the consequent right to live with dignity," the
high court said.
The
landlord, who claimed to be the owner of a shop in Paharganj area, here had
filed a petition before the trial court seeking to evict the tenant on the
grounds that now he required the premises to carry out his business as he has
no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.
The
landlord said earlier he had to shut his business, which was being run in a
residential area, and he was allotted a plot in Bawana by the authorities but
he had surrendered the same on account of long distance and his old age.
The
court noted that the plot was surrendered long ago and it was not available
with the landlord to be used as a shop.
"The
surrender of the Bawana plot by the present respondent (landlord) was because
of the long distance between Bawana and the place of residence of the present
respondent. But that cannot be read to mean that he is incapable of earning his
livelihood through business from the subject premises," it said.