Mere Disability Doesn’t Deprive An Individual Of The Constitutional Right To Practice Any Profession Or Carry Business: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that mere disability does not deprive an individual the constitutional right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

“Thus, it would be wholly retrograde, and in derogation of the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 & 21, to deny the right of a person suffering from any disability, to carry on any trade or business,” Justice Sachin Datta observed.

The court made the observations while dismissing a plea moved by two tenants challenging an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller in favour of the landlord with respect to a tenanted shop.

The eviction petition was filed by the original landlord claiming that the shop was required for bonafide need of her son Sushil Kumar, who was dependent upon her for business.

The tenants challenged the impugned order by submitting that Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable only to residential premises and not to commercial premises.

It was further submitted that Sushil Kumar was suffering from low vision which could not be improved despite treatment and therefore, he was not in a position to run a business independently. Therefore, the requirement asserted by the landlord could not be said to be bonafide.

They further asserted that Sushil Kumar, for whose bonafide necessity the eviction petition was filed, was not capable of running a business due to impaired vision.

On the other hand, the landlord claimed that the petition under Section 14(1)(e) was maintainable in respect of the property which was commercial in nature. It was also submitted that it is not permissible for a tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he should adjust himself without getting the tenanted premises vacated.

Regarding the contention of the tenants that Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is applicable only to residential premises and not to commercial premises, the court said that the law is well settled that the provision is applicable to tenanted premises let out for commercial purposes as well.

The court upheld that order of the rent controlled and said that no exception could be taken to the finding that Sushil Kumar was neither in possession of the said shops nor was running any business from there.

On the contention of the tenants that Sushil Kumar was not capable of running a business due to impaired vision, Justice Datta observed, “This submission, besides being contrary to the assertion that the said person is running multiple businesses from multiple shops, is most reprehensible and deserves to be rejected outright.”

The court observed that the submission not only “undermines sacrosanct constitutional principles” but also “runs afoul” to the objectives and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

“In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the impugned eviction order does not merit any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B (8) of the DRC Act. As such, no merit is found in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed,” the court said.

Title: SANTOSH BHUTANI & ANR v. SAVITRI DEVI THROUGH LRs

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 832