Times Electronics Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs Kanvan Rasdip Singh
1996 Latest Caselaw 809 Del

JUDGMENT

J.K. Mehra, J.

(1) In this matter, the parties had reached an understanding. On 25.9.1996, Mr. Vinod Kumar Luthra, who was representing himself to be one of the Directors of the petitioner, stated that the Company was not interested in continuing with the challenge to the impugned judgment and he had sought time of one year to vacate the premises. He was required to swear an affidavit and also file copy of the Board Resolution whereby such a settlement was agreed upon. That affidavit of undertaking accompanied by the alleged copy of the Board Resolution was not accepted as this Court wanted proper identification of the said Director and proof of the Board Resolution. Mr. Luthra took back the said affidavit and copy of the Board Resolution to refile it in the Court today and also to produce the Minute Book relating to the Board Meetings. The case was adjourned to to-day. Today again, there is no appearance. Counsel for the petitioner is without any instructions. This matter has been on Board for a number of days in addition to its having been adjourned on various dates on various pretexts. I am not inclined to adjourn it any further.

(2) I have heard the Counsel of both the sides. The only challenge was to the bona fide need. It is not disputed that the respondent is the owner of the premises in dispute and that she does not have other suitable accommodation to her at Delhi. The petitioner has failed to satisfy me about the merits of the grounds of challenge to the impugned judgment. Mr. Rohatgi contended that the premises have been used consistently put to composite use of non-residential and residential purposes and as such, the ground under Section 14(1)(e) is not available. Mr. Rohatgi in support of his case has cited the judgment in the case of A. N. Kapoor v. Smt. Pushpa Talwar, reported as . In the present case, although the tenant happens to be the Company, there is no documentary evidence of the non-residential use of the premises and even the witness, who has appeared to depose this fact, had joined the Company only in 1995 whereas in the case cited by Mr. Rohatgi, there was plenty of undisputed evidence that right from day one, the premises were put to the non-residential use. The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from those prevailing in the case of A. N. Kapoor. Even before me no effort was made to produce any documents where from it could be proved that the company did put the premises to any non-residential use. In fact there is clear denial of this fact and even it is further pointed out that the said Company is virtually out of business for a long time. Mr. Rohtagi has not been able to show any infirmity or perversity or excessive exercise or failure to exercise the jurisdiction by, the Trial Court. In my opinion, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted and no case is made out for interference. The present petition is accordingly dismissed.