Delhi High Court
Parmanand vs Suman Sharma & Ors on 5 May, 2010
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV.105/2010 and CM 8322/2010
Date of decision : 05.05.2010
IN THE MATTER OF :
PARMANAND ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh with
Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advs. with
petitioner in person.
versus
SUMAN SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Manish Kohli, Adv.
CORAM
* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest? Yes
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
Caveat No.127/2010
Counsel for the caveator is present and states that a complete set of
the paper book has been furnished to him.
The caveat stands discharged.
RC.REV. 105/2010 and CM 8322/2010
1. The present petition is directed against the order dated
4.2.2010, by which the learned Additional Rent Controller has rejected the
leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant in respect of two
shops situated in the premises bearing No.K-13, Navin Shahdara, Delhi.
2. As per the averments made by the respondents/landlords, in the
eviction petition filed by them under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, the aforesaid two shops are bonafide required by them for the
purposes of carrying out commercial activities.
3. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner/tenant confines the
challenge laid to the impugned order to the findings returned by the learned
Additional Rent Controller, as mentioned at page 24 of the impugned order,
wherein reference is made to the fact that the respondents have one godown
on the ground floor of the suit premises, which is under the tenancy of
another tenant, Sh.Narendra Kumar Dhunna. It is stated that though the
respondents had made a mention of the said godown in the eviction petition
and in his leave to defend application, the petitioner/tenant had taken a
stand that the respondents had not made any effort to get the said godown
vacated, however, during the pendency of the eviction petition, the
respondents had succeeded in their eviction petition in respect of the said
godown. As a result, order dated 20.10.2009 came to be passed by the
learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the leave to defend application
filed by the tenant therein, Shri Narender Kumar Dhunna.
4. It is stated today that not only did the respondents succeed
before the learned Additional Rent Controller, the Revision Petition
No.84/2010 filed by Sh.Narendra Kumar Dhunna in the High Court came to
be disposed of as a compromise was arrived at between the parties, as
recorded in the order dated 16.4.2010, copy of which is handed over in
Court and taken on record. Under the compromise, the aforesaid tenant has
agreed to handover vacant peaceful possession of the godown to the
respondents on or before 30.6.2011. It is, therefore, stated by the counsel
for the petitioner that in view of the changed circumstances, which have
occurred after passing of the impugned order, the need of the respondents
has been duly met and the requirement of having the tenanted premises
vacated, no longer subsists.
5. The aforesaid contention is vehemently denied by the counsel for
the respondents/landlords, who states that three of the
respondents/landlords have set out their bonafide requirement for the two
shops under the tenancy of the petitioner, and that availability of the
godown in July 2011 shall not be sufficient to meet all their needs.
6. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid events are subsequent
events which have occurred after filing of the eviction petition by the
respondents/landlords. The availability of a godown on the ground floor of
the suit premises has a fundamental impact on the right to relief as set out
by the respondents/landlords in the eviction petition. The same shall also
have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to the relief and
requires to be determined by the learned Additional Rent Controller. It
would therefore be just and meaningful if the aforesaid facts and
developments which are subsequent in nature, are brought to the notice of
the learned Additional Rent Controller, to enable him to examine the stand
of the petitioner that availability of the godown to the respondents/landlords
shall be sufficient to meet their requirements and that now the need to have
the tenanted premises vacated no longer subsists.
7. Limited to the aforesaid aspect, the matter is remanded back to
the learned Additional Rent Controller for consideration and for returning a
finding thereon. The parties shall file their additional affidavits on this
aspect within two weeks, while exchanging copies thereof with each other.
8. The parties shall appear before the learned Additional Rent
Controller on 26th May, 2010 to address arguments on the aforesaid aspect.
9. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application, on
the aforesaid lines.
10. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry directly to
the learned Additional Rent Controller for perusal.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MAY 05, 2010 JUDGE
sk
