Delhi High Court
Sri Prakash Gupta vs Dharmanand Pandey Decd Thr Lrsr on 4 November, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 04.11.2011
+ RC.REV. 88/2011 and CM No.6181/2011
SRI PRAKASH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. O.P. Aggarwal, Advocate.
Versus
DHARMANAND PANDEY
DECD THR LRS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. L.N. Jha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The impugned order had dismissed the application for leave
to defend which had been filed by the tenant; the Additional Rent
Controller (ARC) was of the view that no triable issue had arisen.
Impugned order suffers from an infirmity as has rightly been
pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The application
for leave to defend filed by the tenant has been perused; his
contention was that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit
premises; the premises are not required bonafidely by the
petitioner for his residence; it was stated that there were five
shops owned by the landlord which form part of the building; out
of these shops one shop is of a bigger size; in 2007, the petitioner
himself had demolished the back portion of the tenanted premises
in order to create a paucity of accommodation and he has
demolished the roof of his one shop; in the site plan filed by the
petitioner this portion has now been depicted as a gallery between
the two shops; the petitioner is already in possession of three
shops; he has also not filed the correct site plan; he has not
disclosed the area which is in his possession. These averments
had been denied by the reply filed by the landlord. However, this
was merely a bald denial and the body of the eviction petition as
also the reply show that the area which was under the possession
of the landlord has still not been disclosed; he has merely denied
that the area is not of 200 sq. yards as has been alleged in the
application for leave to defend; furthermore, there is again a bald
denial to the averment of the tenant that the petitioner had in fact
himself demolished the roof of one of his shops to create a paucity
of accommodation which now been shown as a gallery. The
eviction petition also shows that the area which was in possession
of the landlord has not been depicted; in support of the landlord
he has stated he was earlier the landlord and owner of 150 Sq.
yards of the property i.e. property bearing No. B-IC-164, Chander
Lok, Main Mandoli Road, Delhi-93 out of which certain portion
was gifted to Smt. Bhagwait Joshi and Sh. Sonu Joshi and the
remaining part continues to be with him; the said remaining part
(as noted supra) has not been specified.
2. It is also relevant to point out that the landlord himself has
in his eviction petition stated that the building is very old and it is
in a dilapidated state; this is even otherwise not a requirement for
a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA; the contention of
the tenant is that the petitioner himself had demolished this
building in 2007 to create a paucity of accommodation in
dilapidated state; the submission of the tenant that the landlord
himself had demolished a part of the building to create a paucity
of accommodation and the earlier two shops have been depicted
as a gallery were matters which require evidence; triable issue
had prima facie arisen; the ARC dismissing the application for
leave to defend summarily in this factual context suffers from an
infirmity. The impugned order is set aside. Triable issues having
arisen the ARC shall proceed to deal with the eviction petition on
its merits.
3. The parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.11.2011.
4. Petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 04, 2011
rb
