Delhi High Court
Harpal Singh vs Leela Devi on 3 October, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% RCR NO. 74/2011
+ Date of Decision: 3rd October, 2011
# HARPAL SINGH ...Petitioner
! Through: Mr. G.L. Goswami & Mr. Balraj,
Advocates
Versus
$ LEELA DEVI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Girish Chandra & Mr. T.K.
Tiwari, Advocates.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)
ORDER
P.K BHASIN,J:
This petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 has been filed against the order dated 08.12.10 passed by the
learned trial court whereby eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the
Act filed against the petitioner - tenant by his landlady, respondent herein,
in respect of one shop under his tenancy (hereinafter referred to as the
tenanted shop) has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed
after rejecting his application for leave to contest filed under Section 25-
B(4) of the Act.
2. The respondent -landlady is the owner of the property no. 1/4086,
Ashok Marg, Ram Nagar Extension, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi and
the petitioner is the tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor. The
respondent- landlady in her eviction petition had pleaded that her family
was of twelve members comprising of herself, her husband, four sons, out
of which two were married and have two kids each. The landlady further
pleaded that the tenanted shop is required for her family members for
opening a general store as her husband who was a government employee
had retired on 31.07.2008 and had no source of income to maintain
himself. It was also pleaded by the respondent - landlady that her husband
wanted to run a general store with the assistance of their two daughters-in-
law and the tenanted shop was required as no other space was available in
the house in question for that purpose.
3. The petitioner-tenant had claimed in the leave to defend application
that the respondent - landlady had in her possession another shop which
she had shown in the site plan filed along with the eviction petition as a
store room. This was the main plea put forth by the petitioner - tenant
before the trial Court as also before this Court.
4. The learned Additional Rent Controller has dealt with the said plea of
the petitioner - tenant in the impugned order and rejected the same by
making the following observations:-
"In his application for grant of leave to defend, the respondent has
alleged that there is no bonafide requirement of this shop and the
averments of the petitioner are false. It has also been alleged that one
shop on the ground floor of the premises no. 1/4086 is lying locked and is
in the possession of the petitioner. Ld. counsel for the respondent has
argued that the area shown as store in the Site Plan of the petitioner which
is adjacent to the suit shop is in fact, a shop which is in the possession of
the petitioner. The respondent has filed a photograph to support his
assertion. This photograph, however, does not show that the portion
adjacent to the tenanted shop is also a shop. In fact, it appears to be a
gallery where the staircase is situated. In his Rejoinder, the petitioner has
categorically explained the situation of this store and the area which
according to the respondent is a shop. The case of the petitioner is that
there is a small store adjacent to the tenanted shop measuring 3' x 8'. For
safety purpose, a rolling shutter has been installed. There is a three feet
wide gallery and there is also a three feet wide staircase. The photograph
filed by the respondent, in fact, corroborates the description narrated by
the petitioner. The respondent has failed to show that there is a shop
adjacent to the suit shop from where the business of grocery store can be
run by the family members of the petitioner. It has been argued by the
petitioner that she wants to enhance the family income for maintaining her
large family including the families of her two married sons. For this
purpose, her husband and her two daughters-in-law want to run a grocery
store from the tenanted premises. This is a bonafide requirement and
there is nothing to show that an alternate suitable shop is available to the
petitioner for this purpose."
5. In my view, the learned Additional Rent Controller cannot be said to
have committed any material irregularity in not accepting the petitioner -
tenant's plea that the room shown in the site plan annexed with the
eviction petition was not a store room and the same could be used for
opening a shop. The petitioner has not made any attack in the present
revision petition on the above quoted observations of the Additional Rent
Controller regarding the availability of the room described in the site plan
as a store with the respondent - landlady and the same being not sufficient
for doing any kind of business therein. Except for taking this plea, the
petitioner - tenant has not challenged the bona fides of respondent's
decision to make the tenanted shop available to her husband and two
daughters-in-law for running a general store to earn money for the entire
family comprising of 12 members. If that be so, I do not find any merit in
this revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN,J
October 03, 2011
sh
