Surender Singh vs Nand Kishore
2012 Latest Caselaw 4505 Del

*               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        R.C. REV. 260/2010

                                          Date of Decision:30.07.2012

SURENDER SINGH                                     ...... Petitioner
                         Through:    Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. with
                                     Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Adv.

                                Versus

NAND KISHORE                                     ...... Respondent
                         Through:    Mr.G.L.Goswami, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order dated 9.9.2010 of CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) in Eviction Petition No. 40/2009 whereby the leave to defend was granted to the respondent.

2. The petitioner has filed a petition for eviction against the respondent for the tenanted shop under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Act. The petitioner had claimed himself to be the owner of the tenanted shop by virtue of having acquired the same in family settlement and also a sale deed executed by his brother in his favour. He has sought eviction of the respondent on the ground that the tenanted shop is required for himself as well as his family members, dependent upon him for purpose

of doing business of properties and liaisoning. It was averred that he has been carrying this business of property dealer as well as liaisoning in the area of tenanted premises of Sadar Bazar and Paharganj for the last more than fourteen years and has no proper office in the said area to run his business.

3. In the application of leave to contest, the respondent denied the bona fide requirement of the petitioner of tenanted premises alleging the petitioner to be having one shop at the ground floor of property No. F-104, Bali Nagar, New Delhi and doing the business therefrom of motor parts as well as the property. It was averred that the petitioner has deliberately concealed and suppressed this material fact of his being in possession of reasonably suitable accommodation for his business and also carrying on the businesses therefrom. In reply thereto, the petitioner stated that the said shop at Bali Nagar was in possession of his son, who was carrying the business of sale and purchase of cars and accessories. It was averred that the tenanted shop is required by the petitioner for himself for carrying on the business of property and liaisoning.

4. The learned ARC vide the impugned order granted leave to contest to the respondent observing that he has established a triable issue in questioning the bona fide requirement of the petitioner in the wake of his having concealed and suppressed and being in possession of the aforesaid shop at Bali Nagar.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. So far as the petitioner being in possession of shop at F-104, Bali Nagar, New Delhi, it is not disputed that this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in the petition and that it came to be disclosed by him only when he was confronted by the respondent in his application for leave to contest. Though, it was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner was doing the business of property and cars at the said shop, the petitioner while denying this fact stated his son to be doing business of sale and purchase of cars and accessories from the said shop. There was nothing brought on record by the petitioner to substantiate this plea which was taken by him in reply to the leave to contest application. In the backdrop of the fact of his having concealed the possession of the shop at Bali Nagar and his coming out with the new plea of said shop being with his son and the tenanted shop being required by him for himself only, this was certainly a triable issue that was raised by the respondent. Further, the plea that he had been doing the business of property and liaisoning in the area of Sadar Bazar and Paharganj for the last fourteen years, is not substantiated by any documentary evidence in this regard. Even on my asking, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded to be not having any document or any other evidence to prima facie show the petitioner to be doing his business for the last more than fourteen years in the area of Sadar Bazar and Paharganj. This was another triable issue which would require to be

tested. The vague and bald plea of doing the business of property and liaisoning in an area, which is far away from the area where admittedly, the petitioner owns a shop, cannot disentitle the respondent outrightly. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the ARC. Having regard to the power of this court under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

JULY 30, 2012/akb