Sant Lal Kathuria vs Dk Miglani
2012 Latest Caselaw 1988 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment: 22.03.2012


+     RC.REV. 326/2011 and CM Nos. 15543 & 4371/2012

      SANT LAL KATHURIA                           ..... Petitioner
                   Through               Mr. M.L. Mahajan and Gaurav
                                         Mahajan, Adv.

                     versus

      DK MIGLANI                                   ..... Respondent
                              Through    Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Adv.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated

31.05.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord under

Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been

decreed; application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been

declined.

Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed on

the ground of bona fide requirement; contention of the petitioner is that

he has two sons who are married and living with him alongwith their

families; for a peaceful division of the family the petitioner wants to

separate his two sons as also from the joint mess; he wants to establish

the business of his sons independently; portion under the tenancy of the

tenant is accordingly required by the landlord for settling the business of

his aforenoted two sons namely, Yogesh Kumar Miglani and Rakesh

Kumar Miglani.

Application seeking leave to defend had been filed by the tenant;

a specific contention had been raised by the tenant that the landlord has

owned other properties also i.e. property No. B-42, Ganesh Nagar and

B-37 & B-24, Ganesh Nagar which have not been disclosed by him in

his eviction petition. The corresponding para of the reply filed to the

application seeking leave to defend have been perused. There was a

categorical denial; the landlord has stated that he is in no manner

connected with the properties at B-42, Ganesh Nagar and B-37 & B-

24, Ganesh Nagar; they are neither owned by him nor is the petitioner

their owner. A sale deed dated 05.01.2011 has been placed on record

showing that Yogesh Kumar (son of the petitioner) had sold the

property bearing No. B-24 Ganesh Nagar to one Smt. Anita

substantiating the submission of the tenant that in fact property No. B-

24 Ganesh Nagar was owned by Yogesh Kumar (son of the petitioner); a

specific query put to the learned counsel for the landlord on this count,

his submission is that this property is owned by his son and not by him;

the averments made in the eviction petition disclose that the landlord is

seeking eviction of the tenant from the aforenoted disputed premises

only to settle his two sons namely Yogesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar;

property bearing no. B-24 Ganesh Nagar is owned by Yogesh Kumar

which fact has been concealed by the landlord and thereafter even on a

specific averment made by the tenant in his application seeking leave to

defend which has been denied by the landlord, clearly shows that the

landlord has not come to the court with clean hands; not only that he has

made active concealment; all these raise triable issues. The eviction

petition having been decreed in this background suffers from an

infirmity; impugned order is set aside.

With these directions, petition is disposed of.

Triable issues having arisen, leave to defend is granted to the

tenant; written statement be filed within four weeks with advance copy

to the landlord who may file rejoinder. For appearance before the

Additional Rent Controller (ARC) on 09.04.2012 who shall then deal

with the eviction petition on its merits.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 22, 2012 rb