Beena Rani & Ors. vs Raj Kumar Chopra & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5497 Del

*      THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  R.C.REV. 288/2010

                                        Date of Decision: 13.09.2012

BEENA RANI & ORS.                               ......PETITIONER

                          Through:      Mr.Y.P.Ahuja, Advocate.


                               Versus

RAJ KUMAR CHOPRA & ORS.                         ......RESPONDENT

                          Through:      Mr.Girish Chandra,
                                        Advocate.


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

M.L. MEHTA, J.

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 23.04.2010 of Addl. Rent Controller (ARC), dismissing the leave to defend application of the petitioners, in the eviction petition filed against them by the respondents.

2. The petitioners are the tenants in respect of one room and verandah on the first floor of property bearing No. 168, Gaffar Maket, Karol Bagh. The said premises was let out to the petitioners

for commercial purpose. Their eviction was sought by the respondents on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop by them for their business purposes. It was the respondents' case that they are three brothers and are running their business in the name and style of M/s. Chopra Jewellers on the ground floor of property 168, Gaffar Market since April, 1998. Prior to them, their father Late Sh. D.R.Chopra was doing the same business since 1954 in the same premises. M/s. Chopra Jewellers is the partnership firm of three brothers and they are dealing in business of gold jewellery, ornaments, sale and repair. From a portion of the ground floor of the same shop, their family members Rajesh, Sanjeev and Anita are also running one more business, in partnership, under the name of style of M/s. Chopra Sons Silver Mart since 1986. The accommodation of this ground floor shop measures 23.5 sq. mtr. It was the case of the respondents that this accommodation, available with them, is not at all sufficient to meet the requirements of both the firms, and it was extremely insufficient for them to accommodate the partners of the two firms, as also their employees and the customers. For convenience of businesses, they have given two numbers being 168 and 168-A to this shop. It was averred that the present accommodation with them being insufficient, one of the two firms will be shifted from the ground floor to the first floor tenanted shop.

3. The petitioners filed leave to defend application, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order of the ARC. The case, that was set up by the petitioners in their defence, was that the respondents are not the owners of the tenanted shop. In this regard, it was submitted by the petitioners that the Will of Late Sh.D.R.Chopra has not been probated, nor it has been proved in the court to be his last Will, and as such, the ownership of the respondents in the tenanted premises is neither established nor proved. It was alleged that the respondents are retired persons, and carrying out their business, suiting to their age and the funds invested by them. It was alleged that they have been running the business for more than 30 years from the same ground floor shop and so, they do not require any more accommodation. It was alleged by the petitioners that M/s. Chopra Sons Silver Mart is being run from some other premises, and this firm was started by the respondents for the purpose of tax and employment benefits, even though, the same business was carried out earlier also.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the case of Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal, (1982) 3 SCC 270 to contend that the petitioners have made triable issues and the learned ARC erred in dismissing their leave to defend application summarily.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the respondents, and being conscious of the fact of the extent and scope of revisional powers of this court under Section 25-B (8) of the Act, which is unlike of Appellate Court, I have examined the material on record, including the impugned order. The pleas that it was M/s. Chopra Jewellers, who was the owner/landlord, and not the respondents, as the Will of their father D.R.Chopra was not probated, are all untenable. Undisputedly, the tenancy was created by virtue of rent agreement dated 7.7.1971 between the predecessors of the petitioners and the predecessors of the respondents. The respondents have placed on record the rent receipts in respect of the tenanted shop, which are not in dispute. Undisputedly, the petitioners have also been depositing rent in the name of the respondents under Section 27 of the Act. There cannot be any dispute that obtaining of probate of a Will in respect of the immovable property is not mandatory in Delhi. Reference in this regard can be made to Pamela Manmohan Singh Vs. State, 2000 RLR 137.

6. Though, it was nowhere the case of the petitioners in the leave to defend or before the ARC that M/s. Chopra Jewellers was their landlord, this plea taken before me is extraneous and is not tenable. The only receipt, on which the reliance is sought to be placed, mentions the name of the owner as Chopra Jewellers but, simultaneously, the names of the three partners i.e. the respondents,

are also mentioned therein. In view of the fact that the respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased D.R.Chopra, the original landlord/owner, and to whom the petitioners have been paying rent, I do not find any substance in this plea of the petitioners. The ownership of the respondents is not derived from the receipt, but from the Will of their father, as also the subsequent mutation of the property in their names. Further, it was nowhere the case of the petitioners that anyone else, other than the respondents has ever claimed to be the owner/landlord or demanded rent from them or the same was paid by them. Thus, the plea disputing the ownership or the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties, is vague and baseless and has been taken only for the sake of objections.

7. This is not disputed that the predecessors of the respondents had been doing the business of M/s. Chopra Jewellers from the ground floor of premises 168, and that, this firm was there for more than 30 years. It is also not in dispute that there is also another firm by the name of M/s. Chopra Sons Silver Mart, being run by the family members of the three brothers, from the ground floor portion of the same shop. The pleas that the second firm has been started for the purpose of tax and employment benefits, and that the same business was earlier carried out earlier also, are all without any basis. From the undisputed facts, it comes out to be that as many as six persons of the family are engaged in two businesses in one shop, measuring about 23.5 sq.mtr. Both the firms, undisputedly, have

employees and being engaged in trading, would also be having customers. For the convenience of the two businesses, the shop has been given two separate numbers namely 168 and 168-A. This all shows that the respondents and their three other family members as also their staff are squeezed in one small shop. The present accommodation available with both these firms by any means, cannot be said to be sufficient for their businesses.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the petitioner Beena Rani has a shop in premises 167, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh and to substantiate this plea, he has placed on record a photocopy of the electricity bill, in the name of the petitioner Beena Rani. This could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, saying that the bill was no proof of ownership or occupation, and that the petitioners also have other LRs of their predecessor. Though this was not a satisfactory response, but this is not required to be gone into my me in the present proceedings.

9. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the learned ARC, warranting interference by this court. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2012/akb