Delhi High Court
Kranti Kumar Sharma vs Rakesh Kumar Garg on 19 September, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.C.REV. 31/2012 with CM No. 1242/2012,
Caveat No. 75/2012, CM9409-9410/2012
Date of Decision: 19.09.2012
KRANTI KUMAR SHARMA ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.K. Malik with Mr. Rajeev
Chauhan, Advocates.
Versus
RAKESH KUMAR GARG ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagdeep Anand, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent
Control Act (for short 'the Act') seeks assailing order dated 17.10.2011
of Additional Rent Controller (ARC) whereby leave to defend
application filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises
comprising of six rooms, one dallan, one varanhah, Courtyard and
toilet on the ground floor of premises bearing No. 25, Bazar Lane,
Bhogal, New Delhi since 1958. Petitioner's eviction is sought on the
ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises by the
respondent for his business as well as residence. The respondent's
case, as set up in the eviction petition is that he along with his family is
residing at the first floor of the premises which is not sufficient and
suitable for his living. It is his case that he is living with his son and
his family with whom he does not have cordial relations and otherwise
also, he having suffered a stroke in November, 2010, is unable to climb
the stairs. His further case is that he has vacated his business premises
at I-21, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II on 22.02.2010 and does not
have any other suitable accommodation for running his business.
3. The leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner on
various grounds.
4. It was alleged that one large shop on the ground floor was got
vacated by the respondent from Mahender and is now in the possession
of the respondent. It was averred that present accommodation with the
respondent, comprising of three big rooms, one big covered drawing
room on the first floor, is not only sufficient, but suitable for their
requirement. It was denied that the respondent was not having cordial
relations with his son, It was averred that the daughter of the
respondent is not residing with him, but lives at Hyderabad and the
granddaughter is only about 3 years old. It was also alleged that the
respondent is quite healthy and is looking after the business of sale of
hardware products with his son on the ground floor.
5. With regard to the plea that one shop on the ground floor of the
premises was got vacated from Mahender, the response of the
respondent is that the said shop has been handed over by him to his
brother Mukesh Kumar, by virtue of a settlement that was recorded in
mediation. The learned ARC has outrightly believed this response of
the respondent to be correct, despite the case of the respondent that all
the accommodation available in the premises 25, Bazar Lane, Bhogal,
New Delhi are jointly owned by him and his brother Mukesh Kumar.
On what understanding this portion, which was recently got vacated
from Mahender, was given by the respondent to his brother, is required
to be tested by way of evidence to assess the bonafide of the
respondent. It is the case of the respondent that this portion could not
be used as residence, whereas, undisputedly, tenant Kranti Kumar
Sharma was using this accommodation for his business purposes and
that being so, it could not be said that this accommodation was not
suitable for running a business. The plea of the respondent that he is
not having cordial relations with his son, has also been outrightly
believed by the learned ARC, observing that this assertion of the
respondent could not be rejected unless it was shown by the petitioner
the same to be malafide and without any basis. The relation between
father and son are personal to them and an outsider may not be able to
prove the relation to be cordial, unless afforded an opportunity in this
regard. The fact that the respondent has been living with his son and
his family members from the beginning, without there being any cause
of complaint against each other brought on record, prima facie shows
them to be having cordial relation, unless contrary is proved. It was
upon the respondent/landlord to prove that he was not having cordial
relation with his son. In any case, this was an issue which would
require to be tested to assess the bonafide of respondent/landlord.
6. As per the respondent's own showing that he has suffered stroke
and is unable to climb the stairs, this aspect would also require to be
tested as to whether in such physical condition he was capable of living
alone and setting up an independent business at this age.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, based on the averments of leave to defend application, as
indicated above, it makes me to observe that the petitioner has raised
certain triable issues, which the learned ARC has overlooked and
outrightly rejected. I, therefore, find that the petitioner needs to be
afforded an opportunity of establishing his defences, instead, at the
threshold, of being thrown out of the premises, which is in his
possession for more than 50 years.
8. Further, during the course of arguments the learned counsel for
the petitioner has drawn my attention to some of the photographs filed
in this proceeding to show that the respondent is running the business
of home décor products in the lower ground floor of the suit premises,
just beneath the business of hardware shop of his son, to substantiate
that they have amicable relations and the respondent is not able to run
his business without the assistance and guidance of his son. There is no
need to go into this aspect in present proceedings.
9. In view of my above discussion, the impugned order seems to be
suffering from material illegality and perversity, and is set aside. The
leave to defend is granted. The parties are directed to appear before
the ARC on 5.10.2012 for further proceedings.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012/awanish
