M/S Bharat Investment ... vs Sanjana Saini
2013 Latest Caselaw 1992 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                          Date of Judgment:01.05.2013
+     RC.REV. 561/2012 & CM No. 19510/2012

      M/S BHARAT INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND ANR.
                                            ..... Petitioners
                   Through  Mohd. Ahmed, Adv.

                         versus

      SANJANA SAINI
                                                        ..... Respondent
                         Through      Mr. Lalit Gupta and Mr. Ashish
                                      Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The impugned order is dated 02.06.2012. The application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend in pending eviction proceedings under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) had been dismissed. This is the grievance of the petitioner/tenant before this Court. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner being that a triable issue had in fact arisen but this has not been construed in the correct perspective by the trial Court. Attention has been drawn to the pleadings before the Court.

2 The eviction petition disclosed that it has been filed on the bonafide requirement of the premises for the petitioner/landlady herself

who wishes to run her share business from the disputed premises; submission being that she wishes to maintain her office/shop in the suit property to carry on this share business. Further part of this need is the need of the husband of the landlady who is engaged in the business of trading of readymade garments and who requires this shop for storage/godown purpose and wishes to expand his business activities. The husband of the landlady is doing his readymade garments business from Gandhi Nagar. This has been disclosed in the eviction petition.

3 In the application seeking leave to defend it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the husband of the landlady in fact owns 21 shops in the basement of the same property where the disputed premises are located; three out of the said shops are lying vacant. This has specifically stated in sub para (f) of para 3 of the application seeking leave to defend.

4 In the corresponding para, it has not been denied that 21 shops are in fact owned by Anand Saini. Further submission is that the shops are not lying vacant and in fact they have been occupied by the old tenants. No document has been filed on record to substantiate this submission that the shops are not lying vacant and they are occupied by the old tenant.

5 It is in this background that the respective submissions of the parties have to be construed.

6 This Court is of the view that a triable issue has arisen. This is firstly for the reason that in the eviction petition, the landlady has failed to disclose about the aforenoted 21 shops being owned by her husband and this is especially so as the need of the disputed premise is not only for her own business but also for the business need of her husband to expand his business. The second point which is relevant is that the submission made in the application seeking leave to defend wherein it has been specifically stated that out of 21 shops, three are lying vacant. There is no denial whatsoever on this count. Only general averment has been made that all the shops are occupied by the old tenants which is again not substantiated from the record.

7 In this factual scenario, a triable issue has arisen. Leave to defend is accordingly granted. Impugned order is set aside. Written statement be filed within four weeks with advance copy to the learned counsel for the landlord who may file rejoinder before the next date. Parties are directed to appear before the ARC on 28.05.2013.

8 Petition as also the stay application stands disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

MAY 01, 2013 A