Laxmi Tiwari & Ors. vs Arjun Singh
2013 Latest Caselaw 1993 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                          Date of Judgment:01.05.2013
+   RC.REV. 167/2013
LAXMI TIWARI & ORS.                               ..... Petitioners
                    Through     Mr.T.C. Yogi and Ms. Deepa
                                Sharma, Adv.
                    versus

ARJUN SINGH                                                 .... Respondent
                         Through      Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

CM No. 6927/2013 (Exemption)

1 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

RC.REV. 167/2013

2 The petitioners before this Court are the landlords. They are aggrieved by the fact that the leave to defend has been granted in favour of the tenant.

3 Record shows that the petitioners have filed this eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA). The premises in dispute have been described as shop on the ground floor forming a part of property bearing No. 3/83, four storey, DDA flats, Garhi, New Delhi.

4 The application seeking leave to defend was filed. The triable issue sought to be raised by the respondent was that the ground floor of the property comprises not only of the shop which had been let out to the tenant but also another shop which had also initially been let out to him but in terms of the compromise, the same had been surrendered back to the landlords. It was a big shop measuring 10" X 20" forming the entire ground floor portion having two shutters one on the left side and another on the right side. Thereafter half of the shop measuring 10" X 11" was surrendered back by the tenant to the landlord which portion is now in occupation of the landlords and is a reasonably suitably accommodation available to them which fact has not been disclosed by them. The site plan of the property depicting the ground floor of the property has been filed; the portion in their occupation has been highlighted in red; the ad-joining portion has been described as a „store‟. The photographs of the disputed premises have also been placed on record.

5 In the reply filed to the application seeking leave to defend, the landlords have not denied this submission made by the tenant; it has however been stated that the photographs filed by the tenant are not a true picture and "the tenant has filed the photographs of closed shutters and not of the open shutters; the truth will come in front when right hand side shutter will open". It was these averments which had persuaded the trial Court to hold that a triable issue had arisen.

6 The trial Judge was right in his approach. Whether the photographs filed by the tenant depicting the picture of the entire ground floor was correct or incorrect; what was actually in occupation of the tenant and whether the adjoining store was with the landlord; does raise a triable issue. Leave to defend was rightly granted.

7     Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.



                                              INDERMEET KAUR, J.
MAY 01, 2013
A