Shri Satpal vs Shri Bharat Prakash Gupta
2014 Latest Caselaw 3507 Del

$~6
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     RC.REV. 222/2012 & CM nos. 9000/2012, 16039/2013
%                                                         AUGUST 4, 2014

SHRI SATPAL                                            ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. R.P. Vats, Advocate

                          versus

SHRI BHARAT PRAKASH GUPTA               ..... Respondent

Through Respondent in person

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this petition, under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner/tenant impugns the

judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 29.2.2012 which has

dismissed the application for leave to defend and has granted eviction with

respect to the tenanted shop on the ground floor, being shop no. 5758-A,

Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi - 110005.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues before this Court that

admittedly both the sons of the petitioner are U.S. citizens and are already

working in U.S.A. with their wives, and therefore, whether both the children

RC.REV. 222/2012 Page 1 want to come back allegedly for doing business in India is a triable issue. It

is argued that merely because the two sons have O.C.I. (Overseas Citizens of

India) cards, and which cards entitle the U.S. citizens, being the sons of the

landlord, to carry on work in India cannot mean that at the stage of leave to

defend application itself the eviction petition would be decreed. On behalf

of respondent and who has argued his case in person, it is vehemently

argued that in view of the O.C.I. cards, though no doubt both the sons are

U.S. citizens, since they intend to carry on work and business in India, no

leave to defend should be granted.

3. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case, where even

respondent/landlord himself has now acquired U.S. citizenship during the

pendency of the present petition and admittedly both his sons are U.S.

citizens, the requirement of the shop for the business purposes of the sons of

the respondent/landlord wanting to come back to India, creates a triable

issue inasmuch as it is not an automatic consequence of a statement of

wanting to come back to India that the married sons of the

respondent/landlord being U.S. citizens would come to India only for

carrying on business. In any case, this aspect surely creates a triable issue in

the facts of the present case.

RC.REV. 222/2012 Page 2

4. I may note that the eviction petition was originally filed for the stated

bonafide needs of the respondent /landlord for expanding his business, and

who is stated to be carrying on business of supplying washing materials

from the portion just behind the tenanted premises, but before me, the

respondent/landlord states that the tenanted premises are only required for

the needs of his sons and not for himself.

5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Impugned order,

dismissing the leave to defend application, is set aside. Petitioner/tenant will

be entitled to unconditional leave to defend. Parties are left to bear their

own costs. Let the parties appear before the District & Sessions Judge

(Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi on 3rd September, 2014 and the District &

Sessions Judge will now mark the eviction petition for disposal to a

competent court of Additional Rent Controller/Rent Controller in

accordance with law.

                                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
AUGUST 04, 2014
godara




RC.REV. 222/2012                                                         Page 3