Delhi High Court
Shri Prem Chand vs Smt. Madhu Rani And Ors. on 10 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REV. No. 255/2013
% 10th September, 2014
SHRI PREM CHAND ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.K. Malhotra, Advocate.
VERSUS
SMT. MADHU RANI AND ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Karuna Chhatwal, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed impugning the
judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 24.1.2013 which has
dismissed the leave to defend application and decreed the eviction petition
filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for bonafide necessity with respect to
the tenanted shop bearing no.94/2, Shankar Market, Railway Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032 as shown in red colour in the site plan.
RCR No.255/2013 Page 1 of 4
2. Counsel for the petitioner argues the following aspects which
according to him not only show that leave to defend should be granted, but,
in fact, the eviction petition should be dismissed:-
(i) The ownership with respect to the tenanted shop of the respondents is
pursuant to the two sale deeds dated 27.11.1996 and 6.7.2007 and therefore
eviction petition for bonafide necessity as per Section 14(6) of the Act could
only be filed after five years of purchasing the interest in the property i.e on
and after 6.7.2012, but the eviction petition has been filed in April, 2012.
(ii) The petitioner/tenant has specifically shown that a shop no.6 is lying
vacant in the same property, and which is the admitted position, and
therefore the respondent no.1/landlady cannot be said to have bonafide need
of the suit premises.
(iii) Not only there was a shop no.6 which was lying vacant, just a year or
so before filing of the eviction petition, but also in December 2011 another
shop being shop no.1 was let out to another tenant Mr.Ajay Jain and which
shop need not have been let out if the respondent no.1/landlady required the
premises allegedly for opening of a boutique.
(iv) The age of the respondent no.1 is today around 80 years and it is not
believable that at this age of 80 years she would open the business of a
boutique, and that too for financial needs when no documents whatsoever
RCR No.255/2013 Page 2 of 4
have been filed to show that the respondent no.1/landlady has no income
from any source. In fact the respondent no.1/landlady besides having
income as rent from various parts of the same property, till recently the
entire first floor was occupied by the Syndicate Bank which was paying rent
to the respondent no.1/landlady.
3. When the aforesaid aspects were put to the notice of the counsel
for the respondents, hardly any argument of any merit could be urged in
response. No argument could be urged in response because admittedly shop
no.6 is lying vacant, shop no.1 was let out just a year or so prior to the filing
of the eviction petition and finally, it is not believable that a 80 years old
lady would suddenly want to open a boutique and that too in a co-owned
premises where petitioner no.2/respondent no.2 is the other co-owner and
who has simply consented to the alleged need of the petitioner
no.1/respondent no.1 in the trial court i.e the landlady. Also, alternative
premises in the form of the entire first floor which is admittedly lying vacant
is available for carrying on the alleged business of a boutique. In my
opinion, if in cases such as the present leave to defend is not granted, more
so when probably the petition itself has to be dismissed on account of
Section 14(6) of the Act, I fail to understand that in which other case, leave
to defend should be granted. The very fact that the Additional Rent
RCR No.255/2013 Page 3 of 4
Controller had to pass a judgment running into 27 pages (leaving aside about
8 to 9 pages for the defence of the respondent no.4 before the Additional
Rent Controller who is no longer now contesting the eviction petition) surely
there were triable issues. Detailed judgments passed discussing all the
aspects in the facts of the present case, would not be permissible because it
would amount to deciding the bonafide disputed questions of fact without
trial.
4. In view of the above, petition is allowed. Impugned order of
the Additional Rent Controller dated 24.1.2013 is set aside. Petitioner is
granted unconditional leave to defend.
5. Parties to appear before the Rent Controller, East, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi and the Rent Controller will mark the petition to a competent
Court of Additional Rent Controller or may retain the petition with himself
for disposal in accordance with law.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
