Delhi High Court
Gopal Bhagnani vs Ramesh Chand on 11 March, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 42/2015 & CM 1219/2015 (stay)
% Decided on: 11th March, 2015
GOPAL BHAGNANI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Parvez Dabas, Mr. Milan Laskar,
Mr. S.A. Saud, Advs.
versus
RAMESH CHAND ..... Respondent
Through
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21st March, 2014 whereby leave to
defend was granted to the respondent in an eviction petition filed by the
petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner prefers the
present petition.
2. The learned Trial Court granted leave to defend on the ground that the
petitioner has failed to disclose as to how and under what circumstances he
represented himself as attorney of Vasudev Bhagnani & Sons, HUF in
eviction petition bearing No. E-29/1995 titled as "Shri Vasudev Bhagnani &
Sons, HUF Vs. M/s. D.C. Ramesh Corporation" despite the fact he claims to
have become owner of the property in question three years prior to the filing
of the said eviction petition. Further the respondent had sublet the premises
and had addressed a letter to the erstwhile landlord Shri Om Prakash
Aggarwal on 1st September, 1977 and if the property in question was rightly
sublet by the then tenant the eviction petition was bad on account of non-
joinder of necessary parties i.e. the sub-tenant and thus triable issues going to
the root of the matter have been raised.
3. The petitioner filed an eviction petition claiming that he became
owner of the property by virtue of irrevocable general power of attorney
dated 31st March, 1992 and claimed that the landlord Vasudev Bhagnani
ceased to have any right, title or interest over the said property in question.
The petitioner stated that he and his family members were residing in
Mumbai and wants to shift to Delhi to earn his livelihood and he has no
other property in Delhi. The family of the petitioner comprises of himself,
his wife, one son and one daughter. It is further stated in the petition that the
respondent has illegally sublet, assigned or parted with the physical
possession of the suit property. Further the tenanted premises was more
suitable for commercial activities as it is on the ground floor and mezzanine
floor of the suit property and the petitioner wanted to start his construction
business in Delhi. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed another
petition against the respondent as attorney under Section 14(1)(b) of the
DRC Act, however as the petitioner could not pursue the same it was
dismissed in default. In the written statement filed in the said petition the
respondent admitted that he was a tenant in respect of suit property since
1973 which was let out to him by Shri Om Prakash Aggarwal for
commercial, residential and storage purposes.
4. In the leave to defend application the respondent pointed out about the
other eviction petition and also that the petitioner has now filed eviction
petition as owner of the property whereas earlier eviction petition No. E-
29/1995 was filed as the attorney of landlord Vasudev Bhagnani & Sons,
HUF. The respondent claimed that his possession to the property was
hostile. Further the respondent pointed out that Shri Vasudev Bhagnani has
business of financing and producing Bollywood movies which is highly
well-established in Mumbai and thus there is no requirement of the
petitioner, much less any bonafide requirement, to come to Delhi. The
respondent also took the plea of subletting which was even stated in the
eviction petition.
5. In view of the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties which fact has
been admitted by the petitioner in an earlier eviction petition, the petitioner
being not the owner of the premises and the bonafide requirement being
challenged, I find no infirmity in the impugned order granting leave to
defend.
6. Petition and application are accordingly dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2015
'ga'
