Delhi High Court
Kamlesh Chand vs Rajinder Singh Ahlawat on 19 May, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 79/2015 & CM 2938/2015 (stay)
% Reserved on: 20th April, 2015
Decided on: 19th May, 2015
KAMLESH CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. J.P. Singh, Mr. Shyam Dev Lal,
Advs.
versus
RAJINDER SINGH AHLAWAT ..... Respondent
Through Mr. D.K. Jain, Mohd. Ahmed, Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. An eviction petition was filed by the respondent Rajinder Singh
Ahlawat under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the
DRC Act) against Mahesh Chand and Kamlesh Chand. On service of
summons Kamlesh Chand filed a leave to defend application and no leave to
defend application was filed by Mahesh Chand.
2. In the eviction petition Rajinder Singh stated that he was the owner of
shop No. 4446 Main Road, Pahari Dhiraj which was on tenancy with
Mahesh Chand and Kamlesh Chand, both sons of Lala Makhan Lal. Besides
Rajinder Singh was also the owner of property No. 4447 and 4448 Main
Road, Pahari Dhiraj. Property No. 4447 was in occupation of another tenant
and property No. 4448 which was above properties No. 4446 and 4447 was
used by Rajinder Singh as residence. On the ground that elder son of
Rajinder Singh was presently jobless and intends to start business, eviction
of the tenanted premises was sought.
3. In the leave to defend application filed by Kamlesh Chand he stated
that the eviction petition was bad for non-impleadment of all the LRs of late
Shri Har Narain who was the original owner of the property, however he did
not deny that the rent of the tenanted premises was being paid to Rajinder
Singh though it was stated that the rent was being collected as a rent
collector and not as a landlord. Kamlesh Chand further pointed out that
Rajinder Singh also owns property bearing No. 4441 Pahari Dhiraj which
consists of four shops and thus there was no bonafide need of Rajinder Singh
for the tenanted premises. It was further stated that Rajinder Singh wants to
capitalize the goodwill made by Kamlesh Chand in the business of
readymade garments as he intends to start the same business from the
tenanted premises.
4. Learned ARC vide the impugned order held that one of the co-owners
was competent to file the eviction petition. As regards the bonafide
requirement it was held that Rajinder Singh's son was jobless and that he
was dependent on Rajinder Singh was not disputed. Regarding the
availability of alternate accommodation i.e. 4441 it was noted by the learned
ARC that a sale deed had been executed in respect of the said property by
Rajinder Singh way back in the year 2008 with regard to sale of one of the
shops and the remaining three shops were under the occupation of various
tenants. Hence there being no alternate accommodation available, no leave
to defend could be granted.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contends that
material concealments were made by Rajinder Singh by not mentioning
property No. 4441 Pahari Dhiraj comprising of four shops which was in the
vicinity of the tenanted premises. Besides reiterating the grounds, the issues
raised in the leave to defend are re-agitated and it is stated that the intention
of Rajinder Singh was not bonafide. Relying on Santosh Devi Soni Vs.
Chand Kiran JT 2000 (3) SC 397 it is stated that in a case of additional
accommodation leave to defend ought to be granted.
6. In the eviction petition Rajinder Singh has clarified that property No.
4447 consists of only one shop which is with an old tenant and residential
property No. 4448 was just above shops No. 4446 and 4447 wherein
Rajinder Singh was residing with his family. In the leave to defend
application Kamlesh Chand has not denied property bearing No. 4447 being
in possession of another tenant and Rajinder Singh and his family residing in
property No. 4448. The only objection is concealment of property bearing
No. 4441 which contains four shops.
7. In the reply to the leave to defend application petitioner has placed on
record copy of sale deed relating to private shop No. 4441/1 which was
executed in the year 2008. It is further stated the three shops in property
bearing No. 4441 were in possession of various tenants. It is further stated
that the premises No. 4441 was located in the narrow street at the back side
of the tenanted premises and hence was not suitable for running a shop. In
the rejoinder to the reply of Rajinder Singh the fact that three shops in
property No. 4441 were with old tenants is not denied. Thus, the issue
which arise for consideration is whether leave to defend is required to be
granted to the petitioner in view of non-mentioning of property No. 4441
owned by Rajinder wherein three shops are occupied by old tenant and one
shop has been sold. It is trite law that a property which is not suitable
alternate accommodation is not required to be stated in the eviction petition.
In Surinder Singh vs. Jasbir Singh 172 (2010) DLT 611 this Court held:
"25. The mere fact that, respondent did not disclose the
accommodation of basement and first floor available with him
in the eviction petition, would not prove fatal to the present
case, since the same cannot be said to be an alternative suitable
accommodation for the purpose of business."
8. Thus on this count alone that there is concealment of another property
which admittedly is not vacant and available, no leave to defend can be
granted. Reliance on Santosh Devi Soni (supra) by learned counsel for the
petitioner is misconceived as he has not been able to show that Rajinder
Singh is in possession of any other premises which is vacant and suitable for
carrying on the business. Consequently, I find no merit in the petition.
9. Petition and application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MAY 19, 2015
'ga'
