Delhi High Court
Vipin Kalra vs Vidhyawati on 26 May, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 211/2015 and CM No. 8090/2015 (Stay)
% Decided on: 26th May, 2015
VIPIN KALRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Verma and Mr. Naveen
Chandra, Advocates.
versus
VIDHYAWATI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Gyan Mitra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 23rd January, 2015, whereby the leave to
defend filed by the Petitioner Vipin Kalra in an eviction petition filed by the
Respondent Smt.Vidhya Wati under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') was dismissed, the Petitioner
prefers the present petition.
2. In the eviction petition, Smt. Vidhya Wati stated that one shop at the
ground floor of property No.E-8, East Chander Nagar, Delhi, that is,
privately numbered Shop No.1 (in short 'the tenanted premises') was let out
by the deceased husband Vidhya Wati to Vipin Kalra at a monthly rent of
Rs.100/- which was enhanced from time to time. Vidhya Wati, aged 68
years, was the owner and landlord of the suit property E-8, East Chander
Nagar, Delhi. Smt. Vidhya Wati along with her three sons, their wives and
children, that is, 13 members of the family is residing in the suit property.
Her three daughters, who were married, were living in their matrimonial
home but frequently visited Vidhya Wati and other family members at least
once a week.
3. The suit property consists of six shops of different sizes and out of
which three shops were on the main road which were numbered Shop Nos.
1, 2 and 3. Shop Nos. 1 and 2 were in the tenancy of the Petitioner Vipin
Kalra and Shop No. 3 was with Vidhya Wati's son namely Pooran. The
other three shops measuring 5 ft x 8 ft were on the street side and were given
private shop Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Shop Nos. 4 and 5 were with Vidhya Wati's
son Narender while Shop No.6 was with Nirmal Kant Gaba. She explained
the position of all the rooms occupied by her family on the ground floor and
the first floor. It is stated that Vidhya Wati's elder son Suresh Kumar was
unemployed and for this reason he could not be married with some suitable
girl. Vidhya Wati could not start some business for him due to paucity of
accommodation and the said son expired in the month of March, 2012.
Vidhya Wati's son Chander Sain was doing a private job and earning salary
of Rs.8,000/- which was not sufficient to maintain his family and thus he
wants to start his own business. Vidhya Wati needs private shop No. 6 for
extending the business of her son Narender and private Shop No.1 for her
second son namely Chander Sain and private Shop No.2 occupied by Bhajan
Lal for extending hardware business of her son namely Pooran Chand. Her
sons are facing great hardships due to lack of accommodation.
4. In the leave to defend application Vipin Kalra took the plea that earlier
Vidhya Wati filed petition under Section 14 (d) against Bhajan Lal which
was dismissed and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed. It is
stated that there was no bona fide requirement and besides the suit property
Vidhya Wati was also the owner and in possession of the entire property B-
6, Subhash Gali, Chander Nagar, Delhi which was four storyed building and
the ground floor of the said building was in tenancy of Subhash Chaursia and
the first floor and the third floor were having three rooms each which were
lying vacant. Her two married sons were running three shops from E-8,
Chandar Nagar, Delhi, that is, the suit property. The tenancy was created
with Vipin Kalra on 1st January, 1979 through an oral agreement and the
building was old in dilapidated condition. Chander Sain, son of the Petitioner
has various businesses at Chandni Chowk like brokerage of jewellery, shares
and accountancy etc. Chander Sain is not dependant on Vidhya Wati. Thus
the three shops in the suit premises in the tenancy of Bhajan Lal, Vipin Kalra
and Smt. Nirmal Kant Gaba were not required bona fidely.
5. After hearing the parties, the learned ARC vide the impugned order
declined to grant leave to defend on the ground that Vipin Kalra has not
disclosed any other property which could be said to be suitable, alternate
accommodation and hence in view of the vague assertion no triable issue
was raised against him.
6. Before this Court the main ground urged by the Petitioner is that Smt.
Vidhya Wati filed another eviction petition E-32/2012 titled as 'Vidhya Wati
vs. Bhajan Lal' wherein on identical facts the same learned ARC vide its
order dated 10th September, 2014 granted leave to defend which order has
been upheld by this Court vide order dated 12 th March, 2015 in RC Revision
No.345/2014. Thus the Petitioner claims parity.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that
the shop from Bhajan Lal was required for the expansion of the business of
Pooran Chand and Vidhya Wati wanted to merge her son's shop with that in
tenancy of Bhajan Lal however, in the present case the eviction is sought for
on the ground that the Petitioners other son Chander Sain was doing private
job and drawing a salary of Rs.8,000/- thus he wants to start his own
business. Thus the present requirement is not of additional accommodation.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Vide the impugned order the learned Trial Court considered the fact
that in the reply to the leave to defend application wherein it was stated that
B-6, Subhash Nagar, Chander Nagar, Delhi has been sold and the same was
residential and that Vipin Kalra has not disclosed any other property which
could be claimed to be suitable alternate accommodation. However, a
perusal of the eviction petition as noted above would show that all the three
shops in the possession of the three tenants are being got vacated on one
pretext or other, either for expansion of business or settling the son. Even in
the eviction petition filed against Nimral Kanta Gaba leave to defend has
been granted. Thus the present petition is required to be allowed on the
ground of parity.
10. In view of the facts being similar and leave to defend having been
granted in the connected matters, I am of the considered opinion that the
learned ARC ought to have granted leave to defend to Vipin Kalra in the
present eviction petition as well. Consequently, the impugned order is set
aside. Leave to defend application filed by Vipin Kalra is allowed. Written
statement be filed without four weeks. Replication be filed within four
weeks thereafter. List the matter before the learned ARC on 16th July, 2015
when the parties will be present before the Court.
11. In view of the fact that the eviction petition is of the year 2012 and the
hearing in the connected matters has also been expedited the learned ARC is
requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a
period of one year.
12. Petition and application are disposed of.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MAY 26, 2015
'vn'
