Delhi High Court
Balram vs Nirmala Devi on 24 November, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. REVISION 258/2015 & CM APPL.9440/2015
Decided on: 24 November, 2015
BALRAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Advocate
Versus
NIRMALA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu K. Singla, Advocate
with Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the
judgment dated 16.01.2015 by virtue of which the leave to defend
application of the petitioner has been dismissed and order of
eviction has been passed.
2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the respondent-landlady
is the owner of property No.16/605-E, Tank Road, Bapa Nagar,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is stated in the eviction petition that in
the year 1996, the husband of the respondent-landlady deserted her
when her children one son and a daughter were young. After
desertion, the respondent-landlady started running a Tandoor on
the street where she used to bake chapatti for different persons and
earn her livelihood. It is alleged by her that her Tandoor was kept
on a public road she was facing immense difficulty from the
municipal corporation as they would often challan her. She has
accordingly been constrained to file an eviction petition for
retrieving possession of a shop measuring 8 ft. x 5 ft. on the ground
of bona fide requirement from the present petitioner for the purpose
of running a restaurant business in a proper space.
3. The petitioner-tenant in the instant case filed his leave to defend
application and raised an objection that the eviction petition was
not maintainable because there was no relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties and that the respondent-landlady can run
the business of Tandoor baking chapatti or selling food from her
residence and the premises in question was in a dilapidated
condition. The real intention of the respondent-landlady was said to
be suspect.
4. The learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) heard the arguments
and passed an order of eviction after rejecting the leave to defend
application. It was observed by the learned ARC that the
relationship is not disputed nor the question of premises being
retrieved by the respondent-landlady for the bona fide purpose of
running a restaurant. The respondent was also having a Tandoor on
rehri where she was being invariably challaned.
5. So far as the allegation of sale of property by the respondent is
concerned, it was observed that Section 19 of the DRC Act, 1958 is
sufficient to protect the interest of the tenant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
7. I feel that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
show any illegality or impropriety or the jurisdictional error in the
order of eviction having been passed against the present petitioner.
This is on account of the fact that the premises in question is just
40 sq. ft. a small shop which is more particularly shown red in the
plan attached to the petition wherefrom the respondent wants to run
a restaurant with the help of her son as she is already in the same
line of business by baking chapatti in the Tandoor. To that extent
her intention to shift to the premises belonging to her cannot be
doubted. It has also been stated that there is no other alternative
suitable accommodation available to her. Accordingly, she is
entitled to retrieve the possession which has been ordered rightly
by the learned ARC.
8. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, he has not been able to
raise any triable issue nor has been able to show anything which
could persuade the court to set aside the order of eviction and grant
leave to defend to him.
9. For these reasons, the revision petition is totally misconceived and
the same is accordingly dismissed.
10. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
V.K. SHALI, J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2015
vk
