Delhi High Court
Sudesh Kumar Bhasin vs Satish Sachdeva & Anr. on 27 November, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. Revision No.619/2015
Decided on : 27th November, 2015
SUDESH KUMAR BHASIN ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mohd. Rashid, Advocate.
Versus
SATISH SACHDEVA & ANR. ...... Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a revision petition by virtue of which the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 26.8.2015 vide which the leave to defend has
been granted to the respondent to contest the petition for eviction.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the impugned order. I have also gone through the judgment of
this court relied upon by the petitioner in Mittar Sain vs. Rajesh Kumar,
RC. Rev. No.196/2013 decided on 22.8.2014. Suffice it would be here to
mention that the petitioner, in the instant case, had claimed himself to be
the joint owner and the landlord of the property bearing No.2368,
Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi along with other family members as
co-owners. It is stated that the property has a basement bearing Private
No.2 which is under the tenancy of the respondent since 1985. The
petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing gold jewellery
from three shops, two of which are situated on the first floor and one shop
is situated on the ground floor of this very property. It has been stated
that the petitioner and his sons now want to expand their business and
increase their earnings in the same line of manufacturing ornaments and
for this purpose, they intend to install machines which require space and
hence, they project the bona fide requirement.
3. The respondent filed his leave to defend and stated in the same that
the petitioner has nearly 40 shops in his possession out of which 16 shops
are lying vacant which can be used for his business. It has also been
stated that from time to time, the petitioner has been letting out these
shops and in case his bona fide requirement would have been genuine
then he would not have admitted new tenants.
4. The petitioner filed his reply and admitted in the same that instead
of 40, he has 57 shops in this very property out of which, three shops on
the ground floor and six on the first floor are in his possession; however,
it is stated that the said shops are not suitable for doing the business. The
learned Rent Controller after considering all these facts has granted leave
to defend to the respondent by observing that as this is essentially a
requirement for additional accommodation, therefore, this can be proved
only by production of evidence. It has also been observed by the Rent
Controller that the petitioner is guilty of non-disclosure of certain facts
which also entitle the respondent to grant of leave to defend.
5. I do not find that there is any illegality, impropriety or
jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in
granting the leave to defend. This is on account of two reasons. Firstly,
the petitioner himself has been guilty of concealment of fact and a person
who is coming to court and seeking help of the court for the purpose of
eviction of his tenant must disclose all accommodations which are
available with him and it is only after disclosure of all the
accommodations that the petitioner can say what accommodations are not
suitable and give the reasons thereof. It should not be a case where the
petitioner simply makes a bald assertion that he does not have an
alternative suitable accommodation available to him and when pointed
out by the tenant that he has ample accommodations available to him
which can be considered to be alternative suitable accommodation, that
he starts admitting not only the factum of accommodation but also starts
giving justification as to how it is not suitable for him. If such is the case,
then this ground in itself entitles the tenant the leave to defend to be
granted on the ground of concealment of non-disclosure of correct facts.
6. The second ground is that as the petitioner is owning additional
accommodation and presently he is doing the business of manufacturing
ornaments and want to enhance or increase his business or his earnings by
installation of machines, it becomes a case of additional accommodation.
This has to be necessarily justified by production of evidence and
establishing his bona fide requirement. On this score also, the petitioner
cannot get an eviction order against the tenant summarily.
7. Therefore, both these grounds are very valid, genuine and bona fide
which have been considered by the learned Rent Controller as grounds
granting leave to defend to the respondent. So far as the judgment which
has been relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, that has no
application to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the petition is
totally misconceived and the same is dismissed. Expression of any
opinion may not be treated as expression on merits.
V.K. SHALI, J.
NOVEMBER 27, 2015
'AA'
