Raj Rani Chaudhary & Ors vs Umesh Atri
2017 Latest Caselaw 929 Del

$~A-
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of decision: February 16, 2017
+      RC.REV. 265/2016 & CM Nos. 18326-18327/2016
       RAJ RANI CHAUDHARY & ORS                      ..... Petitioners
                        Through    Mr.D.R.Bhatia, Advocate
                 versus
       UMESH ATRI                                    ..... Respondent

                        Through    Mr.Praveen Chauhan, Mr. Abhishek
                        Gupta and Ms.Arpita, Advocates.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)

1. This revision petition is filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') seeking to impugn the eviction order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as 'the ARC').

2. Respondent/landlord had filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for property being No. 392, Leela Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi which was let out by late Pandit Sh.Leela Ram. The title of the respondent is traced through a family settlement dated 31.03.1971 between the LRs of Late Pt.Leela Ram and a family settlement dated 30.11.2005 among the family members of one of the LRs of Late Pt.Leela Ram, namely, Sh. Mohan Lal Atree. It is stated that as per the family settlement, the tenanted property falls in the share of the respondent. The petitioners were said to have been informed about the family partition vide letter dated 08.01.2006. It is further stated that the respondent and his

wife are professional architects who are running their office from their home i.e. B-5/4037, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. It is averred that in view of the ban which has been imposed under the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021, business activities form residential premises would become illegal. Hence, it is stated that the respondent seeks to run/operate their office by joining the two tenanted premises, namely, premises No. 392-393. It is further stated that neither the respondent nor his wife has any other commercial property from where they can run their office. An undertaking was given that they would occupy the tenanted premises only for the office purpose.

3. The facts and issues raised in the present petition are identical to the facts and issues in RC.REV. 263/2016 titled as Raj Rani Choudhary & ors. vs. Umesh Atri. The said RC.REV. 263/2016 pertains to a property bearing No. 393, Leela Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, which is adjacent to the property in question in the present petition. Both the petitions have common parties. The contentions raised by the petitioner are also virtually identical to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the above noted Revision Petition. This fact of similiarty of the facts and issues with RC.REV. 263/2016 was admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner when this matter was listed.

4. By order passed on the said Revision Petition has been dismissed. For the same reasons and grounds, this petition is also dismissed.

All pending applications also stand dismissed.

(JAYANT NATH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 16, 2017/v