Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar Arora vs Tilak Raj Chadha on 30 November, 2017
$~39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30th November, 2017
+ RC.REV. 348/2017 & CM Nos. 26920/2017, 42417/2017
VIJAY KUMAR ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Brijesh Kr. Tamber,
Advocate.
versus
TILAK RAJ CHADHA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh with
Mr. Sunil Lalwani, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The matter had earlier been listed for 6th December, 2017.
However, on the application (CM No.42417/2017) of the respondent,
it has come up today. With the consent of learned counsel on both
sides, the date of hearing is advanced and the matter is taken up for
hearing.
2. The petitioner herein is admittedly a tenant in the suit premises
described as shop No.143, Desh Bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-05 as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed to the
application. A case for eviction (E-213/17/12) was instituted against
him by the respondent (landlord) on 28.05.2012 on the ground of
bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958. Upon being served with the said summons, in terms of the
procedure envisaged under Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958l, he filed an application before the Additional Rent Controller
seeking leave to defend. The said application was considered by the
Additional Rent Controller by order dated 22.04.2017 such leave
having been denied, it resulting in an order of eviction being passed,
the same is challenged by him through the petition at hand.
3. The ground on which the petitioner sought the leave to contest
in the eviction proceedings taken out by the respondent was that he
(respondent) had available to him, alternative accommodation for the
purposes of setting up his son in his independent business, reference
being made in this context to two specific premises, one in property
bearing No.4/54/55, Saraswati Marg, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
and the other in premises No.C-1/5, Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New
Delhi. The Rent Controller rejected the reference to both the said
premises holding that they cannot be said to be available as suitable
alternative accommodation.
4. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone
through the record of the Rent Controller, this court finds no error in
the view taken by the court below. The respondent in his eviction
petition had come up on his own with the explanation that the
property at Saraswati Marg was under tenancy of one Gaurav Bawa
since 2005. The plea of the petitioner that such premises are actually
in the use and occupation of Tarun Chadha, son of the respondent in
his own rights, the documents showing such tenancy since 2005
being false and fabricated, is unfounded and unsubstantiated by any
cogent material and, thus, has been rightly rejected by the impugned
order. The premises in Tibia college area are not even owned by the
respondent. It is an undisputed case that the respondent only holds
permissive rights of a licensee, even such licence having been
terminated upon issuance of a notice in 1998 for its vacation.
5. Such premises which are not owned by the respondent cannot
be referred as a suitable alternative accommodation available to fulfill
the needs of the landlord/owner of the property.
6. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, reliance on the
decisions of learned Single Judges of this court in Deepak Gupta vs.
Sushma Aggarwal, RC.Rev.180/2013, decided on 24.07.2013, and
Narender Kumar Manchanda & Anr. vs. Hemant Kumar Talwar, RC
Rev.107/2012, decided on 10.12.2012, is misplaced.
7. The petition is, thus, found to be devoid of substance and is
dismissed.
8. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 30, 2017
vk
