Delhi High Court
Sarla Devi vs Adishwar Kumar Jain on 13 March, 2018
$~15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 13th March, 2018
+ RC.REV. 335/2012 & CM No.12519/2012
SARLA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amita Gupta with
Mr. Abhimanyu K. Singla,
Advocates.
versus
ADISHWAR KUMAR JAIN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anand Singh with
Mr. Varun Pandey, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The respondent is the landlord in respect of the petitioner who
has been a tenant in premises described as shop no. 16, IInd floor,
property no. 2490/XIII, Teliwara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. The
respondent had filed a case for eviction (E. No.33/2010) on
25.09.2010 against the petitioner on the ground of bona fide need
under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The
petitioner upon being served had moved an application seeking leave
to contest under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The
said application was dismissed and consequently the eviction petition
of the respondent was allowed by order dated 29.02.2012 of the Rent
Controller (North), Delhi, which is impugned by the revision petition
at hand.
2. The case of the respondent (landlord) is that he is engaged in
the business of timber, he having available to him certain portion at
the ground floor of the same very property at the second floor of
which the tenanted premises of the petitioner (tenant) is situate. His
case primarily is to the effect that he needs the tenanted premises for
arrangement of an office space where he can conveniently entertain
his clients/customers, there being no other suitable alternative
accommodation available for the purpose.
3. In the eviction petition, the landlord himself referred to certain
other properties owned by him they including the property bearing
municipal no.2799, ward XIII, New Qutub Road, now known as
Pratap Market, Delhi-110006; property no. 2823, Gali Matkewali,
Qutub Road, now known as Pratap Market, Delhi-110006; and four
shops in the property no. 2490/XIII (Old), Teliwara, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi-110006, i.e. property where his timber business is statedly run
from the ground floor, on the second floor of which the tenanted
premises is situate. While the other properties are described as not
suitable, they being away from the timber business at the ground
floor, it was stated that other shops in property no.2490/XIII are in
occupation of "old tenants".
4. The tenant in her application for leave to contest, inter alia,
pleaded that there are two shops at the first floor, at least one of which
has been lying vacant/closed for about 15 years, it being immediately
over and above the ground floor portion where the landlord statedly
runs his business, though it also being the case of the tenant that the
landlord is in the process of winding up such business. The tenant
also pleaded that three other shops at the ground floor were let out to
different tenants "about a year back", this to be read with reference to
the date (11.01.2011) when the application for leave to contest was
submitted.
5. In the reply to the said averment, the landlord, by his counter-
affidavit, stated that both the shops at the first floor are occupied by
"old tenants", he describing them by names as Ashok Kumar and
Sanwar Kumar respectively. He also took exception to the reference
to three other shops at the ground floor and being described as let out
"about a year back", referring in this context to his income tax
records, which according to him would show that the same had not
been "let out recently".
6. Noticeably, the landlord, though stating in the counter-affidavit
that the tenant was not correct in pleading that the three other shops
had been let out recently, he himself did not give any specific date(s)
on which such shops had been let out. The omission is conspicuous.
This by itself should permit the tenant to show facts to the contrary at
the trial. Further, the documents relied upon by the landlord qua the
stated tenancy of the two shops at the first floor of the aforementioned
property, give rise to serious doubt as to the existence of a tenant
named Ashok Kumar. Copies of rent receipts (seemingly counter
foils) maintained by the landlord and placed on record (pages 59 to
67) relate to three tenants including the petitioner herein, Sanwar
Kumar, one of the two tenants at the first floor and a person
purportedly inducted as tenant his name being Ashok Kumar. What
is important to note is that while the other tenants have signed on the
rent receipts, the rent receipts in respect of the tenant named Ashok
Kumar do not bear signatures of anyone.
7. In the above facts and circumstances, triable issues have been
raised, on which account the leave to contest application should have
been granted.
8. The petition is, thus, allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
The application of the petitioner for leave to contest stands granted.
Consequently, the proceedings arising out of the eviction petition of
the respondent stand revived before the Rent Controller. The parties
are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 10.04.2018 for
further proceedings in accordance with law. Needless to add, the
petitioner will be obliged to submit written statement on the date of
first appearance as has been fixed above.
9. The petition and the pending application stand disposed of in
above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J
MARCH 13, 2018
srb
