Delhi High Court
Desh Raj Sharma vs Mohd. Sabir (Since Deceased Thru. ... on 16 March, 2018
$~11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 16th March, 2018
+ RC REV. 600/2016
DESH RAJ SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv.
versus
MOHD. SABIR (SINCE DECEASED THRU. LRS) & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abdul Sattar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petition at hand was filed challenging the order dated
09.06.2016 of the Additional Rent Controller passed on the file of the
case (E-92/2013) instituted by the respondents for eviction under
Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of the
premises described as shop forming part of property No. 254, Hauz
Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as specifically shown in colour red
in the site plan attached to the said eviction petition, such premises
admittedly being in the tenancy of the petitioner under the
respondents.
2. Given the nature of the ground on which eviction was sought,
the procedure contained in Section 25 B of Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 was invoked and in answer to the said summons served on him,
the petitioner submitted an application seeking leave to contest. The
grounds on which such leave was sought, however, did not impress
the Additional Rent Controller who consequently declined the
application and in the result granted order of eviction by the impugned
order dated 09.06.2016 which is assailed by the petition at hand.
3. When the petition came up for the first time before the Court on
19.12.2016, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he was
ready and willing to compromise the matter with the respondent in
case sufficient time was given to vacate the property. Notice was
issued to the respondents limited on the said submission of the
petitioner. The matter has remained pending, the parties having been
referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre but
with no fruitful result. It was submitted on 21.02.2018 that the
petitioner wanted five years' time to be granted which was not
acceptable to the respondents, it being unreasonable, particularly in
the face of the fact that the petitioner before approaching this Court in
revisional jurisdiction against the order of eviction on 09.06.2016 had
already availed of the statutory protection of six months under Section
14 (7) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
4. The matter has come up against the above backdrop for final
hearing. The counsel for the petitioner initially insisted that he may be
granted five years' time to vacate. The request, according to the
respondents being most unreasonable, in the given facts and
circumstances, however, had to be declined since the Court is not
inclined to impose any such conditions on the respondents. Faced
with this, the counsel for the petitioner submitted he may be allowed
to argue on merits on the revision petition as, in his contention, the
impugned order is bad in law. He relied on order dated 17.01.2000 in
Civil Appeal No. 412/2000 titled as Santosh Devi Soni vs. Chand; and
judgments reported as Shanti Devi vs. Rajesh Kumar Jain & Anr.
(2015) 2 SCC 158 and Rakesh Kumar vs. Pawan Khanna 195 (2012)
Delhi Law Times 341.
5. The submissions of both sides have been heard. Record
perused.
6. In the opinion of this Court, the revision petition is devoid of
substance. It is not disputed that the family of the respondents
(landlords) is a large one including 23 children out of which 9 have
come of age, they being keen to establish themselves in some business
to earn their livelihood. The contention of the respondents that fourth
respondent is running a business from rented premises in Saidullajab
area of Delhi has not been disputed.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that another tenant named
Har Bhagwan Das who was in occupation of an adjoining shop had
vacated and such premises was available as the suitable alternative
accommodation. The Additional Rent Controller has examined this
issue in the light of material on record. He has observed that the
adjoining shop vacated by the other tenant Har Bhagwan Das is a very
small premises. The need of the respondents is to establish their nine
adult sons in business. All of them cannot be accommodated in just
one small shop of that nature. This is why the respondents have
explained that they intend joining the shop vacated by Har Bhagwan
Das with the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner as it would then
provide a suitable working space for the business of carpentry and
furniture which is intended to be set up.
8. There is, thus, no merit in the application for leave to contest.
The rulings cited by the petitioner are of no assistance. Each case has
to be examined on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. It is not a
case where sufficient alternative accommodation is available with the
landlord.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court
finds no substance in any of the contentions urged in the application
for leave to contest. The order passed by the Additional Rent
Controller is found to be suffering from no error or infirmity. Thus,
the petition at hand and the pending application are dismissed with
cost of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand only).
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MARCH 16, 2018
nk
