Delhi High Court
R D Batra vs Suresh Gulati on 23 August, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.08.2019
+ RC.REV. 281/2019 & CM APPL. 21052/2019, 28272/2019
R D BATRA ..... Petitioner
versus
SURESH GULATI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sagar Saxena, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Vinay Sharma and Mr.
Imran Khan, Advs.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns judgment dated 23.10.2018 whereby leave
to defend application of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Petitioner was tenant in a shop in property bearing No. 3565,
Ward No. 14, Gali Takia Tawakel Shah, Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar,
measuring 7 ft. x 38 ft, more particularly as shown in red colour in the
site plan annexed to the eviction petition.
3. Respondent filed the subject eviction petition contending that
the said premises were given on rent for commercial/godown
purposes to the petitioner and he was using the same for godown
purposes. The monthly rent of the premises was Rs. 90/-. Eviction
petition was filed contending that the suit premises was purchased by
the mother of the respondent and a registered Will was executed in
favour of the petitioner of the said premises by his mother. She
expired on 04.06.2010 and after her death respondent became the
owner of the suit premises.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
initially Shri Kundan Lal was inducted as a tenant and on his demise,
his son carried on the business from the said premises and on his
demise his son became the tenant of the property.
5. The ground for eviction pleaded by the respondent/landlord
was that he was selling school bags from a shop in Nabi Karim,
Paharganj along with his brother. The said shop in Nabi Karim,
Paharganj was also owned by the mother of the respondent/landlord
and on her demise, the said shop has devolved on her 7 legal heirs i.e.
husband, petitioner, one other son and four daughters.
6. It is contended that from the said premises at Nabi Karim
business was being carried out by all the members of the family.
7. Subject petition was filed by the petitioner as his father and
brother wanted to separate respondent from the business and he also
desired to separate from his family and independently start his
business from the tenanted premises.
8. Petitioner filed his leave to defend contending that all the legal
heirs of the tenant had not been impleaded as parties. However, he
fairly conceded that on the demise of the grandfather there was a
family settlement consequent to which the said godown was given to
the father of the petitioner and on his demise the petitioner was
carrying on his bonafide business from the tenanted premises.
9. It was also contended that the respondent/landlord had
approached the petitioner prior to purchase of the tenanted property
and offered to sell the property to him and had taken an advance of
Rs. 50,000/-. However, no material was produced to substantiate this
allegation.
10. It was further denied that there was any bonafide necessity of
the respondent/landlord for the said premises. The ownership of the
respondent was also denied.
11. The trial court by the impugned judgment has noticed that
though the petitioner had denied the ownership of the
respondent/landlord but had not stated as to who, other than the
respondent, was owner of the tenanted property.
12. On the other hand, the respondent/landlord had placed on
record the sale deeds, i.e. title documents in favour of the mother of
the respondent and also the Will executed by the mother in his favour
to establish his ownership.
13. The trial court, in my view, rightly came to the conclusion that
the respondent/landlord has shown a better title than the petitioner and
established that he was the owner of the subject property. Trial court
further noticed that the respondent/landlord categorically stated that
he required the premises bonafide for running his business and that
currently he was running his business from a property jointly with his
brother and father and that he had no other accommodation to start his
own business.
14. Trial court has further noticed that the petitioner/tenant has not
produced any material on record to show that the respondent has any
other premises available with him for carrying on business or that
need was not bonafide.
15. Trial court has accordingly found that the affidavit seeking
leave to defend did not raise grounds disentitling the
respondent/landlord from an order of eviction.
16. Even before this court, the Petitioner has not been able to show
any ground, which would disentitle the respondent from an order of
eviction. Petitioner has not been able to show that alternative
accommodation is available to the respondent/landlord or that his
need is not bonafide. I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the
order refusing to grant leave to defend.
17. The petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.
18. It may also be noticed that pending these proceedings, though
notice was issued but there was no stay, impugned order already
stands executed and the possession of the tenancy premises has
already been recovered by the respondent/landlord.
AUGUST 23, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
'rs'
