Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar vs Raj Rani Sabharwal & Anr. on 20 November, 2019
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 20.11.2019
+ RC.REV. 578/2015 & CM APPL. 25295/2015, 13171-
13172/2018
SATISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
versus
RAJ RANI SABHARWAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Advocate (DHCLSC)
For the Respondent: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Viney Sharma, Mr.
Abhishek Sabharwal and Mr. Imran Khan,
Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 13.08.2015, whereby the Leave
to defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an
eviction order passed.
2. Subject eviction petition was filed by late Shri Raj Rani
Sabharwal, mother of the respondent under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the
ground of bonafide necessity from one Shop at ground floor of
property bearing No. 575-A, Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi, more
particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan attached to the
eviction petition.
3. The ground on which the eviction petition was filed pleaded by
Smt. Raj Rani was Sabharwal was that she has two sons and four
daughters (except one daughter all daughters are married but they
frequently visit the mother at her house) She is residing in subject
property along with her sons and their family.
4. It is contended that there are six shops on the ground floor; one
shop was rented out to the petitioner and remaining shops were
occupied. It is mentioned in the eviction petition that out of five shops
on the ground floor of the suit premises, shop shown in brown colour
in the site plan is in use and occupation of grandson - Mr. Kapil
Sabharwal who is running a Chemist shop; another shop shown in
pink colour is occupied by the petitioner's son Mr. M.P. Sabharwal
who was using the same as a Godown and another shop shown in
orange colour is occupied by tenants - Anil Kumar and Sunil Kumar
for the last 25 years. One more shop shown in black colour was under
the tenancy of Suresh Suri and Smt. Anita Suri since the year 1984.
5. It is contended that her grandson - Shri Abhishek Sabharwal
had enrolled himself as an Advocate in the year 2008 and since then
he was practising as an Advocate at different Courts at Delhi and did
not have independent office for his professional practice and wanted
to open his office to set up his practice in the tenanted premises. It
was contended that he also applied for a chamber in Rohini Court but
no allotment of chamber was made in his favour.
6. The ground taken by the petitioner in the leave to defend
application is that respondent has only given a description of five
shops including the tenanted shop and there is no description given of
the sixth shop and further that the shop which is stated to be in
occupation of Shri M.P. Sabharwal was lying locked and no business
was being carried on from the said shop.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
also has another accommodation as her son had purchased a property
in Pitam Pura, Delhi.
8. Perusal of the site plan annexed to the eviction petition shows
that the respondent had, in fact, shown the description of the five
shops which are being used by either the family members or are under
the tenancy.
9. In the eviction petition respondent had stated that the shops
shown in brown colour in the site plan are in use and occupation of
Shri Kapil Sabharwal. In the site plan, the respondent had shown two
shops in brown colour. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the
respondent that there is an error of apostrophe (') in the description,
but, in the site plan the shops are correctly shown. The site plan of the
shops of the ground floor is extracted herein below: -
10. Perusal of the site plan clearly shows that two shops are shown
in brown colour; one shop in orange, one shop in pink, one in black
and the tenanted shop is shown in red colour. In the eviction petition,
the respondent has categorically stated that shops shown in brown
colour are occupied by her grandson and shop shown in black colour
is used as a Godown by her son and the other two shops shown in
orange and pink are under the tenancy of old tenants.
11. The respondent has disclosed in the eviction petition that her
son had purchased a property in Pitam Pura and is using the same for
residential purposes. Even in the affidavit in support of leave to
defend, petitioner, with regard to the Pitam Pura property, has himself
stated that younger son of the landlady was residing there along with
his family for last several years.
12. Since admittedly the case of the petitioner is that the property at
Pitam Pura is a residential property the same would not be suitable for
opening of an office.
13. With regard to the Shop in black colour, the case of the
respondent is that it is being used as a garage. Since it is a garage, no
day-to-day business activity would be carried on from the said shop.
14. Rent Controller has rightly held that the affidavit in support of
the leave to defend does not raise any triable issue or disclose facts
which if proved would disentitle the respondent landlord from an
order of eviction.
15. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Rent Controller in
refusing to grant leave to defend.
16. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
17. It may be noticed for the purpose of record that respondent has
already taken possession of the tenanted premises in execution
proceedings.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2019
'rs'
