Delhi High Court
Prem Nath Nagpal vs Ajit Kuar on 25 February, 2020
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.02.2020
+ RC.REV. 507/2017 & CM APPL. 40112/2017
PREM NATH NAGPAL ..... Petitioner
versus
AJIT KUAR ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Dewan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Sharma, Ms. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. Sahil
Batar, Advocates
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.08.2017 whereby leave to
defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an
eviction order passed.
2. Subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent, under
Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground
of bonafide necessity seeking eviction of the petitioner from one Shop
in property bearing No. 54, Main Market, Moti Nagar, Delhi as shown
in red colour in the site plan annexed to the eviction petition.
3. The requirement propounded by the respondent was that she
requires the tenanted premises for being used by her grandson. Who is
the son of her deceased elder son and who was not carrying on any
business.
4. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner in the affidavit filed
in support of the leave to defend application was that besides the
tenanted premises and the shop which was being used by the
respondent along with her daughter, there are two more shops which
were lying unused and vacant and which are shown as godown in the
site plan.
5. The contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent
is that the alleged two shops are, in fact, godowns which are being
used for storing the articles of the shop of the respondent and the
articles of the shop of the other son of the respondent and are not
available.
6. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the
respondent fairly conceded that the he has no objection to the grant of
leave to defend to the petitioner provided directions are issued to the
concerned Rent Controller to expedite the proceedings since the
respondent is above 90 years of age.
7. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and also the
concession given by learned counsel for the respondent, impugned
order dated 18.08.2017 is set aside. Leave to defend the eviction
petition is granted to the petitioner.
8. List the eviction petition before the concerned Rent Controller
on 26.03.2020, on which date petitioner shall file his written statement
before the Rent Controller.
9. Rent Controller shall thereafter expedite the proceedings and
endeavour to conclude the entire proceedings within a period of six
months from the next date fixed before the Rent Controller.
10. The petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
11. It is clarified that the Rent Controller shall decide the eviction
petition purely on its merits without being influenced by anything
stated in this order.
12. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
'rs'
