* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% RCR NO. 79/2011
+ Date of Decision: 15th September, 2011
# VIJAY SINGH ...Petitioner
! Through: Mr. S.M. Chopra, Advocate
Versus
$ RAM BHAJ VERMA ....Respondent
Through: Mr. K.A.Diwan & Mr. I.R. Singh,
Advocates
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? (No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)
ORDER
P.K BHASIN,J:
This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) has been filed by the petitioner-tenant
against the order dated 06.01.2011 passed by the Rent Controller whereby
his application for leave to contest the eviction petition filed by his
landlord against him under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act to have the
possession of shop no.8 in house no. A-2/1, Ground Floor, Hastal Road,
RCR No. 79/2011 Page 1 of 8
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059(hereinafter to be referred as the
‘tenanted shop’) has been dismissed and he has been ordered to vacate the
tenanted shop.
2. The respondent-landlord had filed the eviction petition on the
ground that he and his son were doing no work and so he, his son and his
married daughter, who was having litigation with her husband and who
was also living with him, had planned to start a joint business and to open
a sweets shop in the tenanted shop. He was having no other space except
the tenanted shop in occupation of the petitioner-tenant for starting the
business.
3. An application under Section-25B of the Act was filed by the
petitioner for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition on the grounds
that his landlord did not require the tenanted premises bona fide since he
already had many other properties. It was also claimed that the respondent
along with his son were successful property dealers and the petitioner’s
son was not dependent upon him. The petitioner-tenant also pleaded that
he had two unmarried daughters and the tenanted shop, where he was
selling sweets for the last 20 years, was the only source of his livelihood.
The details of other properties which the respondent was having were
RCR No. 79/2011 Page 2 of 8
given by the petitioner in para no. 4(N) of his application to leave to
contest which is re-produced below:-
“N. Availability of Accommodation to the Petitioner
That the petitioner has in his possession the following
premises which are reasonably suitable for himself and his
family members, if any.
i) Ground Floor, excluding the area under the shops, in
number 10, in the premises bearing No. A-2/1, at Hastal Road,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi; and
ii) Total covered area of First Floor of the aforementioned
premises No. A-2/1, the shape of Hall.
iii) One Room set on second floor of the abovementioned
premises No. A-2/1 including the entire roof thereof,
admeasuring about 200 sq. yrds.
iv) Premises bearing No. E-95, Shiv Ram Park, Vikas nagar,
New Delhi two shops whereof are being used as Office of
Ramakrishna Properties under the name and style of which the
petitioner and his son Shri Bijendra Verma carry on business of
property dealership.
v) Premises bearing No. G-1/352, at Dal Mill Road, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi. It is a three storied building and more than
sufficient accommodation is available therein for the petitioner
and his family.
vi) That there is an additional premises bearing No. A-
1/132-A, Hastal Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi in possession of
the petitioner and the same is also reasonably suitable for
accommodation of the petitioner and/or of the son of the
petitioner and his daughter-in-law or the minor children of his
son.”
4. The respondent-landlord in his counter affidavit gave the following
reply in respect of the aforesaid properties claimed by the petitioner to be
available with him:-
RCR No. 79/2011 Page 3 of 8
“That the contents of the para No. N of the application
are false and wrong and not admitted and denied in Toto. It is
also false and wrong that the petitioner is the owners of the
aforesaid properties of the petitioners. The respondent has not
filed any documents of the ownership of the afore said
properties. The respondent had mentioned the properties of the
petitioner’s son, brothers sister and relatives and family
members and neighbors and friends. Hence the contents of N (I
to vi) are false and wrong and not admitted and denied in toto.
The petitioner has the bonafide requirement of the suit property
and the respondent should be eviction from the suit property.”
5. The learned trial Court rejected this plea of petitioner, which
only was primarily put in the forefront before this Court, by observing as
under in para nos. 5 & 6 of the impugned order:-
“5. ……….. As far as the unmarried son is concerned, it has
been alleged by the respondent that he is a property dealer
working for gain alongwith the petitioner under the name and
style of property of Ramakrishna properties but no such
document has been placed to support this plea. It is now a
settled law that a tenant is required to support his plea raised in
leave to contest application by documents……………………
6. As far as the other allegations of the respondent that
petitioner has many other properties at his disposal, the same is
also not supported by any documentary proof and merely by
alleging that petitioner has a number of properties at his
disposal does not give a ground to contest to the respondent.
Otherwise also a perusal of the leave to contest application
reveals that out of these properties alleged to be available to the
petitioner two are residential properties and therefore, of no use
to the petitioner who wants to start his business in the suit
property. The other alleged shops in property No. E-95 even as
per the case of respondent is being used for running an office of
property dealer by the son of petitioner and, therefore, cannot
be said to be available to the petitioner for starting his new
business. In facts, I do not find any ground made out in the
leave to contest application and an eviction order is passed inRCR No. 79/2011 Page 4 of 8
respect of Shop No.8 in property No. A-2/1, Ground Floor,
Hastal Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi – 110059 more
specifically shown red in the site plan now Ex.C-1. It has
further specified that this order shall not be executable for a
period of six months from today. File be consigned to Record
Room.”
6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner –
tenant that this was a fit case for grant of leave to contest to the petitioner –
tenant since he had been able to raise a very strong triable issue regarding
the availability of other properties also with the respondent – landlord from
where he could start his business if at all he had any intentions of doing so
and further that the respondent – landlord had not even claimed as to why
the other properties available with him, as mentioned by the petitioner –
tenant in his application for leave to defend, were not suitable for opening
a sweet shop there. It was further argued that the respondent – landlord
had taken a very vague plea in reply that those properties belonged to his
son, family members and relatives without mentioning as to which relative
of his was owning which one out of those properties and this shows that, in
fact, all those properties mentioned in para No. 4 (N) of the leave
application belonged to him and were available also with him for starting
his business.
RCR No. 79/2011 Page 5 of 8
7. Learned counsel for the respondent – landlord, on the other hand,
submitted that no fault can be found with the decision of the learned trial
Court in declining leave to contest to the petitioner – tenant and it had
been rightly observed in the impugned order that the petitioner – tenant
had failed to place on record any proof regarding the ownership of the
respondent – landlord in respect of any other property, other than the
property in question, which he was claiming to be available with the
respondent – landlord and, therefore, no triable issue had arisen justifying
grant of leave to contest to the petitioner – tenant.
8. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and the already quoted findings of the learned trial Court I am
of the view that this is a fit case where petitioner – tenant should have been
granted leave to contest the eviction petition filed against him by his
landlord. The petitioner – tenant had given details of many properties in
para no. 4(N) of his leave to defend application. The respondent –
landlord had in his reply claimed that those properties belonged to his son,
family and relatives as well as friends and neighbours without clearly
stating as to which friend or neighbour of his was the owner of any of
those properties. And if his son was the owner of those properties or
anyone of them then, prima facie, the respondent’s requirement of the
RCR No. 79/2011 Page 6 of 8
tenanted shop for opening a sweet shop there for his son does not appear to
be bona fide. He has also claimed that those properties belonged to his
family. If that be so, he should have come out with some justification for
not starting his business from those properties. The petitioner – tenant
had also claimed that the respondent and his son were successful property
dealers and were carrying on that business from two shops in property no.
E-95, Shiv Ram Park, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi. The learned trial Court
has, however, rejected that plea by observing that the petitioner – tenant
had failed to place on record any document to show that they were actually
working for gain as property dealers in those shops. If learned trial Court
was of the view that the petitioner and his son were not doing any business
from those two shops then, in fact, the petitioner’s case for grant of leave
to him became more stronger since those two shops would also become
available to them for starting their business. The petitioner – tenant had
also claimed that the respondent – landlord had one property at Dal Mill
Road, Uttam Nagar and another one at Hastal Road, Uttam Nagar. The
learned trial Court has, however, not said anything about the petitioner’s
plea regarding availability of those two properties also with the petitioner.
The petitioner had definitely raised triable issues which in the event of
RCR No. 79/2011 Page 7 of 8
being established would disentitle the landlord for getting an eviction
order against the petitioner.
9. This petition accordingly succeeds. The impugned order of the trial
Court is set aside and the petitioner – tenant is granted leave to contest the
eviction petition filed against him by the respondent. The matter is
remanded back to the trial Court where parties shall appear on 30 th
September, 2011 at 2 p.m. for receiving appropriate directions from the
trial Court.
P.K. BHASIN, J
September 15, 2011
sh
RCR No. 79/2011 Page 8 of 8