Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 4030
DELHI HIGH COURT
Mukta Gupta, J.
L.S. Monga Karta of L.S. Monga & Sons Huf - Appellant
Versus
Harvik Brothers (India) - Resopndent
Rc.Rev. 175/2014
Decided On : 29-05-2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vineet Chadha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.L. Chawla, Advocate.
The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact, and failure to produce evidence may lead to adverse inference. Material concealment can result in the dismissal of a petition.
Headnote:
Eviction Petition - Bona Fide Requirement - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e), Section 25B
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner sought eviction of the Respondent under Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop for running a cloth merchant business for the benefit of his HUF.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner failed to prove the bona fide requirement for eviction as he could not establish the existence of his textile business from the residential premises for the last 20 years.
Issues: The issues were whether the Petitioner's requirement was bona fide and whether the non-disclosure of co-ownership of another shop amounted to material concealment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner's failure to produce evidence of the textile business prior to the eviction petition and the non-disclosure of co-ownership constituted material concealment, justifying the dismissal of the eviction petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the eviction petition due to the lack of proof of bona fide requirement and the material concealment of co-ownership.
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 19th February, 2014 dismissing the eviction petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) and Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) against the Respondent, the Petitioner prefers the present petition.
2. Shri L.S. Monga the Petitioner/Landlord and Karta of L.S. Monga and Sons HUF claims himself to be the owner of the premises Shop No. 73, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 which was let out to the Respondent M/s Harvik Brothers (India) Ltd., (in short ‘M/s Harvik’) a partnership firm for commercial purposes. The tenanted shop had been let out by the previous owner wherein car and scooter repair work was being done. The area of the tenanted shop was 650 sq. ft. approximately and it was let out on the monthly rent of Rs. 240/- excluding electricity and water charges.
3. L.S. Monga claims that he was doing the business of textile and required the tenanted shop for his bona fide use and occupation for running the business of cloth merchant for the benefit of his HUF. It is stated that he has no other reasonably suitable commercial accommodation for running the business. L.S. Monga was residing at premises No. SFS Flats, 94, Mount Kailash, East of Kailash, New Delhi (in short ‘the suit property’) and he was running the said business from the suit property to support his family.
4. On the leave to defend being granted, written statement was filed by M/s Harvik wherein the fact that L.S. Monga was running the business of cloth merchant was denied. It was stated that L.S. Monga concealed material facts. The premises was let out to the partnership firm M/s Harvik with Rajinder Paul Gandhi and H.C. Gandhi as partners. Rajinder Paul Gandhi died on 11th June, 2001 leaving behind three legal heirs, that is, Sumesh Gandhi, Rajesh Gandhi and Mrs. Veeta Amardeep Sharma. H.C. Gandhi died in the year 2007 and after his death the business was carried out by the legal heirs of Rajinder Paul Gandhi. According to M/s Harvik, L.S. Monga was engaged in the business of bookings of cottages and accommodations in hotels under the name and style of ‘Elite Infracton’ at 7, Community Centre, First Floor, East of Kailash and thus the tenanted premises was not required for bona fide purpose. L.S. Monga has already admitted that he has two flats above the tenanted premises which were lying vacant and he was looking for new tenants to let out the said premises. L.S. Monga was permanently settled in Mumbai and engaged in the business of diamond jewellery and he visited Delhi occasionally for booking cottages and accommodations.
5. In the replication L.S. Monga denied that he was running any business in the name and style of ‘Elite Infracton’ at 7, Community Centre, First Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi and stated that the flats above the tenanted premises were residential in nature and could not be used for commercial purpose. L.S. Monga also denied that he was a resident of Mumbai or that he was engaged in the business of diamond jewellery.
6. After the parties led their evidence the learned ARC came to the conclusion that according to L.S. Monga he was running the business of textile for the last 20 years from his residential house, however, he has not been able to prove how suddenly his requirement for tenanted premises arose when his business was working properly for 20 years. To prove the business from the residential premises, L.S. Monga examined himself as PW-2 and one Ashish Jain as PW-3 and only exhibited two challans one of which Ex.PW-1/15 was dated 19th September, 2011 for a meager amount in favour of M/s A-One Suit and Sarees and the other one was dated 17th August, 2011 in favour of M/s Rishabh House Pvt. Ltd., whose Proprietor was PW-4 Ajay Jain. However, he did not place on record any bank account, books of account or any other material to show that he was running the business for 20 years or any income tax returns or any ledger howsoever small t
