Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
URMILA ARORA - Petitioner
Versus
OM PRAKASH – Respondent
RC. REV. 51 of 2016
Decided On : 06-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Mr. Gaurav Kakar, Mrs. Bhawna Chopra Rustagi and Mr. Dhananjay Mehlawat
For the Respondents: Mr. B.K. Mishra
The court emphasized the importance of presenting material factual details to raise a triable issue and highlighted the parameters for granting leave to defend to the tenant.
Headnote:
DRC Act - Eviction Petition - Section 14(1)(e) - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED: Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act] - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and its application to the case, highlighting the essential ingredients required for eviction on the ground of bona fide needs. The court also discussed the legal principles established in previous judgments regarding the grant of leave to defend to the tenant and the parameters for granting such leave.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an eviction petition for a shop, claiming it for her son's business. The respondent sought leave to defend, disputing the petitioner's need for the shop and presenting irrelevant defenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's contentions did not raise any triable issue and were bald averments without supporting evidence. The court quashed the order granting leave to defend and passed an eviction order in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent's contentions raised a triable issue justifying the grant of leave to defend.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's contentions were unsupported by material factual details and did not raise a triable issue, contrary to the legal position established in previous judgments.
Final Decision: The impugned order granting leave to defend to the respondent was quashed, and an order of eviction was passed in favor of the petitioner, allowing the respondent six months to vacate the premises.
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. By the present revision petition filed under Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act), the petitioner/landlord seeks to impugn the order dated 30.11.2015 by which order the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ARC) granted leave to defend to the respondent in the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for eviction of the respondent/tenant.
2. The petitioner filed the eviction petition for shop No. 2, Ground Floor of property bearing No. A-115, Ashok Nagar, Shukar Bazar Chowk, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110093. It was contended that the petitioner is the owner of the entire property which was purchased on 22.05.1982 and that the petitioner is residing there along with her family at the back portion of the ground floor and first floor of the property. The ground floor has five shops. Shop No. 1 is said to be under the tenancy of Sh.Sati Ram who is running his business under the name and style of ‘Sunil Chat Bhandar’. Shop No. 2 is the tenanted shop in issue. Shop No. 3 was under the occupation of Dr. B.K. Verma. He has however vacated the shop on 24.11.2014 and the same is now in possession of the petitioner. Shop No. 4 was sold by the petitioner in 2002-2003. Shop No. 5 is in possession of Smt. Deepika Arora, the younger daughter-in-law of the petitioner who has been running her business from the said premises under the name and style of ‘Ishika Beauty Parlour & Bangle Store’ for the last many years. It is further contended that the petitioner has three children. The shop is required for her elder son-Sh. Pramod Kumar Arora who is dependent upon the petitioner. He was said to be earlier carrying on the business of selling Bangles from Shop No. 4. However, due to financial constraints, the said shop was sold in 2002-03 and thereafter, Sh.Pramod Kumar Arora has been forced to take up part time jobs of assistant or salesman as he is not educationally well qualified. The said Pramod Kumar Arora has no permanent job. He is now willing to start his own business. Hence, it was decided to give shops No. 2 and 3 to Sh.Pramod Kumar Arora after getting the same vacated from the tenants and to merge them into a single shop to enable him to set up his own business of eatery (small restaurant) to earn his livelihood. The shops on their own are said to be very small and unless the two shops are merged, it would not be possible to start the restaurant business. The petitioner’s son would require a separate place for kitchen and sitting arrangement for the restaurant. The property is said to be situated in a busy market place and it is urged that there is very likelihood that the business of the son of the petitioner would flourish. It is also stated that the petitioner or any of the family member do not own or possess any other commercial or suitable premises.
3. The respondent filed his application for leave to defend. In the application it has been strongly urged that the petitioner already has shop No. 3 in her possession. Similarly, it is denied that shop No. 1 is under the tenancy of ‘Sunil Chat Bhandar’. It is stated that the said shop is in possession of the petitioner and that the elder son of the petitioner, namely, Sh.Pramod Kumar Arora is from the shop running a business of Tour and Travels under the name and style of Jai Ambe Tour & Travels and the mobile number of Sh. Pramod Kumar Arora is mentioned on the sign board. The photograph of the sign board has also been filed. Hence, it is urged that the petitioner has possession of Shop No. 1 and Shop No. 3 and hence, the petitioner has adequate space for carrying on the business. It is reiterated regarding ‘Sunil Chat Bhandar’ who is claimed by the petitioner to be a tenant of Shop No. 1, that there is no such tenant there and that ‘Sunil Chat Bhandar’ is being run on the foot path in front of shop No. 1. Some irrelevant defences are also raised by the respondent
