Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS – Petitioner
Versus
SURINDER BABU JAIN – Respondent
R.C. REV. No. 99 of 2018, C.M. Application No. 4605 of 2022
Decided On : 25-05-2022
Delhi Rent Controller Act, 1958 - Section 25B(1), 25B(4) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 - Revision petition - Grant of leave - Aggrieved by order passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts in Case rejecting leave to defend application filed by Petitioner herein and resultantly allowing eviction petition filed by Respondent herein - Tenant has come up to this Court by filing instant revision petition - Whether Tenant has raised such pleas which would entitle Tenant to grant of leave to defend - It is equally well settled that mere assertions made by tenant with respect to landlord's ownership of other buildings and with respect to alternate accommodations are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend.
Finding of the Court:
Premises in question is situated in heart of commercial centre of Delhi i.e. Chandni Chowk. Land-lord's daughter-in-law wants to start a boutique - It cannot be said that this place, where Landlord's daughter-in-law wants to start a boutique, is not suitable for starting business - In reply, landlord has provided sufficient material to show that none of properties as mentioned by Tenant i.e. Department of Posts are available to landlord for purpose of daughter-in-law to start a boutique - Furthermore, this Court does not deem it prudent, in consonance with settled law, to displace needs of Landlord with its own Judgment of how Landlord should conduct its business or utilise their premises judgment of learned Rent Controller that no triable issues have been raised by Tenant herein cannot be said to be perverse and said order passed by learned Rent Controller, after taking into account entire gamut of facts available to learned Rent Controller, suffers from no legal infirmities - In light of above, said order does not require any interference.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. Aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts in Case No. E-726/2017 rejecting the leave to defend application filed by the Petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tenant’) and resultantly allowing the eviction petition filed by the Respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land-lord’). The Tenant has come up to this Court by filing the instant revision petition.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to this petition are as under:
(ii) The case of the Land-lord is that the he is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises. It is stated that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor portion of the premises is being used by the Landlord for running his hotel under the name Hotel Meru.
(iii) It is stated that the premises in question is required by the daughter-in-law of the Land-lord for doing her business from the premises in question. It is stated that the daughter-in-law of the Land-lord is a fashion designer, who wants to run her own boutique and requires a separate place for tailoring/stitching. It is also stated that she requires a separate area for a changing room and a separate area for the purpose of taking measurements of the clients who are ladies. Apart from this, a separate waiting area and a separate WC facility for the customers is also required.
(iv) It is stated that the property in question is in Chandni Chowk, which is a well known market area and the most ideal for the daughter-in-law of the Land-lord to start her business. It is stated that the landlord does not have any reasonable and suitable accommodation with him for the purposes of starting business for his daughter-in-law, who is dependent on him for the purposes of this accommodation.
(v) It is further stated that the same portion of the premises in question is also required by the landlord for having a reception of his hotel which is being run from the upper floors of the premises bearing Municipal No. 94, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-110006. It is stated that various customers do not come to the hotel because even for going to the reception of the hotel, they have to climb up to the second floor which they find to be difficult. On the said grounds the eviction petition was filed.
(vi) It is stated in the eviction petition that the tenant is the Department of Posts, which is running a Post Office from the premises in question. The tenant filed an application for leave to defend stating that the Dariba Post Office in the premises in question has been functioning since long at the rent of Rs. 400/- per month vis-a-vis the erstwhile landlord of the premises i.e. Late Gulzari Lal Jain who was accepting the rent till his death in the year 1995. It is stated wife of Late Gulzari Lal Jain i.e. Smt. Indrawati Jain inherited the property and the rent was being paid to her. It is stated that since Smt. Indrawati Jain passed away in the year 2002, the Respondent herein claimed rent of the premises on the basis of a Will and, accordingly, the rent is being paid to the present Land-lord.
(vii) It is stated that the Post Office is serving the masses for a long period of time and the Department of Posts is not in a position to vacate the premises. It is stated by the tenant in his leave to defend application that the landlord is not the actual owner of the premises in question and the Land-lord has not filed any legal ownership documents to prove that he is the actual owner of the property.
(viii) The leave to defend application of the Tenant also states that the prem
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
