$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Pronounced on: 09.10.2023

+

RC.REV. 207/2023 & CM APPL. 37971/2023

SH. ANIL WADHWA & ANR.

..... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

SH. M.M.L. KAPUR

..... RESPONDENT

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner

:

Mr. Rajiv Raheja, Adv.

For the Respondent

:

Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr. Rajbir Singh and

Mr. Subhoday Banerjee, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:

CM Appl. 37971/2023 [Application seeking interim relief]

1. The present Application has been filed by the Petitioners/tenants seeking

interim reliefs of a stay on the execution of the Impugned Eviction Order dated

25.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, West Tis Hazari

Court, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. The premises in

issue is one shop admeasuring about 10'6" x 13" situated on the Ground floor

of premises bearing No. J-38, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027

[hereinafter referred to as the “demised Premises”].

Digitally Signed

By:YASHPAL GROVER

Signing Date:12.10.2023

18:55:48

Signature Not Verified

2. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has dismissed

the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant.

3. The Respondent/landlord has filed the present Application for stay of the

execution proceedings initiated by the Respondent/landlord.

4. Arguments in the Application were heard, and orders were reserved on

18.09.2023. The parties sought and were granted three days’ time to file their

respective submissions.

4.1

Both parties have since filed their written submissions.

4.2

The record shows that the present Petition has been filed after the expiry

of the statutory period to execute the Impugned Order has already lapsed.

5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants that the

next date fixed before the Trial Court in the Execution Petition filed by the

Respondent/landlord is 24.10.2023 for appointment of a Bailiff and in the

event, a stay is not granted, the Petition will become infructuous.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants, has contended as follows:-

(i)

The Respondent/landlord does not have a bona fide requirement for the

demised Premises as he is a citizen of the United States of America and

he does not live in India anymore.

(ii)

There is a suitable alternate accommodation available as the entire

building on the ground floor, first floor and second floor are available

with the Respondent/landlord. The Respondent/landlord has concealed

the fact that he is in possession of 2 more shops in the same premises

i.e. Shop No.4 and 5, which can also be seen from the site plan filed by

the Respondent/landlord. The ground of concealment alone raises a

triable issue and the grant of Leave to Defend/Contest to the

Digitally Signed

By:YASHPAL GROVER

Signing Date:12.10.2023

18:55:48

Signature Not Verified

Petitioners/tenants is only justifiable;

(iii) The bonafide need as expressed by the Respondent/landlord is not

genuine. The Respondent/landlord is admittedly unable to live without

constant care as he is suffering from various old age ailments. As the

children of the Respondent/landlord reside abroad, the bonafide need

as expressed by the Respondent/landlord is not genuine.

(iv)

The requirement for demised Premises as set forth in the Eviction

Petition was for the use of Respondent/Landlord and his wife.

Unfortunately, the wife of the Respondent/landlord expired during the

pendency of the Eviction Petition. With these changed circumstances,

the Respondent/landlord has now ample space available within the

demised Premises as can be seen from the site plan filed by the

Respondent/landlord.

(v)

The Respondent/landlord has concealed that he is in possession of two

more shops i.e., Shop No.4 and 5 in the same property, as per the