RC.REV. 56/2018

Page 1 of 21

$~51

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 25.09.2023

Judgment pronounced on: 09.11.2023

+

RC.REV. 56/2018, CM APPL. 5785/2018, CM APPL. 5786/2018

TARUN KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

H.M. Singh, Adv.

versus

PARMANAND GARG

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. LK Singh, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

J U D G M E N T

:

JASMEET SINGH, J

1.

This is a petition seeking quashing of the order dated 05.07.2017 passed

by learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (East District),

Karkardooma Court, Delhi in Suit RC/ARC/113/16 titled as “Tarun

Kumar v Parmanad Garg”, wherein leave to defend was granted to the

respondent tenant.

FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT PETITION

2.

The petitioner is the landlord/owner of Shop No. 434/113, Ground Floor,

Veer Savarkar Block, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 (hereinafter

referred to as “tenanted premises”). The petitioner bought the suit

property from his father Mr. Prem Singh by virtue of a sale deed dated

10.09.1996. This property was let out to the respondent/tenant by the

father of the petitioner on a rent of Rs. 500 per month exclusive of

Digitally Signed

By:AMIT ARORA

Signing Date:20.11.2023

11:36:26

Signature Not Verified

RC.REV. 56/2018

Page 2 of 21

electricity and all other charges. No written rent agreement was executed

between the petitioner and the respondent.

3.

It is alleged by the petitioner that around the year 2008, the respondent

shut down his previous business and got his son named Anil Garg to start

a new business of mobiles in the tenanted premises in the name of M/S

Nachiketa Enterprises and assured the petitioner that the respondent

himself would continue to be the actual tenant in the tenanted premises.

4.

It is further alleged that the respondent is a bad pay master and is in

arrears of rent since August 2003. Additionally, his electricity was

disconnected by the BSES as the arrears of electricity of Rs. 93,330/-

were not paid by the respondent.

5.

It is stated that the petitioner is himself running a shop in another

tenanted premises situated in front of the Property No. D-30E, Dayanand

Block, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 under the ownership of Ms. Kela Devi

and is paying rent to her.

6.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an eviction petition on the ground of a

bona fide need stating that the wife of the petitioner is an MBA from

Punjab Technical University and is seeking to establish her own business

of consultancy. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner requires a

big space to start a decent consultancy business, consisting of one big

cabin/office for herself, several other small cabins for the employees, a

pantry, toilet along with a lounge area containing a sofa-set and center

table.

7.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has no other suitable alternate

accommodation where his wife Ms. Shivani Chaudhary can start her

consultancy business. For this reason, the suit property is required by

the petitioner for the use of his wife.

Digitally Signed

By:AMIT ARORA

Signing Date:20.11.2023

11:36:26

Signature Not Verified

RC.REV. 56/2018

Page 3 of 21

8.

On receipt of summons, the respondent filed an application under section

25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for seeking leave to defend

supported with an affidavit stating that the petitioner is not the owner of

the suit property and the sale deed in question is a forged and fabricated

document.

9.

The respondent raised a plea in the leave to defend that Ms. Shivani

Chaudhary cannot be given the status of a “wife” of the petitioner since

the marriage of the petitioner with his first wife, i.e Ms. Indra Devi was

still subsisting and hence, there being no relation of husband and wife

between the petitioner and Ms. Shivani Chaudhary, the very foundation

of the eviction petition is non-existent. It was also stated by the

respondent that the