_____________________________________________________________________

__

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 15.04.2014

Date of Decision: 11.09.2014

+

RC.REV. 269/2013, CM APPL. 11528/2013 and 11530/2013

SH RAKESH KAPOOR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Amit S. Chadha, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Mayank Bughani, Adv.

Versus

LATE SMT KRISHNA PYARI THR LEGAL HEIRS & ANR

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Vineet Mehta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1.This revision petition under proviso to Section 25B (8) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act (DRC Act) impugns an order dated 23.04.2013

whereby the petitioner’s (tenant) application for leave to defend

was rejected and an eviction order was passed in favour of the

respondents (landlords) with the respect to one hall on the ground

floor measuring 780 sq ft and one annexe on the first floor

measuring 161 sq ft in property bearing no. 8833/2-3, Multani

Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055 (tenanted premises).

2014:DHC:4578

_____________________________________________________________________

__

2.The landlords had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e)

of the DRC Act on the ground of bona fide need. It was the case of

the landlords that the tenant was inducted into the tenanted

premises through a rent deed at a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- for

commercial use; that the tenanted premises was lying locked and

unused; that they required the tenanted premises bona fide, for

themselves and their family members for residence since the

existing accommodation available with them was insufficient; that

the landlord no.1 was 90 years old and had undergone hip surgeries,

hence, he required the ground floor portion urgently; that landlord

no. 2 was living in a cribbed accommodation on the first floor with

his family comprising of 6 members; that the landlord no. 2, aged

61 years old was physically disabled by nearly 35% and was also

diagnosed with other diseases and therefore, required the ground

floor premises; that Smt. Charanjeet Kaur (one of the co-owners)

was living on the 2^nd and 3^rd floor with her family of about 5

members; that Mr. A.S.Wason (co-owner and son of landlord no.1)

was based in Canada and since his children have grown up and

settled, he along with his wife wanted to return to India

permanently; that whenever Mr. A.S.Wason visited India, he was

forced to live in hotels due to paucity of accommodation.

Consequently, the landlords prayed for an order of eviction in their

favour.

2014:DHC:4578

_____________________________________________________________________

__

3.An application for leave to defend was filed by the tenant. It was

stated that landlord no. 1 had passed away and the need of landlord

no. 2 was not bona fide; that the other portion on the ground floor

was already occupied by the landlords; that the tenanted premises

was being used for running a company whose turnover was around

Rs. 200 crores and paid about Rs. 14.25 crores as tax during FY

2010-11; that the tenanted premises was very important to the

tenant since it received daily mails and couriers from his clients and

Government agencies and changing the registered address would be

a mammoth task, thereby causing unnecessary inconvenience; that

landlord no. 2 owned a hotel which was a four storeyed building,

hence, there was no paucity of accommodation with the landlords;

that Mr. A. S. Wason and his wife had no plans to settle in India

and that his staying in hotels during his visit to India was false; that

the contention of the landlords that the tenanted premises was lying

locked and unused was false since summons of the eviction petition

was received at the said premises; that since the tenanted premises

was strategically situated the landlords wanted it actually for

expanding their already existing hotel business. Based on the above,

the tenant p