RC.REV. 50/2015 Page 1 of 9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RC.REV. 50/2015 & CM 1636/2015 (stay)

%

Reserved on: 13^th March, 2015

Decided on: 25^th March, 2015

PAWAN KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr. Keshav Dayal, Sr. Adv. with Ms.

Sheetal Mishra and Ms. Saumitri

Pradhan, Advs.

versus

PARAMJIT SINGH GILL

..... Respondent

Through

Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal with Mr. Sushil

Thakur, Advs.

Coram:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26^th September, 2014 dismissing the

leave to defend application filed by the petitioner in an eviction petition filed

by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

1958 (in short the DRC Act) the petitioner prefers the present petition.

2. In the eviction petition, the respondent stated that the tenanted

premises was a shop on the ground floor in suit property bearing No. C-145,

Hari Nagar, Clock Tower, Main Market. The suit property was purchased

by the father of the respondent who executed a Will in favour of the

respondent. Thus, he is the sole and absolute owner of the property after the

father‟s demise. The tenanted shop has two shops merged together

2015:DHC:2866

RC.REV. 50/2015 Page 2 of 9

admeasuring 8 ft x 15 ft and the other 12 ft x 21 ft. Thus the total

measurement of the shop is 372 sq. feets. The premises was let out on a rent

of `2260/- per month. The respondent‟s family comprises of himself, his

mother, his wife, two daughters, one son and one niece. Three of the

children are studying in college. The respondent has a shop from where he

does the business of property dealing but his earning is not much from the

said shop. The only source of income for the respondent‟s family is the rent

received from the tenants of the suit property. The respondent is living on

the first floor of the suit property. The daughter of the respondent aged 24

years is a graduate and doing the Company Secretary course. The

respondent wants his daughter to supplement the income of his family and

thus she is interested in running a coaching centre, for which he has asked

the petitioner to vacate the premises. He has no other suitable

accommodation for running a coaching centre for the daughter other than the

tenanted premises.

3. In the leave to defend application the petitioner stated that the

respondent had filed a wrong site plan and besides the tenanted premises

there are three other shops on the ground floor. The respondent has not

mentioned how the tenanted premises was suitable. Further the respondent

is in possession of the second, third and fourth floor of the suit property

which fact has also been concealed. There is no explanation about the

vacant second and third floor of the property. It is further stated that in the

locality of Hari Nagar, Clock Tower there are number of coaching centers

which are being run from upper floors for the last many years. Besides it is

stated that the daughter of the respondent after doing the CS course would

2015:DHC:2866

RC.REV. 50/2015 Page 3 of 9

prefer doing job in a big company or multinational company rather than

running a coaching centre. It is further stated that the respondent is living a

luxurious life and has no paucity of money.

4. In the reply to the leave to defend application the respondent clarified

that he had only filed the site plan of the tenanted premises whereas the

petitioner has filed the site plan of the entire property. The respondent

admitted that he had three shops also on the ground floor adjacent to the

tenanted premises, however there was no concealment of facts as the site

plan filed by the petitioner himself would s