$~1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : 17.11.2020

+

RC.REV. 178/2020 & CM Nos.18263/2020, 18265/2020,

25273/2020

NAGENDER SINGH & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through

Mr.Jai Sahai Endlaw,

Mr.Rambhakt Agarwal,

Mr.Subhoday Banerjee, Advs.

versus

KAUSHALYA DEVI

..... Respondent

Through

Mr.Pawan Kumar Aggarwal,

Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been held by video conferencing.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

order dated 22.11.2019 passed by the learned Rent Controller

(Shahdara) in RC/ARC No.134/2019, Kaushalya Devi v. Nagender

Singh,dismissing the application of the petitioner filed seeking Leave

to Defend against the Eviction Petition filed by the respondent under

Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

2020:DHC:3268

3. There is no dispute on the landlord-tenant relationship between

the parties.

4. The respondent had filed the Eviction Petition with respect to

the tenanted premises, Shop no. 488/14 forming part of property no.

1534 (Old no. 488/17) situated on Plot no. 173, Main Road, Gandhi

Nagar, Delhi-110031, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958, inter-alia alleging as under:

2020:DHC:3268

5. The petitioner had sought leave to defend primarily alleging that

the bona fide necessity set up by the respondent for the tenanted

premises is false inasmuch as the same is being claimed for her

grandson, who cannot be said to be dependent for the business

premises on her. It was further averred that the grandson of the

respondent is not only engaged in other businesses but is also having

alternate accommodation. In this regard some of the averments made

in the application seeking Leave to Defend are reproduced herein

below:

“GRAND-SON OF THE PETITIONER RUNNING

MULTIPLE BUSINESSES

2020:DHC:3268

Annexure-A for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

2020:DHC:3268

6. As far as the alternate accommodation is concerned, the

petitioner had averred as under:

“5. CONCEALMENT

OF

ALTERNATIVE

ACCOMMODATION AND VARIOUS BUSINESS AND

PROPERTIES BY THE PETITIONER:

father Sh. Pradeep Sikri.

2020:DHC:3268

Annexure-E

7. The petitioner alongwith the present petition has also filed an

application, being CM No.18265/2020, praying for leave to place on

record certain additional documents. These documents are the

printouts from “Delhi Online Registration Information System” to

show that not only the respondent and her children, but also the

grandchild, that is, Mr.Vipin Sikri, on whose necessity the eviction

petition was premised, has been dealing in sale and purchase of

properties in the last ten years. The most relevant one relied upon by

the learned counsel for the petitioner are the property transactions of

04.06.2019 (by the father of Mr.Vipin Sikri); 03.08.2019 (brother of

Mr.Vipin Sikri) and 18.02.2020 (Step mother of Mr.Vipin Sikri).

8. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joginder

Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397, and of this court in

Manju Devi v. Partap Singh (2015) 219 DLT 260 and Jag Mohan

Sharma v. Gurcharan Kaur and others, MANU/DE/4402/2019, the

learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Mr.Vipin Sikri cannot

2020:DHC:3268

be said to be dependent upon the respondent for the purposes of

commercial space and, at least at the stage of consideration of leave to

defend application, the same could not have been accepted without a

trial.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has

vehemently submitted that upon the second marriage of the son of the

respondent, Mr.Pradeep Sikri, Mr.Vipin Sikri, her grandson, was

estranged from his father and has been living with the respondent

alongwith his family. He submits that the grandson is therefore

dependent upon the respondent for purposes