Full Text
RC. REV. 413/2015 & CM APPL.14455/2015 (stay)
Date of Decision: 26th August, 2015 PRABHJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate
Through: Nemo.
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed, the petition is taken up for hearing.
JUDGMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC), West District, Tis Hazari Court, 2015:DHC:7013 Delhi rejecting the leave to defend of the petitioner and passing the order of eviction.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-landlord have an alternative accommodation available with him in the form of five shops and therefore that factor has not been taken into consideration by the learned ARC while considering the bona fide requirement of the respondent. It has been urged that the respondent has concealed this information in the Court and therefore, this makes the requirement of the respondent as mala fide.
3. I have perused the analysis of the evidence and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner done by the learned ARC. The learned ARC has dealt with the plea of alternative accommodation available to the respondent as under:-
4. The aforesaid analysis by the learned ARC clearly shows that the learned ARC has clearly made distinction between the store room and the shop. Thus, two store rooms which are stated to be available to the respondent-landlord are at the back portion. They cannot be equated with the shop which is under the occupation of the petitioner from which the respondent-landlord is expressing his desires to run his shop. Third part of the shop is also at the back in comparison to the shop which is occupied by the petitioner on the front road in which the main commercial activity is carried and therefore there is difference between the service lane and a land where commercial activities are being carried out. The Court has rightly observed that the tenant cannot dictate his terms to the landlord as to how he is to use his accommodation unless and until there is grossly unjustified demand made by the landlord.
5. I have considered carefully this aspect of the matter and fully agree with the analysis of the evidence done by the learned ARC.
6. No other point has been raised though I have gone through the entire impugned order running into 17 pages where a decree of eviction is passed on the ground of bona fide requirement. I do not find that there is any jurisdictional error, infirmity or impropriety in rejecting the leave to defend of the petitioner by the learned ARC and therefore, this Court is not required to interfere with the said order.
7. Moreover, the decree of eviction after rejection of the leave to defend has been passed on 15.11.2014 and the petitioner was granted six months time which has already expired.
8. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after expiry of six months even the possession of the premises in question has been retrieved pursuant to the execution being carried out by the respondent. Therefore, the present petition is only of academic value.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, I feel that the present petition is totally misconceived and no ground has been made out to interfere with the same and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
10. Pending applications also stand disposed of. V.K. SHALI, J. AUGUST 26, 2015 vk