Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 257/2010
DEVENDER KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Garg 8c Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocates
RC.REV. 257/2010
DEVENDER KUMAR GUPTA Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajiv Garg 8c Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocates
VERSUS
HANS RAJ WADHWA Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra & Mr. Amit Sanduja, Advocates
Through: Mr. Sunil Malhotra & Mr. Amit Sanduja, Advocates
CORAM:
^ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
01.09.2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved by the order dated 16^^ July, 2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent
Control Act has been rejected on the ground that no triable issue arises entitling him to get leave to defend the eviction petition.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through record, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner-tenant is entitled to get the leave to defend the eviction petition. The reason is that admittedly the respondent-landlord has one shop in Naiwala in
Karol Bagh area which is not being used and the respondent-landlord says that shop is not suitable for starting the business as it is at a distance of 12 KM from the property in question which is in New Gupta Colony and he is an old man and so it would be quite onerous for him to travel that much distance every day. A perusal of the eviction petition shows that prime reason for seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shop in question is that one of his sons has left his job and that son intends starting his business in the shop in question. It is not the case
01.09.2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved by the order dated 16^^ July, 2010 passed by the Additional Rent Controller whereby leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent
Control Act has been rejected on the ground that no triable issue arises entitling him to get leave to defend the eviction petition.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through record, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner-tenant is entitled to get the leave to defend the eviction petition. The reason is that admittedly the respondent-landlord has one shop in Naiwala in
Karol Bagh area which is not being used and the respondent-landlord says that shop is not suitable for starting the business as it is at a distance of 12 KM from the property in question which is in New Gupta Colony and he is an old man and so it would be quite onerous for him to travel that much distance every day. A perusal of the eviction petition shows that prime reason for seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shop in question is that one of his sons has left his job and that son intends starting his business in the shop in question. It is not the case
RC.REV. 257/2010
2011:DHC:15953 A ofthe respondent-landlord that his son is in any way handicapped in starting his business in the Naiwala shop. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the size of that shop is only 44 sq. feet and it would hot be sufficient to run a business.
However, in my view, allthese aspects are a matter of trial. It is also now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inits judgments reported as (1999) 6SCC
222 and (1981) 3SCC 36that alandlord has no unfettered right to say that even if hehassome property vacant and available to himhewillnotoccupy thatproperty and insist upon the eviction of his tenant. Therefore, on this ground alone the petitioner-tenant should have been granted leave todefend the eviction petition..
This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned eviction order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for trial. The parties shall appear there on 19^'' September, 2011 at 2 p.m. As requested by counsel for the respondent, the Additional Rent Controller isdirected to dispose ofthe pethion as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year considering the fact that the landlord is more than 70 years of age.
P.K. BHASIN, J SEPTEMBER 01, 2011
2011:DHC:15953 A ofthe respondent-landlord that his son is in any way handicapped in starting his business in the Naiwala shop. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the size of that shop is only 44 sq. feet and it would hot be sufficient to run a business.
However, in my view, allthese aspects are a matter of trial. It is also now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inits judgments reported as (1999) 6SCC
222 and (1981) 3SCC 36that alandlord has no unfettered right to say that even if hehassome property vacant and available to himhewillnotoccupy thatproperty and insist upon the eviction of his tenant. Therefore, on this ground alone the petitioner-tenant should have been granted leave todefend the eviction petition..
This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned eviction order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for trial. The parties shall appear there on 19^'' September, 2011 at 2 p.m. As requested by counsel for the respondent, the Additional Rent Controller isdirected to dispose ofthe pethion as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year considering the fact that the landlord is more than 70 years of age.
P.K. BHASIN, J SEPTEMBER 01, 2011
RC.REV. 257/2010
2011:DHC:15953
2011:DHC:15953
JUDGMENT