Usha and Ors. v. Shish Pal Singh

1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Petitioners seeking early hearing.

2. No notice has been issued in the present Petition till date.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioner had failed to place a document on record which has since been filed.

4. Accordingly, for the reasons as stated in the Application, the same is allowed.

5. The matter is taken up for hearing today. CM Appl.61545/2024[Exemption from filing certified copies]

6. The Application has already been disposed of on 21.10.2024. The Registry is directed not to show it pending. RC.REV. 286/2024 & CM Appl.61544/2024[Stay]

7. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/tenant impugning the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned SCJ-cum-RC (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. The premises in issue is a shop bearing No. D-535, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027 [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”].

8. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the leave to defend/contest Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant.

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenant submits that this is the second round of litigation initiated by the Respondent/landlord. He submits that in the first round, an eviction petition bearing ARC No. 25617/2016 titled as Shish Pal Singh v. Usha & Ors. was initiated for the bona fide requirement of the Respondent/landlord and his wife for residential premises in view of the fact that they could not climb stairs and the subject premises was situated on the ground floor.

10. The present Petition is stated to have been filed by four Petitioners. The Impugned Order held that the matter was contested only by Respondent No.2 who is Petitioner No.2 in the present Petition. The leave to defend Application has been filed only by one Mr. Sanjay (Petitioner No.2). Since the other Petitioners did not file a Leave to Defend before the learned Trial Court, the Eviction Petition qua these persons has already been allowed. Thus, quite clearly, so far as concerns Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4, the Impugned Order has only been passed against Petitioner No.2. 10.[1] Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants submits that other Petitioners are not in possession of the subject premises thus it was only Petitioner No.2 who had contested in the matter. Thus, the prayers in the present Petition are restricted by the Petitioners/tenants qua Petitioner No.2.

11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants contends that in the earlier round of litigation between the Petitioners and Respondent, by an order dated 20.08.2018, the learned Trial Court found that the Respondent/landlord was entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This order was challenged by the Petitioners/tenant before this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court by its order dated 28.01.2020 allowed the Revision Petition and directed that the Petitioners/tenant shall file written statement before the Rent Controller. 11.[1] It is the contention of the Petitioners/tenant that thereafter, the said Eviction Petition was withdrawn by the Respondent/landlord citing technical grounds. Reliance is sought to be placed on the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 29.11.2021 which is annexed at Annexure P-3.

12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants further submits that it is thereafter that the present Eviction Petition bearing no. ARC/22/22 was filed by the Respondent/landlord and this time the Respondent/landlord has given a completely different reason as his grounds for eviction. He seeks to rely upon the requirement in the present Petition wherein it is stated that the subject premises/shop is required to run a coaching/study centre by the granddaughter of the Respondent/landlord for the livelihood of the Respondent/landlord and his wife. 12.[1] Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/tenants thus submits that the bona fide need of the Respondent/landlord has completely changed. He submits that this issue was raised by the Petitioners/tenants in leave to defend Application. He seeks to rely upon paragraph 6 of leave to defend Application in this regard.

13. As stated above, the Petition is only contested by Petitioner No.2 since he is in occupation and not other Petitioners. The issue of landlordtenant is not disputed, nor is the ownership disputed. The Petition is limited to the issue of bona fide need and the alternate suitable accommodation.

14. It is the contention of the Petitioners/tenants that the entire building is owned by the Respondent/landlord thus, the availability of alternate accommodation is there.

15. The learned Trial Court has found that the coaching centre can only be setup on the ground floor and that in any event, the Petitioner/tenant is using the ground floor for commercial use.