Full Text
Translation output
t
-r-
IN TIIB, I{IGH COURT
I{C.REV. 293/201r
AP SHANKAR
Through:
VINAY KUMAIT SEHGAL
Through:
OF DELHI AT NEW DF]LHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate
VETSUS..... Respondent
None
-r-
IN TIIB, I{IGH COURT
I{C.REV. 293/201r
AP SHANKAR
Through:
VINAY KUMAIT SEHGAL
Through:
OF DELHI AT NEW DF]LHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate
VETSUS..... Respondent
None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. B}IASIN oh 04.08.201L
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord.
The petitioner-landlord is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Additional Itent Controller allowing the application filed by the respondent-tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner for his evictin from the teirantecl shop on the ground of his bona ficte requirement of the same. ttG- The petitioner filed the petition alleging that hc already has a business of sale of poultry products, semi-cooked mutton products etc. which he was carrying on from front portion of Shop No. 1, Bhagat Singh Markct, Gole Market, New Delhi while the back portion is stated to be undel the tcnancy of the respondent. It has been claimed by the petitioner thal his two sons have grown up and they have joined the business of the petitioner and their business has expanded and now mere space is required for processing of raw-material. It has been claimed that though some property is available with the pctitioner in Karol Bagh where he is now <loing the processing of raw-material requiled fol running the bar-be-que which has also been opened in the shop in posscssion of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same cannot bc used for the sale of products which the petitioner is selling and the places in Karol Bagh. nc.REV.293/2011 Paee I of3
2011:DHC:15700
,i
T
The respondent-defendant had'sought leave to contest the eviction petition on the ground that his landlord was running his business from another shop NO. 44,Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, New Delhi and besides that he was also having shops in Karol Bagh.
The petitioner in reply claimed that as far as shop no. 44, Bhagat Singh
Market, Gole Market, New Delhi is concerned the same belongs to.his brother and he is carrying on his own business from that shop. ILegarding the premises in
Karol Bagh his case is that those premises are not suitable for his business and further that for running his business at Karol Bagh he has to engage extra labour a1d further that the premises in question are most suitable for expansion of the existing business of sale of poultry products etc.
The learned Additional Rent Controller has dealt with the rival contentions rnade by the respondent - tenant in the irnpugned order and has accepted the case of the respondent-tenant that there were triable issues involved which entitle him to leave to defend. The relevant paras from the irnpugned order are re-produced below:-
"In the present case it has been stated by the respondent in his affidavit filed alongwith the application br leave to defend that the applicant is having other suitable accommodation at Karol
Bagh which can satisfy his fuilher business needs. In his application for eviction of the tenant the applicant has mentioned that he is having a different premises in Karol Bagh but according to the applicant the premises at Karol Bagh are not suitable for his busincss needs and further at Karol Bagh he has to engage extra laboru. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that the prernises at Karol Bagh ale quite suitable and, therefore, the application for eviction is not maintainable.
Further it has been stated by the respondent in his affidavit that the applicant is having another shop near the premises namely, the shop no. 44, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi where the applicant has been carrying on his business. In supporl of his claim the respondent has also produced a document puporting to be water/electricity bill which shows that the said bill has been issued in the name of one Ayodhaya Prasad, Shop no. 44,back of Bhagat
Singh Place, New Delhi. The applicant denies these statements of the respondent and according to the applicant the owner of the shop is his brother and he is not possessing the samc. l-.
RC.REV. 293120I I t
In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court and in the face of the rival contentions made by the respondent and the applicant in their affidavit and counter affidavit on the point that the applicant is possessing alternative accommodation at Karol
Bagir *d ut shop no. 44,back of Bhagat Singh Place, New Delhi, which are reasonably suitable for.the applicant this Courl is of the considered view that on this aspect there are disputed questions of facts and the issues are triable. The Court is of the view that if the contents of the affrdavit of the respondent are proved during the trial of the case then the same may disentitle thc applicant from obtaining an order for the lecovery of posscssion of the premises in question."
After having heard the learned counsel hr the petitioner and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its various judgments which Courts are to keep in mind while dealing with such like leave to defend applications of the tenants and which judgments have been referred to in the irnpugned order by the learned Additional Rent Controller also and the above quoted reasoning of the trial Court given for granting leave to the respondent, I am of the view that the reasoning given by the learned Additional Rent Controller cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
AUGUST 04,20lllpg iF
RC.REV.293l20ll Page 3 of3
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord.
The petitioner-landlord is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned
Additional Itent Controller allowing the application filed by the respondent-tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the petitioner for his evictin from the teirantecl shop on the ground of his bona ficte requirement of the same. ttG- The petitioner filed the petition alleging that hc already has a business of sale of poultry products, semi-cooked mutton products etc. which he was carrying on from front portion of Shop No. 1, Bhagat Singh Markct, Gole Market, New Delhi while the back portion is stated to be undel the tcnancy of the respondent. It has been claimed by the petitioner thal his two sons have grown up and they have joined the business of the petitioner and their business has expanded and now mere space is required for processing of raw-material. It has been claimed that though some property is available with the pctitioner in Karol Bagh where he is now <loing the processing of raw-material requiled fol running the bar-be-que which has also been opened in the shop in posscssion of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same cannot bc used for the sale of products which the petitioner is selling and the places in Karol Bagh. nc.REV.293/2011 Paee I of3
2011:DHC:15700
,i
T
The respondent-defendant had'sought leave to contest the eviction petition on the ground that his landlord was running his business from another shop NO. 44,Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, New Delhi and besides that he was also having shops in Karol Bagh.
The petitioner in reply claimed that as far as shop no. 44, Bhagat Singh
Market, Gole Market, New Delhi is concerned the same belongs to.his brother and he is carrying on his own business from that shop. ILegarding the premises in
Karol Bagh his case is that those premises are not suitable for his business and further that for running his business at Karol Bagh he has to engage extra labour a1d further that the premises in question are most suitable for expansion of the existing business of sale of poultry products etc.
The learned Additional Rent Controller has dealt with the rival contentions rnade by the respondent - tenant in the irnpugned order and has accepted the case of the respondent-tenant that there were triable issues involved which entitle him to leave to defend. The relevant paras from the irnpugned order are re-produced below:-
"In the present case it has been stated by the respondent in his affidavit filed alongwith the application br leave to defend that the applicant is having other suitable accommodation at Karol
Bagh which can satisfy his fuilher business needs. In his application for eviction of the tenant the applicant has mentioned that he is having a different premises in Karol Bagh but according to the applicant the premises at Karol Bagh are not suitable for his busincss needs and further at Karol Bagh he has to engage extra laboru. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that the prernises at Karol Bagh ale quite suitable and, therefore, the application for eviction is not maintainable.
Further it has been stated by the respondent in his affidavit that the applicant is having another shop near the premises namely, the shop no. 44, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi where the applicant has been carrying on his business. In supporl of his claim the respondent has also produced a document puporting to be water/electricity bill which shows that the said bill has been issued in the name of one Ayodhaya Prasad, Shop no. 44,back of Bhagat
Singh Place, New Delhi. The applicant denies these statements of the respondent and according to the applicant the owner of the shop is his brother and he is not possessing the samc. l-.
RC.REV. 293120I I t
In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court and in the face of the rival contentions made by the respondent and the applicant in their affidavit and counter affidavit on the point that the applicant is possessing alternative accommodation at Karol
Bagir *d ut shop no. 44,back of Bhagat Singh Place, New Delhi, which are reasonably suitable for.the applicant this Courl is of the considered view that on this aspect there are disputed questions of facts and the issues are triable. The Court is of the view that if the contents of the affrdavit of the respondent are proved during the trial of the case then the same may disentitle thc applicant from obtaining an order for the lecovery of posscssion of the premises in question."
After having heard the learned counsel hr the petitioner and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its various judgments which Courts are to keep in mind while dealing with such like leave to defend applications of the tenants and which judgments have been referred to in the irnpugned order by the learned Additional Rent Controller also and the above quoted reasoning of the trial Court given for granting leave to the respondent, I am of the view that the reasoning given by the learned Additional Rent Controller cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable justifying any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
AUGUST 04,20lllpg iF
RC.REV.293l20ll Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT