Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV.312/2014 & C.M.No.15563/2015
RADHA AGGARWAL
Through
RC.REV.312/2014 & C.M.No.15563/2015
RADHA AGGARWAL
Through
VERSUS
VIJAY GUPTA & ANR
Through Petitioner Mr.S.S.Ansari and Mr. I Ahmed, Advocates.
Respondents Mr.Sunil Goel,Advocate.
Through Petitioner Mr.S.S.Ansari and Mr. I Ahmed, Advocates.
Respondents Mr.Sunil Goel,Advocate.
RC.REV.315/2014& C.M.No.15707/2014
RADHA AGGARWAL
Through
RADHA AGGARWAL
Through
VERSUS
VIJAY GUPTA & ANR Petitioner Mr.S.S.Ansari and Mr.I Ahmed, Advocates.
Respondents
Through Mr.Sunil Goel,Advocate.
Respondents
Through Mr.Sunil Goel,Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
26.04.2016 Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 18.02.2014 wherein in the two pending eviction petitions filed by the landlord under
Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act leave to defend had been granted in favour ofthe tenant.
RC.REV.No.312/2014& RC.REV.No.315/2014 page1 of3
2016:DHC:9333 f These orders suffer ffom no infirmity.
The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord is that the application seeking leave to defend was filed beyond the period of limitation; there was a delay of one day; this has not been answered by the Trial Court. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing this argument. His argument is only based on his submission that the impugned order granting leave to defend suffers from an infirmity as no triable issue has arisen.
Record discloses that the landlord has filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) ofthe DRCA. Her bona fide need has been detailed in para 18 which was noted to the effect that she has an expertise in running a boutique business; this business she was carrying on ffom her residence. The suit shop is required by her in order to occupy her boutique business.
Applications seeking leave to defend was filed. In paras 6 and
11 it has clearly been averred thatthe landlady is a housewife and she has no expertise in running a boutique. The landlady is required to substantiate her submissions; her submissions are based on a false premise;atriable issue arises on this count.
This was refuted in the reply filed by the landlord.
The tenant had placed on record the income tax returns ofthe landlady. These income tax returns had reflected that the landlady has no income from his boutique business. Her submission that she has an expertise in boutique business which she was carrying on ffom
RC.REV.No.312/2014& RC.REV.No.315/2014 page2of3
I ; I. r < / her residence is thus belied as no income was admittedly generated out of this business. This factual averment has been noted by the
Trial Courtin the correct perspective.
Noting the aforenoted factual matrix of the case impugned orders calls for no inference. Petitions are without any merit.
Dismissed with costs ofRs.10,000/- in each petition.
INDERMEET KAUR,J APRIL 26,2016 ndn RC.REV.No.312/2014& RC.REV.No.315/2014 page3of3
26.04.2016 Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 18.02.2014 wherein in the two pending eviction petitions filed by the landlord under
Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act leave to defend had been granted in favour ofthe tenant.
RC.REV.No.312/2014& RC.REV.No.315/2014 page1 of3
2016:DHC:9333 f These orders suffer ffom no infirmity.
The first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord is that the application seeking leave to defend was filed beyond the period of limitation; there was a delay of one day; this has not been answered by the Trial Court. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing this argument. His argument is only based on his submission that the impugned order granting leave to defend suffers from an infirmity as no triable issue has arisen.
Record discloses that the landlord has filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) ofthe DRCA. Her bona fide need has been detailed in para 18 which was noted to the effect that she has an expertise in running a boutique business; this business she was carrying on ffom her residence. The suit shop is required by her in order to occupy her boutique business.
Applications seeking leave to defend was filed. In paras 6 and
11 it has clearly been averred thatthe landlady is a housewife and she has no expertise in running a boutique. The landlady is required to substantiate her submissions; her submissions are based on a false premise;atriable issue arises on this count.
This was refuted in the reply filed by the landlord.
The tenant had placed on record the income tax returns ofthe landlady. These income tax returns had reflected that the landlady has no income from his boutique business. Her submission that she has an expertise in boutique business which she was carrying on ffom
RC.REV.No.312/2014& RC.REV.No.315/2014 page2of3
I ; I. r < / her residence is thus belied as no income was admittedly generated out of this business. This factual averment has been noted by the
Trial Courtin the correct perspective.
Noting the aforenoted factual matrix of the case impugned orders calls for no inference. Petitions are without any merit.
Dismissed with costs ofRs.10,000/- in each petition.
INDERMEET KAUR,J APRIL 26,2016 ndn RC.REV.No.312/2014& RC.REV.No.315/2014 page3of3
JUDGMENT