Delhi District Court
M/S Kalanidhi Internatinm/S Kalanidhi ... vs M/S Kim Brothers on 9 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NAINA GUPTA, ACJ CUM CCJ-
CUM ARC DISTRICT: SOUTHEAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
DLSE030006582021
RC ARC/9/2021
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINM/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL
PVT LTD Vs. M/S KIM BROTHERS
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT
15TH FLOOR, MOHAN DEV BUILDING,
13, TOLSTOΥ MARG, NEW DELHI-110001
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE/
SIGNATORY MR. VINOD SURHA ...PETITIONER
Versus
SH. KIM HUGH
PROPRIETOR OF M/s KIM BROTHERS
C/O SHOP NO.13/3, GROUND FLOOR,
JOR BAGH MARKET, NEW DELHI-110003. ...RESPONDENT
(As per the amended memo of parties taken on record vide para 26 of
this judgment)
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1) (e) READ WITIH SECTION 25B OF THE DELHI RENT
CONTROL ACT, 1958.
DATE OF INSTITUTION :10.03.2021
DATE OF ARGUMENTS :17.09.2024
DATE OF DECISION :09.10.2024
RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by
NAINA GUPTA
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09
16:19:11 +0530
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 1 of 36
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition for seeking eviction of the respondent from property Shop no. 13/3, Ground Floor, Jorbagh Market, New Delhi-110003 along with half garage behind shop no. 13/1 (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises). The petitioner is a private limited company and has filed the present petition through its authorised representative Sh. Vinod Surha who has been authorised vide resolution dt. 04.11.2019 passed by the board of directors of the petitioner company. The petitioner company is the owner of the entire built up property bearing no. 13 in Block no. 172, measuring 591.7 sq yards (the entire building is referred to as suit property hereinafter). This plot of land measuring 591.7 sq yards was allotted to Dr. Rajender Singh and his wife Smt. Sukhwans Kaur by the President of India through L&DO, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, vide agreement for lease dt. 10.01.1955 duly registered on date 04.06.1995. They had constructed shops on the ground floor and residential flats on the first floor of this plot after getting the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Authority and a completion certificate was granted by the NDMC.
2. It is stated that Dr. Rajinder Singh and Smt. Sukhwans Kaur had let out shop no.13/3 on the ground floor to the respondent and a RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 16:19:22 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 2 of 36 lease deed was executed on 01.09.1963. The monthly rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.175/- per month only.
3. Dr. Rajender Singh and his wife Smt. Sukhwans Kaur agreed to sell the suit property to the petitioner for a total sale consideration of ₹65,00,000 and executed a receipt dated 29.11.1994. After the petitioner became owner of the suit property, the erstwhile landlords had addressed letter dt. 07.03.1995 to the respondent wherein the petitioner was attorned as the landlord w.e.f. 01.04.1995 and there were further directions to pay the rent @ Rs. 350/- per month. Dr. Rajinder Singh died on 29/01/2003 leaving behind Smt. Sukhwans Kaur and his son Mr Prabhjot Singh as his sole surviving legal heirs. Mr Prabhjot Singh relinquished his undivided share in the entire property in the favour of his mother Smt. Sukhwans Kaur by virtue of registered relinquishment deed dated 25.07.2003. In the year 2006, the property was mutated in the name of Smt. Sukhwans Kaur vide letter dt. 26.04.2006. Smt. Sukhwans Kaur executed agreement to sell on 13.03.2007 in favour of the petitioner company and the same was registered on the same date. It is stated that the petitioner had received the physical and peaceful possession of the vacant portions of the entire suit property and symbolic proprietary possession of the rented portions with the attornment of tenancy rights in its favour during the lifetime of Dr. Rajendra Singh itself immediately RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:19:31 +0530 Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 3 of 36 after executing the receipt dated 29.11.1994 after having received the entire sale consideration from the petitioner.
4. The petitioner company addressed the letter dt. 07.07.2003 to the respondent regarding an incident of fire and asked the respondent to remove the gas cylinder and stoves and other inflammable articles which were being kept in the portion of the garage. The petitioner on 11.06.2016 addressed letter to the respondent and asked the respondent to clarify as to who is in actual possession of the property for the records. The petitioner had also written in the said letter that it had reasons to believe that the tenanted premises has been sublet by the tenant without the consent and approval of the landlord. No response to this letter was received by the petitioner. Reminder letter was sent on 12.02.2015. The respondent sent reply on 15.04.2015 and denied subletting of the premises and emphasized the he continues to be in possession of the property. The petitioner also requested the respondent vide dt. 27.05.2015 to provide self attested copy of his photo ID. The respondent did not provide the same. Despite another letter on 26.06.2015 the respondent did not provide the same. The petitioner also sent notice on 26.12.2017 to the respondent informing that petitioner requires the tenanted premises for its own commercial needs. The petitioner again sent letter on 04.12.2019 stating that property has been sublet, however, the respondent vide reply dt.
RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:19:41 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 4 of 36 06.12.2019 received on 19.12.2019 denied subletting of the premises. Separate petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds of subletting against the respondent.
5. The present petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. It is stated that the directors in the petitioner company have a vast and enriched experience in restaurant business. The petitioner company wants to open an unique family restaurant-cum-coffee house in a strategic location in New Delhi and it has decided to use ground floor of this entire built property situated on plot no. 13 in Block no. 172 at Jorbagh measuring 591.7 sq yards including the tenanted shop to open this restaurant. The restaurant proposed would be providing services of offerings of seafoods, steak houses, family restaurant, casual dining restaurant, ethnic restaurant, pizzeria, coffee shop and bakery house. It is stated that the entire space of the ground floor in this property would be required as a separate portion would be carved out for each of such services so as to provide at one place a variety of cuisine for the connoisseurs of good quality food. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed separate eviction petitions seeking eviction of respective tenants from shops bearing no. 13/2 to 13/8, Jorbagh Market, New Delhi- 110003.
6. It is stated that the petitioner has already carried out and completed its entire homework including laying out design of NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA RC ARC/9/2021 Date: 2024.10.09 GUPTA 16:19:49 +0530 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 5 of 36 proposed family restaurant-coffee house to be brought up on the entire ground floor of the property and copy of the entire layout plan is annexed with the petition as Annexure D. It is stated that shop no. 13/3, shop no. 13/4, Shop no. 13/5, Shop no. 13/6 and Shop no. 13/7 and the front portion of shop no. 13/2 and shop no.13/3 has been demarcated as restaurant area where provisions would be made to provide different types of cuisine and dining facilities. A substantial portion of shop no. 13/8 has been demarcated in the plan for setting up of the kitchen and remaining portion of shop no. 13/8 and the rear portion of shop no. 13/2 and 13/3 has been demarcated in the plan for setting up the store room.
7. It is stated that the petitioner does not have any other suitable reasonable alternative commercial accommodation in the territory of Delhi except the tenanted premises and the tenanted shops on the ground floor of the property which as a whole would be required bonafidely by the petitioner for it's project as detailed above.
8. With the abovesaid averments it is prayed that eviction orders be passed in the present matter.
9. To succeed in the case U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients:
(a) Ownership in respect of tenanted premises
(b) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;Digitally signed
NAINA byGUPTA NAINA RC ARC/9/2021 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:19:58 +0530 Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 6 of 36
(c) Petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted premises;
(d) Petitioner does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation with him/her.
10.Under Section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act a summary procedure has been laid down for landlords requiring the premises for bonafide use for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. The tenant shall be granted leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would dis-entitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Charandas Duggal Vs. Bhramanand 1983, 1SCC 301 that the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that should be sufficient to grant leave therefore the test is that of a triable issue and not of the final success in the action.
11.It is also a settled position of law that once landlord pleads his bonafide requirement and non-availability of an alternative suitable accommodation, the onus shifts to the tenant to show that a triable issue which if proved would non-suit the landlord has been pleaded in the application seeking leave to defend. The Supreme Court in the case of Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30 has given guidelines as to when presumption may be raised in favour of landlord and when can the same be Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA GUPTA RC ARC/9/2021 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:20:08 Date: 2024.10.09 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 7 of 36 considered to be rebutted by the tenant. The paragraphs from the judgment are reproduced for ready reference as follows.
"18. For availing the leave to defend as envisaged under Section 25B(5), a mere assertion per se would not suffice as Section 14(1)
(e) creates a presumption subject to the satisfaction of the learned Rent Controller qua bona fide need in favour of the landlord which is obviously rebuttable with some material of substance to the extent of raising a triable issue. The satisfaction of the Rent Controller in deciding on an application seeking leave to defend is obviously subjective. The degree of probability is one of preponderance forming the subjective satisfaction of the Rent Controller. Thus, the quality of adjudication is between a mere moonshine and adequate material and evidence meant for the rejection of a normal application for eviction.
19.Before a presumption is drawn, the landlord is duty bound to place prima facie material supported by the adequate averments. It is only thereafter; the presumption gets attracted and the onus shifts on the tenant. The object of Section 14(1)(e) vis a vis Section 25B has to be seen in the light of yet another provision contained under Section 19. Section 19 gives a right to the dispossessed tenant for repossession if there is a non-compliance on the part of the landlord albeit after eviction, to put the premises to use for the intended purpose. Such a right is available only to a tenant who stood dispossessed on the application filed by the landlord invoking Section 14(1)(e) being allowed. Thus, Section 19 inter alia throws more light on the legislative objective facilitating a speedy possession. The object is also reflected in the proviso to Section 25B(8), denying a right of appeal."
12.With the above principles of law in mind, it is for this court to examine whether the respondents have raised any triable issues or not.
NAINA Digitally signed
by NAINA GUPTA
RC ARC/9/2021 GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09
16:20:16 +0530
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs.
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 8 of 36
13.In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyawati Sharma (dead) by LRs vs. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 5 SCC 287 section 14 (1) (e) is also now made applicable to commercial properties and therefore the present petition is maintainable.
GROUNDS ON WHICH LEAVE IS SOUGHT AND WHETHER THE SAME ARE TRIABLE ISSUES
14.The respondent has filed an application seeking leave to defend within time. The leave is sought by the respondent on the following grounds :-
i. That the present petition is not maintainable. ii. That the petitioner has filed the present petition against wrong party.
iii. That the petitioner has filed wrong site plan. iv. That the petitioner does not have the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises v. That the company has alternate suitable accommodation vi. That the petitioner has not filed the sanction from the MCD vii. That the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA GUPTA RC ARC/9/2021 GUPTA 2024.10.09 Date:
16:20:26 +0530 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 9 of 36 In the following paragraphs, the grounds on which leave is sought are discussed and findings are given when they amount to triable issues or not.
15.That the present petition is not maintainable : It is stated that the petitioner is a private limited company and is not entitled to take recourse for eviction of tenants by filing petition U/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. It is submitted that a reference is pending before the Hon'ble High Court in the case of KS Bandari Vs. M/s International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd., RC Rev. 18/2016. It is submitted that the company being a juristic person, there is separate provision U/s 22 of DRC Act and therefore Section 14 (1) (e) is not available to the company. It is stated that Section 14 (1) (e) is meant for natural persons.
16.On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner company being of juristic person has a right to maintain the petition for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide need and cannot be held to be not at par with a natural person. It is stated that the definition of landlord U/s 2 (e) of DRC Act does not make any distinction between a juristic person and natural person and defines landlord as a person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive rent of the tenanted premises. It is further stated that provisions U/s 22 of DRC Act deal with right of a company to seek eviction of the tenant on the grounds which are in the form of special RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 16:20:34 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 10 of 36 provisions and it does not debar a company from filing its petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide need as there is no rider embodied in the statue on the ground of bonafide need.
17.During arguments, Ld counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the matter of K.S. Bhandari supra, the reference is confined to whether a Company as landlord requiring the premises for use of its employees would have a choice, whether to invoke Section 14(1)(e) or Section 22 of the Act. It has been asserted that the present petition is very much maintainable and reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Satnam Kaur v. Ashlar Stores P. Ltd. CM No.14903/2008, wherein the following observations have been made:-
"To my mind, whenever any such type of landlord requires the premises for use of its employees, it is section 22 alone which would be applicable and not section 14(1)(e). This does not mean that the other provisions of section 14 cannot be invoked by such a landlord. As held in Chuni Lal‟s case (supra), the grounds under section 14 are addition to the grounds under Section 22. This is because section 22 is concerned only with specific type of cases namely, where premises are required by a company for use of its employees.
Section 22 is not concerned with the other grounds which are available under section 14. It may be that some circumstances may exist where a company may require premises, not for its employees, but still for its residence. In such a case section 14(1)(e) can also be invoked.".
RC ARC/9/2021
NAINA Digitally signed
by NAINA GUPTA
Date: 2024.10.09
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:20:44 +0530
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 11 of 36
18.In the case of Chuni Lal v. University of Delhi 1970 RCR Rent 742 it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that a landlord falling under section 22 DRC Act may avail of the grounds stated there in, in addition to the grounds given in section 14 (1)
(e) of the DRC Act. In view of the discussion above, it is held that the present petition is maintainable.
19. That the petitioner has filed the present petition against wrong party: It is submitted that the tenancy of the shop is with M/s Kim Brothers a partnership concern of which the respondent Sh. Kim Hugh is one of the partners. It is stated that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned that Mr. Kim Hugh is proprietor of M/s Kim Brothers. It is stated that Kim Brothers is a partnership firm having four real brothers as partners therefore M/s Kim Brothers should have been sued as a partnership firm and not as a proprietorship firm. It is stated that the petitioner and the erstwhile landlords have received rent from the account of partnership firm on several occasions from 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, 2013 and 2014. Not only the original landlord but also the petitioner company accepted the rent from the partnership firm until 2014. Thereafter, the partnership firm had filed application U/s 27 of the DRC Act for deposit of rent in the year 2002, 2003, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2020-21. In the DR petitions no such objections regarding payment of rent by the partnership firm was raised by the petitioner.
Digitally signedRC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA
GUPTA
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:20:55 +0530
Date: 2024.10.09
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 12 of 36
20.In reply it is stated that Mr. Kim Hugh was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises vide lease deed dt. 01.09.1963. Mr. Kim Hugh on 15.04.2015 had sent a letter to the petitioner accepting the position that shop no. 13/3 on the ground floor and the garage behind it i.e. tenanted premises was let out to Mr. Kim Hugh S/o Mr. H. P. Hugh. The copy of the letter dt. 15.04.2015 has been annexed as Annexure B. It is stated that the contention of the Mr. Kim Hugh that partnership concern M/s Kim Brothers is a tenant in the tenanted shop is false. It is stated that even if the rent was paid from the account of the partnership firm it would not mean and imply that the petitioner had accepted the partnership firm as tenant.
21.Another objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the petition is not maintainable in its present form as the petition has been filed against M/s Kim Brothers (proprietorship firm) and not against Mr. Kim Hugh who is the proprietor of the said firm. It is stated that proprietorship firm is not a legal entity and thus cannot be sued in its own name. Any proceedings against the proprietorship firm have to be filed in the name of the person who is the proprietor of the firm. Therefore, it is stated that the proceedings in the present petition are non est.
22.In reply, the petitioner has submitted that in the memo of parties the petitioner has given the name of the proprietor Sh. Kim Hugh. It is stated that a proprietorship is identified by the Digitally signed RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 2024.10.09 Date:
16:21:04 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 13 of 36 proprietor and therefore since the name of the proprietor is given, there is no legal impediment. The petitioner has also filed an amended memo of parties along with the reply to avoid any technicality regarding the same in the amended memo of parties. The name of the respondent Sh. Kim Hugh is written as proprietor of M/s Kim Brothers. Separately the petitioner has also sought permission of the court to take on record the amended memo of parties U/o 7 Rule 14 CPC.
23.The respondent has placed reliance upon judgments in the case of Miraj Marketting Corporation Vs. Vishakha Engineering and PC Advertising Vs. Muncipal Corporation of Delhi, 1998 (73) DLT 259. In the judgment of Miraj Marketting Corporation (supra) it was held that a proprietorship firm had no legal entity and it cannot institute a suit in the name of the proprietorship firm and such a suit is required to be instituted in the name of the proprietor. In this case the plaintiff had not mentioned who had signed the plaint or who was the proprietor of the firm. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court upheld the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit on this ground. In the case of PC Advertising (supra) it was held that a proprietorship firm cannot institute a suit in its own name and there was no prayer to seek amendment to allow the sole proprietor to sue in his name. For this reason among others suit filed by the plaintiff was held to be not maintainable.
RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed
by NAINA GUPTA
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09
16:21:14 +0530
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 14 of 36
24.On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that a proprietorship concern can be sued by the petitioner under order 30 rule 10 CPC. It is submitted that in the case of Rasiklal Manik Chand Dhariwal v. M/s M.S.S. Food Products (2012) 2 SCC 196 the suit was filed in the name of proprietorship concern and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it can be at best called to be not in proper order and but there was no illegality going to the root of the matter. Further during arguments, it has been reiterated that an amended memo of parties has been filed to avoid technical defect if any.
25.In the case at hand, the petitioner in the memo of parties has clearly described the respondent as "M/s Kim Brothers through its proprietor Sh. Kim Hugh". In the amended memo of parties, the petitioner has sought change to the effect that the respondent be read as "Sh. Kim Hugh proprietor of M/s Kim Brothers". In my view there is no bar on correcting a technical defect in the memo of parties even in summary procedure U/s 25 (B) of the DRC Act. The petitioner is not seeking any change in the pleadings. The name of the proprietor has already been correctly mentioned in the memo of parties. In the judgments relied upon by the respondent also the courts have noted that no such amendment was being sought by the party and therefore the suit was held to be not maintainable. Further, in the case of Miraj Marketing Corporation the plaintiff was proprietorship RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:21:22 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 15 of 36 firm and the name of the proprietor was not mentioned. The facts of the present case are distinguishable wherein the proprietorship is being sued instead of suing and the name of the proprietor is also clearly being mentioned. In view thereof, I do not find the infirmity to be of such nature amounting to dismissal of the petition or grant of leave to defend in favour of the respondent. The respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of an inadvertent error in the memo of parties.
26.Further, since, the tenancy is with the proprietor, the amended memo of parties filed by the petitioner along with the reply is taken on record. A correction in amended memo of parties, does not amount to any amendment in the pleadings and the same is only to avoid any technical defect. Not allowing the petitioner to place on record the amended memo of parties, would be a hyper technical approach and the same should not be taken by the court. Necessary correction in the title of the judgment has been made in view of the amended memo of parties.
27.After considering the claims of the parties, it is evident that the lease deed dt. 01.09.1963 has not been disputed by the respondent. As per this lease deed the tenanted premises was let out to 'Mr. Kim Hugh s/o Mr. Hugh, sole proprietor Kim Brothers'. The respondent has placed on record the certificate of registration of partnership firm M/s Kim Brothers dated 26.03.1977. The business entity Kim Brothers is in existence RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:21:31 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 16 of 36 since 1959. Earlier the same business was running from another premises 6, Jor Bagh Market. The respondent has placed on record the registration certificate of M/s Kim Brothers dated 15.05.1959. In this registration certificate also, the name of the occupier is stated to be Sh. C.S. Hugh s/o Hugh Fin Sheen. No names of the alleged partners in the business have been written down in the registration certificate. For the last 20 years the rent has been paid from the account of the partnership firm to the petitioner company. M/s Kim Brothers through partners had also filed DR petition for deposit of rent against the petitioner company. In response to this petition, specific objections have been taken by the petitioner company that the partnership firm is not the tenant and that the tenanted premises were let out to a sole proprietorship firm M/s Kim Brothers. A separate eviction petition on the ground of subletting has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent.
28.This is not a petition on the ground of subletting. This court need not go into the question of whether running of the business from the shop by a partnership firm instead of the sole proprietorship amounts to sub-letting or not. This is a petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of the petitioner company to run business from the suit property. The question before the court is whether the non joinder or mis joinder of parties in the present case is a triable issue or not.
RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed
by NAINA GUPTA
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. Date: 2024.10.09
GUPTA 16:21:41 +0530
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 17 of 36
Arguments have been advanced on behalf of the respondent that since a separate petition on the ground of sub-letting is already pending, this petition should also go to trial. I find it difficult to accept this contention. If this contention is accepted, the very purposes of having a summary procedure for eviction of tenants u/s 25 B of the DRC Act would stand defeated.
29.On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the petitioner has advanced arguments that the original tenant was a proprietor ship firm. Mere acceptance of rent from the account of the partnership would not amount to estoppel against the petitioner to accept the partnership firm as a tenant. Reliance has been placed upon judgment in the case of Ram Saran v. Pyare Lal, (1996) 11 SCC
728. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, "Acceptance of rent paid by sub tenant does not constitute estoppel against the landlord that the sub tenant was accepted as a tenant in the property. Mere acceptance of rent does not mean that a valid tenancy has been constituted. Written consent of the landlord is required for creation of a valid sub tenancy."
30. At the risk of repeating, it is reiterated that the question of sub tenancy is not before this court. Whether there is a requirement to implead the alleged sub tenant as a party in this petition is. The law is settled on this point that a sub tenant is not a necessary party but a proper party only. A sub tenant is always bound by the order of eviction passed against the original RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:21:50 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 18 of 36 tenant. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd vs Rajiv Trust And Another, AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 1754.
31. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also advanced arguments that even if it is alternatively considered that the partnership firm is a tenant in the tenanted premises, the respondent represents the other partners in the firm who are his brothers. It is contended that a partnership firm is not a legal entity, and all the partners are deemed to be tenants. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the judgments in the cases of Bharat Insulation Company v. Suraj Parkash, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9955 and Amar Nath Agarwalla v. Dhillon Transport Agency, (2007) 4 SCC 306.
32.After considering the pleadings and arguments advanced by both the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the issue raised is not a triable issue that requires adducing of evidence by the parties. There is no ground to deny that the tenancy was originally in the name of M/s Kim Brothers, a sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Kim Hugh. In such a case, there was no requirement to implead the other alleged partners of the alleged partnership firm. No document has been placed on record by the respondent to show that a fresh tenancy was entered into between the erstwhile landlords or the present petitioners. It is only stated that the tenancy is with a Digitally signed RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. 16:21:59 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 19 of 36 partnership firm. Apart from the payment of the rent and a few letters addressed to by the petitioner to the respondent as a partner of Kim Brothers, there is nothing to show that a fresh agreement was entered into with the alleged firm. Further, in a case of tenancy with partnership firm, all the partners are joint tenants. Thus, even if the contention of the respondent is accepted, all partners being joint tenants, one of the partners who is impleaded as a party in the present case represents all of them.
33.The defence raised by the respondent appears to be moonshine because its case is contradictory to its own documents. From the respondent's own documents, it is evident that a business in the name of M/s Kim Brothers is in existence since 1959. However, the partnership firm was registered only in 1977. There is no denial by the respondent that the tenancy commenced on 01.06.1963. Further, the pleading of the petitioner in the petition itself that the respondent had addressed letter dated 15.04.2015 to the petitioner denying sub tenancy and stating that he continues to be solely in possession of the tenanted premises has not been denied by the respondent. The copy of this letter has been placed by the petitioner along with reply. In rejoinder only objection raised is that this document could not have been filed along with reply. However, the fact of sending of the letter and the contents of the letter were not denied by the respondent.
NAINA Digitally signed
by NAINA GUPTA
RC ARC/9/2021 Date: 2024.10.09
GUPTA 16:22:08 +0530
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs.
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 20 of 36
Further, in 1959 when the firm was registered, it was being run by one person only as in evident from the registration certificate. The respondent is admittedly in possession of the tenanted premises and is also a tenant in the same. This position has not been denied by the respondent. In view of the reasons explained above, no triable issue arises in this regard.
34.That the petitioner has filed wrong site plan: It is submitted that the petitioner has filed the present petition against shop no. 13/3 on the ground floor however in the site plan shop no. 13/2 is shown in red (shaded portion) instead of shop no. 13/3. Similarly, while the present petition is with respect to half garage opposite to shop no. 13/1, in the site plan filed by the petitioner wrong garage has been shaded in red. The respondent has filed correct site plan of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that the petitioner has also given incorrect measurements of the tenanted premises and has taken an inconsistent stand. It is stated that in paragraph no. 8 of the petition the measurement of the tenanted premises is given to be 11.6 feet X 20 sq feet (232 sq feet) without giving the measurement of the half garage. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the shop under the tenancy of M/s Kim Brothers is measuring 12'9ft. X 20'10ft. (265.58 sq ft) and half garage measures 10 X 9'8ft. (96.3 sq ft.) as such the total area under the tenancy of the tenant is 361.88 sq ft. Accordingly, it is stated RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 16:22:18 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 21 of 36 that the petitioner has not given correct description of the tenanted premises in the petition.
35.In reply, the petitioner has submitted that in the site plan filed by the petitioner there has been inadvertent error in not showing the tenanted shop 13/3 in red and incorrectly showing 13/2 and garage behind it in red. It is stated that this inadvertent error is of no consequence as the tenanted premises i.e. shop 13/3 and garage behind it is clearly shown in the site plan. It is stated that there is no difference in the position of shop shown in the site plan filed by the petitioner and the site plan filed by the respondent. The shop 13/3 is bounded by shop no. 13/2 on the one side and shop no. 13/4 on the other side and the garage bearing no. 3 is on the left of the garage bearing no.2. The inadvertent mistake on the part of petitioner in colouring in red a different shop has no consequences particularly when correct shop and location has been mentioned by the petitioner in the site plan.
36. From the pleadings of the parties, it emerges that there is no real dispute about the position and the size of the tenanted premises. In the petition the tenanted premises have been correctly described as Shop no. 13/3, Ground Floor, Jorbagh Market, New Delhi-110003 along with half garage behind shop no. 13/1. There is an error in the site plan in shading the wrong shop and garage in the site plan. The error is apparently Digitally signed RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:22:29 +0530 Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 22 of 36 inadvertent keeping in view that the petitioner has filed six petitions against all his six tenants. Does this amount to a triable issue? The answer must be in negative. The purpose of the site plan is to correctly identify the tenanted premises. There is only one shop and half garage given to the respondent on rent. There is no confusion regarding the identity of the tenanted premises. Further, in the site plan filed by the petitioner, although a wrong shop and garage is shaded, the tenanted premises are also mentioned.
37.Regarding the measurement of the tenanted premises similar view must be taken by the court. The petitioner has described the shop to be measuring 11.6 ft X 20 Sq. ft. The respondent has given the measurement of the shop to be 12'9ft. X 20'10ft. In para 20 of the petition, the measurement of the garage is given to be 10 X 9 ft approximately. The respondent has given the measurement of the garage to be 10 X 9'8ft. Thus, there isn't much difference in the measurements of the tenanted premises given by both parties. At best, it can be said that the petition is not happily drafted when it comes to description and measurement of the tenanted premises. But that cannot mean that a triable issue regarding the position or measurements of the tenanted premises has arisen in the present case. Further, during arguments, Ld counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court may consider the site plan filed by the respondent Digitally signed RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 16:22:38 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 23 of 36 to be correct, and that the petitioner has no reservation against the same.
38.Before parting with this issue, it is also necessary to note that the petitioner has filed a corrected site plan along with its reply and a separate application u/o 7 rule 14 CPC has also been filed by the petitioner for seeking permission of the court to take the same on record. Keeping in view that the present petition has been filed u/s 25 B of the DRC Act and that summary procedure is applicable, the petitioner cannot be allowed to place on record additional documents along with its reply. Accordingly, the permission to place on record the corrected site plan is denied.
39.That the petitioner does not have the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises:- It is stated that the petitioner is having net worth of over 100 crores for 03 years i.e. as on 31.03.2017, 31.03.2018 and 31.03.2019. It is stated that a company whose net worth is over 100 crores, does not have bonafide requirement as contemplated as per legislature U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act particularly in relation of a small shop in a cluster of shops. It is stated that summary proceedings are available only for immediate need of the landlords where the landlords have no alternative place of business or residence. The petitioner company engaged in various business activities in association with many other corporate entities including Escort Hotels & Pvt. Ltd. Escort Pvt. Ltd., Karamyogi Finlease Pvt. Ltd., Panipat Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA RC ARC/9/2021 GUPTA GUPTA 16:22:49 +0530 Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 24 of 36 Properties Pvt. Ltd. besides others which can be categorised as sister concerns and cumulatively take up several business ventures worth several hundred crores including construction, real estate, malls, constructions and management of studio and service appartment.
40.It is stated that the business of the petitioner company along with several others is in fact owned by one Mr. Vikram Bakshi who is Director in 35 companies including the petitioner. It is stated that taking possession of a small shop under the premises of bonafide requirement by way of summary proceedings is nothing but a fanciful desire and cannot be categorized as a bonafide requirement. It is submitted that the word 'requires' implies need rather than desire of the landlord. It is submitted that when the company is having such a large network it could not have requirement of the tenanted premises U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.
41.In reply, the petitioner has stated that just because the networth of the petitioner company is over 100 crores it does not mean and imply that the petitioner company would not have a bonafide requirement as contemplated in the legislature U/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. It is stated that the petitioner company has every right to carry out the business of a restaurant from the suit property and seek eviction of the tenants from the suit property for its requirement.
NAINA Digitally signed
by NAINA GUPTA
RC ARC/9/2021 Date: 2024.10.09
GUPTA 16:22:58 +0530
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs.
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 25 of 36
42.Apart from the mere presumption that the petitioner company does not have bonafide requirement of the suit property because it has a net worth of more than 100 crores, no other contention has been raised by the respondent in this regard. Once, the landlord pleads that it has bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises, there is a presumption in favour of the landlord. The respondent is required to rebut the presumption by bringing on record some material in support of the averments made by him. In the present case there isn't anything on record to disbelief the case of the petitioner. Merely because, the petitioner company is successfully running its businesses, it does not mean that it does not have any requirement to start a new business from the tenanted premises. Infact, successful running of other businesses supports the case of the petitioner that the company has the wherewithal to start the present business from the suit property.
43.It also needs to be appreciated that the petitioner purchased the suit property in the year 1995 for a sale consideration of Rs. 65 lakhs. If the intention of the petitioner was to evict the tenants by hook or crook only, it would have filed for eviction petitions as soon as it became legally eligible after five years of sale. The petitioner company became owner of the suit property about 3 decades ago and prior to the present eviction petitions, there has been no attempt to evict the tenants. This goes on to support the RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:23:08 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 26 of 36 case of the petitioner that it has bonafide requirement of starting business from the tenanted premises. In view of the discussion above it is held that no triable issue regarding bonafide requirement of the petitioner company arises.
44.That the company has alternate suitable accommodation: It is stated that in the legal notice dt. 26.12.2017 the petitioner company has stated, "that it is further matter of record that my client's company is having only this idle commercial property which can be used for its needs." It has been argued that it implies that the petitioner company has other properties that it owns. It is stated that when the company is having networth of more than 100 corers it is unbelievable that it does not own any other immovable property in NCR of Delhi. It is stated that petitioner must be called upon to lead evidence to this effect and the respondent must be given permission to cross-examine the petitioner on this ground.
45.In reply, the petitioner has reiterated that it owns only the property no. 13 in block no. 172 situated at Jor Bagh, New Delhi in which the ground floor is totally commercial, and first floor is totally residential. It is stated that the respondent has taken a presumptuous plea that petitioner company owns other properties in NTC of Delhi. Apart from the presumption there is nothing on record to delve into an inquiry on an assumption by the respondent.
Digitally signedRC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA
GUPTA
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs.
GUPTA 2024.10.09
Date:
16:23:18 +0530
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 27 of 36
46.In the application seeking leave to defend there is no mention of any property which is alternatively available and suitable to the petitioner. Leave to defend cannot be granted on vague plea of the respondent that the petitioner company must have other properties because it has high net worth. The respondent is required to make the necessary averments and place materials in support of them to rebut the presumption in favour of the petitioner. In my view, no triable issue has been raised with respect to availability of alternate suitable accommodation.
47.That the petitioner has not filed the sanction from the MCD: It is submitted that petitioner intends to start a new business venture of a multi cuisine restaurant after removing the partition walls and create a big hall having an eating and dining area for large number of guests. It is submitted that what has been proposed by the petitioner requires a massive alteration and construction and it cannot be done without prior sanction and approval from NDMC. It is submitted that NDMC would not grant permission for demolishing of internal walls especially of a property which was constructed way back in the early 1950s that is about 70 years back so as to create a large hall and therefore subject matter is premature. It is submitted that the premises is situated in posh and quite neighborhood of Jor Bagh and the local resident's association may also oppose to the opening of the restaurant in the area. It is stated that the building RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:23:29 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 28 of 36 is built upon load bearing walls and not by column and beam structure as in the modern times and therefore the internal walls cannot be removed by merely calling it "dismantling and rearranging" of walls.
48.It is stated that the petitioner has not placed on record the following documents:-
a. Permission to Demolish Internal/Partition Walls so as to amalgamate the entire premises in a large hall b. Seek Permission of Appropriate Authority for running a Large Restaurant having seating capacity of about 100 guests c. Having Permission from the Traffic Wing of Delhi Police regarding regulating traffic movement of outsiders into a residential colony.
d. Consent of RWA (Residents Welfare Association) of Jorbagh
49.In reply, the petitioner has submitted that within the bylaws of MCD the petitioner has right to carry out such an addition and alteration which does not require prior permission. Removal of partition wall and re-aligning them without altering the basic structure and without touching the load bearing walls are such addition and alteration which does not require the permission from NDMC. It is submitted that belief of the respondent that NDMC would not grant permission is merely a presumption and that too on the premise that the petitioner would be required to take prior permission. It is reiterated that the petitioner has Digitally signed NAINA by NAINA RC ARC/9/2021 GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 16:23:39 +0530 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 29 of 36 every right to make addition and alteration within the building bylaws and does not require permission of the NDMC.
50.It is stated that there is no restriction upon the opening of a restaurant in the commercial area on the ground floor. It is also contended that the respondent has not placed on record anything to show that the law prohibits the petitioner from setting up a large restaurant in the ground floor of the property. It is stated that as per layout plan filed by the petitioner all the partition walls are not required to be removed. It would be discretion of the petitioner to carry out such minor additions and alterations to give a proper shape and effect of the restaurant area as well area earmarked for kitchen of the restaurant. It is also submitted that since the property is situated in the commercial area having adequate parking space there is no requirement of the petitioner to seek prior permission of the Traffic Wing of the Delhi Police and consent of RWA. The respondent has not placed on record any cogent and reliable evidence on record to show that there are any rules and regulation for petitioner to take prior permission from NDMC, Traffic Wing of the Delhi Police and RWA for starting its multicuisine restaurant.
51.This court while assessing the requirement of the petitioner, must consider whether there is bonafide requirement of the petitioner to start the business of a restaurant from the ground floor of the suit property. There is no weight in the contention Digitally signed RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:23:48 +0530 Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 30 of 36 of the respondent that the layout plan filed by the petitioner is impractical and infeasible. The whole building is owned by the petitioner. The petitioner is already using the first floor of the suit property for its residential and office use. The ground floor is being used for commercial purposes and the petitioner also intends to put it to use for a commercial purpose only. There is no reason to assume that the petitioner will carry out such construction that would cause damage to the suit property. The petitioner only wants to remove some of the partition walls to make a big hall. Whether a permission for the same is required from the NDMC is not the concern of the respondent. The petitioner has submitted that if a permission is required it will seek the same from the NDMC. Before, this court of rent jurisdiction, such an argument is of no bearing.
52.Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Gulshan Rai v. Samrendra Bose Secy, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 444. In this case the ground on which leave was being sought was that the requirement for which eviction was being sought was against the Building bye laws. The court of Ld. ARC had granted leave observing that since the property was heritage property and the guest house was being run without permission, a triable issue had been raised. The order of the Ld. ARC was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court, and it was held that the tenant had no locus standi RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:23:56 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 31 of 36 to challenge the illegality of the landlord in running a guest house from the premises. It was also observed that whether a permission is to be granted or not is inter se arrangement between the landlord and the MCD. This case is squarely applicable to the facts at hand also. The petitioner has proposed only the removing of the partition walls and there is no legal bar against the same. The respondent has made presumptuous claims that it would involve demolition of the entire building and will cause damage to the building. Further it has also been claimed that the proposed layout plan requires permission from the MCD and the same has not been placed on record. The tenant cannot raise such pleas.
53.The basic principle attracted here is that the respondent cannot dictate its terms to the petitioner. The petitioner is the best judge of his requirement and the respondent or this court cannot direct the petitioner on to how to use the suit property. In the case of Ranjit Singh Sethi v Gurmeet Singh Chawla R.C.R. No. 209/2011, the landlord had averred that the intervening wall between the tenanted premises and the shop already in possession of the landlord shall be broken and the entire area of the shop shall be increased. The Hon'ble High Court rejected leave to defend and allowed eviction in favour of the petitioner. Thus, removal of partition walls between shops does not mean that there is reconstruction of the building. In the judgment of Digitally signed RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 2024.10.09 Date:
16:24:05 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 32 of 36 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Sudarshan Kumar 2021 (1) RCR (Rent) 146 the landlord had sought eviction from shops on the ground floor and averred that the building shall be renovated as per the requirements of the proposed business. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court granting leave to defend and allowed the eviction in favour of the landlord.
54.In my view, the court need not assess the need of the landlord with a magnifying glass. Once the landlord satisfies the court that there is genuine requirement for the landlord to start business, no dispute regarding its alleged requirement can be raised by the tenant in terms of feasibility of the business plan. The landlord has freedom to start or expand its business in whatever manner it may like. The tenant cannot say that the requirement is not genuine because the proposed business plan is not feasible. The landlord is not even bound to set up its business in the same manner as stated in the petition. If for some reason there is an impediment in the way of the petitioner from starting the restaurant from the tenanted premises as per the layout plan given, it is free to make changes to its plan and use the suit property for carrying on business which confirms to the legal requirements.
55.Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sunder Singh Digitally signed RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA by NAINA GUPTA M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:24:15 +0530 Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 33 of 36 Talwar v. Kamal Chand Dugar, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8376. It was observed, "It is settled legal position in this regard that a landlord while filing an eviction petition for bona fide need, need not specify the exact business which is proposed to be carried out from the tenanted premises for which the eviction has been sought. In fact, even if in the eviction petition a particular purpose is stated, the landlord is not bound by the said purpose and after an eviction order, can change his mind and use the premises for a different kind of business. It is settled by a catena of judgments that the landlord has not to give an elaborate description of the business or the nature of business that he seeks to carry out in the premises."
56.In view of the above, the defence that the tenanted premises cannot be utilized for the bonafide need and that no permission will be granted by the MCD, is not tenable. It is for the petitioner to procure the appropriate permissions. The remedy in case of non use/ occupation of the tenanted premises by the petitioner within the stipulated time is available to the respondent under section 19 DRC, however the tenant cannot be permitted to travel beyond that and interfere in the execution of the proposed business plan.
57.That the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises: It is stated that the petitioner has no title documents to the property as there is only agreement to sell executed in the year RC ARC/9/2021 NAINA Digitally signed by NAINA GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09 M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:24:27 +0530 M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 34 of 36 2007 based upon the payment of money and receipt dt. 29.11.1994 in the favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent started paying rent to the petitioner after receiving the letter dt. 1995 from the erstwhile owner of the suit property who had sold the property to the petitioner. However, it was not in the knowledge of the respondent that the petitioner did not have any title documents in his favour. Therefore, it is stated that petitioner is not the owner of the suit property.
58.In reply, the respondent has stated that while disputing the ownership of the petitioner, the respondent has not disclosed who else is the owner of the tenanted shop. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises is false.
59.It is settled law that in petition under DRC Act the petitioner need not prove his absolute ownership and the petitioner only needs to show that he is something more than a tenant. The erstwhile owners have attorned the tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The respondent has been admittedly paying rent to the petitioner. The respondent being tenant cannot challenge the title of the petitioner being estopped U/s 116 of Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed upon Shanti Singh Vs. Ved Prakash, 1986, 208.
60.In view thereof it is held that the landlord - tenant relationship and the ownership of the petitioner stands proved.
Digitally signedRC ARC/9/2021 NAINA byGUPTA
NAINA
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs. GUPTA 16:24:36 +0530
Date: 2024.10.09
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 35 of 36
FINAL FINDING
61.No other ground for seeking leave to defend has been raised by the respondent in the application. In view of the discussion above, this court reaches the conclusion that the application for seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent is without any merits and same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, application seeking leave to defend of respondent is dismissed and the petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B on behalf of petitioner is allowed. The respondent is directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Shop no. 13/3, Ground Floor, Jorbagh Market, New Delhi-110003 along with half garage behind shop no. 13/1 (as shown in red in the site plan filed by the respondent). The petitioner shall not file the execution petition for eviction of the tenanted premises before the expiry of period of six months from today.
62.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court NAINA by NAINA
GUPTA
On 9th October, 2024 GUPTA Date: 2024.10.09
16:24:48 +0530
(NAINA GUPTA)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (South - East)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
RC ARC/9/2021
M/S KALANIDHI INTERNATINAL PVT LTD Vs.
M/S KIM BROTHERS Page no. 36 of 36