Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Courts vs Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. (Dcm ... on 2 April, 2011

                                               //1//

IN   THE   COURT  OF  SH.  PRITAM  SINGH,  ARC  (CENTRAL) TIS  HAZARI 
                                                    COURTS, DELHI
                                            E­54/08
02.04.2011
Smt. Minder Kaur (senior citizen)
W/o S. Gurmukh Singh Sachdev
11, Rajindra Park,
New Delhi­110060
(through attorney Sh. Jatinder Singh
S/o Sh. Basant Singh
R/o 4D/5, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi­110060
                                                                                  ...Petitioner
                                           VERSUS


1.  Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. (DCM Ltd.)
     Regd Off : Vikrant Tower,
     Rajendra Place,
     New Delhi­110060


2.  Sh. Vijay Saroop Singal
     R/o 23­ E, Kalma Nagar,
     Delhi­110007.
                                                                               ...Respondents
                     Petition U/s 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act.
1. Date of institution of the case              :        17.03.2008
2. Date of Judgment Reserved                    :        22.03.2011
3. Date of Judgment pronounced                  :        02.04.2011


JUDGMENT

The brief facts of the petition are that the property bearing no. 2492­96, Gali No. 8­9, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi­110005, //2// belongs to the petitioner who is the owner/landlord of the same. The petitioner is a 73 years old lady, living in Bangkok, Thailand, and she is unable to come to the court and pursue the litigation in person hence she has executed an attorney in favour of Sh. Jatinder Singh son of Sh. Basant Singh to institute the petition on her behalf and sign and verify the petition, affidavit, application etc. and also to appoint advocate/attorney on behalf of the petitioner. It is further stated that the predecessor­in­interest of the petitioner had let out four shops bearing internal no. 4,5, 15 & 16 in the property bearing no. 2492­96, Gali NO. 8­9, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi­110005, to the respondent no. 1 over three decades ago, through a written agreement. Thus the suit premises are four shops bearing no. 4,5, 15 & 16 of the above said property. The agreement is not traceable/available to the petitioner. The current rent of the premises in dispute is Rs. 445/­ excluding all other charges.

2. It is further stated that the petitioner has come to know on her recent visit to India that the tenant/respondent no. 1 had completely stopped the production of cloth and has sub­let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the demise shops to respondent no. 2, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord/petitioner. The respondent no. 1 is not doing any business or activity from the demise premises nor is the //3// respondent no. 1 in physical possession and control of the demise premises. The petitioner could not find out the amount or rent which the respondent no. 1 is charging from the respondent no. 2. Hence the present petition filed.

3. Written statements filed on behalf of both the respondents. In the written statement of respondent no. 1 it is admitted that petitioner is owner/landlord and respondent no. 1 is tenant in suit premises i.e four shops in question. The rent is Rs. 445/­ per month but inclusive of all taxes and cess excluding electricity charges. The respondent no. 1 is having the full control, supervision over the possession of the demise premises and the demise premises is still in lawful and physical possession of the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 has not sub­let the demise premises to respondent no. 2 in any manner whatsoever. It is further stated that the respondent no. 2 is the agent for and on behalf of respondent no. 1 who is holding the possession of premises and running the DCM Store at the demise premises under the expressed and implied authority of the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 1 through respondent no. 2 is in lawful and physical possession and occupation of the demise premises since inception of tenancy till date for all legal purposes and consideration. It is further stated that the respondent no. 1 is paying the rent @ Rs. 445/­ per month to the petitioner but electricity charges are paid by the respondent //4// no. 2 as per consumption of electricity. Sh. Jatinder Singh, attorney of petitioner, does not have any legal right to file the present petition and not aware about the facts and circumstances of the case and the power of attorney in favour of Jatinder Singh is false and fabricated one. The respondent no. 2 has stated similar facts in his written statement as stated by respondent no. 1. It is stated that the respondent no. 2 is an agent of respondent no. 1 and is running the DCM store as an authorized agent vide agreement dated 24.02.1972. The agency agreement was further renewed on 28.07.1976 on the same terms and conditions and there was no subletting caused by the respondent no. 1 qua the premises in dispute.

4. The petitioner has filed replications to the written statement of both the respondents. It is stated in replication by the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 has no control over the activities of respondent no. 2 and the respondent no.2 is doing his independent business. Respondent No. 2 is in occupation and control of the premises as a subtenant of respondent no.

1. The agency agreements are stated to be sham agreements to mislead this court. All other averments made in the petition are reiterated and reaffirmed but those made in written statements have been controverted.

5. In order to prove his case the petitioner has examined one //5// Sh. Jatinder Singh as PW­1 and his evidence by way of affidavit is Ex. P­1. The documents exhibited are the certified copy of the power of attorney Ex. PW­1/1, site plan Ex. PW­1/2, the covering letter dated 15.06.2007 sent by the respondent no. 1 alongwith the rent of June and July Ex. PW­1/3, the counter foil of seven receipts issued to the respondent no. 1 are Ex. PW­1/3 to Ex. PW­1/9.

6. On the other hand respondent no. 1 has examined Sh. M.K.Sinha, his special power of attorney as RW­1 and his evidence by way of affidavit is Ex. R­1. The documents exhibited are the special power of attorney Ex. RW­1/1, the lease dated 13.02.1952 is Ex. RW­1/2, letter dated 21.07.1972 of Smt. Minder Kaur is Ex. RW­1/3, GPA dated 22.05.1972 is Ex. RW­1/4. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 has examined himself as RW­2 and his evidence by way of affidavit if Ex. RW­2/A. The agreement dated 24.02.1972 entered into between the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2 Ex. RW­2/1.

7. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record carefully.

//6//

8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following rulings :­

(i) Shah Phool Chand Lalchand Vs. Parvathi Bai, 1989 (1) RCR 483 SC

(ii) M/s Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1998 SC 1240

(iii) Amar Singh Trilochan Singh Vs. Smt. Jasoti, 2003 (2) RCR 532

(iv) M/s Nath oil company Vs. Kailash Rani Kapoor, 2000 (1) RCR 59

(v) Dharam Chand Vs. Kasturi Lal and another, 1977 (2) RCJ 276

(vi) Parvinder Singh Vs. Renu Gautam and others, 2004 (4) SCC 794

9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the following rulings :­

(i) Sh. Atul Gupta and others Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.

Ltd., 1991 (1) AIRCJ 282

(ii) Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., and others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 439.

Grounds u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act.

10. Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act reads as under :­ "The tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub­let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord".

//7//

11. PW­1 deposed that he is a constituted general attorney of the petitioner and has been authorised by the petitioner to sign and verify the petition, affidavit, applications, give evidence etc and the suit property belongs to the petitioner who is owner/landlord of the same. PW­1 further deposed that petitioner is 73 years old ailing lady presently living in Bankok, Thailand with their children and she is unable to come to the court to pursue the litigation in person hence, she has executed an attorney in his favour. PW­1 further deposed that the predecessor­in­interest of the petitioner had let out the suit premises to the respondent No.1 over three decades ago through a written agreement and the current rent of the premises is Rs. 445/­ per month excluding all other charges. PW­1 further deposed that the petitioner has come to know on her recent visit to India that respondent no.1 had completely stopped the production of cloth and has sub­let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the suit premises to respondent no.2, without obtaining the consent in writing of the petitioner. The respondent no.1 is not in physical possession and control of the suit premises, however, the petitioner could not find out the amount of rent which respondent no.1 is charging from the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is in exclusive possession and independent control of the suit premises.

//8//

12. PW­1 deposed in his cross­examination that he did not know by whom the tenancy was created in favour of respondent no.1. The petitioner often comes to India and stay at Rajender Park at her permanent residence. The power of attorney was got attested at Patel Nagar and petitioner has signed the register of Notary. PW­1 further deposed that the petitioner is his maternal aunt (Mami).

13. RW­1 Sh. M.K Sinha special power of attorney of respondent no.1 company deposed that the petitioner is owner of the suit premises and premises were let out for commercial purposes. RW­1 further deposed that the respondent no.1 is having full power, control, supervision over the possession of the tenanted premises and the same is still in lawful and physical possession of respondent no.1. The respondent no. 2 is the agent for and on behalf of the respondent no.1 and holding the possession of the premises and running the DCM store in the suit premises. Respondent no.1 is paying rent @ 445/­ per month to the petitioner including all taxes and cess but excluding electricity charges. RW­1 further deposed that the respondent no.2 is merely an agent of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 has no right, interest or charge of tenanted premises. The respondent no.1 took the tenanted premises for running the textile business and from the inception of the tenancy a textile shop popularly known as DCM store is //9// being run in the tenanted premises. RW­1 deposed in his cross­examination that he had not brought the resolution book of the DCM showing any authority in his favour to appear before this court. He had not brought any document to show that DCM has given any authority to Sh N.K Garg to execute power of attorney. RW­1 Voluntarily stated that authority has been given to Sh. N.K Garg by DCM. He has not brought any account book to show that the rent of the suit premises is being paid from the account of the respondent no. 1. RW­1 admitted that Vijay Swaroop, respondent no. 2 opens and closes the shop and look after the shops and the business. RW­1 further deposed that he did not know, if DCM has sent any stock of cloth to the suit premises and also did not know that DCM has not sent any cloth to the suit premises for the last 10 years. RW­1 had not brought either the stock register or challan book of DCM. There is only one employee whose name is Vijay. There is telephone connection at the shop but he did not know its number. RW­1 admitted that respondent no. 2 deposited electricity and telephone charges and has not brought any account to show that the respondent company had reimbursed the telephone and electricity charges to the respondent no. 2. RW­1 further deposed that he did not know, if any official of the DCM had ever visited the suit premises. RW­1 had not brought any document to show that the DCM had paid any commission to the respondent no. 2. RW­1 deposed that in the lease deed Ex. RW­1/2, the //10// address of the suit premises had been mentioned as 2493, Gali No. 10, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and he did not know that this was not address of the suit premises.

14. RW­2, Sh. Vijay Swaroop Singhal, supported the case of the respondent no. 1 in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. RW­2/A. RW­2 deposed in his cross examination that the telephone installed in the suit premises is in his name and he is Manager of DCM. He has no appointment letter and there is an agreement only. RW­2 further deposed that he alone sit at the shop (suit premises). His son or any other person does not sit in the shop. There is no account of company, therefore, he does not maintain any account. He has no stock register of the stock kept at the shop. RW­2 further deposed that a boy comes and does the work of cleaning and dusting. He pays Rs. 100/­ to the boy whenever, he comes for cleaning. Again said, the boy send by the company to clean the shop. RW­2 further deposed that he is Manager but the company does not pay him any salary. Company has not sent any cloth to the dispute shop in the last five years or more. RW­2 further deposed that he sales readymade shirts from the suit premises and does not know, if DCM is manufacturing readymade shirts. The company had sent some clothes but he does not have the details. He does not have any register where the cloth send by the company is //11// entered. RW­2 further deposed that he pay the electricity Bill. Again said he pay the electricity Bill on behalf of the company. He had no record to show that company has reimbursed the amount of electricity to him.

15. There is no dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 1 has sublet the suit premises to the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 is in exclusive possession of the suit premises. On the other hand the defence of respondent no. 1 and 2 is that the respondent no. 2 is agent of respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is working on behalf of respondent no. 1. Thus, it is not in dispute that respondent no. 2 is in possession of the suit premises.

16. In case of subletting the presumption is drawn, if the landlord prima facie shows the presence of a third person in the premises that he is a sub tenant, however, the presumption is rebuttable. It was held in Associated hotel of India Ltd. Vs. R.N.Kapoor, AIR 1959, Supreme Court 1959 that if a party gets exclusive possession of the property, prima facie he is considered to be a tenant but circumstances may be established which negative the intention to create a lease. In a suit by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground of subletting the landlord discharges the onus by leading //12// evidence showing that occupants are in exclusive possession of apartments for valuable consideration. It is for the tenant to rebutt that prima facie evidence.

17. In the case in hand the possession of respondent no. 2 is not disputed but the defence of respondent no. 1 is that the respondent no. 2 is its agent. As the possession of respondent no. 2 admitted, therefore, a presumption is drawn that respondent no. 2 is a sub tenant. However, this presumption is rebuttable. In order to rebutt the presumption, the respondents have relied upon the agreement dated 24.02.1972 Ex. RW­2/1. According, to the petitioner, this agreement is an eye wash just to conceal the sub tenancy created by the respondent no. 1 in favour of the respondent no. 2 and it is a sham document. Clause 2, 4, 6, 9­B, 10, 11, 15 and 16 C of agreement Ex. RW­2/1 provides as follows :­ Clause­2(a) : The premises duly approved by the company, in which the agent shall run the store or stock the goods, will be hired in the company's name. It is, however, agreed mutually that the agent shall be liable for payment of rent to the landlord of the premises on behalf of the company and the amount so paid shall be shown in daily cash account (D.C.A) duly supported by rent receipt from the landlord.

//13//

(b) The agent shall not shift the store to any other premises unless prior sanction of the company has been obtained in writing and necessary amendments in Cloth Licence, Sales Tax Registration Certificate and shops & establishments certificate, etc. Incorporating change of address, have been previously got made by respective competent authorities. Clause 4 : It shall be the responsibility of the agent to employ at his cost and expense adequate staff, which should consist of not less than two men at the store, to cope with the work and rush of customers from time to time. Such members of the staff shall be the employees of the agent and amenable to his control and shall not be entitled to any emoluments, amenities including provident fund, bonus etc. etc. or concessions etc. from the company. However, the agent and his staff shall be amenable to such directions and instructions as may be imparted by the company from time to time in so for as behaviour, treatment and courtesy towards the customers are concerned.

Clause­6 (a) : The agent shall be bound to maintain in respect of the store true and proper accounts of sales and stocks etc. in such manner as may be directed by the company from time to time. The agent shall be also bound to submit to the company such statements of sales and stocks or such //14// other information as may be required by the company from time to time.

(b) As far as possible the company will supply its standard forms to the agent for the purpose stated in sub­clause (a) above free of cost. Unused forms shall remain the property of the company.

Clause­9 (b) : For all sales made by or through the agent, a regular cash memo shall be prepared and issued on prescribed forms, supplied by the company.

Clause 10 : The sale proceeds shall be remitted by the Agent daily through a bank approved by the company and the company shall pay remittance charges upto six paise percent. If the sale proceeds are not remitted by the next working day, interest at 13% per annum will be charged for the full period for which any amount would remain outstanding with the agent in addition to any civil or criminal action that may be taken against the agent in case the default in remittance is malafide.

Clause ­11 : During the tenure of this agreement the agent and or his representatives shall not stock, display or sell from or at the store cloth, or any other commodity, Indian or foreign, which has not been supplied to him //15// by the company under the terms of this agreement. Further, the agent shall not engage himself in trading or manufacturing of such products in which the company may be interested.

Clause­15(a) (i) : The agent shall always keep and maintain with the company a cash security deposit for due fulfilment of the terms of this agreement. Such security deposit shall be of such amount as will always cover the value of goods in possession of the agent, but in no case be less than Rs. 20,000/­.

(ii) The company shall pay to the agent interest on such security deposit, at the discount rate of the Reserve Bank of India.

(iii) The company shall be entitled, at any time, to adjust from such cash security deposit, any and all amounts due to the company from the agent for value of the goods supplied or otherwise.

(b) The agent shall be required to arrange for Fielity Guarantee Insurance in favour of the company for such an amount as may be mutually agreed upon between the company and the agent, from the London and Lancashire Insurance Co. Ltd., //16//

(c) (i) The agent shall also be required to execute a surety bond duly approved by the company for such an amount as may be mutually agreed upon­by the company, on a non­judicial stamp paper of the requisite amount at his cost. Surely shall be a person duly approved by the company.

(ii) It shall be the liability of the agent to inform the company of the surety having died or become of unsound mind and/or having disposed of the property whether by way of mortgage, sale, gift or otherwise and of the change in the address of the surety.

Clause 16 C: The above percentage of commission is liable to be altered at the sole discretion of the company subject to minimum of 4%.

18. After going through the clauses of agreement Ex. RW­2/1 and the deposition of RW­1 and RW­2, it is crystal clear that Ex. RW­2/1 is a sham document and cannot be relied upon. The respondents who rely upon Ex. RW­2/1 do not adhere to any of the terms and conditions of agreement Ex. RW­2/1. Clause­4 of the agreement provides that the agent shall employ at his cost and expense adequate staff which should consist of not less than two men at the store. However, the respondent no. 2 has not employed the adequate staff as required under the agreement. Clause­6 (a) provides that //17// the agent shall be bound to maintain accounts of sale and stock in respect of store but the respondent no. 2 does not maintain any such account of sales and stocks etc. Clause 9 (b) provides that for all sale made by or through the agent, a regular cash memo shall be prepared and issued on prescribed forms, supplied by the company but no such cash memo was supplied by the respondent no. 1 nor prepared by respondent no. 2. Similarly, the above sated clause 10, 11 and 15 of agreement Ex. RW­2/1 were never complied by the respondent no. 1 and 2. From the deposition of RW­2, it is proved that he is not maintaining any account as an agent of the respondent no. 1 company and he is in exclusive possession of the suit premises. Neither respondent no. 1 nor respondent no. 2 has produced any document to prove that the respondent no. 2 has been working as an agent of respondent no. 1. It was held in Shah Phool Chand Lalchand Vs. Parvathi Bai (supra) that where no documents such as Income tax returns, assessment orders as well as account books and ledgers for the relevant period were produced by the tenants, it was surely open to the trial court from these circumstances to come to the conclusion that had the account books and ledger been produced, they would have shown that rent was received by the appellants (tenant) from M/s Adeshwar Glass Mart (sub tenant) which would justify the finding of the subletting.

//18//

19. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) that "sub­tenancy or sub­letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the sub­tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sub­let had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub­lease. It may be paid in //19// cash or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump­sum in advance covering the period for which the premises is let out or sub­let or it may have been paid or promised to be paid periodically. Since payment of rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case proved at the trial, including the delivery of exclusive possession to infer that the premises were sub­let".

20. Ld. Counsel for the respondents relied upon Sh. Atul Gupta and Others Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. (supra). In this ruling the respondent no. 1 was the same respondent who is respondent no. 1 in this present case. In this ruling it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the genuineness of the agency agreement was challenged first time in arguments in second appeal. Therefore, the same cannot be considered at the belated stage. It was further held that the terms of the agency agreement show that the intention of the party was only to create an agency and the shop was given to respondent no. 2 by respondent no. 1 as licensee and it was not subletting. The clauses 9 (a), 21, 27 and 28 of the agency agreement were discussed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said judgment. I have compared the said clauses i.e 9 (a), 21, 27 and //20// 28 from the clauses of agency agreement Ex. RW­2/1 and found they are in verbatim. However, I find that the ruling Sh. Atul Gupta and Others Vs. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the case in hand the petitioner has taken a plea that the agency agreement RW­2/1 is merely an eye wash and a sham document and cannot be relied upon. I find force in this plea of the petitioner. Just merely recording the terms of an agency agreement in black & white does not make the agreement reliable unless and until its terms and conditions are followed by both the parties. A tenant cannot be permitted to retain the tenanted premises just for the shake of his convenience particularly when he is not in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises and is not bothered to follow the terms and condition of the agency agreement.

21. Ld. Counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that the present petition does not disclose when the alleged subletting by the respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 took place. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not examined herself and she has examined only her attorney Sh. Jatinder Singh and his testimony cannot be read into evidence of the petitioner as he is not a competent witness. Ld. Counsel for respondents relied upon Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind //21// Bank Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that general power of attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party but he cannot become witness on behalf of party. He can only appear in his own capacity as a witness and whatever knowledge he has about the case, he can state on oath. In my considered view the ruling Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd (supra) has allowed the power of attorney holder to depose on the basis of his own knowledge but he cannot depose the facts which are not in his personal knowledge. This ruling is applicable to the facts of the present case because PW­1, power of attorney holder of petitioner, has proved his power of attorney Ex. PW­1/1 executed by the petitioner in his favour. PW­1 has deposed all the facts which were in his knowledge and the respondents could not bring to show that those facts were not in his knowledge. It is important to mention here that the present petition is u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act on the grounds of subletting. The relationship of landlord and tenant between parties is not in dispute. The fact which has to be proved by the petitioner is only that the respondent no. 1 has sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of the suit premises to sub tenant. The respondent no. 1 has admitted that respondent no. 2 is in possession of the suit premises but not in exclusive possession and the control over the suit premises is of the respondent no. 1. It is well settled law that when possession of third party is admitted by a tenant then burden //22// lies on him to prove that the third party is not a subtenant and in such circumstances the evidence of the landlord is not of much importance. In the case in hand the respondents have failed to discharge the burden that respondent no. 2 is agent of respondent no. 1 and working for and on behalf of respondent no. 1. Considering all these aspects, there is no merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the evidence of the attorney of the petitioner cannot be read in evidence and he is not a competent witness. In view of the abvoe discussions, it is established by the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the suit premises to respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 is in exclusive possession of the suit premises. Hence, the petitioner has proved the ground u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act and the petition u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act is allowed and an eviction order is passed in respect of the suit premises consisting of shop no. 4,5,15 & 16 in property no. 2492­96, Gali No. 8­9, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi­110005.



(Announced in the open court 
on 02.04.2011)                                                             (Pritam Singh)
                                                                     ARC/Central/Delhi