Delhi District Court
Aney Pal Singh vs . Deepak Malhotra & Anr. on 31 May, 2014
Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR GARG
ACJCCJARC(EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Petition No.: E249/12
Case ID No.: 02402C0342502012
ANEY PAL SINGH
S/O LATE BALA SINGH LABARRDAR
R/O PROPERTY NO. 3, (FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR)
KNOWN AS CINEMA PLOT,
KRISHNA NAGAR, DELHI110051 ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SHRI DEEPAK MALHOTRA
2. SH. TARUN MALHOTRA
BOTH SONS OF SH. R.C. MALHOTRA
BOTH R/O 16/36, GEETA COLONY,
DELHI110031 .... RESPONDENTS
UNDER SECTION : 14(1)(e) DRC Act
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.12.2012
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 28.05.2014
DATE OF ORDER : 31.05.2014
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND
MOVED BY THE RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the respondent seeking leave to defend the eviction petition in hand. E249/12 Page No. 1/21
Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Dropati Devi owned a plot no. 3, Krishna Nagar, Delhi110052 known as Cinema Plot. She expired on 18.11.2003. She had executed a will dated 20.9.1999 bequeathing the entire property in favour of Uday Pal Singh. As per requirement of all family members and as per the genuineness of said will, the petitioner was given one shop measuring 7.9 x 6.5 feet as shown in the site plan filed with the petition.
3. Property bearing no. 666B (inadvertently mentioned as 366 B) was purchased by petitioner alongwith his brothers namely Duli Chand and Yashpal vide sale deed 20.03.1956 in joint name. Copy of sale deed has been filed with the petition.
4. There was a partition suit between the petitioner and his brothers in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Duli Chand V/s Yashpal & Anr. The said petition was decided on 7.9.2012 on the basis of decision/compromise arrived at between the parties at Mediation Cell and according to that decision, portion shown green in the site plan came to the share of the petitioner and another portion came to the share of Uday Pal Singh and the remaining portion went to the share of 3rd brother. After the said division, the petitioner got share but without any passage and only 15 months time was granted by the third brother namely Yash Pal to make provision for the passage to their respective portions. In partition suit, the shop in question came into the share of the petitioner, the tenancy was in the name of both E249/12 Page No. 2/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
the respondents. The petitioner let out the shop in question i.e. Shop No. 3(Private No.), Property No. 3, Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051, as shown in site plan attached with the petition, and has been collecting the rent from the tenant. It was a joint tenancy in the name of both the respondents.
5. The property bearing no. 744, Jheel Khurenja, Delhi was owned by Sh. Nanga Singh i.e. grand father of the petitioner and he survived by Bala Singh, Bharat Singh, Mohan Singh, Khushhal Singh and Ambey Singh and the said property was divided amongst 5 brothers. Bala Singh was the father of the petitioner, died intestate, leaving behind 7 legal heirs including his widow i.e. Duli Chand, Yashpal Singh, Aney Pal Singh, Uday Pal Singh(all sons), Smt. Vidya Devi & Krishna Devi(daughters) and mother of the petitioner who expired on 18.11.2003 intestate, her share in property no. 744, Jheel th Khurenja vested in all legal heirs. All the legal heirs have 1/6 undivided share each. The petitioner is not in possession of any portion of this property. The petitioner requires the shop in question for his personal purposes bonafidely as he wants to run business himself and he has no other place for the said purpose. The family members of the petitioner consisted of the petitioner, his wife Sushila Rani and Sons Abhey Singh & Aditya Singh who are residing with the petitioner and are unmarried.
6. The respondents own property bearing no. 6/27, Lal Quarters, having three shops bearing private No. 6,7 and 8. They also E249/12 Page No. 3/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
own residential house bearing no. 16/36, Geeta Colony, Delhi.
7. Prayer has been made for passing of order of eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the shop in question.
In application and affidavit, respondent has taken following main pleas:
(a) The petitioner is not the absolute owner of the suit premises. The suit premises is owned by Sh. Uday Pal Singh brother of the petitioner by virtue of the said Will dated 20.09.1999. The tenanted premises was owned by brother of petitioner Sh. Uday Pal Singh and not by the petitioner. Brother of petitioner Uday Pal Singh was not a party to the settlement and hence said settlement is not maintainable in law.
(b)The petitioner wants to evict the respondents who are in possession of tenanted premises after paying huge amount towards "Pugree".
(c)The petitioner does not require the tenanted premises for any use what to talk of bonafide requirement. He is living a comfortable and retiring life from last so many years who is 61 years in age and is apparently clear that he never wants to do any kind of business and has just created a flimsy and false story to evict poor respondents. He is maintaining himself on the basis of rental income, interest income, salary of his wife and son who both are working in banks and are drawing reasonably good/handsome amount of salary. E249/12 Page No. 4/21
Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
(d)The petitioner has deliberately and intentionally not stated the extent and exact accommodation/rooms/shops available in the said properties. The premises where suit property is situated, consists of 4 shops out of which one is under tenancy of respondents, 2 are lying vacant and are in absolute possession of the petitioner and the last/fourth one has already been sold by the petitioner to the said Sh. Monu Bagga recently. The petitioner is in possession an occupation of said 2 shops in the same building of whom he got possession after getting the same vacated from other tenants namely Sh. Prem Vohra C/o Pinki Boot House and Sh. Sanjeev Gulati. The rent receipts, Legal Notice sent to another tenant Sh. Sanjeev Gulati by petitioner have been filed with the petition which clear the complete picture.
(e)The petitioner is having possession of first and second floor of the suit premises where he is living with his other family members. Neither Sh. Uday Pal Singh nor any of his family members is in possession of any area/shop/room in the entire suit building and is absolutely lying under possession of the petitioner only.
(f)The petitioner has got vacated tenant Sh. Sanjeev Gulati during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner needs to amend the present petition with regard to the same.
(g)The petitioner is also in possession of property bearing no. 666B, Jheel Khuranja, Patparganj, Delhi and he has not mentioned the measurement, size of the said premises and how many E249/12 Page No. 5/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
shops/rooms exist there in the said premises. The said property is to the extent of 222 Sq. Yds. Which consists of 4 shops measuring 10' x 15' each. The said 4 shops are lying under absolute possession of petitioner and is most reasonable and suitable accommodation for the petitioner to satisfy his alleged requirement.
(h)The petitioner is also coowner of the premises bearing no. 744, Jheel Khurenja, Delhi and he did not choose to disclose the extent of accommodation and shops available with him in the said property.
(i) The petitioner also owned and possessed fully furnished residential and commercial accommodation in Dehradun and Noida respectively but intentionally and deliberately did not choose to disclose the said accommodation available with him. The petitioner is getting huge rental income from the said premises and is not using the same for running any sort of business.
8. Reply alongwith affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner discloses the following material grounds:
(a) It is denied that petitioner is not the owner of the suit premises. The petitioner is the owner of the suit premises and is competent to file the eviction petition.
(b)It is wrong and denied that any pugree was paid.
(c)It is denied that that petitioner does not require the suit property for his own business. It is also denied that he is dependent on rental income and salary of his wife and son, who are working in the E249/12 Page No. 6/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
bank. It is also denied that the petitioner does not want to do any business or that he wants to evict the respondents without any need.
(d)It is denied that petitioner is in possession and occupation of two more shops in the same building or that he got vacated from other tenants i.e. Prem Vohra and Sanjeev Gulati. The petitioner has no shop or space in the property in question except the shop in question. Sh. Udey Pal Singh is the owner of the entire building except one shop i.e. shop in question. It is denied that petitioner sold one shop situated adjacent to the tenanted premises 89 months back. This shop was sold by Udey Pal Singh about a year back. It is stated that earlier the petitioner used to issue rent receipts to all the tenants of his brothers but after the partition, the petitioner has not issued any rent receipt to any of the tenants of his brothers. The petitioner has no concern with the properties which came to the share of his brothers.
(e)The petitioner was given one shop considering the genuine requirement of the petitioner and the petitioner does not have any other portion in the property in question. It is denied that petitioner is having more than one sufficient accommodation which is lying vacant and unoccupied.
(f) It is denied that petitioner got vacated the shop from tenant Sanjeev Gulati. It is stated that the petitioner has no shop or space in the property in question except the shop in question. It is stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the portion which was/is under the E249/12 Page No. 7/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
tenancy of Sanjeev Gulati.
(g) It is denied that petitioner has not given the particulars of the property bearing no. 666B, Jheel Khureanja. It is stated that document no. 3 and page 18 of the petition clearly described the share of the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner has any shop or room existing in the said property. It is also denied that the petitioner is owner of the said property measuring 222 sq. yards or that there are four shops lying under the possession of the petitioner.
(h) It is denied that petitioner has not disclosed the accommodation available to him in property bearing no. 744, Jheel Khuranja. The petitioner has stated that there are six shareholders of the said property and the petitioner is not in possession of any portion thereof.
(i) It is denied that the petitioner owned fully furnished residential and commercial accommodation in Dehradun and Noida or that he is getting huge rental income.
9. In rejoinder and affidavit, respondent reiterated the plea taken in the leave to defend and pleaded that petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the property in question.
10. The Ld. counsel for the respondent argued that the present petition was only an attempt to evict him without any bona fide requirement of the petitioners. It was agitated that the portion available to the petitioner was sufficient for utilization. Further, that ownership over the tenanted shop would be required to be proved by way of E249/12 Page No. 8/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
evidence of the petitioner.
11. Petitioner has relied upon the case law viz The Ganesh Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Chand(H.U.F.) S.A, O. Nos. 25 and 26 of 1979 Decided on 24.05.1979.
12. Respondent has relied upon the case laws viz Sukh Dev Raj Sharma vs. Kuljeet Singh Jass 195(2012) DLT 56, Aggarwal Papers vs. Mukesh Kumar Decd. Through LRs. 194(2012) DLT 605, O.P. Gupta vs. R.K. Sharma 2001 IV AD(Delhi) 688 and Lt. Col. S.S. Puri vs. S.P. Malhotra 2002(1) RCR 84.
13. The court has considered the respective affidavits of the parties and the submissions of Sh. Q H Khan, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Sh. Piyush Gupta, Ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the material on record carefully.
14. As per Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner seeking eviction of a tenant, has to satisfy the following ingredients:
i) Petitioner has to be landlord as well as owner of the tenanted property.
ii) The premise should be required bona fide by the landlord for his occupation or for occupation of any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii) Landlord or such person dependent upon landlord should not have other reasonable or suitable accommodation in Delhi.
E249/12 Page No. 9/21
Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
15. The aspect of ownership of the property in question may be taken up first. Respondent has challenged the ownership of The petitioner over the suit premises.
16. Some relevant portion of settlement before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi between petitioner and his brothers qua the following properties is being reproduced in brief which is material for proving the ownership and possession of parties in different properties:
A. PROPERTY BEARING NO. 666B, JHEEL KHURANJA, PATPARGANJ, DELHI51.
As per the Site Plan attached along with the Settlement Agreement as ANNEXURE "A" that the above said property has been divided amongst the three brothers in the following manner:
i) That the area covered in Green Colour admeasuing 50 feet x33.3 feet(185 sq. yards) has been divided and falls in the shrare of Sh. Duli Chand, Party No. 1 along with the shops in the front portion of the said property falling in his share.
ii) That the area covered in Yellow colour admeasuring 50 feet x 27.6 feet(152 Sq. Yards has been divided and falls in the share of Sh. Yashpal Singh, Party No. 2 along with the shops in the front portion of the said property falling in his share.
iii) That the area covered in Orange colour admeasuring 50 feet x 40 feet(222 sq. yards) has been divided and falls in the share of Sh. Anay Pal Singh, Party No. 3 along with the shops in the front portion of the said property falling in his share.
That Sh. Anay Pal Singh out of his free will and on the basis of the agreement arrived at has agreed to give half share out of his share to his younger brother Sh. Udai Pal Singh, Party no. 4. In the said site plan, Sh. Udai Pal Singh's Share has been shown in Orange colour with Blue Stripes. The shops in front portion in Orange E249/12 Page No. 10/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
with Blue stripes shall become the property of Sh. Udai Pal Singh. That the parties no. 3 and 4 have stated that they have no access to their property as the shops in the front portions of their properties are in possession of tenants. They have requested the party no. 1 to accord them access to their portion of the property from the passage falling in the share of party no. 1. They have informed the party no. 1 that they require the use of the said passage for a maximum period of one year and three months.
The party no. 1 has agree to accede to the request of the party no. 3 and 4 subject to the condition that the party no. 3 and 4 shall not claim any right on the use of the said passage in case the party no. 1 decides to and finally sells his portion of the property. B. PROPERTY BEING CINEMA PLOT NO. 3, KRISHNA NAGAR, DELHI52.
That the above said property belonged to Late Smt. Deropati Devi, mother of the parties to the present settlement agreement. The said Late Smt. Deropati Devi expired on 18.11.2003. The Death Certificate is attached along with the Settlement Agreement as ANNEXURE D. Late Smt. Deroparti Devi had executed a WILL dated 20.09.1999(attached with the present settlement agreement as ANNEXURE"E"). By virtue of the said WILL, Late Smt. Deroapti Devi hd willed the entire property being Cinema Plot No. 3, Krishna Nagar, Delhi51 in favour of Sh. Udai Pal Singh, Party No. 4.
...............That Sh. Udai Pal Singh has agreed to give one shop in the said property measuring 14.6 x (7.9 x6.5) feet to Sh. Anay Pal Singh, which portion has been shown in Orange on the Site Plan of Property being Cinema Plot No. 3, Krishna Nagar, Delhi52 which has been attached along with the present settlement as ANNEXURE"B". The remaining portion shown in Blue in the said Site Plan falls in the share of Sh. Udai Pal Singh. It is agreed that no other person other than Sh. Anay Pal Singh and Sh. Udai Pal Singh shall claim any right in the above said property.
C. PROPERTY BEING 744(PART), JHEEL KURANJA, DELHI E249/12 Page No. 11/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
51:
That the parties are part owners of the said property. That the said property is ancestral property and in whole admeasures 555 sq. yards. That the siad property earlier stood in the name of Late Sh. Nanga Singh, Grand Father of the parties. That Sh. Nanga Singh was survived by Late Sh. Bala Singh, Late Sh. Bharat Singh, Late Sh.
Mohan Singh, Late Sh. Khushal Singh and Late Sh. Ambey Singh. As such all the sons of late Sh. Nanga Singh acquired 1/5th share in the said property in equal shares. The said property was divided amongst the 5 brothers(legal heirs) and mutations were recorded in the DDA records. That each 1/5th share of the 5 legal heirs of Sh. Nanga Singh thus admeasured 111 sq. yards.
That Sh. Bala Singh Numberdar, father of the parties died intestate leaving behind 7 legal heirs including his widow, 4 sons and 2 daughters. The mother of parties expired on 18.11.2003 intestate qua her share in the property No. 744(Part), Jheel Kuranja, Delhi51. As such her share also fell in the share of her legal heirs namely 4 sons i.e. Sh. Duli Chand, Sh. Yash Pal, Sh. Anaypal Singh and Sh. Udai Pal Singh and two daughters namely Smt. Vidya Devi W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o B60, Aggarsain Colony, Jaipur and Smt. Krishna Devi W?o Sh. Naresh Kumar Tomar R/o A37, Krawal Nagar, Gali No. 1, Pusta Road, Delhi94.
That the parties hereby agree that all the legal heirs have th an equal 1/6 undivided share in the said property no. 744(part), Jheel Kuranja, Delhi51.
17. It is clearly mentioned in the the sub para 3 of para no. B. of settlement before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that property being Cinema Plot No. 3. Krishna Nagar, Delhi52 belonged to mother of parites i.e. Smt. Deropati Devi who expired on 18.11.2003 and late Smt. Deropati Devi had executed a will of said entire property in favour of Sh. Udai Pal Singh. Sh. Udai Pal Singh has agreed to give one shop in the said property measuring 14.6x(7.9x6.5) feet to Sh. Anay E249/12 Page No. 12/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
Pal Singh. The remaining portion shown in Blue in the said site plan falls in the share of Sh. Udai Pal Singh. It is agreed that no other than Sh. Anay Pal Singh and Sh. Udai Pal Singh shall claim any right in the above said property.
18. It is seen that the above settlement was between all brothers and it was made before the mediators of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The copy of the settlement is filed by the petitioner himself.
19. The above circumstances create only one relation of the petitioner to the property in question viz the owner. It is a settled proposition of law that a landlord is not required to prove his ownership in absolute terms in proceedings under section 14 (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short, the Act). What is required is that the landlord should be more than a tenant.
20. The Court would cite here the observations in Rajender Kumar Sharma & others Vs. Leela Wati and Others 155 (2008) DLT 383 interalia that:
"12. It is settled law that for the purpose of section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant."
21. The Court finds that the objections to ownership raised by the respondent are only in the nature of bare denial and do not merit the framing of a triable issue. Leave to contest cannot be granted on E249/12 Page No. 13/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
this ground.
22. Ld. Counsel for respondents has contended that the petitioner does not require the shop in question for himself. He is living a comfortable and retiring life from last so many years and has just created a flimsy and false story to evict poor respondents.
23. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that petitioner is not having rental income or support through the salary of his wife and sons.
24. The ground raised by the respondents is completely untenable in law as the petitioner, being the landlord, is the supreme judge of his own requirement for space for himself or any dependent family member. The ground raised by the respondents with regard to the support to the petitioner through salary of his wife and sons seems to be a bald assertion with no documentary basis. A triable issue would not arise only upon an arbitrary and baseless claim made by the respondents to defeat the stated bona fide requirement.
25. Ld. Counsel for respondents has also contended that petitioner is in possession and occupation of 2 vacant shops in the same building which he has already got vacated from other tenants namely Sh. Prem Vohra C/o Pinki Boot House and Sh. Sanjeev Gulati. He further contended that the petitioner has also sold one shop of the same property to Sh. Monu Bagga recently and he is having possession of first and second floor of the suit premises where he is living with his other family members. He further contended that neither E249/12 Page No. 14/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
Sh. Uday Pal Singh nor any of his family members is in possession of any area/shop/room in the entire suit building and is absolutely lying under possession of the petitioner only.
26. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner requires the shop in question for his personal purposes bonafidely as he wants to run business himself and he has no other place for the said purpose. The petitioner is having only one shop i.e. the shop in question in suit premises. The above said shop was sold by his brother namely Sh. Udai Pal Singh to Mony Bagga.
27. It is seen that copy of the order of settlement between the petitioner and his brothers filed by the petitioner clearly shows that only one shop measuring 14.6 x(7.9x6.5) feet in property being Cinema Plot No. 3, Krishna Nagar, Delhi51 was given to the petitioner which is in possession of the respondent herein. It is clearly visible that no other shop was given to petitioner by Sh. Udai Pal Singh who is owner of the said property through Will dated 20.09.1999. No document showing that alleged shops were got vacated by petitioner and same fell into his share, has been placed on record.
28. Ld. Counsel for respondents has also contended that the respondents are in possession of shop in question after paying huge amount towards Pugree.
29. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that no amount towards Pugree was given the petitioner. E249/12 Page No. 15/21
Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
30. Perusal of the file would show that no document with respect to the Pugree has been filed. Neither the amount was disclosed nor any document was filed by respondents towards the payment of huge amount towards Pugree.
31. Ld. Counsel for respondents has also contended that the petitioner is also in possession of property bearing no. 666B, Jheel Khuranja, Patparganj, Delhi. The said property is to the extent of 222 Sq. Yds. which consists of 4 shops measuring 10' x 15' each. The said 4 shops are lying under absolute possession of petitioner and is most reasonable and suitable accommodation for the petitioner to satisfy his bona fide requirement. Ld. Counsel for respondents has also contended that respondent has filed one photograph of said property showing shops in the front portion and he states that same are in possession of the petitioner.
32. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner not is owner of the said property measuring 222 sq. yards and he is not having four shops in the said property. The said property is in joint name. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has also stated that petitioner is ready to give undertaking that he is not possession of four shops in the said property and if it is correct that petitioner is having possession of these shops, he shall withdraw his petition. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has also contended that no proof has been filed that petitioner is in possession of said shops and photograph does not show that the petitioner is the owner of the said E249/12 Page No. 16/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
shops. Further, tenant has failed to show that said shops are vacant. Photographs filed by the respondent also do not show them vacant. Even in the order of settlement before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, passage was required by the petitioner and his brother Yashpal Singh from their brother Shri Duli Chand as it was recorded that they have no access to their portion because the shops in front portion of their properties are in possession of tenants. The said fact has not been rebutted by the respondents.
33. In these circumstances, it is clearly visible from the settlement that the area admeasuing 50 feet x 40 feet(222 sq. yards) of above said property fell in the share of Sh. Anay Pal Singh and Sh. Anay Pal Singh agreed to given half share of his share to his younger brother Sh. Udai Pal Singh and the shops in front portion shown in orange with blue stripes shall become the property of Sh. Udai Pal Singh.
34. It is seen that the above said property is in joint name. No proof has been filed by the respondent showing that petitioner is in possession of four shops in the said property. Perusal of the photograph show only the existence of shops and it does not reflect the name of the owner of these shops.
35. In the present facts, no triable issue is raised with respect to the said property.
36. Ld. Counsel for respondents has also contended towards availability of shops with petitioner in another property bearing no. 744, E249/12 Page No. 17/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
Jheel Khurenja, Delhi and he did not choose to disclose the extent of accommodation and shops available with him in the said property.
37. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that petitioner has disclosed the accommodation available to him in property bearing no. 744, Jheel Khuranja in the petition. ld. Counsel for contended that the said property is ancestral property and there are six shareholders of the said property and the petitioner is not in possession of any portion thereof.
38. Perusal of the settlement shows that the above said property was firstly divided amongst the 5 legal heirs (5 sons) of Sh.
th Nanga Singh who was the owner of the said property and 1/5 share of said property came to Sh. Bala Singh(Son of Sh. Nanga Singh & father of petitioner). Then out of this 1/5th share, all the legal heirs of Late Sh. Bala Singh had an equal 1/6th undivided share in the said property bearing no. 744 (Part), Jheel Kuranja, Delhi. This settlement does not show regarding any shop in possession of the petitioner. Neither contrary has been proved by the respondents. No documents have been placed on record by the respondent to show that he is in possession in any shop in above said property.
39. In these circumstances, the Court does not find the necessity of trial with respect to this ground.
40. Ld. Counsel for respondents has also contended towards availability of fully furnished residential and commercial accommodation in Dehradun and Noida with the petitioner and he is E249/12 Page No. 18/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
getting huge rental income from the same.
41. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner has contended that petitioner is not having any residential and commercial accommodation in Dehradun and Noida.
42. Perusal of the file would show that no House No./area Shop No./Office no. of the place where the properties/shops/offices are situated, has been mention qua the properties in Dehradun and Noida. It is also seen that no document with respect to properties in Dehradun and Noida has been filed by the respondent. The claim of the respondent comes across as a bald assertion with respect to this ground. Said plea of respondent is not tenable because as per Delhi Rent Control Act, alternative reasonable accommodation is required in Delhi and it has no concern with other properties of the petitioner out of Delhi.
43. The Court would cite here the observations in Mukesh Kumar v. Rishi Prakash 174(2010) Delhi Law Times 64 it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"As held by this Court in K.K. Sarin(Supra), while deciding the application seeking leave to defend, what is required of the Rent Controller is to observe the rules of natural Justice and to give opportunity to both the parties to produce the facts and the material on which they rely. When the leave to defend is sought by the tenant he must make out a prima facie case raising such pleas from which triable issue would emerge. A bald plea, without anything more, particularly when the nature of the plea in defence is E249/12 Page No. 19/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
such that, if true, it would leave a trail of evidence to establish its existence, and which would be easily available for everyone to see and pick up, cannot be accepted as prima facie disclosing a triable issue........."
44. The assertions made by the respondent are only bald pleas and do not form the basis for granting leave to contest on this ground.
45. The case laws filed on behalf of respondents do not apply to the present facts being distinguishable on facts.
46. In conclusion, the Court finds that the grounds urged by the respondent are not such as would create triable issues or dislodge the bona fide requirement of the petitioner if evidence is permitted.
47. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent does not disclose such facts as would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an order with regard to the possession of the tenanted shop on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso of subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
48. The application under section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, filed on behalf of the respondents, for leave to defend is dismissed.
49. An eviction order is passed against the respondents qua Shop No. 3 (Private No.), Property No. 3, Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051 as shown in the site plan filed with the present petition.
50. The petitioner would not be entitled to obtain possession E249/12 Page No. 20/21 Aney Pal Singh Vs. Deepak Malhotra & Anr.
of the above shop before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of this order in terms of section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
51. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
Delhi Dated the 31.05.2014 This Judgment contains 21 pages and each paper is signed by me.
(DEVENDER KUMAR GARG) ACJcumCCJcumARC(E) KKD Courts, Delhi E249/12 Page No. 21/21