Delhi District Court
Sushil Kumar vs . Tara Chand on 21 May, 2011
Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KR. SHARMA,
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER, DISTRICT: NORTH. DELHI.
E No. 117/2009
Unique Case ID No: 02401C0019532009
1. SH. SUSHIL KUMAR MODA
S/o. Late Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Moda,
R/o. 507, Haveli Haider Quli,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
2. M/S. GHANSHYAM DASS SUSHIL KUMAR, H. U. F.
Through its: Karta SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
507, Haveli Haider Quli,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi. ...Petitioners.
Versus
1. SH. TARA CHAND CHHABRA
S/o Sh. Gulshan Chhabra
2. SMT. RADHIKA CHHABRA
W/o Sh. Naveen Chhabra
Both of 488-489, Katra Asharfi,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
...Respondents.
Date of institution of the petition : 16/01/2009
Date on which order was reserved : 12/05/2011
Date of Decision : 21/05/2011
ORDER
21.05.2011 Vide this order, I shall dispose of the leave to defend application filed on behalf of respondents U/s 25-B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as D.R.C. Act for E no. 117/2009 Page 1/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition on merits.
Relevant facts for disposal of the present application are as follows:-
1. That the petitioners are the owners and respondents are the tenants in respect of the entire ground floor consisting of one shop and entire mezzanine floor forming part of property bearing no.
488-489 Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as shown in red colour in the Site Plan attached with the present petition (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') and suit property was let out to the respondent for non residential purposes and same is required by the petitioner for their business purposes and the petitioners have no other reasonable suitable alternative accommodation in Delhi for the said purposes.
2. It is further alleged that wife of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sunita Moda has been carrying on the business as Cloth Commission Agent in property bearing no. 507 Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi under the name and style of M/s. Kedar Nath Sushil Kumar as sole proprietor thereof and has appointed petitioner no. 1 her Attorney and therefore, said business is being carried on her behalf by petitioner no. 1 in a portion of the ground floor of the aforesaid property for last several years and in the beginning the business of Cloth Commission Agency was a flourishing one but with the passage of time and for the last several years the said business has come down considerably in as much as most of the outside customers who earlier used to purchase cloth and other E no. 117/2009 Page 2/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand fabrics to the Cloth Commission Agency of the wife of the petitioner no. 1, have now started purchasing the cloth and other fabrics directly from the whole sale dealers of cloth and fabrics in Delhi and therefore, for the said reason, it is not practically possible to continue the said business by the petitioner and during the year 2002-2003 the annual income from the said business was Rs. 18055/- in the year 2003-2004 was Rs. 18734/- and in the year 2004-2005 was Rs. 10073/- and during the year 2005-2006 was Rs. 16404/- and lastly it was only Rs. 21784/-.
3. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 1 also took Agency for supply of Gas Welding Rods from M/s. Cupro Alloys Corporation and carried on the said business in the name of G. M. Sales Corporation as Sole Proprietor thereof in a portion on the ground floor of property bearing no. 507 Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi but said business did not prove to be profitable and thus, petitioner no. 1 has stopped doing the said business and had surrendered the said Agency in December, 2007 and Sale Tax registration number to carry the said business was also surrendered by petitioner no. 1 in October, 2008.
4. It is further alleged that son of the petitioner no. 1 Sh. Aditya Moda is at present 24 years of age and since the aforesaid business of the petitioner no. 1 were not profitable successfully, so the said son of petitioner no. 1 has took a private job in Sahibabad, U. P. with M/s. Bhartiya Vehicle Ltd. and he is only getting the salary of Rs. 16,500/- per month and other son of petitioner no. 1 is at present studying in C.A. Course and therefore, petitioners E no. 117/2009 Page 3/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand requires the suit property as well as other portions of the property situated on the first, second and top floor of the building bonafidely for the purposes of doing their business of trading and sale and storage of sarees and ladies suit and other fabrics and said business would be run by the petitioner no. 1 alongwith his aforesaid sons and for running the said business by petitioner no. 1 and his sons in the suit property as well as other portions of the suit property about Rs. 25 lacs would be required and petitioners have got necessary funds for the said purpose and the shop in dispute is most suitable for the petitioners to start their aforesaid business and same is situated in a well known cloth market in Delhi known as Katra Ashrafi of Chandni Chowk, Delhi where almost all the shopkeepers dealing in the business of sale of cloth and other fabrics and customers from outside of Delhi come in large number for purchasing cloths and other fabrics and the ancestral of petitioner no. 1 have been in the cloth business since a longtime and petitioners have got experience for dealing in cloth business and since suit premises is required bonafide hence, he present petition was filed.
5. Upon service of the summons respondents filed their leave to defend application which was filed on affidavit alleging and deposing that the respondents are the co-tenants and tenancy was created for non residential/commercial purposes vide Agreement dated 09/11/1983 and vide Agreement dated 08/05/2008 lastly the rent of the suit premises was increased and terms and conditions of the original Agreement were to be inforce and binding upon the parties and therefore, present petition is not maintainable U/s. 14 E no. 117/2009 Page 4/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
6. It is further deposed that need of the petitioner is not reasonable and bonafide and conditions pre-requisite U/s. 14 (1)
(e) of the DRC Act are not complied with and has been filed to enhance the rent unreasonably and petitioner in order to pressurize and enhance the rent had previously filed the suit for eviction which was finally withdrawn after the rent was increased by the respondents.
7. It is further deposed that petitioner no. 2 is the stranger as petitioner no. 1 is only landlord of the suit premises and no document has been placed on record to show the ownership of petitioner no. 2 and therefore, there is mis joinder of the parties.
8. It is further deposed that petitioner on his own showing have a reasonably suitable alternative accommodation where from he is carrying the business i.e. property bearing no. 507 Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as sole proprietor.
9. It is further deposed that supporting affidavit of the petition is no affidavit in the eyes of law as there is no proper verification and petitioner has suppressed the material facts and there being number of triable issues therefore, leave to defend may kindly be granted to contest the present case on merits.
10. Counter affidavit of the petitioner no. 1 was filed alleging and deposing that since no leave to defend application has been filed E no. 117/2009 Page 5/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand for permission to seek leave to contest the present case and present application on affidavit does not fulfill the requirement of the law, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is further deposed that every application under DRC Act is required to be affixed by Court Stamp of Rs. 13/- and said application is required to be signed and verified in the manner provided for verification in the pleadings under order VI Rule 15 of C.P.C. and since none of these things have been done by the respondents, therefore, respondents are not entitled to get leave of the Court to contest the case and the affidavit filed by the respondents is no affidavit in the eyes of law as such as one affidavit has been signed and verified by both the respondents and in law every affidavit has to be signed and verified by the deponent individually and two deponents can not sign and verify one affidavit, therefore, affidavit is liable to be rejected and on merits denied all the material allegations further deposing that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (2) RCR 805 decided on 16/04/2008, the present petition is maintainable and the previous petition was filed against the respondents as they had made various additions and alterations in suit property without written permission and the said petition was withdrawn as the respondents had agreed not to make any additions, alterations and construction after slight increase in rent from Rs. 540/- to Rs. 645/- p.m.
12. It is further deposed that previously the suit property was owned by the father of the petitioner Mr. Ghanshyam Dass who in E no. 117/2009 Page 6/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand his life time had executed a Will dated 31/07/1980 and property was devolved upon the petitioner no. 1 as well as upon Mrs. Kamla Devi, wife of Mr. Ghanshyam Dass in equal share and it was further mentioned in the said Will that in case Mrs. Kamla Devi dies during the life time of Mr. Ghanshyam Dass, petitioner no. 1 was to become the absolue owner and she died on 01/07/1982 and Mr. Ghanshyam Dass died on 19/08/1983 and thus, petitioner became the owner of the suit property and since the Agreement dated 08/05/2008 has been entered into between petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 on one hand and respondents on the other hand, therefore, there is no mis-joinder of the parties.
13. He further denied that he has got reasonably suitable accommodation in property no. 507, Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and there is proper verification of the affidavit supporting the present petition except typographical error of word "AND TRUE" and there is no suppression of material facts and since no triable issue has been raised and no ground is made out to contest the present case on merits, leave to defend application may kindly be dismissed and an eviction order may kindly be passed.
14. During the pending proceedings, additional affidavit on behalf of respondents was filed wherein it is deposed that respondents have come to know same facts recently which is necessary for the disposal of the present petition and has deposed that petitioners have total area of 4,000/- sq. fts. comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor and eight shop on each E no. 117/2009 Page 7/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand floor in the premises bearing no. 507, Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 i.e. alternative accommodation which is double of area of the suit premises and this fact was not disclosed by the petitioners and said alternative accommodation is in commercial area i.e. is in Chandni Chowk Market, Delhi itself and major part of the building is lying vacant and is in possession of the petitioners who can start the proposed business from there.
15. It is further deposed that it is not the case of the petitioners that the alternative accommodation aforesaid is not suitable for retail business and infact one shop on the first floor of the alternative accommodation has been rented out to Handtex Exim Pvt. Ltd., who are carrying retail business of Silk Fabric etc. and some photographs of Handtex Exim Pvt. Ltd. are being annexed wherein it is shown as a place of business showing ongoing cloth & saree retail business.
16. It is further deposed that petitioner has stated that place from where the petitioner is running the business is not suitable for business, but a shop bearing no. 502 adjacent to the alternative accommodation has been purchased by a saree Merchant M/s Shanker Sarees for trading of sarees, suit and dupattas and there are many more shops in the vicinity which deals in sarees and other fabrics and the market in which the alternative accommodation is situated is bigger market attracting more customers as compared to the suit premises.
17. It is further deposed that the need of the petitioner is not E no. 117/2009 Page 8/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand bonafide in as much as the elder son of the petitioners i.e. Mr. Aditya Moda is currently working in reputed company namely M/s Keventers Agro Limited having its New Delhi office located at 1st floor, HFCL, 9 Masjid Moth Commercial Complex, GK-2, New Delhi-110018 and he is employed on a high post as Export Manager and is earning approximately Rs. 1 Lakh per month and younger son is pursuing his C.A. Course and has nothing to do with the saree business and there being number of triable issue, respondents are entitled to leave to defend and to contest the present case on merits.
18. Counter affidavit of the additional affidavit along with some photographs and documents filed on behalf of the petitioners and an application on behalf of the petitioners for rejection of additional affidavit U/s 151 CPC was also filed alleging that the respondents can not be allowed to take fresh grounds for seeking leave to contest the petition by filing additional affidavit though said grounds were available to the respondents at the time of filing of original affidavit and deposed that the allegations in the additional affidavit are incorrect and the affidavit has been filed with a view to delay the disposal of the present case and has denied that there are eight shops each on the ground floor, first floor and second floor of the property no. 507, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and has further deposed that the said property is basically a residential property of ancestres and was used for residential purposes upto 1973-1974 and thereafter the portion of the ground floor of the said property was used for carrying on the business of cloth commission agency and the remaining portion of the ground E no. 117/2009 Page 9/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand floor and entire first floor and second floor were used by the petitioners for residential purposes upto the year 2002 and the said property has been declared Heritage Building by the D.D.A. and the ground floor of the said property consists of drawing room and four rooms besides kitchen, bathroom and latrine and three rooms situated on the back side on the ground floor was being used for carrying on the business of cloth agency and remaining rooms are being used for sitting purposes as the relatives of the petitioner visit the said property and there are four rooms and four small rooms/stores on the first floor and six rooms on the second floor of the said property.
19. It is further deposed that the petitioner no. 1 started living in property no. 146, Greaker Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi in 2002 and, therefore, three rooms situated on the first floor of the said property was let out to M/s Rajni Enterprises for office purposes and the said tenant has been using in the said rooms for office purposes as commission agent of M/s Grasim industries Ltd. and three rooms on the first floor were also let out to M/s Handtex Pvt. Ltd. for office purposes and the said firm is an importer of silk fabrics and rooms are being used by it as its Head office and a small room shown as a kitchen in the site plan has also been let out to Vasu Hari Impex for office purposes which concern is an importer of Katha and Gambier and the said tenant has been using the said room for office purposes.
20. It is further deposed that two rooms on the second floor has also been let out to M/s Paras Kotsvin for office purposes who is an E no. 117/2009 Page 10/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand importer of fabrics and three rooms to M/s Radha Krishana Agency for office purpose who is doing the work of cloth commission agent and remaining one room on second floor is being used by the petitioner for storing his old house hold goods and the said two tenants are also using the tenanted premises for office purposes and no buyer of cloth or other fabrics come in the said property for purchase of any goods and the said area Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi is essentially a residential area and some portion of the ground floor of the some properties in that area are being used for sale of tailoring materials and rest portion are being used for godown purposes or for office purposes or for residential purposes and the said property no. 507 is not at all suitable for carrying on business of sale of ladies suits, sarees and other ladies material as no customer comes in the said locality for the said purpose and M/s Handtex have only its head office on the second floor of the said property and its sale office is at Faridabad and no customer comes to the said concern for purchasing of fabrics either of retail or on whole sale basis and petitioners have no other property in the entire Chandni Chowk area except the said property and the bill annexed with the additional affidavit has been issued from Faridabad and said concern imports raw material and whole sale dealers purchase the same from the said company and photographs filed is not of property no. 507 and three photographs of the ground floor, three photographs of first floor and two photographs of the second floor have been filed on record to show the exact locations of the property no. 507 and the photographs annexed with the additional affidavit is of property no. 504, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and said shop is being used for E no. 117/2009 Page 11/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand sale of tailoring material by the tailors for stitching cloths and there has never been the business of sale of cloths and sarees for retail from the said property and two photographs of the said propertyare also attached with the present counter affidavit.
21. It is further deposed that property no. 502, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi belongs to Sita Sons and same is being used for godown cum office purposes and no business of sale of sarees etc. is being carried out from the said property and a photograph of the said property is annexed and M/s Shanker Gir Tex Feb Pvt. Ltd. have purchased property no. 506, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi from Mr. Radhey Shyam about six months back and said property is being used for storing of goods and part of the said property is being used for residence of the employees of the said concern and no activity of purchase of sale saree etc. is being caried out from the said property and a photograph of the same is being filed and in the entire area there is no shop which deals in sale of sarees etc. either in whole sale or in retail and there is no mention of any firm who is having business of sale of sarees etc. in the locality of Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and details of user of other property in near vicinity has been given in the affidavit and has admitted that his son Aditya is working in M/s Keventers Agro Limited but denied his salary being Rs. 1 lakh per month or he is an Export Manager and has deposed that he is getting Rs. 23910/- on account of his monthly salary and same has been filed on record.
22. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions E no. 117/2009 Page 12/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the record carefully.
23. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 2009(2) RCR 485, 2010 (2) RCR 593 and upon the judgment by the Hon'ble High Court in C.M. (M) no. 759/2009 dated 07/08/2009 in case titled as Ved Prakash Vs. O.P. Jain, 1987 (2) RCR 580 and 174 (2010) DLT 328. On the other hand, respondent has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in JT 2009 (8) SC 421, AIR 1982 SC 1518 and JT 2001(1) SC308.
A. There is no dispute regarding relationship of landlord and tenant. The first ground taken is that lastly the rent was increased in the year 2008 and fresh rent agreement was executed upon the same terms and conditions as agreed earlier and since the property was let out for commercial purpose, therefore, present petition is not maintainable. However, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance as increase of rent was not according to market rate in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 6319 of 2007, titled as Mohammad Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors. that can not be be considered to be the ground not suiting the petitioner to maintain the petition and so far as the maintainability of the petition pertaining to commercial premises is concerned, that controversy has already been put at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati's case.
B. The next ground taken is that the present petition has been filed only with a view to enhance the rent unreasonably and to E no. 117/2009 Page 13/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand pressurise to enhance the rent as previously also an eviction petition was filed which was later on withdrawn when the rent was increased. Even if it is assumed that petitioner wants to enhance the rent, it is not uncommon as the respondents are tenant in the suit property for many years and it is human desire to have the rate of rent increased as per market rate and recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 6319 of 2007, titled as Mohammad Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors. has already held that in cases like the present case, petitioner has right to increase the rent according to market rate and, thus, it can not be a ground for granting leave to defend and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
C. The next ground taken is that the petitioner no. 2 is the stranger and it is only the petitioner no. 1 who is the landlord and, therefore, petition is bad for misjoinder of the parties. Now, it is well settled law that even one of the co-owner and co-landlord can maintain the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement and otherwise also, the renewed Rent Agreement dated 08/05/2008 duly mention that petition no. 1 & 2 are the co-owners/landlord of the said property and has not been disputed by respondent, therefore, it can not be said that the petition is bad for mis-joinder of the parties and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
D. The next ground taken is that the petitioner is having alternative reasonable suitable accommodation wherefrom he is E no. 117/2009 Page 14/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand carrying his business i.e. property bearing no. 507, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. In reply, petitioner has not denied the ownership but has denied that the said property is reasonably suitable accommodation stating that the said property is not situated in the wholesale market but it is situated pre-dominentely residential area and it would not be out of place to mention here that during the pending proceedings, the petitioner offered to the respondent to occupy the said premises which was refused by the respondents but later on, respondents were ready to accept the offer but petitioner has refused to exchange the said building with the suit property and, thus, both the parties have taken the different stand at different time for reason best known to them. However, now it is settled law that petitioner is the best judge of his requirement and neither the Court nor tenant can dictate his terms upon the landlord regarding his choice and considering the proposed nature of the business by the petitioner of sale of cloth and other fabrics, it can be safely held that the suit property is more suitable than the said property bearing no. 507, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as in the entire leave to defend application it has not been denied that the suit property is not situated in the well known cloth market known as Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and, thus, it can not be said that the property bearing no. 507, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi is reasonably suitable accommodation than the said property and, thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
E. The next ground taken is that the supporting affidavit of the E no. 117/2009 Page 15/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand petitioner is no affidavit in the eyes of Law as there is no proper verification and petitioner has admitted that there is typographical error and the word "AND TRUE" between the word "CORRECT" and "TO" has been typed. Perusal of the affidavit supporting the petition makes it clear that the said word has been typed wrongly and mere on the basis of typographical error it can not be said that the affidavit is no affidavit in the eyes of Law.
F. During the pending proceedings, additional affidavit was filed taking various other additional grounds out of which first ground taken is that the property at Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi is consisting of 4,000 sq. fts. which is having double area of the suit property and is situated in commercial area of Chandni Chowk, Delhi itself but as already held that the petitioner is the best judge of his requirement and otherwise also, this ground is the repetition of the earlier ground, therefore, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
G. The next ground taken is that in the said property no. 507, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, one shop on the first floor was rented out to Hand Tex Exim Pvt. Ltd. which are carrying retail business of silk fabrics. However, the invoice filed on behalf of the respondents itself makes it clear that the said company is not in retail business but in wholesale business of fabrics and the invoice has been issued from Faridabad Office of the said Company which contradict the stand taken by the respondents themselves and even otherwise as already held that the petitioner E no. 117/2009 Page 16/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand is the best judge of his requirement and, thus, the said ground appears to have been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
H. The next ground taken is that another property bearing no. 502, Haveli Haider Quli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi adjacent to the building already in possession of petitioner was purchased by a Saree Merchant M/s Shanker Sarees for trading business and there are many other shops in the vicinity dealing with retail business and that is a bigger market. However, if that was so, the respondents should have readily accepted the offer of exchange at the earliest when they were offered to occupy the said building and when they themselves were not ready to take possession of the said premises, it can not be said that the said premises is more suitable than the suit premises for the purpose of retail business.
I. The next ground taken is that the son Mr. Aditya Moda is currently employed and is getting a handsome salary of Rs. 1 lakh approximately and the younger son is pursing his C.A. Course and, therefore, they have nothing to do with the saree business. So far as requirement of both the sons are concerned, even if it is assumed that the younger son is pursing his C.A. Course and if he does not carry on the business with petition the remedy is open with the respondents U/s 19 as it can not be said that the person pursuing the C.A. Course can not start the business and so far as employment of elder son Mr. Aditya Moda is concerned, on record his salary slip has been filed which shows that his salary is around Rs. 25,000/- and it is commonly known fact that if the business in E no. 117/2009 Page 17/ 18 Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi will be successful he will be getting more earning than what he is getting in the form of salary as on date and it is his choice being the dependent family member of the petitioner and member of the H.U.F. to start the business and no Court or tenant can compel him not to start the business and thus, it appears that the said ground has been taken for the sake of defence without having any substance.
24. In the light of above discussion, this court is of the opinion that respondents have failed to raise any triable issue and their defence appears to be moonshine. On the other hand, petitioners have shown their bonafide requirement of the suit premises and, therefore, leave to defend application being without any merits is hereby dismissed.
25. In consequence thereof an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the entire ground floor consisting of one shop and entire mezzanine floor forming part of property bearing no. 488-489 Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as shown in red colour in the Site Plan Ex. P-1 (as put by the court itself today) attached with the petition. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on 21st May 2011. Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
(1+2 separate copies are attached).
E no. 117/2009 Page 18/ 18Sushil Kumar Vs. Tara Chand E no. 117/2009 SUSHIL KR. MODA & ORS. VS. TARA CHAND & ANR.
Date: 21/05/2011 Present: None.
Vide separate order of even date, leave to defend application filed on behalf of respondents is dismissed.
In consequence thereof an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1)
(e) of the D.R.C. Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the entire ground floor consisting of one shop and entire mezzanine floor forming part of property bearing no. 488-489 Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as shown in red colour in the Site Plan Ex. P-1 (as put by the court itself today) attached with the petition. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/sec. 14 (7) of D.R.C. Act.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Devendra Kr. Sharma A.R.C.(North)/Delhi.
E no. 117/2009 Page 19/ 18