Delhi District Court
Sh. R. K. Gupta vs Sh. Surender Singh Bisht on 3 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT SHARMA Ld. ACJ,ARC,CCJ:
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
E NO.08/15
1. Sh. R. K. Gupta
S/o Late Sh. Sant Lal Gupta
2. Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. R. K. Gupta
3. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. R. K. Gupta
4. Sh. Tarun Gupta
S/o Sh. R. K. Gupta
5. M/s Kansal Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta
All having their address at
A1/298, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi 110029 .....Petitioners
Vs
1. Sh. Surender Singh Bisht
House No. 1055, Sector VII,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi - 110070
Also at:
Shop No. 14, Building No. 92E/1,
R. K. Market, Munirka,
New Delhi 110067
2. M/s M. S. Negi (HUF)
Through its Karta and All Members
C5/38, S. F., Vasant kunj,
New Delhi 110070
E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 1
Also at:
Shop No. 12 & 13, Building No. 92E/1,
R. K. Market, Munirika,
New Delhi110067
Also at:
42 Sector IX,Rohini,
New Delhi 110085 .......Respondents
Date of Institution of the petition : 18.02.2015 Date on which Judgment was reserved : 24.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 03.10.2015
Order on leave to defend application filed by respondent no. 1.
1. Petitioners namely Ms. R. K. Gupta, Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sh, Tarun Gupta and M/s Kansal Associates Pvt. Ltd. have filed their present eviction petition based on their bonafide requirements against the respondents namely M/s M. S. Negi (HUF) thgrough its Karta and all members and Surinder Singh Bisht pertaining to Shop bearing no. 12 & 14 in the building situated at property bearing no. 92E/1, R. K. Market, Delhi, alleging following facts:
That petitioners are lawful joint coowners of the aforesaid premises. Therefore premises are owned by petitioners jointly under the family settlement. That respondent no. 1 is a tenant under petitioners in respect of shop no. 12 & 13 situated at aforesaid location at the monthly rent of Rs. 400/ per month. Those shops were rented out to respondent no. 1 separately by petitioners and necessary rent agreement were executed. Said shops E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 2 were rented out to respondent no, 1 for the purpose of running a shop. That respondent no. 1 has unlawfully entered into shop no. 14 by swapping it with respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 1 has modified shop no. 14 and side wall of shop adjoining to shop no. 13, thereby merging shop no. 13 and 14. Petitioners require the said shops as their family has expanded and for gainful settlement of their children, they require the said shops. As on date younger generation of family of petitioners included three male person namely Sh. Jatin Gupta, who is 26 years of age having qualification of BTech. (Textiles), T.I. T&S, Bhiwani, Haryana and Masters in Applied Operational Research. He is presently undergoing training at MNC in Gurgaon. Another male member namely Sh. Bharat Gupta aged 22 years studying in Final year of Bachelors of Designing (Textiles Designing), NIFT, Mumbai, Third male member is Raghav Gupta who is 19 years of age and is presently studying in the second year of B. Com Honours, PGDAV College. All the said children want to start their own business/commercial activity in the shops in question. Therefore premises in question are required by petitioners for accommodating the bonafide need of aforesaid family members who want to start their business.
E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 3
2. Besides aforesaid bonafide need of petitioners alleged that respondent no. 1 had stopped paying rent to petitioners, that respondent no. 1 has subletted/parted with the possession of shop no.13, that respondent no. 1 has caused substantial damage structural alterations in the said shops, that respondent no. 1 has breached the terms and conditions of the tenancy, that respondent no. 1 has caused illegal and unauthorized construction in the said shops resulting in damage to the tune of Rs. 25 Lacs and that respondent no. 1 is an illegal occupant of shop no. 14. All the aforesaid facts constitute separate grounds of eviction under DRC Act. Counsel for petitioners has withdrawn the said grounds, during course of arguments, orally, before the court. He argued that except ground of bonafide requirement U/s 14 (1)(e) rest of the aforesaid grounds, be not considered by me. Therefore I am limiting myself to the grounds of bonafide requirement, as alleged by petitioners in their petition.
3. Respondent no. 2, did not file its application for contesting present eviction petition within statutory period. Therefore present petition was allowed by this court vide its order dated 01.06.2015 against respondent no. 2. It is the application of respondent no. 1 which needs adjudication.
4. Respondent no. 1 filed his application for leave to defend present eviction petition accompanied with necessary affidavit. In his affidavit he raised various grounds based on which he prayed that leave must be granted to him to contest present eviction petition. Respondent no. 1 in subsequent paragraphs is referred as respondent only. Grounds based on which he has E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 4 claimed leave to defend present eviction petition, are mentioned below:
4.1. That in the year 1990 he was looking for a property for the purpose of running business of Pharmaceutical distribution and met petitioner no. 1 who claimed himself to be the owner of property bearing no. 92E/1, situated in Munirka , New Delhi. Respondent was interested in purchasing the said property but petitioner no.1 told that government had banned any such sale of property at that time. Petitioner informed him that instead of purchasing the property a rent agreement would be executed at minimum rate. Being a naive person respondent executed rent agreement with petitioner no. 1 with respect to shop no. 12 on 01.04.1990. He also executed another rent agreement pertaining to shop no. 13 in aforementioned property on 07.03.1996. At that time he paid Rs. 2 Lacs 50 Thousand and Rs. 2 Lacs 70 Thousand as security deposit. Rate of rent as agreed at that time was Rs. 400/ per month.
Brother in law of respondent viz. respondent no. 2 also agreed that petitioners have executed rent agreement dated 07.03.1996 pertaining to shop no. 14 in aforementioned area which was adjacent and connected with shop no. 12 &
13. He also paid Rs. 2 Lacs 70 Thousand as security deposit. Rate of rent of the said shop no. 14 was also agreed to be Rs. 400/ per month. It was agreed by the petitioner that whatever government will lift the ban on the registry of Sale documents of the aforementioned property they will transferring the property without any delay. Therefore as such rent agreement executed in aforementioned fashion was nothing but a documents to give comfort to respondent. As such said documents did not create jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioners and respondent. E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 5 4.2 That at the time of execution of aforesaid rent agreement, a partnership firm namely Manav Enterprises was being run from the shop in which respondent Surinder Singh Bisht and Pramila Negi were partners. Respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 interchanged their shops with each other after taking due consent of petitioners. Infact petitions gave their no objection to the said interchange of shop.
4.3 Petitioners have got twenty shops in total on rent on ground floor. Out of which two have been sold . Petitioner have 1/3 of the area on the ground floor in their possession alongwith 1/2 of the basement. Seven shops in the basement have been run out by them. Entire first floor measuring 5000 Sq.ft. is leased out to Oriental Bank of Commerce , entire second floor is also leased out to the Company Hardy Uptron. Third Floor is being used by petitioners themselves as godown. Therefore petitioners have in their possession and occupation vast commercial space in addition to the shops in question.
4.4 That petitioners have deliberately not annexed their notice dated 20.11.2008 with their petition which would have shown that petitioners had addressed respondent as trespasser in shops in question By not filing copy of the said notice petitioners have concealed material fact. 4.5 It was another understanding between the parties that once ban pertaining to Sale of properties is lifted by government petitioner themselves E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 6 will sell the property in question to respondents. The security in such situation will be used for deducting rent by the petitioners. Contrary to said assurances petitioners demanded a sum of Rs. 6 Lacs for each shop for transferring the said shops in favour of respondent in year around May 2010. Respondent objected to the same by replying that they have paid entire consideration amount to to petitioners.
4.6 That in suit no. 413/01 titled as Purshottam Lal & Ors. Vs Ram Kumar Gupta order dated 26.11.2001 was a case in which petitioner no. 1 gave statement that he has not concern and interest in property bearing no. 92E/1 Munirika, New Delhi.
4.7 That the Sale Deeds dated 20.09.1990 were forged Sale deeds pertaining to Sale of land wherein property in question is situated. Infact petitioners are rant land grabbers.
4.8 Petitioners have made vague allegations pertaining to their bonafide need.
4.9 Sole aim of petitioners, behind filing of this petition is to make respondent accede to their illegal demands. Therefore based on aforesaid grounds respondent claimed that petition must be dismissed.
5. Petitioners replied to the aforesaid application of respondent by denying the version of respondent and reasserting their claim, as mentioned in their E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 7 petition, already referred above. Same is not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
6. Respondent filed his replication/rejoinder to the reply of petitioners, made in response to their application for leave to defend. In the said replication, respondent refuted the version of petitioner and reasserted his claim as mentioned in his affidavit already mentioned above. Same is not repeated here for the sake of brevity. In addition to that respondent asserted that petitioners have been harassing him in the past by adopting an illegal means of blocking the passage and not allowing him to using common bathrooms facility. He has made complaints to the police regarding the same. He further stated that petitioners are unauthorized occupants of property in question as the said property vests in government. Petitioner in collusion with some government officials are in the habit of cheating innocent person like him. Further had intention of petitioner is bonafide, they would not have sold certain shops in the recent past. Therefore petitioners have not subsequently disclosed the no. of shops under their tenancy and under their occupation. Thus he prayed for grant for leave to contest eviction petition.
7. Before proceeding further, I find it proper to mention here the law, which has to be borne in mind, while appreciating rival contentions.
8. The principals requiring considerations for grant of leave to defend application in the eviction petition have been laid down by the Hon'nble Supreme Court wayback in the year 1982 in the case of Charan Dass Duggal E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 8 v. Brahma Nand, 21 (1982) DLT 378 and which have been reiterated in various judicial pronouncements and can be noted thus:
What should be the approach when leave to defend is sought for? There appears to be a mistaken belief that unless the tenant at that stage makes out such a strong case as would nonsuit the landlord, leave to defend is sought for, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action. At that stage of granting the leave parties rely in support of their rival contentions on affidavits and assertions and counterassertions on affidavits may not afford such incontrovertible evidence to lead to an affirmative conclusion one way or the other. Conceding that when possession is sought for on the ground of personal requirement, an absolute need is not to be satisfied but a mere desire equally is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire. And being an enabling provision, the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively."
9. It is also settled that the at the stage of granting leave to defend, the test that is applied is whether in the facts disclosed in the affidavit, filed seeking leave to defend, prima facie shows that the landlord would be dis entitled to obtain an eviction order and not, where at the end, the defence taken by the tenant may fail. If the application filed under Section 25B disclosed some substantial triable issues, then it would be grave injustice to brush them outrightly, without testing the veracity of the claims made by the E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 9 tenant/applicant. The law in this regard is well settled in various pronouncements and reference can also be made to Inderjeet Kaur V. Nirpal Singh, VII(2001) SLT 602=(2001) 1 SCC 706, wherein it was held as under:
" A landlord, who bona fidely requires a premises for his residence and occupation should not suffer for long waiting for eviction of a tenant. At the same time, a tenant cannot be thrown out from a premises summarily even though prima facie he is able to say that the claim of the lanlord is not bona fide or untenable and as such not entitled to obtain an order of eviction. Hence the approach has to be cautious and judicious in granting or refusing leave to defend to a tenant to contest an eviction petition within the board scheme of Chapter IIIA and in particular having regard to the clear terms and language of section 25B(5).
10. In Aggarwal Papers Vs. Mukesh Kumar(deceased) through LR's 194 DLT 605, it was observed by Hon'ble Justice M.L. Mehta that Though, I am conscious of the fact and to which, there is no dispute that the landlord is the best judge of his affairs and also choices, and the tenant cannot dictate as to how the landlord has to live and utilize his premise; but, at the same time, it is also settled principles of law in such cases that the mere wish or desire of the landlord or his decision to get the tenanted premises vacated is not the decisive factor. It is not that whatever he would say, in every case, would be taken to be s gospel truth.
If that was so, then, on the mere asking of every landlord that he needs the premises for setting up an office for his or his family member's business and he is the judge and master of his decisions and E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 10 choices, the statutory protection afforded to the tenant, would become meaningless. That is not the intent of the legislation. The applicability of above proposition is only after the landlord is able to demonstrate that his assertion of requirement of the tenanted premises is authentic and genuine. If he is able to show and demonstrate so, then certainly neither the tenant nor this Court could dictate terms upon him as to how and in what manner he should utilize his premises. The projected requirement of the tenanted premises, based on his subjective decision, is required to be tested by the Court..............it is necessary to bear in mind that when leave to defend is refused the party seeking it is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments of the opposite party by cross examination and rival affidavits may not furnish reliable evidence for concluding the point one way or the other."
11. Therefore, in view of aforesaid observations of higher echelon of judiciary, it is clear that the Controller shall give to the tenant, leave to contest the application, if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession. If disputed question of facts are raised and their decision is necessary to grant relief to the landlord, then those questions should not be decided on affidavits and leave to contest should be granted. At the same time bare denial of facts by the tenant will not be sufficient. The tenant must give detailed facts substantiating the grounds taken by him.
12. Respondent in this case has raised, various grounds based on which he claimed leave to contest present eviction petition. They are appreciated by me E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 11 in common in subsequent paragraphs:
Petitioners not the owner/landlord
13. Respondent has claimed that petitioners are not the owners of shops in question. He asserted that it is Government of India which is the owner of said shops. Said avernments on the part of the respondent is not tenable for the reason that this is not a suit based on title of the petitioners. This is an eviction petition in which petitioners have claimed themselves as owners and landlords of shops in question. So, being tenants respondent are barred from objecting to the claim of petitioner with respect to their ownership/title U/s 116 Indian evidence Act. More So when respondent have admitted themselves to be tenants under petitioners, based on rent agreement dated 07.04.1996 and 01.04.1990, rent receipts relied by them, also show that they were paying requisite rent to petitioner no. 5. As such respondent can not take Uturn now, just like that. Therefore no triable issue is rested by them with respect to the ownership/landlord ship of petitioners.
Respondent being buyer of shop in question.
14. Respondent claimed that initially they wanted to purchase shops in question at that time petitioners not told them that government had banned any sale of such like properties including property in question. Therefore instead of executing sale deed, rent agreement in question were executed further in the year 2006. That petitioners refused to transfer shops in question in the name of respondent, as agreed earlier respondent stopped paying rent to petitioners. They further stated that receipts dated 16.01.1996 and 28.04.1990 contained amounts pertaining to purchase of shops in question. The rent agreement also were made in such a manner that the work of respondent E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 12 being buyers of shops in question is hidden in the clauses mentioned there in. All the aforesaid version of respondent again did not cull out any triable issue as respondent failed to show any proof whatever regarding them being buyers or prospective buyers of shops in question. Rent agreement which are placed on record does not remotely indicate that they have to be construed in such a manner. That respondent is to be treated as buyer of shops in question. The receipts as referred above also does not indicate that amount paid by respondent was pertaining to purchase of shops in question. So far as ownership of shop in question by Government is concerned, respondent failed to show that they have initiated any legal action thereby recognizing as their landlord/owner instead of petitioners. On the contrary respondent since 2006 continue to occupy shops in question silently without raising any objection against petitioners as referred above. Therefore their conduct itself stops them from challenging the claim of petitioners. The net result of aforesaid appreciation is that there was nothing on record which could show that initially petitioners were interested in selling the shops in question to respondent, which they failed later on. As such there was no proof on record which could remotely indicate that petitioners were interested in selling the shops in question to respondent. Therefore no triable issue with respect to respondent being buyer of shops in question arise.
Other spaces/properties of petitioners
15. Respondent claimed that petitioners are having various shops as already referred in preceding paragraphs, in their possession. In the same breath respondents averred that the said shops are on rent. Therefore as such those E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 13 shops are not vacant and petitioners can not use the same for their bonafide need. Apart from that respondent claimed that petitioners have 1/3 area on the ground floor, 1/2 of the basement and first floor in their possession. Respondent nowhere claimed that said spaced are alternate suitable accommodation for the purpose of meeting out the alleged bonafide need of petitioners. Besides that petitioners explained in their reply that said spaces on the ground floor and in the basement are occupied by petitioner no. 5 wherein a furnishing cloth showroom is being run for providing employment to petitioner no. 4. That fact was not countered by any cogent proof by the respondent except bald denial. Therefore in the absence of any proof regarding vacant spaces lying in the basement and on the ground floor, I will go by the version of petitioners that said spaces are occupied. So far as construction of third floor premises is concerned, petitioners explained in their reply that as such there is no construction over the third floor of the premises I rather there is a tin shed, which has been occupied by petitioner no. 5 being their daily avocations. Again said reply was not countered by respondent Therefore petitioners were able to explain that they have not vacant space for meeting out alleged bonafide need in question. No triable issue therefore arise pertaining to the spaces/shops owned by petitioners except the premises in question.
Notice dated 20.11.2008
16. Respondent asserted that petitioners malafidely did not place on record notice dated 20.11.2008 issued by them as they has claimed that respondent are trespasser in the shops in question in the said notice. Said E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 14 assertions, did not raised any triable issue as vide said notice petitioners has called upon respondent to stop, commercial activity in the tenanted premises, which is located in the "inner building passage", wherein commercial activity cannot be run. As respondent no. 1 was doing commercial activities so it was called upon to stop it. Said notice was not about calling respondent as trespasser rather it highlighted respondent as tenants. As per para 8 of the said notice. Relevance of suit no. 413/01. Respondent asserted that in suit no . 413/01 titled as Purshottam lal & Ors. Vs Ram Kumar Gupta judicial order was passed on 26.11.2001 in which petitioner no. 1 gave statement that he has no concern and interest in the property no. 92E/A, Munirka, New Delhi. In this case shops are located in property no. 92E/1, R. K. Market. As such said suit and statement given by petitioner no. 1 in the said suit are not relevant for the purpose of deciding applications in hand.
Bonafide need being vague
17. Respondent claimed that petitioners have not spelt out therein bonafide need in detail as they failed to mention the manner and the purpose for which they require shops in question. Said version of respondent was not tenable for the reason that petitioners categorically claimed that in their petition they require shops in question so that three young children of their family namely Jatin Gupta, Bharat Gupta and Raghav Gupta can start their business/ commercial activities from the said shops. Petitioners further explained that the said children requisite educational qualifications to run their business. As such petitioners disclosed that clarity as to why they require shops in question. Respondent, on their part did not dispute the fact that Jatin Gupta, E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 15 Bharat Gupta and Raghav Gupta are children of family of petitioners. He did not dispute the fact that said children are interested in doing their business activities. They did not dispute the fact that shops in question are best suited for running the said business. Respondent did not raise any specific avernments on the aforesaid aspects in their affidavit, therefore they did not challenge the alleged bonafide need of petitioners. More so that they failed to disclose alternate suitable accommodation available with petitioners. Arguments raised by respondent 18 Respondent through his counsel raised certain arguments, which were not mentioned in their affidavits. As such those arguments, legally speaking could not have raised by them, as they were beyond the scope of affidavit, filed by him. But then also, in order to avoid any prejudice to the claim of respondent, I am dealing with those arguments in question in subsequent paragraphs.
19. Respondent argued that petitioners have nowhere mentioned as to why they require shops in question only. Therefore petitioners did not mention as to why other shops are not suited for their bonafide need. Said arguments were not tenable as it has settled proposition of law, that a tenant can not dictate terms to a landlord with regard to how tenanted premises have to be used. It is the sole prerogative to the landlord who is the best judge to be decide as to which premises is required for his bonafide need. Further respondent failed to show that petitioners have alternate suitable accommodation to meet out their alleged bonafide need.
E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 16
20. Respondent further argued that the fact that petitioners did not initiate the legal proceedings with respect to non payment of rent by respondent since 2006, indicated that petitioners were interested in selling the premises in question and it also reflected their malafide. Again said arguments did not create any triable issue as law does not mandate that the landlord should file an eviction on the ground of non payment of rent with in the particular time period though it must be preceded by a legal demand notice . Landlord reserves his right to do so, in this case also.
21. Respondent argued that why children of family of petitioners want to start business when they are so much qualified? Linked with the said issue is the issue that an eviction in this case will result in stripping off the right to livelihood on the part of the respondent. Aforesaid arguments are not tenable for the reason that I have already concluded that petitioners are able to show their bonafide need and there is no proof, counter to the same. Further why children want to start business from shops in question, is within the domain of petitioners and same can not be challenged by respondent.
22. Respondent relied upon two case laws, to support their case. Said case laws as discussed below are distinguishable on facts.
23. In Aero Traders Pvt.Ltd. Vs Mohan Singh & Anr., delivered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 02.01.2014 in RC. REV. No. 391/2011, CM Nos. 18078/2011 and 3189/2012, landlord was a retired person who wanted to start E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 17 his business of Auto spare parts from tenanted premises. In the said case, tenants failed to place on record any proof regarding availability of alternative suitable accommodation with landlord. Court confirmed the order of dismissal of application for leave to defend passed by the concerned Ld. ARC. Therefore , said case law highlighted different bonafide requirement, in comparison to the one, which exists in present case. Further, the fact that order of dismissal of application for leave to defend was confirmed by the High Court, indicated that tenants in the said case had not raised any triable issues. Said case law is therefore not applicable in the given facts and circumstances.
24. In Khem Chand & ors. Vs Arjun Jain & Ors., passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 13.09.2013 in RC.REV No. 442/12 & CM No. 9444/2013, premises available with the landlord were not found suitable for starting the business by the landlord. "Court observed that it has to be seen from the eyes of common person prudence and the question should be asked as to whether in the particular case a person has a reasonably suitable accommodation or not to reside or to carry out any business. If the answer comes in affirmative then no matter what the landlord says in order to evict the tenant that the provisions of section 14(1)(e) of the Act does not attracted. If the answer comes in negative then no matter what the tenant states to refute the reasonableness and suitability of the accommodation, the eviction has to follow". In that case, unlike present case in hand, court had found that landlord had alternative suitable accommodation for running his business. In the present case, in the absence of alternative suitable accommodation for running business through a shop as per the contents of application for leave to E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 18 defend, said case law is not applicable. More so, when respondents themselves have averred in their affidavits that all the shops have been rented out by the petitioners. Though they have averred in their affidavits that entire third floor is being constructed by the petitioners, but in the same breath they have themselves stated that said portion is used by petitioners for their godown. As such they failed to mention, any vacant space, lying with petitioners, which they can use for their alleged bonafide need and which is alternative suitable accommodation for meeting out their bonafide need.
25. Based on aforesaid appreciation, present application for leave to defend filed by respondent stands dismissed.
26. Respondent is given six months time to vacate premises in question .
27. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court (PRASHANT SHARMA)
on 03rd October 2015 ARC/ACJ/CCJ: New Delhi
Patiala House Courts03.10.2015
E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 19
E No. 8/15
03.10.2015
Present : Counsel for petitioners.
Counsel for respondents.
Vide my order of even date, application of leave to defend filed by respondent no. 1 stands dismissed. Respondent no. 1 is given six months time to vacate the premises in question.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(PRASHANT SHARMA) ARC/ACJ/CCJ: New Delhi Patiala House Courts/03.10.2015 E No. 8/15 R. K. Gupta & Ors. Vs M/s M.S.Negi (HUF) & Ant. Page No. 20