Delhi District Court
Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. vs . Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. on 19 December, 2014
Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR GARG
ACJCCJARC(EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Petition No.: E 130/2012
Case ID No.: 02402C0240752012
1.Sh. Rajender Narayan Rastogi
2.Sh. Ashok Kumar Rastogi (Since Deceased)
To be represented by his legal heirs:
a) Smt. Shobha Rastogi (widow)
b) Mr. Nitin Rastogi (son)
c) Smt. Charu Rastogi (married daughter)
All are resident of
1st Floor of House No.357,
Ram Nagar, Delhi110051
3.Sh. Anand Kumar Rastogi
all sons of Late Sh. Badri Prasad
4.Smt. Sudha Rastogi
W/o Late Sh. Ramji Dass Rastogi
All R/o & C/o
R/o E4/10, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi110051. ....Petitioners
VERSUS
1.Smt. Ruchi Alok Dass
W/o Late Sh. Sudhir Dass
2.Sh. Bhuvan Alok Dass
S/o Late Sh. Sudhir Dass
3.Smt. Sheenu
Married daughter of LateSh. Sudhir Dass
All R/o & C/o
X1764B, Rajgarh Colony,
St. No. 9, Delhi110031 ...Respondents
E No. 130/2012 Page No. 1/18
Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors.
UNDER SECTION : 14(1)(e) DRC Act
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.08.2012
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 28.10.2014
DATE OF ORDER : 19.12.2014
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND
MOVED BY THE RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by the respondent seeking leave to defend the eviction petition in hand.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Late Sh. Badri Prasad S/o Sh. Banwari Lal was the owner of property built upon a plot of 233 sq. yards bearing no. E4/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi110051 as he purchased and acquired the same under registered sale deed dated 10.08.1954 from DELHI LAND & FINANCE LTD., a joint stock company. Sh. Badri Prasad expired on 24.09.1968 leaving behind his widow Smt. Ram Kali and her four sons namely Sh. Rajinder Narayan Rastogi, Sh. Ramji Dass Rastogi, Sh. Ashok Kumar Rastogi & Sh. Anand Kumar Rastogi and married daughters. Vide registered Relinquishment Deed dated 01.07.1988, the married daughter of Late Sh. Badri Prasad namely Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Sh. Chunni Lal, Smt. Rajrani W/o Late Sh. Jainti Parasad, Smt. Krishna W/o Sh. Rajender Prasad, Smt. Prem W/o Sh. Ram Chander, Smt. Shashi Bala W/o Sh. Gopal Dass, Smt, Rajni W/o Sh. Prem Chand & Smt. Munni W/o Sh. Mahesh Chand have relinquished E No. 130/2012 Page No. 2/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. their share in favour of their late mother and their four brothers. Thus, the widow and sons of late Sh. Badri Prasad became the coowners to the extent of 1/5th share in the said property in equal rights.
Sh. Ramji Dass, who became the owner of 1/5 th share in the property expired on 30.09.1992 leaving behind his widow Smt. Sudha Rastogi, his mother Ramkali and three married daughters and one son Sh. Sachin Rastogi. Vide registered Relinquishment Deed dated 24.03.2011, the legal heirs of Late Sh. Ram Ji Dass Rastogi i.e. his mother, married daughters and son Sh. Sachin Rastogi relinquished their right in favour of his widow Smt. Sudha Rastogi. Thus, the petitioners no.1 to 3 and Smt. Sudha Rastogi became owners to the extent of 1/4th share in the aforesaid property left by Late Sh. Badri Prasad.
Smt. Ram Kali, the mother of petitioner no.1 to 3, mother in law of poetitioner no.4 executed and registered her last will dated 29.03.2011 thereby leaving and bequeathing her 1/4th share in favour of her three sons and her daughter in law petitioner no.4. Sh. Ram Kali has unfortunately (expired) on 16/10/2011. Thus, now the petitioners no.1 to 4 have become owners of the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share.
This present petition is being filed for the bonafide requirement of the suit premises by petitioner no.1 for the immediate requirement of his son Sh. Ajay Rastogi. Sh. Ajay Rastogi has been working in the rented shop of Sanjeev Sharma, who has been carrying E No. 130/2012 Page No. 3/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. on the business of Estate Agent and/or dealing in sale and purchase of properties in the name and style of M/s Vaibhav Properties in shop No. J5/10, Radheypuri, Krishna Nagar, Delhi51. He is working under him for last about one year and has gained experience in the said business. Now, Sh. Ajay Rastogi S/o Sh. Rajender Narayan Rastogi wants to carry on his independent business in the suit premises and for that purpose, he is entirely dependent upon his father i.e. petitioner no. 1 for the purpose of bonafide requirement of the premises. Neither the petitioner no.1 nor his son has any other property in their name to carry on the said business. Thus, the petitioner no.1 needs the suit premises bonafide, urgently and immediately for carrying on the independent business in the same for his son Sh. Ajay Rastogi, which is in the tenancy of the respondents. The said premises are otherwise lying closed for last several years as the respondent no.1 has been working as a teacher, whereas the respondent no.2 has been working in an MNC at Bangalore, while the respondent no.3 has since been married living with her husband. Neither the petitioner no.1 nor his son has any other reasonably and suitable accommodation to carry on the aforesaid business by Sh. Ajay Rastogi, therefore, the suit premises are required urgently and immediately by the petitioner no.1 to settle his son in the suit premises and in his own property, even otherwise, Sh. Ajay Rastogi is a beneficiary in the property being the grand son of late Sh. Badri Prasad. The suit premises is situated in the Central Place and is most suitable for carrying on the business of Estate E No. 130/2012 Page No. 4/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. Agent. The petitioner no.1 requested the respondents to vacate the premises on account of his bonafide requirement, however, despite admitting the bonafide requirement of the son of the petitioner no.1 the respondents have failed to vacate the same, hence this petition.
3. It is prayed that a decree of eviction of the tenant be passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondents for the tenanted premises Shop No. 9 and 10, situated in property No. E4/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi51 as shown in red colour in the site plan.
4. In application and affidavit, respondent (hereafter referred to as the respondent) has taken following main pleas:
(I) Sh. Ajay Rastogi who is son of plaintiff no. 1 is in no manner dependent upon petitioner no. 1 and other petitioners . He is a married man of 45 years having two children who studied in Hill Wood Academy School, Preet Vihar , which is one of most famous and renowned School of East Delhi. Sh. Ajay Rastogi is residing separately from petitioner no. 1 in Radhey Puri in a three storied building which is his self acquired property being used for both residential and commercial purposes .
(II) Sh. Ajay Rastogi has been doing business in the name and style of M/s Giri Raj Ji properties from his immovable property bearing no. 52 A , Radhey Puri , Extention II, Krishna Nagar Delhi. He has been carrying on the above said business from one of the shop in the suit premises itself .
(III) Sh. Ajay Rastogi has been carrying on business in E No. 130/2012 Page No. 5/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors.
partnership with Sh. Sanjeev Sharma and Rachit Rastogi in the name and style of Vaibhav properties also (IV) Petitioners have deliberately concealed the fact that even the property bearing no. J5/10, Krishna Nagar Delhi is in the name of either Ajay Rastogi or any of his family members . (V) Even in accordance to the case of petitioners , the requirement is an additional requirement and that too on account of a non dependent.
5. Reply alongwith affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner discloses the following material grounds: (I) It is denied that Sh. Ajay Rastogi, son of petitioner no. 1 is not dependent upon him for the purpose of his requirement of suit premises. Younger son of Sh. Ajay Rastogi is studying in Hill Wood Academy School , Preet Vihar Delhi, whereas the elder son is studying in college but that has nothing to do with the requirement of suit premises of Sh. Ajay Rastogi. Fee Structure as given by respondent no. 1 , though exaggerated has nothing to do with the present requirement of son of petitioner no. 1. The property no. 52A Radhey Puri Extention 2, Krishna Nagar Delhi is purely residential in nature and consists of two room set with mezzanine floor on ground floor and similar set on first floor which is owned by daughter in law of petitioner no. 1 namely Bhawna Rastogi wife of Sh. Ajay Rastogi as is clear from documents of purchase dated 24.4.1996.
(II). It is denied that Sh. Ajay Rastogi has been carrying on E No. 130/2012 Page No. 6/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. business in the name and style of M/s Giri Raj Ji properties from flats no 52A, Radhey Puri Extention 2 Delhi, which business cannot be carried out in a flat of 50 Sq. Yds where Sh. Ajay Rastogi has been residing with his wife and two grown up sons on both floors I.e Ajay Rastogi and his wife are residing on the first floor and his sons have been residing on the ground floor.
(III). It is denied that Sh. Sanjeev Rastogi has not joined the business with Sh. Sanjeev Sharma to gain experience in estate business. It is denied that Rachit Rastogi is carrying on the business with Sh. Sanjeev Sharma. It is further stated that Vaibhav Property is owned by Sh. Sanjeev Sharma who is an old tenant of Shop No. J5/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi which is clear from rent agreement dated 17.09.12. It is further mentioned that suit premises is lying locked and respondent cannot question bonafide requirement of petitioner No. 1 and his son.
(IV). It is denied that property No. J5/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi is in the name of Sh. Ajay Rastogi. It is further stated that such allegations are false.
(V). It is denied that present requirement is a case of additional need of petitioner No. 1 and his son.
6. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner argued that none of the grounds raised by the respondent constituted a triable issue. Also, that the landlord was the best judge of his requirement for space and retained the prerogative to utilize her own property in a manner of his E No. 130/2012 Page No. 7/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. choice.
7. The Ld. counsel for the respondent argued that the present petition was only a ploy to evict tenant without any bona fide requirement of the petitioner who was in possession of alternative accommodation. The Counsel agitated that trial was required on the aspect of availability of alternative accommodation.
8. Petitioner has relied upon the case laws viz Bantam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaspal Singh Kapoor, 189 (2012) DLT 59, Safiquiddin Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, 193 (2012) DLT 788.
9. Respondent has relied upon the following case laws i.e Deepak Gupta Vs. Sushma Aggarwal, decided on 24.07.13, Rakesh Kumar Vs. Pawan Khanna decided on 10.10.12, Jai Bhagwan and Anr. Vs. Raghuvir Saran decided on 24.09.12, Narender Kumar Manchanda Vs. Hemant Kumar Talwar decided on 10.12.12, all decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
10. The court has considered the respective affidavits of the parties and the submissions of Shri C.S. Bhandari, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Sh. Gaurav Seth, Ld. Counsel for respondent and also perused the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties.
11. 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.
E No. 130/2012 Page No. 8/18
Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors.
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.
12. The aspect of ownership of the property in question may be taken up first. Respondent has not challenged the ownership of petitioners over the property in question. Hence, there is no dispute on this aspect between the parties and no triable issue arises on this aspect.
13. Ld. Counsel for respondent contended that Sh. Ajay Rastogi for whose requirement, the present petition has been filed, is in no manner dependent upon petitioner No. 1 and other petitioners. He conteded that he is a married man of 45 years having two children who are studying in one of the most famous and renouned schools of East Delhi and further contended that he is separately residing in three storeyed building which is his self acquired property being used for residential as well as commercial purposes.
14. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for petitioner contended that Sh. Ajay Rastogi is dependent on his father and he further contended that studying of children of Sh. Ajay Rastogi in Hillwood Academy School has nothing to do with the requirement of suit premises for Sh. Ajay Rastogi. He further contended that fees structure E No. 130/2012 Page No. 9/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. given by respondent No. 1 has been exaggerated. He further contended that property No. 52A, Radhey Puri, ExtensionII, Krishna Nagar is purely residential in nature and same is owned by his wife and daughterinlaw of petitioner No. 1.
15. Perusal of the present petition would show that same has been filed by for the requirement of commercial space for son of petitioner No. 1. As per petitioner No. 1, his son is dependent upon him for requirement of suit premises. If the children of Sh. Ajay Rastogi are studying in good school, that does not mean he has no requirement of space for his use or he cannot be called dependent on his father for purpose of space required for commercial purpose. It is not that petition on bonafide requirement is maintainable only when some family member is dependent on the petitioner financially. As per petitioner, property bearing No. 52A, Radhey Puri, in which Sh. Ajay Rastogi is residing is in the name of his wife and which cannot be said self acquired property of Sh. Ajay Rastogi. He has also placed on record documents as per which Smt. Bhawna Rastogi is owner of said property. Further, petitioner has alleged that same is purely residential and not for commercial purposes. No proof has been filed on behalf of respondent for showing that same can be used for residential as well as for commercial purposes. Mere assertions are not sufficient for granting leave to defend.
16. The Court may refer here to the decision in Mukesh Kumar v. Rishi Prakash 174(2010) Delhi Law Times 64, cited by the E No. 130/2012 Page No. 10/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. Counsel for the petitioner, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"A bald plea, without anything more, particularly when the nature of the plea in defence is 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........."
17. Ld. counsel for respondent contended that Sh. Ajay Rastogi has been doing business in the name and style M/s Giri Raj Ji properties from his immovable property bearing no. 52A , Radhey Puri and he has also been carrying on the above said business from one of the shop in the suit premises itself. He further contended that he has been also carrying on business in partnership with Sh. Sanjeev Sharma and Sh. Rachit Rastogi in the name and style of Vaibhav Properties. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel petitioner contended that Sh. Ajay Rastogi is not carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Giri Raj Ji properties from flats no. 52A Radhey Puri as business cannot be carried out in a flat of 50 Sq. Yds where he is residing with his wife and two grown up sons on both floors . Ajay Rastogi and his wife are stated to be residing on first floor and his sons have been residing on the ground floor. He also contended that Sh. Ajay Rastogi joined business with Sh. Sanjeev Sharma to gain experience in estate business and denied that Sh. Rachit Rastogi is carrying on business with Sh. Sanjeev Sharm. He further contended that Vaibhav Properties E No. 130/2012 Page No. 11/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. is owned by Sh. Sanjeev Sharma who is an old tenant of shop no. J5 /10 , Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
18. Perusal of the file would that petitioner has placed on record copy of registered GPA, registered Will, Agreement deed, Affidavit , Receipt, which pertains to part of property no. 52, measuring area of 50 Sq. Yds along with its whole of the structure of two room set with mazenine floor, two room set with mazenine floor,situated at Abadi of Radhey Puri Extension in the favour of Smt. Bhavna Rastogi wife of Sh. Ajay Rastogi. From the documents it appears to be property for residential use and not for commercial purpose. The respondent has not shown where exactly the alleged business by the name of Sh. Giri Raj Ji Properties is being run. The respondent has not also shown how he has claimed that the above said property is self acquired property of Sh. Ajay Rastogi.
19. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon one photograph of name plate in which name of Sh. Ajay Rastogi has been mentioned and also on copy of voter list in which address of Sh. Ajay Rastogi and his wife has been shown of 52A. In the opinion of the court, said documents are not sufficient to prove the ownership of said premises in the name of Sh. Ajay Rastogi. However it is admitted case of petitioner also that Sh. Ajay Rastogi is residing in the above said premises with his wife and children.
20. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon alleged Home page of "Shashwat Infrasolutions" stating that name of the firm E No. 130/2012 Page No. 12/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. as Sh. Giri Raj Ji at address 52A Radhey Puri has been shown of Sh. Ajay Rastogi which shows that Sh. Ajay Rastogi is working from the said Address in properties. The petitioner has disputed the genuineness of the website/ advertisement of Shashwat Infrasolutions Company stating that same has been fabricated to create false and fake evidence in the name of Sh. Ajay Rastogi and no such website was made by Sh. Ajay Rastogi. Perusal of the leave to defend application would show that the respondent has not mentioned the source, date and time from where and when he got the above said home page which becomes essential keeping in view the stand taken by the petitioner.
21. The respondent has filed two colour copy of photographs showing the sign board by the name of Sh Giri Raj Ji Properties. It is mentioned in leave to defend application that said business is being run from one of the shop of the petitioners. Perusal of said photographs would show that the alleged shop has been shown closed in them. It was contended on behalf of petitioner that it is the same shop of petitioner of sale and purchase of cold drinks which he has already disclosed in his petition and there is no another shop as alleged on behalf of respondent. Respondent has not filed any photograph showing that what business / work is being done in the said alleged shop. Mere filing of photograph of sign board is not sufficient for coming to conclusion that alleged business is being run in the said shop.
E No. 130/2012 Page No. 13/18
Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors.
22. It was also contended on behalf of respondent that Sh Ajay Rastogi is also partner in the business of Vaibhav Properties with Sh Sanjeev Sharma and Sh Rachit Rastogi. He further contended that petitioners have concealed the fact that property bearing no J5/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi is in the name of either Ajay Rastogi or any of his family members. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that Sh Ajay Rastogi joined Sh Sanjeev Sharma for gaining experience in the field of Estate and he is not partner with him. He further contended that above said property is not in the name of Ajay Rastogi and allegations are false.
23. Ld Counsel for respondent has drawn the attention of this court towards home page of website of magicbricks.com stating that there is mention of Vaibhav Properties on the same. Perusal of the said web page would show that no details of the partner or proprietor of the same has been mentioned and neither date, time and source of the said web page has been disclosed. He has also relied upon one visiting card in which names of "Sanjeev Sharma, Ajay Rastogi, Rachit Rastogi" have been mentioned. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of petitioner that visiting card in the name of above said persons has been fabricated by respondent in collusion with other tenant to create false evidence whereas Sh Sanjeev Sharma has his own independent visiting card. He has also drawn attention of this court towards photocopy of visiting card in which only name of Sh Sanjeev Sharma has been mentioned. The respondent has also E No. 130/2012 Page No. 14/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. placed on record the copy of rent agreement alleged to be made between Sh. Sandeep Goel and Sh Sanjeev Sharma in respect of one shop on ground floor bearing no. J5/10, situated at Krishna Nagar, Delhi. No document pertaining to partnership deed has been filed on behalf of respondent. Neither he has filed any proof showing that above said shop bearing no. J5/10 belong to petitioners.
24. So keeping in view the above facts, no much weight can be given to the colour copy of photographs and visiting card filed on behalf of the respondent.
The court would rely upon the following judgment : Rajender Kumar Sharma & others Vs. Leela Wati and Others 155 (2008) DLT 383, the Court held that:
"Mere assertions made by a tenant in respect of landlord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of alternate accommodation are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend. If this is allowed, the whole purpose of Section 25B shall stands defeated and any tenant can file a false affidavit and drag a case for years together in evidence, defeating the very purpose of the statute."
25. Further it is not the prerogative of tenant to advice the landlord how the space is to be utilised by the landlord. It is settled law that tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord in selection of manner of use of space of which he or she is landlord.
E No. 130/2012 Page No. 15/18
Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors.
26. The Court refers to the observations of the Apex Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778, wherein it was observed that:
"The need of the landlord is to be presumed as genuine and bona fide and it is not for the tenant to prove that the need is not bona fide. Heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the need is not genuine."
27. The respondent is not entitled to leave to contest the petition on this ground.
28. A tenant cannot dictate terms to a landlord in the matter of using his property in a particular manner.
29. The Court would cite here the decision of the Apex Court in Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 252 wherein it was held that:
"It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose the nature of the business and the place of the business."
30. In Raghavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & company(2001) 1 SCC 679, it was observed that:
"Landlord is the best judge of his requirement. It is not open to the Court to dictate him in what manner he should use his premises. He has got complete freedom in the matter."
31. Perusal of leave to defend would show that the respondent has taken the plea that petitioners have one more shop from which business in the name and style of M/s Giri Raj Ji Properties E No. 130/2012 Page No. 16/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. is being run. It is also mentioned that he is also doing said business from his immovable property bearing no. 52A, Radheypuri Extension II, Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
32. Perusal of record would show that the respondent has failed to show that alleged one more shop from where business in the name and style of M/s Giri Raj Ji Properties is being run. No documentary proof has been filed. Respondent has also been not able to show by the material on record that alleged business of property is being run from property no. 52A, Radheypuri ExtensionII, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. However petitioner has shown that same is a residential area and no shop is available there. The respondent has also failed to show how the requirement of petitioner no.1 is case of additional requirement when he has failed to show where Sh. Ajay Rastogi was earlier doing his own business. Mere assertions are not sufficient for granting leave to defend in eviction petition on ground of bonafide need.
33. In the present facts, the respondent has failed to show that petitioner is having any other suitable accommodation.
34. The judgment relied upon by respondents as not applicable to the facts of present petition being distinguishable on facts.
35. Ld Counsel for petitioner had contended that the shop in question is lying close for more than 89 years and not in the use of respondent. Perusal of reply to counter affidavit filed on behalf of E No. 130/2012 Page No. 17/18 Rajender Narayan Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Ruchi Alok Dass & Ors. respondent would show that same fact has not been disputed by the respondents.
36. None of the grounds asserted in the affidavit of the respondent seeking leave to contest 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.
37. The application for grant of leave to defend, filed on behalf of the respondent, is dismissed.
38. An eviction order is passed against the respondent qua Shop No. 9 and 10, situated in property No. E4/10, Krishna Nagar, Delhi51, as shown in the red colour in the site plan filed with the present petition.
39. The petitioner would not be entitled to obtain possession of the above shop before the expiration 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.
40. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
Delhi Dated the 19.12.2014 This Judgment contains 18 pages and each paper is signed by me.
(DEVENDER KUMAR GARG) ACJcumCCJcumARC(E) KKD Courts, Delhi E No. 130/2012 Page No. 18/18