Delhi District Court
Sh. S. Harbant Singh Sahni vs Sh. Roshan Lal on 8 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANDEEP GARG: ADMINISTRATIVE
CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER
(CENTRAL) : DELHI
E156/2013
Unique ID No : 02401C0154742013
In the matter of:
1. Sh. S. Harbant Singh Sahni,
S/o Late Sh. Kesar Singh,
2. Sh. S. Swaranbir Singh Sahni,
S/o Late Sh. Kesar Singh,
Both R/o 7A/2, Channa Market,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
....Petitioners
Versus
Sh. Roshan Lal,
S/o Late Sh. Behari Lal Sikri,
Shop Pvt. No.1, Ground Floor of
property no. 7A2, Channa Market,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
.....Respondent
O R D E R:
1. Vide this order, an application for leave to defend, filed on behalf of the respondent under Section 25B (4) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, E156/2013 Page 1/28 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act, 1958) seeking leave to contest the present eviction petition is disposed of.
2. The present eviction petition was filed by the petitioners namely Sh. S. Harbant Singh Sahni and Sh. S. Swaranbir Singh Sahni against the respondent namely Sh. Roshan Lal. It is averred that the petitioners are the owners of property bearing no.7A/2, W.E.A., Channa Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005 by virtue of succession after the death of their mother, Smt. Jaswant Kaur who expired on 16.03.1988. The respondent is a tenant in respect of one shop at ground floor bearing Pvt. No.1, in property no. 7A/2, W.E.A., Channa Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, as shown in red colour in the site plan, at a monthly rent of Rs. 330/ per month excluding electricity and water charges. The tenanted premises was let out for commercial purposes and is being used for running dry cleaning shop in the name and style of M/s Jugmug Delux Drycleaners where three employees are working.
3. There are three shops in the property on ground and the E156/2013 Page 2/28 petitioners have got one shop bearing Pvt. No. 3, in their possession which is in the process of repair and renovation and shall be occupied by S. Harjot Singh (son of petitioner no.1) for starting his business i.e. for the purpose, for which it was got vacated. The another shop bearing Pvt. No. 2 has already been disposed of to the sitting tenant during the pendency of the eviction petition. The tenanted shop bearing Pvt. No. 1 consists of the existing stairs from rear side for access to the upper floors i.e. first floor, second floor & terrace floor of the building. The existing stairs are interconnecting from the tenanted shop. These stairs are to be reconstructed to give access from the front side of the tenanted shop.
4. The petitioners requires the tenanted premises bonafide for constructing staircase for approach to the upper floors. The petitioners are senior citizens and retired from their profession and have no source of income to meet their day to day expenses. The petitioners are registered under Bed and Breakfast Scheme of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and are having registration of six rooms (five rooms on first floor and one room on second floor) to meet their household expenses. The petitioners have got one shop, E156/2013 Page 3/28 bearing Pvt. No.3 on ground floor of the building after the tenant was evicted in terms of order dated 25.04.2012 passed by Hon'ble High Court in rent revision petition no. 27/2010. The said shop is in the process of renovation and shall be utilized by S. Harjot Singh (son of petitioner no.1) who is the only male member of the family and is young to earn a living for the family. The petitioner no.1 is about 79 years old and is having one unmarried son S. Harjot Singh who is aged 34 years. The petitioner no.2 is about 69 years old and is a bachelor.
5. Vide letter dated 15.02.2013 Department of Tourism, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has desired that the entrance of the Bed and Breakfast Establishment may be made from the main road from side, instead of rear entry. Further, the department has desired that it would be more convenient for the guests and will provide ample parking space for the guests. The petitioners are having no other space on the ground floor to raise the stairs from the front side of the building, except the tenanted shop. The stairs can be most conveniently constructed from the tenanted shop as it already has the space to access the upper floors since the existing stairs are situated at rear E156/2013 Page 4/28 side of the tenanted shop. The petitioners have got no other alternative, but to get the tenanted shop vacated in order to comply with the directions of the Department of Tourism, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and to make the existing Bed and Breakfast Establishment running on upper floors more successful and viable in terms of money. The petitioners are having no other source of income, except the existing establishment. It is prayed that an eviction order may be passed in respect of the tenanted premises as shown in red colour in the site plan.
6. The respondent has filed an application for leave to defend U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of DRC Act to defend and contest the eviction petition. The respondent has contended that the present petition for eviction is misconceived and the same is not maintainable. There are three shops on the ground floor of property no. 7A/2, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The shop in question is in occupation of the respondent, which has been mentioned as Shop No.1 in the site plan filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had filed a petition for eviction in respect of Shop No.2 against Sh. Ram Nath Nayyar in the year 2009. An application for leave to defend E156/2013 Page 5/28 was filed in the said eviction petition. The petitioners sold the said Shop No. 2 of the suit property to Sh. Ram Nath Nayyar and a registered sale deed in respect of the said Shop No.2 was executed in favour of Sh. Ram Nath Nayyar. The petitioners are in habit of filing petitions for eviction against tenants on the ground of bonafide requirement U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of the DRC Act.
7. The petitioners had filed another petition for eviction in respect of Shop No.3 of the property and they have got the said Shop No.3 vacated. The petitioners have not occupied the said shop till date and they are not carrying on any work in the said Shop No.3. The petition for eviction in respect of Shop No.3 was also filed with mischievous motives and the petitioners now want to sell the said Shop No.3 also for a huge amount. The petitioners are waiting for period of three years to lapse as eviction order was passed on 25.04.2012, so that no petition U/s 19 of the DRC Act is filed for the restitution of the possession of Shop No.3 situated on the ground floor of the suit property.
E156/2013 Page 6/28
8. Had the petitioners required the said Shop No.3, situated on the ground floor of the property bonafidely, they would not have waited for period of one year to lapse and not to commence any work in the said shop. No renovation work has been done in the said Shop No.3 by the petitioners till date. The Shop No.3 is lying locked and no work is being carried on in the said shop. Absolutely false allegations are made that the renovation work will be done in the said Shop No.3 and the same will be utilized by Sh. Harjot Singh.
9. The present petition for eviction has been filed alleging that the petitioners require the demised premises/Shop No. 1, which is in occupation of the respondent, for taking out a staircase from the front side of the suit property. As per the provisions of Section 336 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the petitioners have got no right to take out a staircase from the front side of the suit property unless and until they have got the plans sanctioned from the MCD. There is no averment in the eviction petition that the petitioners have applied to the MCD for getting the plans sanctioned U/s 336 of the DMC Act. As per the building byelaws, taking out a staircase E156/2013 Page 7/28 from the front side of the property comes within the definition of substantial additions and alterations for which a plan is required to be mandatorily got sanctioned from the MCD.
10. The petitioners have alleged that they want to take out a staircase from the demised premises. Above the shop/demised premises of the Respondent, there is a room built thereon on the first floor and above the first floor potion of the suit property also there is a room build thereon. The allegations are totally false and baseless because if the petitioners want to build a staircase from the demised premises then the petitioners will have to sacrifice two rooms, one on the first floor and one on the second floor of the suit property. On one hand, it is being alleged that the premises, being used for bed and breakfast, is the only source of income for the petitioners and on the other hand, the petitioners will have to sacrifice two rooms for raising the construction of a staircase. No man of ordinary prudence can believe that the petitioners will sacrifice two rooms, one on the first floor and another on the second floor portion of the suit property, for raising the construction of a staircase from the demised premises. The allegations are, E156/2013 Page 8/28 therefore, totally false and baseless.
11. No plan can be sanctioned in respect of the suit property, which is more than 100 sq. mtrs. without making a stilt parking in the property. The petitioners have already sold the Shop No. 2 of the suit property to Shri Ram Nath Nayyar and no plan can be got sanctioned by the petitioners without making a stilt parking in the property. Since the petitioners have not applied for getting any plan sanctioned and as they have already sold Shop No. 2 to Shri Ram Nath Nayyar, they have got no right to make any staircase from the front side of the suit property as is being alleged by them.
12. As per circular No. CC(B)/2011/D79 dated 27.04.2011 issued by the Chief Engineer (Building), MCD, no building plan can be sanctioned in respect of property which is falling in the area of MCD without getting plan sanctioned with making a stilt parking. The person getting plans sanctioned even has to file an affidavit of undertaking before the MCD that he will make a stilt parking in the property. In this case the petitioners have neither applied for getting any plans sanctioned, nor have filed any affidavitcum E156/2013 Page 9/28 undertaking before the MCD. Therefore, the petition is totally premature and is not maintainable because without getting the plans sanctioned, no construction of staircase can be raised from the front side of the suit property/shop of the Respondent.
13. The suit property measure 189 sq. yds. in area, therefore, circular No. CC(B)/2011/D79 dated 27.04.2011 issued by the Chief Engineer (Building), MCD, is fully applicable to the property and as already mentioned above, the making of a stilt parking is mandatory. Therefore, the petitioners cannot make a staircase from the front side of the property without getting any plans sanctioned from the MCD. The petitioners have also got a staircase, which leads to the first and second floor portions of the property. The petitioners have not alleged that something is wrong with the said staircase, which already exists, and the petitioners are in collusion and connivance with the officials of Department of Tourism, Govt. of NCT and they have manipulated a letter when there is no requirement in law that the staircase has to be from the front side of the property for taking any license for Bed and Breakfast Establishment.
E156/2013 Page 10/28
14. The respondent is 80 years old and due to old age, he has to take the support for walking and the demised premises is the only source of livelihood for the respondent. The petitioner cannot be allowed to indulge into the luxury litigation alleging that the front side of the property is required by them for making a staircase leading to first and second floor portions of the property. The petitioners have not filed any proposed site plan showing as to whether they can take out a staircase leading to first and second floor portions of the property. They have also not filed on record any structural safety report from the Engineer showing that they can take out the staircase from the front side of the property. The petitioners have also not filed on record any valuation report mentioning therein as to how much amount would be required to be spent for making out the said staircase from the front side of the property. They have also not filed on record any estimate in this regard and they have also not placed on record any document to show that they have got sufficient funds to spend on this project. The petition is totally vague and sketchy in this regard and there in no need of the petitioners, what to talk of any bonafide need. The petitioners are in the E156/2013 Page 11/28 habit of filing the petitions for eviction in order to sell the shops at a very high price after getting the same vacated. The present petition has also been filed with this motive alone.
15. The petitioners are already in occupation of more than reasonably suitable accommodation. The desire being set up by the petitioners for having the demised premises vacated is in fact being set up for additional accommodation. It has been held by our own High Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court that whenever allegations are being made for additional accommodation by the petitioner then the tenants are entitled to leave to defend. The petitioners have not deliberately, intentionally and willfully disclosed the correct facts in the petition for eviction when the petitioners are already in occupation of more than reasonably suitable accommodation. The petitioners have concealed the extent of accommodation in their possession and have not come to the court with clean hands and have further tried to create an artificial scarcity of accommodation. Other false, frivolous and baseless allegations have also been made in the petition for eviction, which are totally wrong, sham, evasive and baseless and all are concocted and E156/2013 Page 12/28 cooked up with a view to get the respondent evicted by hook or crook.
16. The petitioners filed their reply alongwith counter affidavit to the application for leave to defend, filed by the respondent and have denied the allegations leveled by the respondent in his application for leave to defend and reaffirmed their stance, as averred in the petition.
17. Respondent filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the petitioner were controverted and rebutted. The averments made in application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed.
18. The court has heard submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and have perused the material on record.
19. While deciding the question as to whether leave to defend should be granted or refused, the Court is required to examine the case on the following aspects :
(a) That the petitioner is owner of the suit premises;
(b) Purpose of letting;
E156/2013 Page 13/28
(c) That the premises is required bonafide by the petitioner; and
(d) That the petitioner has no other alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi.
20. In Precision Metal & Engg. Works Vs. Prema Deva, Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, it has been held that "while deciding the application for leave to contest, the controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under Sub Section (4) and the reply if any. On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by the landlord, the controller has to pose to himself the only question, "Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in clause of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". The controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits."
The gist of the various decisions is that if any triable issue is raised in the application which can not be decided unless the parties lead evidence, leave to contest should be granted. In all other cases, the leave has E156/2013 Page 14/28 to be refused.
21. In Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh (2002) 7 SCC 614, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "If the Court is satisfied that though in the pleadings an issue is raised but that is not a triable issue then the Court is justified in refusing the leave to defend. A defence, which is practically moonshine, sham or illusory can not be held to be raising a triable issue. Else the whole purpose behind enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a contest unless leave was granted, would stand defeated." Ownership
22. The respondent has not disputed ownership of the petitioners in respect of the tenanted shop. Therefore, the court holds that the petitioners are owners of the tenanted premises and they are landlords in respect of the tenanted premises, qua the respondent.
Purpose of Letting E156/2013 Page 15/28
23. Purpose of letting has become redundant as in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 705 Supreme Court, it has been held that the premises let out either for residential or for commercial purposes can be got vacated by the landlord for bonafide requirements. Availability or NonAvailability of alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi
24. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners are already in occupation of more than sufficient reasonably suitable accommodation. They have concealed the extent of accommodation in their possession and have not come to the court with clean hands. They have tried to create artificial scarcity of accommodation. Shop No.3 is already in possession of the petitioners. The purported requirement of the petitioners is in fact need for additional accommodation and it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi that whenever allegations for additional accommodation are made by the landlord, the tenants are entitled to grant of leave to defend.
E156/2013 Page 16/28
25. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent has failed to specify as to how the petitioners are in occupation of more than sufficient reasonably suitable accommodation. The respondent has failed to give details of the extent of accommodation available with the petitioners which have been allegedly concealed by the petitioners. Shop No.3 is required for use by son of petitioner no.1 for earning his livelihood. It is denied that the requirement of the petitioners is in fact need for additional accommodation.
26. The court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent. The respondent has failed to specify as to how the petitioners are in occupation of more than sufficient reasonably suitable accommodation and he has not given details of the extent of accommodation available with the petitioners which have been allegedly concealed by them. It is not disputed that shop no.3 was got vacated by the petitioners for use by son of petitioner no.1 for earning his livelihood. The purported requirement of the petitioners is not based on need for additional accommodation as the petitioners have filed copy of letter dated 15.02.2013 E156/2013 Page 17/28 written by Department of Tourism, GNCT of Delhi, whereby it is desired by the tourism department that the entrance to Bed and Breakfast Establishment may be made from the main road (front side) in place of existing rear entry. The existing staircase cannot be considered to be 'sufficient accommodation available with the petitioners'. Therefore, court holds that the petitioners have been successful in prima facie establishing that they are not having any other reasonably suitable accommodation for raising construction of staircase leading to the Bed and Breakfast Establishment and the respondent has not been able to raise any triable issue.
Bonafide requirement
27. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners had earlier filed an eviction petition in respect of Shop No.2 against the tenant, Sh. Ram Nath Nayyar. An application for leave to defend was filed by the tenant and during pendency of the eviction petition, the petitioners sold the said Shop No.2 to the tenant by executing a sale deed. The petitioners are in habit of filing eviction petitions against the tenants on the ground of bonafide requirement. The petitioners had also got Shop No.3 vacated from E156/2013 Page 18/28 the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement, but they have not occupied the said shop till date and no work is being carried out from the said Shop No.3. The petitioners are waiting for statutory period of three years to lapse. Shop No.3 is lying locked and no renovation work has been done in that shop. This establishes the malafides of the petitioners.
28. The petitioners cannot construct a staircase from the front side of the property without getting the sketch and plans sanctioned from MCD. There is no averment in the petition that petitioners have applied for getting the plans sanctioned U/s 336 of the DMC Act. As per bye laws, in respect of properties with more than 100 sq. mtrs., no plan can be sanctioned without making a stilt parking. Shop No.2 has already been sold by the petitioners to the tenant and therefore, they cannot construct any stilt parking. The present petition is premature and not maintainable. Moreover, the petitioners will have to sacrifice two rooms, one situated on the first floor and another situated on the second floor for raising construction of the staircase. No man of ordinary prudence can believe that the petitioners will sacrifice two rooms for constructing a staircase in the tenanted shop.
E156/2013 Page 19/28
29. The petitioners have already got a staircase which leads to the first and second floors of the property. The petitioners have not averred that there is something wrong with the already existing staircase and they are in collusion with the officials of Department of Tourism, GNCT of Delhi whereby they have manipulated a letter. There is no requirement in law that staircase has to be from the front side of the property for taking license for running a Bed and Breakfast Establishment. The petitioners have not file any structural safety in court from an Engineer or any valuation report reflecting as to how much amount will be required to construct the proposed staircase. No document has been filed to establish that the petitioners have got sufficient funds to spend for constructing the proposed staircase.
30. Ld. Counsel for respondent has placed reliance upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Santosh Devi Soni vs. Chand Kiran, JT 2000 (3) SC 397; Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222; M.M. Quasim vs. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1113; P.S. Devgun vs. S.P. Walia, 1975 RLR E156/2013 Page 20/28 (Note) 71; Liaq Ahmed & Ors. vs. HabeeburRehman, (2000) 5 SCC 708; Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand, (1983) 1 SCC 301; Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal and Kailash Chand vs. Sakhir Chand, 1984 RLR (Note) 58 and judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Bharat Glass & Plywood Co. vs. Sushan Pal Soni in R.C. Rev. No. 46/2013, decided on 21.03.2014; Giri Raj vs. Sheela Devi in R.C. Rev. No. 328/2012, decided on 25.02.2014; Prit Pal Singh vs. Ramesh Kumar Dora in R.C. Rev. No. 444/2012, decided on 06.01.2014; Sanjay Chug vs. Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr. in R.C. Rev. No. 100/2013, decided on 06.01.2014; Chaman Lal vs. Batuk Prasad Jaitly in R.C. Rev. No. 171/2011, decided on 02.01.2014; Davinder Pal Singh & Ors. vs. M/s Pritam Prakash Dawar & Sons (HUF) in R.C. Rev. No. 222/2013, decided on 06.11.2013; Krishan Kumar Bhasin & Ors. vs. M/s Pritam Prakash Dawar & Sons (HUF) in R.C. Rev. No. 223/2013, decided on 06.11.2013; Khem Chand & Ors. vs. Arjun Jain & Ors. in R.C. Rev. No. 442/2012, decided on 13.09.2013; Deepak Gupta vs. Sushma Aggarwal in R.C. Rev. No. 180/2013, decided on 24.07.2013; E156/2013 Page 21/28 Vijay Kumar Jewelers & Ors. vs. Smt. Sunita Soni & Ors. in R.C. Rev. No. 225/2012, decided on 12.12.2012; Sri Kishan vs. Rohitas Saini in R.C. Rev. No. 114/2010, decided on 02.03.2012; Mohd. Jafar & Ors. vs. Nasra Begum in R.C. Rev. No. 279/2011, decided on 09.07.2012; Ganga Dass vs. D.N. Singhal & Anr. in R.C. Rev. No. 276/2012, decided on 09.07.2012; Shri Nem Chand Jain vs. Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr. in R.C. Rev. No. 265/2012, decided on 02.07.2012; M/s S.K. Seth & Ors. vs. Vijay Bhalla in R.C. Rev. No. 268/2012, decided on 25.07.2012; Ram Devi vs. Raj Rani & Anr. in R.C. Rev. No. 381/2012, decided on 14.12.2012; Prahlad Rai Mittal vs. Smt. Rita Rani in R.C. Rev. No. 102/2012, decided on 21.12.2012; Indermani vs. Ajay Prakash Gupta in R.C. Rev. No. 563/2012, decided on 26.11.2012; Narender Kumar Manchanda & Anr. vs. Hemant Kumar Talwar in R.C. Rev. No. 107/2012, decided on 10.12.2012; M/s Gopal Dass & Sons vs. Dineshwar Nath Kedar in R.C. Rev. No. 240/2011, decided on 21.12.2012; Tarun Pahwa vs. Pradeep Makin in R.C. Rev. No. 75/2012, decided on 21.12.2012; Kiran Sachdeva & Anr. vs. Pushpa Devi & Anr. in R.C. Rev. No. 216/2012, decided on 21.12.2012; Sunil Kumar vs. Sahi E156/2013 Page 22/28 Ram in R.C. Rev. No. 41/2011, decided on 05.10.2011 and Rajbir Pal & Anr. vs. Kanwar Pratap Singh in R.C. Rev. No. 209/2010, decided on 12.10.2011.
31. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Shop No.2 was sold way back on 25.11.2009 as petitioner no.1's wife has been suffering from severe heart ailments and there was severe paucity of funds to meet her medical requirements. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to sell Shop No.2 to the tenant for a meager sale consideration of Rs. 11 lacs. The Shop No.3 was got vacated for personal requirement of son of petitioner no.1. The shop was in a very bad shape as there was seepage of water in the walls and foundation. It was badly infected with termites. The petitioners had obtained reports from pest control agency and Architect, Sh. Amit Goel who submitted estimate cost of constructing the foundation of walls to be Rs. 5 lacs. Son of petitioner no.1 had suffered from serious problem in the lungs since January, 2012. He was even operated upon in February, 2012 and is still under heavy medication. It is denied that Shop No.3 is lying locked. Repair work is already going on in Shop No.3.
E156/2013 Page 23/28
32. It is averred that the petitioners are not intending to construct any new staircase. They want to reconstruct/refurbish the existing staircase and to give access to the Bed and Breakfast Establishment from the front side, as desired by the Department of Tourism vide its letter dated 15.02.2013. It is denied that any sanction is required to be obtained from MCD or that two rooms will be sacrificed as no new staircase is to be constructed. The petitioners will starve if the Bed and Breakfast Establishment is deregistered by the Department of Tourism on account of failure to comply with its directions contained in letter dated 15.02.2013.
33. The petitioners have not claimed that there is anything wrong with the existing staircase, but they want to reconstruct/refurbish the existing staircase and to give access to the Bed and Breakfast Establishment from the front side, as desired by the Department of Tourism vide its letter dated 15.02.2013. It is reiterated that no new staircase is proposed to be constructed and therefore, there is no need for any structural safety report. It is no longer res integra that it is not incumbent upon the landlord to initiate E156/2013 Page 24/28 any prior action for use of the tenanted premises before the same is actually vacated. It is denied that the petitioners are in collusion with officials of the Department of Tourism, GNCT of Delhi.
34. The court is of the considered view that it is no longer res integra that the previous sale transaction in respect of other properties of the landlord are not to be taken into consideration while deciding application for leave to defend filed by the tenant and only the existence of reasonable alternative suitable accommodation is required to be examined. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that the sale of Shop No. 2 to the tenant during pendency of eviction petition establishes lack of bonafides on part of the petitioners. As regards, Shop No.3, admittedly, it was got vacated by the petitioners on the ground of personal requirement of son of petitioner no.1. If the son of petitioner no.1 does not occupy Shop No.3, statutory remedy U/s 19 of the DRC Act is available to the erstwhile tenant. There is no merit in the contentions raised by the respondent.
35. The petitioners have categorically averred that they do not want E156/2013 Page 25/28 to construct any new staircase and they just want to reconstruct/refurbish the existing staircase and to give access to the Bed and Breakfast Establishment from the front side, as desired by the Department of Tourism vide its letter dated 15.02.2013 and therefore, no rooms at all will be sacrificed. The respondent has failed to raise any triable issue on this aspect.
36. It is admitted by the petitioners that there is nothing wrong with the existing staircase, but they want to reconstruct/refurbish the existing staircase and to give access to the Bed and Breakfast Establishment from the front side, as desired by the Department of Tourism vide its letter dated 15.02.2013 and therefore, there is no need for any structural safety report. It is no longer res integra that it is not incumbent upon the landlord to initiate any prior action for use of the tenanted premises before the same is actually vacated. The respondent has failed to file any document/material on record to prima facie establish that the petitioners are in collusion with officials of the Department of Tourism, GNCT of Delhi. Therefore, the court holds that the respondent has failed to raise any triable issue regarding the bonafide requirement of the petitioners, whereas the petitioners have been able to E156/2013 Page 26/28 establish that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by them for reconstructing/refurbishing the existing staircase and to give access to the Bed and Breakfast Establishment, as desired by the Department of Tourism.
37. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that the respondent has failed to set up any triable issue which requires inquiry or trial. In other words, primafacie there is nothing on record which would disentitle the petitioners of the right of immediate possession in respect of the tenanted premises.
38. Accordingly, the application under Section 25B (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by the respondent is dismissed. The petition is allowed and eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of one shop at ground floor bearing Pvt. No.1, in property no. 7A/2, W.E.A., Channa Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, as shown in red colour in the siteplan alongwith the petition. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
E156/2013 Page 27/28
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (SANDEEP GARG)
on 08.12.2014 Administrative Civil Judge cum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/08.12.2014
E156/2013 Page 28/28
E156/13
08.12.2014
Present : Sh. Amit Sethi, Ld. Counsel for petitioners.
Sh. Sunil Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Reply to application U/s 151 CPC filed on behalf of respondent. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for petitioners submits that he does not want to press his application U/s 151 CPC in view of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Gulati Trading Company vs. Sh. Manmohan Verma & Anr., decided on 13.08.2014 (RC Rev. No. 274/2013).
The application U/s 151 CPC filed by the petitioners is dismissed as not pressed.
Renotify for order on application for leave to defend at 4:00 pm today.
(Sandeep Garg) ACJcumARC (Central) Delhi/08.12.2014 At 4:00 pm. Present : None.
E156/2013 Page 29/28
Vide separate order of even date, application for leave to defend, filed by the respondent is dismissed. The petition is allowed and eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of one shop at ground floor bearing Pvt. No.1, in property no. 7A/2, W.E.A., Channa Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, as shown in red colour in siteplan attached alongwith the petition. This order shall not be executable before expiry of six months from the date of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Sandeep Garg) ACJcumARC (Central) Delhi/08.12.2014 E156/2013 Page 30/28