Delhi District Court
Smt. Brahma Devi vs Shri Sat Prakash Gupta on 13 September, 2013
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH YADUVANSHI
SCJCUMRC (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI
E46/12
UNIQUE CASE ID NO. 02406C0120772012
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT. BRAHMA DEVI
W/O SHRI RADHEY SHYAM VASHIST
35, BAZAR LANE, JANGPURA, BHOGAL,
DELHI110014. ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
SHRI SAT PRAKASH GUPTA
S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH CHAND GUPTA
SHOP IN PROPERTY NO. 112, SAMMAN BAZAR,
JANGPURA, BHOGAL,
NEW DELHI110014. ....RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 21.05.2012
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 12.09.2013
DATE OF DECISION : 13.09.2013
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
1. The respondent Sh. Sat Prakash Gupta filed application seeking Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 1 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 leave to contest under the provision of Section 25B(4) and (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, called 'DRC Act') to the petition of petitioner Smt. Brahma Devi under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section Section 25B of the DRC Act.
2. It is in the petition that the petitioner is the owner of property No.112 (Khasra No. 632), Samman Bazar, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi110014. Earlier, one Late Sh. Chet Ram (fatherinlaw of present petitioner) was the owner of the said property who by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1974 bequeathed the said property in petitioner's favour. The respondent herein is a tenant in respect of one shop in the said property which is described as "one shop in property No. 112 (Khasra No. 632) admeasuring 91/2' x 17', Samman Bazar, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi110014 which is shown and marked as A, B, C and D in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter, called 'demised premises'). It was let out to the respondent on rent by the petitioner in the year 1986. The rate of rent of the premises is Rs. 250/, exclusive of electricity and water charges. There is another shop in the premises No. 112 which is in the tenancy of another tenant regarding which a separate eviction petition on bona fide need is also Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 2 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 pending in this Court.
2.1 It is submitted that the respondent has paid the rent at the rate of Rs.250/ per month up to December, 2011 and he used to sign on the counter foils. Some of them are relied upon. The house tax is assessed by MCD in petitioner's name which is also recorded in the records of DDA. She is paying ground rent and the receipts are issued in her name by the DDA. The entire premises consists of ground floor and first floor. There are two stores on the first floor along with tin shed. There is one showroom in occupation of petitioner's husband Sh. Radhey Shyam Vashist wherein since 1993, he is carrying on business in the name and style of 'M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium' of which he is sole proprietor. The said portion is shown in blue colour in the site plan. The said two stores and the tin shed are being used as godown by the petitioner's husband for storing his business goods. 2.2 The petitioner's family consists of her said husband, four married sons namely Sh. Sanjeev Vashist, Dr. Shekhar Vashist, Sh. Rajan Vashist and Sh. Bharat Vashist. The petitioner has also a married daughter namely Smt. Asha Sharma. Petitioner's second son namely Dr. Shekhar Vashist is a Paediatrician and his wife namely Dr. Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 3 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 Poonam Vashist is a Gynaecologist.
2.3 The demised premises is required by the petitioner for her son namely Sh. Bharat Vashist. She also requires accommodation for her other two sons for which purposes she has stated that she will be filing separate petition against other tenants. Sh. Bharat Vashist intends to carry his independent business of paints and allied items. Sh. Bharat Vashist is 37 years of age and he does not have any place of work for carrying on his business. Similar is the position with respect to her other two sons.
2.4 The petitioner's husband also carries on business in shop No. 121, Samman Bazar, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhli. The said premises consists of a showroom on ground floor, first floor, stores on the second floor and third floor and also in the basement. The business in the said shop is being carried in the name and style of 'M/s Vashist Traders' since 1972. Thus, the businesses of 'M/s Vashist Traders' and 'M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium' are being run from premises No. 121 and 112, Samman Bazar, Bhogal, New Delhi respectively of which petitioner's husband is the sole proprietor. The said firms are registered vide the same TIN in the Sale Tax/VAT Department. Both Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 4 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 the premises face each other and situated across the road. It is also pointed out that sanitary items are packed in huge packings and require huge storage space. Likewise, big showroom is required for their display in different style and fashion. The petitioner's sons namely Sh. Rajan Vashist, Sh. Sanjeev Vashist and Sh. Bharat Vashist have been working in the said firms. As on date, they are solely dependent on petitioner and her husband not only for accommodation but also for their independent businesses. Thus, the petitioner and her three sons, for expansion and upgradation of their businesses, intend to have their own independent businesses for which they have no place and thus the need for the eviction of present tenant from the demised premises.
2.5 It is also stated in the petition that one Late Smt. Dhappo Devi was owner of the property bearing No. 35 (Khasra No. 670), Bazar Lane, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi. She executed Will dated 23.03.1978 bequeathing the property in favour of Sh. Sanjeev Vashist, Dr. Shekhar Vashist, Sh. Rajan Vashist and Sh. Bharat Vashist. The said property has one shop on the ground floor and the rest of the property is being used as residence. There is a basement admeasuring Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 5 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 12' x 40' in the said property which has entry from the service lane and is used as a 'store'. The site plan of the said property is filed showing it in yellow colour. Earlier, the property had three shops but due to need of space for residence of family members, two shops were converted into residence. Now there is only one shop which is in occupation of one Sh. Sushil Kumar Gogna at a monthly rent of Rs. 16/. The said shop is shown in purple colour in the site plan. The said shop is stated to be required for business of Sh. Sanjeev Vashist for which a separate petition is said to be in the process of being filed. 2.6 It is in the petition that the petitioner's husband is owner of property No. T64 (Khasra No. 700), Bhogal Road, Bhogal, New Delhi. The said property is used as a 'godown' and has only a temporary tin shed where petitioner's husband keeps/stores his material for purposes of business carried out by him. The said property has been entered into as "Godown" in the Sales Tax/VAT registration certificate. Its site plan is also filed. 2.7 The petitioner's husband also owns property No. 29, Village Okhla, New Delhi measuring approximately 35 sq. yards. It is a single storey property and on rent at a monthly rent of Rs.70/ with one Sh. Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 6 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 Jahoor Ahmed. It is stated that no portion of said property is in occupation of either the petitioner's husband or any of her family members.
2.8 The petitioner's husband is also owner of basement in property No. 55, Church Road, Bhogal where he has made his godown for keeping the material in relation to his business.
2.9 Dr. Shekhar Vashist, petitioner's son, has a clinic bearing No. 26A, Church Road, Bhogal, New Delhi from where he practices medicine.
2.10 It is thus reiterated that demised premises is required by petitioner for her son Sh. Bharat Vashist who wants to do his independent business. It is stated further that the petitioner does not own any of the property except the property in question. It is further stated that family of Sh. Bharat Vashist comprises of himself, his wife and two children aged 8 and 6 years respectively.
3. In the affidavit in support of leave to contest application, the respondent Sh. Sat Prakash Gupta has set out the grounds which, according to him, need trial. It is set out that petitioner is not the Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 7 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 owner of the suit property as no documents including the alleged Will dated 15.04.1974 has been filed nor any probate has been relied. It is further said that petitioner has not stated as to how Sh. Chet Ram was the owner of the property in question. It is not denied that respondent is a tenant in the demised premises. It is further stated that the property in question is an ancestral property of Sh. Radhey Shyam, the petitioner's husband. It is further stated that the demised premises was let out to the respondent's grandfather and on the death of his grandfather as well as of father, the respondent acquired the tenancy rights. It is also in the affidavit that the petitioner has been insisting respondent to increase the rent to Rs.5,000/ per month but respondent has not yield to her request and so, the present petition is filed with mala fide intentions. It is also deposed that petitioner owns more reasonably suitable accommodation then she has disclosed in the petition. It is denied that Sh. Bharat Vashist requires the premises for setting up his business as he is already carrying on his own independent business in shop measuring 12' x 77' in property No. 121, Main Bazar, Bhogal, New Delhi where he himself has got three showrooms of sanitation, paints and allied materials in the basement, Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 8 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 ground and first floor. He is carrying the said business in his own name independently for last more than 5 years. The second and third floor are used by him for godown purposes.
3.1 It is further stated that other sons of petitioner namely Sh. Sanjeev Vashist and Sh. Rajan Vashist are also doing their independent business in property No. 112 having spacious room for sanitation and other allied items besides godown on the first floor of the said property. Sh. Radhey Shyam, petitioner's husband, has nothing to do with said property as he has became old and infirm. The Sales Tax Registration documents are said to be false pertaining to the year 1972 and 1993. It is further stated that latest record regarding sales tax/income tax of M/s Vashist Traders and M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium has not been filed to conceal facts.
3.2 It is further said that the petitioner has concealed material facts by saying property No. 35, Bhogal Road, Jangpura as residential whereas it is a commercial one and being used as such by petitioner's sons. Further, half portion of said property is still lying vacant as nobody is residing there. It is further deposed that petitioner and all her family members have shifted to some premises in Sector47, Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 9 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 Noida, U.P. where they are residing for last more than 2 years. The property is said to be constructed on a plot measuring more than 350 sq. yards. Part of this portion is occupied by Dr. Shekhar Vashist and rest of it is under the occupation and possession of other sons of the petitioner including Sh. Bharat Vashist. It is submitted that the respondent is running a tyre business in the demised premises. 3.3 In is further in the affidavit that property No. T64, Bhogal Road has been partitioned between three sons of petitioner where they now have their independent godowns.
3.4 It is further in the affidavit that property No. 55, Church Road, Bhogal there is basement floor is in the name of Sh. Rajan Vashist, which is used by him as a showroom and not a godown.
3.5 It is admitted that Sh. Bharat Vashist is 37 years old, who has two school going children. It is submitted that the children are studying at Noida in a public school which fact is evident that Sh. Bharat Vashist himself is residing at Noida.
3.6 It is also admitted that Dr. Shekhar Vashist is a doctor by profession who runs his own clinic with his wife.
Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 10 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 3.7 It is further in the affidavit that property No. 35, Bhogal Lane,
Jangpura, Bhogal is property constructed on a plot measuring 350 sq. yards. Sh. Bharat Vashist is also in the occupation and possession of part of it which he uses for commercial purpose. It is also submitted that a portion of it which has been got vacated from a tenant is also in occupation of Sh. Bharat Vashist. It is further said that the basement floor of this property is also owned, possessed and occupied by Sh. Bharat Vashist.
3.8 It is denied that two shops in said property were converted into residence. It is submitted that the said shop is still vacant and in possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that all sons of the petitioner are married having their own families, their children are studying in public school at Noida; have luxurious vehicles; residential accommodation and other movable and immovable properties in their own names at different places. They have different bank accounts in different banks at different places and thus it can be presumed and assumed that they are doing their independent businesses. Lastly, it is also said that the petitioner and her sons have various immovable properties at Chhatarpur, Tuglaqabad Extension, JangpuraA, Okhla, Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 11 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 New Delhi. The respondent could not ascertain their numbers and sought leave to provide particulars as and when available.
4. The petitioner filed a reply along with reply affidavit. The same is primarily a reiteration of the contents of petition as correct. Further, it is submitted that respondent has no right to challenge the title of either Late Sh. Chet Ram or the petitioner when he is paying rent to this plaintiff. It is denied that the property is an ancestral property as alleged.
4.1 It is not specifically denied that the property was let out to respondent's grandfather, on his death to respondent's father and on death of respondent's father upon the respondent. It is stated to be a 'matter of record'.
4.2 It is denied that prevailing market rent was ever asked. The mode and manner in which the petitioner has described the properties available with family has been reiterated. In addition, the avernments that petitioner's son owns any independent share or independent business in properties of petitioner's husband is denied. Similar is the state of denial in regard to the avernments made against other brothers Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 12 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 of Sh. Bharat Vashishit. The petitioner further filed current VAT returns, sales tax returns showing Sh. Radhey Shyam as sole proprietor of M/s Vashist Traders and M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium.
5. The plaintiff also filed certificates issued by VAT Department dated 13.07.2012 mentioning Sh. Radhey Shyam as sole proprietor of the said business being run from shop No. 121 and 112 respectively. 5.1 It is denied that the property No. 35, Bhogal Road is not a residential one but commercial. It is reiterated that it has one shop at ground floor while rest of it is being used as a residence. The basement therein has entry from service lane and thus is used as store. It is denied that petitioner and her family have shifted to Noida. It is further said that the avernment that petitioner got vacated a shop from some tenant which is in possession of Sh. Bharat Vashist is false. It is pointed out that two shops had been surrendered by erstwhile tenant himself vide a surrender deed dated 10.07.2005 after which they are being used as part of residence. It is denied that Sh. Radhey Shyam is incapable of doing business being old and infirm.
5.2 It is further denied that property No. T64, Bhogal Road has
Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 13 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12
been partitioned between the petitioner's sons. It is stated to be still owned by the petitioner's husband and is being used as godown on account of the temporary tin shed. It is also reflected as godown in sales tax/VAT registration certificate. It is denied that property No. 55, Church Road, Bhogal i.e. basement floor is in name of petitioner's son Sh. Rajan Vashist who uses it as a showroom. It is reiterated that petitioner's husband owns the basement portion which he operates as godown in relation to his business. It is Sh. Radhey Shyam who owns it and pays the house tax, copy of which has been filed.
6. It is denied that the sons of Sh. Bharat Vashist are studying in Noida. It is submitted that they are studying in Amity International, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. The fee receipts have been filed. It is further submitted that the respondent has not mentioned particulars of alleged luxurious vehicles, residential accommodation in the name of petitioner's sons and the movable and immovable properties held by them in Delhi and outside. It is denied that either the petitioner or her family owns any premises at Chhatarpur, Tuglaqabad, JangpuraA, Okhla, New Delhi as alleged.
7. Rejoinder was also filed by the respondent which is primarily a Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 14 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 reassertion of the contents of leave to contest application as correct. In addition to it, the avernments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in response to the reply are denied as incorrect. In further addition, it is submitted that the documents filed by the petitioner are not self explanatory and require investigation. It is further stated that by mere filing of income tax certificate it cannot be presumed or assumed that such large scale business is being run by the husband of the petitioner.
8. In support of his case, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no cause of action in the petition as the pleadings are lacunic and that the petitioner has failed to plead that she does not have any suitable accommodation available to her. Ld. Counsel has also disputed the genuineness of the Will submitting that its copy has not been filed. It is further contended that the petitioner has not produced documents in regard to her residence in property No. 34, Bhogal. Lastly, it is said that the present case is a case of additional accommodation in view of the fact that in para 7 of AnnexureA, the petitioner herself submits that the premises is required for "expansion and upgradation of their businesses".
Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 15 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12
9. Conversely, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on several case laws on pleadings. However, it is submitted that the tenant cannot deny particularly when he is unable to say that if the petitioner is not its owner then who else is. It is further submitted that all avernments made by the respondent in regard to dispute qua the accommodation available to the petitioner and her family in the manner explained in the petition is supported with site plan of each property, whereas the tenant has merely made bald denials and has not furnished his own site plan. Lastly, it is submitted that this is not a case of additional accommodation as her husband is already using the premises for his own business and that the premises is required for independent business of her sons.
10. In order to support petitioner's case and counter pleas taken by respondent, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied on following case law viz:
a) Sh. V.B. Raju v. R.L. Mahindroo, 1982 RLR 650 on the issue of nonpleading of necessary ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. It has been held that if a petitioner does not expressly plead all the necessary ingredients of Section 14(1)(e), the Controller is not Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 16 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 bound to dismiss the petition under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as the Controller has power to allow amendment petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. It is further held that besides it the Controller may see whether ingredients are in substance contained in pleas in the petition.
The said case law has been relied by the petitioner by way of abundant caution although it is a petitioner's case that she has pleaded all necessary ingredients. It is specifically pointed out that in para 13 of AnnexureA in regard to grounds constituted in para 18 (a) of the petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that she does not own any other property except the suit property.
b) In similar context, the petitioner also relies on Gurdial Nagdev v. Devi Bai, 1979 (1) RCR 119 to the effect that failure to plead the ingredients does not necessarily result in dismissal of petition for ejectment if parties know the points in controversy and no one was taken by surprise. In the said case, the tenant was not permitted to raise technical objections in revision. In the said case, the petitioner did not mention that she has no other accommodation. It was held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that though it is not mentioned that she has no other accommodation but the very fact that the present Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 17 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 premises were not sufficient for all the members of the family implies that other accommodation was really not available. The Court held that there had been sufficient compliance of requirements of Section 14(1)(e). It was reiterated that failure to plead the ingredients does not necessarily result in dismissal of the petition.
c) Ram Gopal v. Basheshar Nath, 1981 RLR (Notes) 32 to 34. In the said case, the petitioner had omitted to say that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. The Court held that the same was implied under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act. It was also pointed out that objection was not raised before the ARC or the Tribunal otherwise it could have been rectified by way of amendment. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court further stated that the tenant had sufficient notice of the case set up by the landlady and both the parties knew well the points of controversy between them and no one was taken by surprise. The Hon'ble Court had relied on its earlier judgment in Gurdial Nagdev's case (supra).
d) Parvesh Kanta v. Vijay Kumar & Anr., 80 (1999) DLT 374. In the said case it was held that in view of the specific pleadings by the Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 18 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 petitioner that the property in dispute was let out to respondent for residential purposes and petitioner requires the same for her bona fide use coupled with the sentence "that the petitioner has no other sufficient and suitable accommodation" was sufficient to demonstrate the urgency and need for getting the premises vacated. It was further held that law is not mere a technicality but the Court has to see the substance of the basic requirements of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act i.e. as to for what purpose the property was let out, the petitioner was owner thereof, the premises are required for accommodation for the petitioner and the members of the family of the petitioner have been pleaded and mere nonmentioning of the word "residential" cannot be the ground for nonsuiting the petitioner.
e) Smt. Ram Chameli v. Smt. Sujan Kaur & Anr., 81 (1999) DLT
549. In the said case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in regard to the nonmentioning of the word "bona fide", that the eviction petition has to be read as a whole. If one word of English language has not been incorporated in the eviction petition, that will not be such an error which would be so fatal so as to nonsuit the landlady. In the said case, it was pleaded in para 18(a)(iii) that the accommodation Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 19 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 available was not suitable for the petitioners and their family members. It was held that taking into consideration the eviction petition as a whole it cannot be said that the omission of the word "bona fide" was fatal for petition to be rejected under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
f) Ishwar D. Rajput v. Chaman P Puri, 1991 RLR 322. This case has been cited to counter the plea of the respondent qua the Will in question. It was observed that tenant cannot be permitted to question legality and validity of Will. It was held that, "the legality and validity and due execution of the Will can only be subject matter of proceedings under the Indian Succession Act. It is in such a proceedings that the Will can be proved to be duly executed, and probate granted; or a Will is held to be not proved, and probate refused. The Rent Controller cannot exercise jurisdiction which is conferred by the Indian Succession Act. The jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is confined to the provisions of the DRC Act.".
g) M/s International Building and Furnishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. J.S. Rikhy & Ors., AIR 1985 Delhi 338. The law is cited again on the aspect of Will. In the said case, the father of the Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 20 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 respondent/landlord died leaving a Will for the house in dispute to be inherited by his widow and after her demise by the other two sons i.e. the respondent and his brother. The widow died. The respondent and his brother became joint owners. They arrived at a family settlement. The brother of respondent relinquished all his rights in the property in favour of the respondent. The respondent executed a registered Gift Deed gifting his plot to his brother. It was held that the Will executed by respondent's father cannot be disputed by the petitioner/tenant as the petitioner themselves have asked the respondent to furnish the necessary documents to them in order to enable them to pay the rent in future to the respondent. Same were furnished and rent was being tendered to the respondent.
On the strength of the last two judgments, the petitioner urges that she is not bound to produce Will as otherwise also the tenant cannot challenge its authenticity.
h) Navneet Lal v. Deepak Sawhney, 173 (2010) DLT 189 to the effect that it is not open for tenant to dispute title of landlord. As tenant itself stranger to Will and has no locus standi to challenge the same. It is further held in the said case that the question as to whether Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 21 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 Will is valid or not can only be challenge by the LRs of the deceased.
i) V.S. Sachdeva v. M.L. Grover, 67 (1997) DLT 737. The judgment has been cited on the issue of the objections to the site plan. In the said case, it was observed that if the respondent failed to file any site plan contrary to the site plan of the petitioner, then the site plan filed by the landlord should be accepted.
j) Krishan Kumar Gupta v. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta, 152 (2008) DLT 556. The said reliance is again on the issue of the site plan. In the said case also, the Hon'ble Court observed that the tenant had not filed any separate site plan, so the site plan filed by the landlord was to be considered as correct.
11. The respondent on the other hand has relied on the following judgments viz:
a) Ishwar Das Rajput v. Chaman Prakash Puri & Anr., 46 (1992) DLT 619. The judgment is on the aspect of Will. In the said case, it was observed that no Court has decided that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide validity of a Will. If such a question is raised before the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller is Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 22 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 within its competence to decide this question when the eviction petition is for the bona fide need under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act where one of the ingredients to be proved is that of ownership. It is in this case that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court pointed out that the order passed in Ishwar D. Rajput v. Chaman P. Puri's case (supra) was an interlocutory order which was not maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP 10032/91 decided on 14.05.1991. Hence, the said law is not more a good law. The Hon'ble Court also differentiated the facts of M/s International Building and Furnishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr.'s case (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, 1997 (2) SCC 814 in which it has been held that it was permissible for a tenant to challenge the validity of the Will. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court pointed out that in the said case i.e. Kanta Goel's case (supra), the father had made Will in favour of his sons. The challenge to that Will was not allowed in the eviction petition because the other cosharers were the parties to those proceedings and there was nothing on record to show that they challenged the Will. It was in those circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 23 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 as all the heirs of the deceased father had been impleaded and they did not object to the said Will, so the tenant cannot challenge the Will. It was not held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the question about the factum and validity of the Will is raised before the Rent Controller he cannot decide it.
b) S.C. Bansal & Anr. v. Dr. Subhash Kashyap, 1990 (190) DRJ 259 to the effect that where the tenant has given complete particulars of the alternative accommodation available with the landlord then it is to be held that there arises a triable issue.
c) C.D. Korpal v. Captain A.K. Madan & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1455 to the effect that leave has to be granted when eviction sought on the ground of bona fide personal requirement is disputed by tenant.
d) Dr. (Mrs.) N.D. Khanna v. M/s Hindustan Industrial Corporation, AIR 1981 Delhi 305 to the effect that even if one of the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) are not pleaded in the eviction petition, it amounts to nondisclosure of cause of action and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 24 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 e) Rakesh Kumar v. Pawan Khanna, 195 (2005) DLT 341 to the
effect that when leave is refused, the party seeking it is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the avernments by crossexamination. It is not as simple as is sought to be projected by the respondent that he requires the property for carrying on his business activity of property broker and that he does not have any other reasonably suitable space for running his business of property.
f) Sukh Dev Raj Sharma v. Kuljeet Singh Jass, 195 (2012) DLT
56. In the said case also, the projected case of respondent that he required tenanted premises for commercial as well as residential means was found not as simple. Leave was granted.
g) Mohd. Jafar & Ors. v. Nasra Begum, 191 (2012) DLT 401 to the effect that where there is requirement of additional accommodation, leave to defend should normally be granted.
h) Attar Singh v. Tahoora Khawaja, 2012 (1) RCJ 560 (Delhi) to the effect that leave must be granted when triable issues have arisen and controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through crossexamination of witnesses.
Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 25 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12
i) Prahlad Rai Mittal v. Rita Devi, 2013 (1) RLR 271 to the effect
that burden of proof of bona fide requirement lies on the landlord to prove his need as a bona fide one, more so, when he has alternate accommodation in his possession.
12. The respondent has raised three defences viz:
(a) Failure to plead essential ingredients of Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act.
(b) Challenge to the ownership of the petitioner by challenging the
Will
(c) No bona fide need.
(d) Case of additional accommodation.
13. Conversely in a petition of this nature, the landlord has to establish (1) Ownership; (2) Existence of landlord and tenant relation;
(3) Bona fide need and (4) No other alternate suitable accommodation.
14. Points (a) and (b) above shall be incorporated in points (1) and (2), point (c) shall be incorporated in point 3 above while point (d) shall be incorporated in point (4) above.
Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 26 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12
FINDINGS
(1) Ownership
AND
(2) Existence of landlordship of landlord and tenant
15. So far as the aspect of landlordship and tenancy is concerned, the respondent herein has categorically admitted in the supporting affidavit to the leave to contest application that the respondent is a tenant in the demised premises. It is contended further that the demised premises were let out to respondent's grandfather and later on after the death of his grandfather and father, it was inherited by the present respondent. In the main petition it is stated that the demised premises was let out to the respondent in the year 1986. However, in the reply to the leave to contest application the present petitioner has not specifically denied that the property was let out to the respondent's grandfather. It has been said that the avernments are matter of record. In addition to it, the respondent admits to be paying rent to the present petitioner. Further , the present petitioner has placed on record copies of rent receipts dated 31.01.2011, 22.12.2010, 31.12.2009 and Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 27 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 28.12.2007 which shows the name of the owner as Smt. Brahma Devi and which have been signed by the present respondent. The said receipts are not disputed. Thus, there is a relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the parties.
15.1 In a petition of this nature, petitioner has to plead ownership over the premises. It is also to be pleaded that the landlord requires the premises for a bona fide need. It is also to be pleaded that the landlord does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation available to him. The respondent contends that the petitioner herein has not pleaded specifically that she does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation. I have already pointed out that in para 13 of AnnexureA, which is annexed as contents of para 18 (a) of the petition that the petitioner states that "the petitioner does not own any other property except the suit property". It is correct that the petitioner has not used the words "any other suitable alternative accommodation". The pleadings are therefore called lacunic and it is urged that the plaint may be dismissed for disclosure of cause of action. In support, the respondent has relied on Dr. (Mrs.) N.D. Khanna's case (supra). On the other hand, the petitioner has relied on Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 28 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 Sh. V.B. Raju's case (supra), Ram Gopal's case (supra), Parvesh Kanta's case (supra), Gurdial Nagdev's case (supra) and Smt. Ram Chameli's case (supra). What follows from perusal of the judgments is to the effect that as per Dr. (Mrs.) N.D. Khanna's case (supra) failure to plead essential requisites amount to nondisclosure of cause of action. As a further clarification to it, Sh. V.B. Raju's case (supra) would require the Controller to proceed as to whether ingredients are not in substance contained in the pleas in the petition. Gurdial Nagdev's case (supra) would further require the court to proceed as to whether the failure to plead essential ingredients took the other party by surprise. As per Ram Gopal's case (supra) mentioning of the fact that the petitioner does not have reasonably suitably accommodation implies its absence. As per Parvesh Kanta's case (supra), the failure does not always result in nondisclosure of cause of action. 15.2 In the case before me, the petitioner does plead that she does not own any other property except the suit property. Obviously, she is referring to the demised premises. Reading the petition in the whole clarifies that the ingredients are in substance contained in the pleas Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 29 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 made in the petition. This is so as the petitioner has given description of all the properties which her husband and other family members own. This is not a case where the petitioner has withheld information regarding the properties held by her and her family members. The contents of the leave to contest application also indicate that the respondent has not been taken by surprise as all points in controversy are necessarily explained in the eviction petition. Further, going by the analogy of Parvesh Kanta's case (supra) mere nonmentioning of the word 'suitable' in para 13 aforestated, was not said to be fatal to the present petition. Having regard to the aforesaid, I find no force in submission of the respondent that the present petition deserves to be dismissed at threshold for a want of disclosure of the cause of action. It would be implied in the contents of para 13 of the AnnexureA of the petition that the petitioner does not own any other reasonably suitable accommodation.
15.3 So far as the aspect of petitioner's ownership over the demised premises is concerned, she relies on her pleadings to the effect that it has been bequeathed in her favour by erstwhile owner Late Sh. Chet Ram, her fatherinlaw, by virtue of registered sale deed dated Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 30 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 15.04.1974. The said Will had not been filed on record. According to the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner the same has no consequences. However, according to the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question as the same is an ancestral property of her husband Sh. Radhey Shyam. It is further stated that the petition does not state as to how Sh. Chet Ram is the owner of the property in question. It is further submitted that the alleged Will has not been probated. However, the question of non production of Will becomes inconsequential as upon direction of this Court, the petitioner had produced original registered Will, copy of which was taken on record. Same has been perused and found as per pleadings.
15.4 Before getting into the aspect of ownership claim of the petitioner visavis facts of this case, I may reiterate certain prepositions of law to the effect that for purpose of Section 14(1)(e), DRC Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show actually that he is more than a tenant. In similar circumstances, In Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Leelawati & Ors., 155 (2008) Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 31 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 DLT 383 it was so held as recorded above. In fact, in the said case, the landlady had placed on record the document by which she became owner.
15.5 It is further held that in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors.'s case (supra) that where a tenant denies ownership of landlord she is obliged to disclose who was owner/landlord and to whom the rent was being paid. In the case before me, the respondent denies ownership claim of Smt. Brahma Devi saying that the demised premises is an ancestral property of her husband. As per the case cited above, the tenant is obliged to disclose as to who else is the owner/landlord. In this context, the present respondent has made a bald assertion that the property is ancestral property of petitioner's husband which shall not suffice and is otherwise against contents of Will on record. 15.6 Further, before adverting to the case law relied upon by the parties before me, it shall be just and proper to point out that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 08.08.2008 pronounced in the case of Bharat Bhusan Vij v. Arti Teckchandani, CM No. 9491/2008 has summarized the law on the aspect of ownership claimed on the Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 32 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 basis of Will which is as under:
"The concept of ownership in a landlordtenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner, the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner."
15.7 Furthermore, it has been held in Sheela & Ors. Vs. Firm Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 33 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375 that "In rent matters, the burden of proving ownership on a landlord is not that heavy as it is in a title suit and even a lesser quantum of proof may suffice for holding that the landlord is the owner of the premises in question. 15.8 It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sushil Kanta Chakravarty Vs. Rajeshwar Kumar 79 (1999) DLT 210 that, "
Section 14 (1) (e) - Owner, Something more than Tenant and not Absolute Owner - Legislature incorporated work 'Owner' in Section 14 (1) (e) of Act not to use same in sense of absolute owner but in contradistinction with landlord, who is not owner but who holds property for benefit of another person."
15.9 It is a settled law that mere denial of ownership is no denial. A tenant who has been living in same house for many years must know owner. Reliance may be placed upon Mrs. Meenakshi Vs. Ramesh Khanna etc., 1995 RLR 322.
15.10 It is a settled law that mere of ownership is no denial. It has been held in Zahid Hussain Vs. Aenul Haq Qureshi through Lrs, 2005 (1) RCR, 323 (DHC) that, " Tenant denying ownership of Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 34 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 landlordtenant not able to show who else was owner of premises - A bald denied cannot advance case of tenant."
16. It is a settled law that landlord necessarily need not to be the owner but an owner is always a landlord. When the petitioner is owner of the property in question, he is also a landlord of the same. In a case titled as R.S. Gupta Vs. R.C. Bhagat & Anr. 100 (2002) DLT 494, it was denied by the tenant that there exist no relationship of landlord and tenant between respondent no. 1 and petitioner as premises was let out by respondent no.2 to the petitioner and consequently the respondent no. 1 cannot maintain eviction petition against the petitioner. However, the Hon'ble High Court held that, "Under the Rent Control Act, the landlord necessarily need not be the owner. Owner can authorize another person to collect rent on his behalf. That being the position there was no reason to hold that respondent no. 1 who was admittedly the owner of the property could not maintain the petition for eviction against the tenant." 16.1 When the respondent himself admits the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, he is estopped from disputing the title Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 35 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 of the petitioner over the premises in question. It has been held in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that, "It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly." Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 36 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 It has been held in Pamela Manmohan Singh Vs. State, 2000 RLR 137 that, "It is not mandatory that a probate be obtained in respect of Wills executed in and dealing with properties in Delhi." 16.2 It has been held in Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Tchchandani, 2008 VIII AD (Delhi) 285 that, "If premises was let out by a person and after his death, premises has come in hands of beneficiary under a Will, tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary If on death of original owner tenant has any doubt as to who was owner of premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all legal heirs of deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be landlord/owner after the death of the original owner." 16.3 On the issue under consideration, the respondent has laid emphasis on the case of Ishwar Dass Rajput's case (supra). In the said case, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner i.e. M/s International Building and Furnishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.'s case (supra) was also considered. The law as clear on the subject is set out in Kanta Goel's case (supra) as well as in Ishwar Dass Rajput's case (supra) to the effect that, "No court has decided that the Rent Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 37 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of a Will.". At the same time the Rent Controller is also to see as to whether the tenant can challenge the validity of the Will in favour of the petitioner. I have already set out the law on the subject as set out in Bharat Bhushan Vig's case (supra). In this context, the petitioner has also relied upon Navneet Lal's case (supra) which also lays down the law regarding incompetence of the tenant to question the validity of the Will.
Lastly, the law as laid down in Ramesh Chand's case (supra) creates an estopple against the present respondent to deny the landladyship of the present petitioner as it is his case that he has been paying rent to the present petitioner and since he has also categorically admitted to be a tenant in the demised premises. Accordingly, there is no force in contention of the respondent regarding challenge to the ownership of the petitioner.
(3) Bona fide need
17. The bona fide need as disclosed in the present petition is that the petitioner's son namely Sh. Bharat Vashist requires the demised premises to carry on his independent business of paint and allied Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 38 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 items. He is 37 years old and is dependent along with his family on the petitioner and her husband for residence purpose and also for the purposes of business. The description of the premises held by the petitioner's husband, the petitioner, Dr. Shekhar Vashist and his other brothers including the present petitioner, has been provided in detail in the petition. It is also in the petition that so far the sons of the petitioner had been assisting their father in the sole proprietorship business of M/s Vashist Traders and M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium Ltd. The petition categorically states that the petitioner and her three sons require accommodation for the expansion and upgradation of their business. The said phrase 'expansion and upgradation' is so recorded in para 7 of the AnnexureA of the petition. It is further recorded in para 7 that petitioner's sons want to have their own independent businesses. A need to have independent business cannot be clubbed with the present status of petitioner's son which is of rendering help/assistance in his father's business. Thus, a need to start his own business cannot be said to be a need not disclosing sufficient bona fide. Merely because at present the sons of petitioner are actively engaged in working with their father's Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 39 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 businesses, it cannot be said that their desire to start their own independent business shall not be a genuine desire. It has been projected as a bona fide need in the present petition. The petitioner's son Sh. Bharat Vashist intends to start his own independent business of paint and allied items. It has been stated by the respondent herein that the petitioner's son Sh. Bharat Vashist is already carrying on his own independent business in shop measuring 12' x 77' in property No. 21, Main Bazar Bhogal where he has got three showrooms of sanitation, paints and allied materials in the basement, ground floor, first floor and that he is doing that business for last five years. Conversely, it is the petitioner's claim that it is her husband who is doing his business on property No. 121 and in this regard she has filed various documents to show that from property No. 121 petitioner's husband carries on the business of M/s Vashist Traders since 1972. Thus, the plea of the respondent in this regard is bald as it is without any documentary proof.
(4) No other alternate suitable accommodation
18. So far as the issue under consideration is concerned, it has been Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 40 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 considered in detail while discussing point (1) above. In this context what remains to be seen is as to whether the petitioner or her family actually possess more accommodation then disclosed. 18.1 Qua property No. 112, the petitioner states that the same consists of ground floor and first floor where there are two stores with tin shed. The showroom is in occupation of petitioner's husband since 1993 from where he carries his business in the name and style of 'M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium'. The site plan of this premises has been filed. No contrary site plan has been filed. The assumption that the site plan filed including the site plan of other premises is correct has to be drawn from the judgment in V.S. Sachdeva's case (supra) and Krishan Kumar Gupta's case (supra). In response, the respondent have stated that Sh. Sanjeev Vashist and Sh. Rajeev Vashist are also doing their independent business in property No. 112 and petitioner's husband has nothing to do with said property as he has became old and infirm. Conversely , there is not straight denial that petitioner's husband is not doing business in the name of M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium in the said premises w.e.f. 1993. Further, the petitioner has filed the site plan and MCD property tax Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 41 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 receipts showing herself as owner of property No. 112. The petitioner has further filed the challan for Delhi Value Added Tax dated 11.07.2012, 12.07.2012, challan for depositing of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act dated 117.07.2012 and 12.07.2012 in order to show that her husband is running firm in the name of M/s Vashist Traders as well as M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium from premises No. 112 and for that matter property No. 121 also. Further, the petitioner has also filed a certificate issued by the Department of Trade and Taxes to the effect that proprietor of both the said firms is Sh. Radhey Shyam. Thus there is no concealment qua the premises No. 112, Samman Bazar, Bhogal. 18.2 Similar is the position in regard to shop No. 121, Samman Bazar, Bhogal. The extent of the construction in the said premises is not denied by the respondent. The petitioner's husband occupies the premises for the business of M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium. The relevant documents in this regard are on record. I have already held that the avernment of the respondent that Sh. Bharat Vashist is doing the business of paints and allied materials in the said property is bald. There is no further challenge to the details given by the petitioner qua said property.
Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 42 of 47
Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 18.3 So far as the residential property No. 35, Bazar Lane, Bhogal, New Delhi is concerned, same is said to be owned by all four sons of the petitioner. As against the contention of the respondent, the petitioner has said that the premises is used as residence which has only one shop in the tenancy of one Sh. Sushil Kumar Gogna. The petitioner has produced the copy of the surrender document qua lease of the other two shops existing in said premises which have now been converted for commercial purpose. As against it the avernments of the respondent in regard to the said property as a commercial one have remained bald. The basement existing in the said premises is said to be used as a store as it has entry from the service lane. The fact that the said entry is from the service lane is not denied by the respondent. The avernment that half of the said premises is vacant as nobody is residing there has remained bald in the absence of any material in support thereof. Further, no material has been produced on record to show that the petitioner and her family members have shifted to Sector47, Noida, U.P. since last two years.
18.4 So far as the premises No. T64 (Khasra No. 700), Bhogal Road, Bhogal, New Delhi is concerned, it is stated to be used as Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 43 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 godown. The relevant sales tax/VAT registration is filed depicting the said premises as godown. The site plan has also been filed. It is not disputed. As against it, the respondent's avernement that the said premises has been partitioned between three sons of petitioner has again remained a bald avernment.
18.5 So far as property No. 29, Village Okhla, New Delhi is concerned, the same is stated to be in tenancy of one Sh. Jahoor Ahmed. The respondent has preferred silence on the issue. The petitioner has stated that no portion of the said property is in occupation of either her husband or any of her family members. 18.6 So far as property No. 55, Church Road, Bhogal, New Delhi is concerned, same is submitted to be a basement which houses godown for keeping business material by the petitioner's husband. Conversely, the respondent submits that the said basement is in the name of Sh. Rajan Vashist which is used by him as showroom. The said avernment is again a bald avernment in the absence of any material. 18.7 So far as the clinic bearing No. 26A, Church Road, Bhogal, New Delhi is concerned, same is in possession of Dr. Shekhar Vashist Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 44 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 and this fact is not denied by the respondent. The avernment of the respondent that children of Sh. Bharat Vashist are studying at Noida has again proved to be incorrect in view of the fact that the petitioner has filed copy of the fee receipts of school children showing that they are studying in Amity International, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi and not at Noida as alleged.
18.8 So far as the avernment of the respondent to the effect that the petitioner and her sons have various immovable properties at Chhatarpur, Tuglaqabad, JangpuraA, Okhla, New Delhi is concerned, the same is again a bald avernment denied in totality by the petitioner. No supporting material has been placed on record to add strength to the said avernment.
Thus, it is not the case where it can be said that the petitioner has concealed the extent of accommodation available with her and her family members.
18.9 Further, as to whether the present need of the present petitioner is of additional accommodation, it shall have to be seen that the said plea of the respondent has been raised on the ground of the plea of the petitioner that they intend to expand and upgrade their businesses. In Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 45 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 this regard para 7 of AnnexureA to the petition has to be read in its whole. According to it, "that the petitioner and her three sons, for the expansion and upgradation of their businesses, want to have their own independent business....". Thus, the phrase 'expansion and upgradation' has to be read with the phrase 'want to have their own independent business'. Sh. Bharat Vashist intends to start business of paint and allied material. His father's proprietorship firms namely 'M/s Vashist Traders' and 'M/s Hindustan Sanitary Emporium' are into the business of sanitary and allied items as is clear from pleadings. It is definitely therefore a new business. It being so, there is no question of expansion of an existing old business. By that analogy, the law relied by the respondent in the judgment in Mohd. Jafar & Ors's case (supra) and Prahlad Rai Mittal's case (supra) are therefore inconsequential.
RESULT
19. In the result, the application for leave to defend is dismissed. An eviction order is hereby passed in respect of one shop in property No. 112 (Khasra No. 632) admeasuring 91/2' x 17', Samman Bazar, Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 46 of 47 Brahma Devi v. Sat Prakash Gupta E-46/12 Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi110014 which is shown and marked as A, B, C and D in red colour in the site plan. However, the eviction order passed under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act shall not be executable for a period of six months from the date of this order.
20. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (MANISH YADUVANSHI)
on 13.09.2013 SCJCUMRC (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
Result: Application dismissed (Eviction order passed) Page 47 of 47