Delhi District Court
Shri Ravinder Dalal vs Shri Shyam Mohan Garg on 20 March, 2012
E.No.1245/2006
IN THE COURT OF SH. D.K.JANGALA :
ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER: NORTHWEST:ROHINI: DELHI
E. No.34/2011
U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, 1958
Shri Ravinder Dalal ......... Petitioner
Versus
Shri Shyam Mohan Garg ........ Respondent
Date of institution: 11.05.2011 Date of arguments: 20.03.2012 Date of order: 20.03.2012 ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off an application for leave to defend filed by the respondent u/s 25B(5) of DRC Act seeking leave to defend the eviction petition.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the application are as under:
The present petition is filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent/tenant u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act regarding the suit premises i.e. one shop in the premises bearing No.4620/14, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi. It is stated that suit premises is one shop having area of 10 ft x 8 ft situated on the ground floor at corner side in the premises bearing No.4620/14, Jai Mata Market, Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 1 of 8 E.No.1245/2006 Tri Nagar, Delhi110 035 as shown in red colour in the site plan. It is stated that petitioner is the owner and landlord of the suit premises and respondent is a tenant in the same. It is stated that suit premises was let out for non residential purpose and rate of rent is Rs.700/ per month.
3. It is stated that suit premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for his own use i.e. for starting his transport business for the purpose of earning his livelihood so that he can maintain and look after his entire family members dependent upon him. It is stated that family of the petitioner consists of his aged and sick grand mother, mother, wife, two school going kids and his younger brother. It is stated that petitioner is having hardship for earning his livelihood. It is stated that at present he is doing the transport business at Mundka and he had to go at Mundka which is more than 15 Kms from his home. It is stated that petitioner wants to start his transport business i.e. counter for booking goods from the suit premises along with his younger brother as the petitioner along with his entire family resides at the first floor of the suit premises. It is stated that there is no other suitable accommodation for his business.
4. It is further stated that socio economic condition of the petitioner and his family has changed drastically. It is stated that Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 2 of 8 E.No.1245/2006 when the suit premises was let out to the respondent in the year 1986 the petitioner was six years old and now he is married having two children and other family members. It is stated that respondent has grabed a residential property in the premises No.4529/11, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi and the said property was vacated by the respondent after litigation. It is stated that the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafidely for doing his commercial activities to maintain himself and his family so that he does not face any difficulty to keep his body and soul together. It is prayed that eviction order regarding the suit premises u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act may kindly be passed against the respondent.
5. The notice of the petition was issued to the respondent under Schedule III of the DRC Act and respondent filed his leave to defend application. The respondent in his leave to defend application stated that the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as none of the requirement as provided u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act have been fulfilled. It is stated that the petitioner in the present case has more than one accommodation which is reasonably suitable and available to him. It is stated that the shop adjoining to the shop of the respondent has been shown in the site plan lying vacant and the petitioner has shown his possession over the shop in the site plan. It is stated that respondent has filed the Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 3 of 8 E.No.1245/2006 photographs of the vacant shop.
6. It is further stated that petitioner is also running transport business and has falsely averred that he intends to start his transport business. It is stated that need of the petitioner is not bonafide but he wants to evict the respondent by hook or by crook, therefore, he is depriving him of earning his livelihood for himself and his family. It is stated that respondent was constrained to seek police assistance from dispossession from the hands of petitioner and a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was also instituted against the petitioner and his mother. It is stated that petitioner does not require the suit premises and he is successfully carrying on his business from other properties, prominently from his Dalal Dharam Kanta, Khasra No.79/10, Rohtak Road, Ghevara Mor, Delhi. It is stated that petitioner is having property bearing No.481/991, Rampura, Lawrence Road, Delhi which is a commercial property measuring 100 Sq. ft built up three stories from which he drawing approximate rent of Rs.3 lac per month. It is stated that petitioner is having a residential house at Rajender Park, Nangloi measuring 200 Sq. yds. It is stated that petitioner is having property at Khasra No.82/1/1, Industrial Area, Mundka, where four shops and one godown is built up which is tenanted to Parle Products. It is stated that out of four shops one shop is lying Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 4 of 8 E.No.1245/2006 vacant. It is further stated that property bearing No.4620/4, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, Delhi, is measuring 100 Sq. ft of which the suit property is a part. It is stated that in the same property, adjacent to the tenanted shop another shop is lying vacant which is in possession of the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner also owns other property in Gurgaon, Haryana but the details of the same are not available with the respondent. It is stated that respondent has came to know that petitioner has entered or in the the process of entering into agreement with a bank for renting out the vacant shop for an ATM. It is prayed that respondent may kindly be granted unconditional leave to defend the eviction petition.
7. The petitioner filed the reply to leave to defend application and raised the preliminary objection that application is a bundle of lies and is liable to be dismissed outrightly. It is denied that petitioner has more than reasonable suitable accommodation available with him. It is stated that respondent is trying to mislead the court. It is stated that shop adjoining the suit shop is occupied by the brother of the petitioner and the area is very insufficient. It is stated that Dharam Kanta, Khasra No.79/10, Rohtak Road, Ghevra Road, Delhi was started by the grand father of the petitioner and after his death it is run by Shri Lalit Kumar, the brother of the petitioner. It is further stated by the petitioner has no concern with Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 5 of 8 E.No.1245/2006 the property No.481/991, Rampura, Lawrence Road, Delhi. It is stated that the property No.82/1/1, Industrial Area, Mundka was owned by late Shri Mahender Singh, brother of Shri Jai Chand Dalal, the grand father of the petitioner and after his death the property was devolved upon the legal heirs of Shri Mahender Singh. It is denied that the shop adjacent to the suit shop is lying vacant. It is prayed that leave to defend application may kindly be dismissed.
8. I have carefully perused the material on record and gone through the submissions of both the parties.
9. It is stated by Ld. counsel for the respondent that respondent has disclosed the triable issue regarding availability of alternate accommodation by the petitioner in the same premises and other premises, therefore, leave to defend application may kindly be allowed.
10. On the other hand it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that respondent has failed to disclose any triable issue in his leave to defend application, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.
11. In the present case the relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The ownership of the petitioner regarding the suit premises is also not disputed by the respondent. The respondent Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 6 of 8 E.No.1245/2006 in his leave to defend application has raised the contention that petitioner is having one vacant shop adjacent to the suit shop. The respondent has relied upon the site plan filed by the petitioner himself. The petitioner in the site plan filed by him has shown the adjacent shop in the name of his brother Shri Ravinder. The respondent in his leave to defend application has alleged that the petitioner is in process of letting out the vacant shop for ATM which is adjacent to the suit shop. The petitioner in the reply to leave to defend application has denied the vacant shop. However, the photographs filed by the respondent are supporting his contention. Even as per the site plan filed by the petitioner the shop is in the name of his brother. The petitioner has failed to disclose who is in possession of the said adjacent shop. Therefore, the contention of the respondent regarding availability of alternate accommodation in the adjacent shop is having some force which requires trial, and the respondent is entitled for grant of leave to defend on this ground.
12. The respondent has further stated regarding availability of accommodation in Dalal Dharam Kanta; 481/991, Rampura Lawrence Road, Delhi; property at khasra No.82/1/1, Industrial Area, Mundka, Delhi. The respondent has stated that the petitioner is having alternate suitable accommodation available in the said Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 7 of 8 E.No.1245/2006 properties. The petitioner in the reply to leave to defend application has failed to explain the possession of the said premises disclosed by the respondent. Even though the petitioner has denied the availability of the accommodation in the alleged properties. However, the petitioner has admitted some or other connection or ownership or possession of the same in the alleged properties. Therefore, the contention of the respondent is also having some for force regarding availability of alternate suitable accommodation in the alleged properties. Therefore, the respondent is entitled for grant of leave to defend on this ground also.
13. In view of above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that respondent is able to disclose the availability of reasonable suitable accommodation in the adjacent shop to the suit premises and other properties. The respondent is able to disclose the issues which needs trial. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances leave to defend application filed by the respondent is allowed unconditional.
The respondent is directed to file the written statement within 15 days from today.
Announced in the open court ( Devender Kr. Jangala)
on 20.03.12 Addl. Rent Controller: Rohini
Delhi
Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 8 of 8
E.No.1245/2006
( This judgment contain 8 pages
and each page bears my signature).
Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 9 of 8
E.No.1245/2006
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court ( Devender Kr. Jangala)
on 15.11.2011 Addl. Rent Controller: Rohini
This judgment contains six pages and each page
bear my signatures
Ravinder Dalal Vs. Shyam Mohan Garg Page 10 of
8