Delhi High Court - Orders
Ramesh Chander vs Krishan Gupta on 17 May, 2022
Author: Subramonium Prasad
Bench: Subramonium Prasad
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 110/2022
RAMESH CHANDER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Seth and Mr. Vishwas
Ahuja, Advs.
versus
KRISHAN GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Vishesh Verma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
ORDER
% 17.05.2022 CM APPL. 23264/2022 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
RC.REV. 110/2022 & CM APPL. 23263/2022
1. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.01.2022, passed by the Ld. ACJ/ARC, Shahadara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, rejecting leave to defend of the Petitioner/tenant.
2. The admitted facts are that the Respondent/landlord, who has two sons, namely, Gaurav Gupta and Vaibhav Gupta, had earlier filed an eviction petition, being RC ARC No.517/2017 against the Petitioner herein/tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for himself as well as for his younger son, i.e. Vaibhav Gupta. It is stated that during the pendency of RC ARC No.517/2017, the younger son of the Respondent/land-lord, who is a well qualified Chartered Accountant, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 110/2022 Page 1 of 3 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:19.05.2022 14:54:35 got an opportunity to visit abroad and he got settled there. It is stated that the relations of the Respondent with his elder son, namely, Gaurav Gupta, were not cordial and he was living in a separate accommodation. It is stated that the Respondent/land-lord withdrew RC ARC No.517/2017 on 05.03.2019. It is stated that when the younger son of Respondent was in abroad, the Respondent and his wife became ill, the elder son of Respondent along with his family came to the house of the Respondent to look after his ailing parents. It is stated that with time the relations between the Respondent and his elder son became normal. It is stated that elder son of the Respondent who is working with a jeweller desired to start his own artificial jewellery manufacturing. Accordingly, the Respondent/land-lord filed an eviction petition, being RC ARC No.163/2019 which was allowed by the learned RC vide order dated 20.01.2022, which has been assailed in the instant revision petition by the Petitioner/tenant
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that now the property is being sought for the opening of a business with the elder son. He states that in light of this information, it is necessary to examine the sons, the daughter- in-law and the father so as to establish the factum of genuine/bonafide need on the part of the Respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a triable issue arises for which leave to defend ought to have been granted.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Vishesh Verma, learned counsel, accepts notice, on behalf of the Respondent.
6. Let the pleadings be completed before the next date of hearing.
7. Let a digitized copy of Trial Court Record be summoned.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 110/2022 Page 2 of 3 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:19.05.2022 14:54:358. List on 27.09.2022 at 03:00 PM, for final disposal.
9. The Eviction order was passed on 20.01.2022. As the time stipulated for vacation of premises i.e. six months, is going to expire on 20.06.2022, the Petitioner be not evicted from the premises before the next date of hearing.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J MAY 17, 2022 S. Zakir Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 110/2022 Page 3 of 3 By:RAHUL SINGH Signing Date:19.05.2022 14:54:35