Delhi District Court
Sh. Vinod Kohli vs Smt. Veena Chugh on 20 July, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Eviction Petition No. 21/08
Sh. Vinod Kohli
S/o Late Sh. M.L. Kohli
R/o I4, Lajpat NagarI,
New Delhi
.........Petitioner.
Versus
1. Smt. Veena Chugh
W/o late Sh. Subhash Chander
2. Gaurav @ Goldy
S/o Late Sh. Subhash Chander
3. Shammi
Son of late Sh. Subhash Chander
All at 81C, Central Market,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 24
4. Sh. Subhash Kohli
S/o Late Sh. M.L. Kohli
R/o D1/39, Lajpat NagarI,
New Delhi
.........Respondents.
Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 1 of 23
ORDER:
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application for leave to defend moved by the respondents no. 1 to 3.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of application are that the petitioner has filed the present eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of DRC Act against the respondents no.1 to 3 on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of one shop bearing No. 81C measuring 7'x 5' approximately in property No. 81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated that Sh. M.L. Kohli, predecessor in interest of the petitioner and respondent no. 4 was the owner of the aforesaid property No. 81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and after the death of Sh. M.L. Kohli, the said property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner and respondent no. 4 in the office of L&DO. As such, the petitioner and respondent no. 4, who has been impleaded as proforma respondent, are the co owners/landlords of the aforesaid property including the suit shop which was let out to predecessor in interest of the respondents no. 1 to 3 namely Sh. Subhash Chander for commercial purposes. After the death of Sh. Subhash Chander, the respondents no. 1 to 3 being his legal heirs inherited the tenancy rights and have become tenants and they are carrying on business in the suit shop. It is further stated that the aforesaid property bearing No. 81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi consists of Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 2 of 23 basement and ground floor. The basement is in possession of respondent no. 4 and the petitioner is in possession of a portion of ground floor where he is carrying on footwear business. It is stated that the petitioner wants to expand his business, but he cannot do because of nonavailability of the business accommodation. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner namely Pankaj Kohli who is wholly dependent upon the petitioner for business purposes also requires accommodation for his business. The accommodation available with the petitioner is not sufficient for the business of the petitioner and it is not possible for the petitioner to accommodate his son in the said shop. It is stated that the son of the petitioner does not want to carry the business of his father and the petitioner wants to establish his son in the business . It is stated that the Gallery portion attached to the said shop is not fit for business purposes. It is also stated that there are three tenants on the ground floor including the present respondents in private shops no. 81 A, 81 B, and 81 C and the petitioner is also filing the eviction petition against the other tenants also. It is stated that the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafide for his use for business purpose and for use of his son as he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation for carrying out business. Hence, the present petition. It has been prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the suit Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 3 of 23 premises.
3. The respondents no. 1 to 3 have filed the leave to defend application along with their affidavits contending that the petitioner has wrongly stated that he needs the tenanted premises bonafide as he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. It is stated that the petitioner is running the business of footwear from the shop which is admittedly of the size of 35' x 14' which is a big area and is located at a very good location, whereas the tenanted shop is of the size of 7'x 5' area only. The petitioner has not stated as to how the said accommodation is insufficient. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner that his son does not want to carry the business of his father and the petitioner wants to establish his son in the business is malafide. It is stated that the petitioner has not stated as to why his son does not want to carry out the said business which is the established business of the petitioner in such large area of the premises . The petitioner has even not stated as to which business, his son wants to start . It is stated that the father of the petitioner Sh. M.L. Kohli was doing the business in the said shop on the ground floor and the petitioner had joined his father in the said business and after the death of Sh. M.L. Kohli, the petitioner has been left alone and if the petitioner wants his son to be in the business, the son can join his father who has sufficient accommodation on the ground floor Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 4 of 23 shop. The small area of the tenanted shop is of no help for starting any new business as alleged by the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has not even stated the age and current status and position of his son. It is stated that the son of the petitioner is presently doing professional course from Amity College, Noida and is in 2nd year and said course is of 4 years and after completion of said course generally such educated students either take up further course like MBA or take up job in some companies at handsome salary of Rs. one lac per month and no such person with such qualification would like to do such business. It is stated that the petitioner is not clear whether his son will do business or not and as such there cannot be any such bonafdie requirement by the petitioner for his son. It is further stated that the petitioner has large area in the said shop which is more than sufficient for doing any such business and even most of the area of the shop in possession of the petitioner is lying vacant and only one corner of the shop has footwear and if the petitioner wants to expand or establish his son in the business, the same can be easily done from the said area of the shop only.
4. It is further stated that the petitioner has let out two parts of area of the shop to one person, namely Sh. Kumar who is selling night suits and the petitioner has been charging daily rent from the said person for using the Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 5 of 23 said area of the shop. It is further stated that the petitioner has also let out part of area of the shop to one Sh. Amod who is selling corns from the said area and has been paying rent of Rs. 12,000/ per month. The petitioner has also let out part of the area of the shop to one other person who is selling under garments from the said area and has been paying rent of Rs. 12,000/ to the petitioner and if the petitioner was having insufficient accommodation, he would not have let out the said area of his shop to said persons recently. In fact, the petitioner has no bonafide need and the present petition has been filed with malafide intention to compel the respondent to increase the rent or with the intention to get it vacated so as to relet the same at higher rent. It has been denied that the petitioner and respondent no. 4 are the owners of the suit premises. It has also been denied that Sh. M.L. Kholi and the respondent no. 4 were the owners of premises. It is stated that the petitioner has not filed any document to show that Sh. M.L. Kohli was the owner of the property in question and further has failed to show as to how he has become the owner of the suit premises after the death of Sh. M.L. Kohli. It is further stated that there are other sons of late Sh. M.L. Kohli namely Sh. Aayu Kohli, Sh. Suresh Kohli and Sh. Naresh Kohli and daughter Smt. Sharda Ghai who have not been made a party in the present petition. It is further stated that the petitioner has concealed that he has also Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 6 of 23 got another commercial accommodation at 52, basement, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi built on a area of 100 sq. yards and another premises at Dwarka. The petitioner has also concealed about filing of suit for possession bearing No. 46/2005 against the respondent no. 1 and in the said suit the petitioner had not taken any such plea of any bonafide requirement. It is further stated that the site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct as per the site as the other area in the basement of the property has not been shown. It is further averred that the present petition has not been filed in the name of correct tenant/respondents as there is no separate person by the name of the respondent no. 3 and further all the legal heirs of Sh. Subhash Chander have not been made party. It is further averred that respondents have been using the tenanted premises for their livelihood and same is the only source of income for their family. It is stated that there are several triable issues which require trial, and, therefore, the respondents have prayed for grant of leave to contest the petition.
5. The petitioner has filed the reply to leave to defend application of respondents no. 1 to 3 along with counter affidavit in which it has been denied that the shop in possession of the petitioner is of very big size or that most of the portion of the said shop is lying vacant. It is stated that shop in possession of the petitioner where he is carrying on shoe shop is like a Gali Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 7 of 23 which is not sufficient for the petitioner to run the said business smoothly and properly. It is further stated that the property at Vinoba Puri is 50 sq. yds and not 100 sq. yds. and the petitioner is in possession of the lower ground floor of the said property. It is stated that initially the petitioner was carrying on fast food business in the said accommodation at Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar and the said accommodation was taken for sleeping of the workers in the night. The said basement portion being residential is not required to be disclosed and furthermore the same is far inferior in comparison to the property at Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is further stated that the son of the petitioner is in final year of his education and exams are to be held in the month of AprilMay, 2009 and, thereafter, the petitioner's son will start his own business. The other contents of leave application are stated to be wrong and denied and it is stated that no triable issue has been raised by the respondents and the petitioner has prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. Rejoinder has been filed by the respondent no. 1 to 3 in which averments made in leave to defend application have been reiterated and re affirmed and those made in reply to leave to defend application have been controverted.
7. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 8 of 23 material available on record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by both the parties.
8. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1) (e) read with section 25B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove (i) ownership over the suit premises; (ii) alternative accommodation and (iii) bonafide requirement.
9. There is no dispute so far relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned. However, the respondents have disputed the ownership of the petitioner over the property in question. It is contended by the respondents that mere payment of rent by the respondents to the petitioner does not prove that petitioner is owner of the suit property. It is also stated that without admitting that Sh. M.L. Kohli was the owner, there are other legal heirs of late Sh. M.L. Kohli who have not been made party in the present petition.
10. It is undisputed fact that late Sh. M.L. Kohli was the owner of the suit premises who had let out the same to the predecessorininterest of the respondents no. 1 to 3. It has been admitted by the respondents in para 1 of the reply dated 13.08.2003 sent by them to the petitioner through their Advocate Dayani & Co. in reply to the notice dated 11.07.2003 that Sh. Subhash Chander was the tenant in respect of shop in question under late Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 9 of 23 Sh. Madan Lal Kohli and that the petitioner was not the sole owner of the property after the death of Sh. M.L. Kohli. In view of above, it is not in dispute that petitioner is son of deceased Sh. M.L. Kohli, who was the owner of the suit premises. However, the respondents have alleged that there are other legal heirs of Sh. M.L. Kohli who have not been impleaded in the present petition. But, impleadment of other legal heirs of late Sh. M.L. Kohli is not required as admittedly, the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of deceased Sh. M.L. Kohli and one of the coowners of the suit premises. It is a settled law that even one coowner can maintain the eviction petition. It has been held in AIR 2006 SC 1471 that eviction suit filed by one of the co owner on ground of bonafide personal need, he need not show consent given by other coowners.
11. Moreover, the respondents are admitting the petitioner to be their landlord as they have deposited the rentals in the court u/s 27 of DRC Act in favour of the petitioner only and copy of DR application has been placed on record. As such, when the respondents themselves admit the relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner, they are estopped from disputing the title of the petitioner over the premises in question by virtue of section 116 of Indian Evidence Act. Apart from this, the property in question has been mutated in the name of petitioner and respondent no. 4 who has been Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 10 of 23 impleaded as proforma respondent no.4. In view of above, there is no merit in the contention of the respondents no. 1 to 3 that petitioner is not the owner of the property in question.
12. It is also contended by the respondents that all the legal heirs of Sh. Subhash Chander, the original tenant have not been made party. However, there is no merit in this contention of the respondents. Law is well settled that after the death of original tenant, tenancy devolves upon his legal heirs as a joint tenancy and it is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of deceased tenant, whether they are living in tenanted premises or not. It is sufficient for landlord to implead only those who are living in property. It has been held in Inder Pal Khanna Vs. Commander Bhupinder Singh Rekhi (Retd.), 2008 VIII AD (Delhi) 328 that "It is settled law that on death of tenant, tenancy devolves upon legal heirs as a joint tenancy - LRs are joint tenants and not tenants in commonOnce tenancy a joint tenancy, notice to one of joint tenant is sufficient to terminate tenancy and suit cannot be held to be bad for non joinder of other joint tenants or all legal heirs of deceased tenantplea of petitioner that petitioner was separately required to be served personally is therefore not tenableWhere out of many, only one or two LR of deceased tenant are in occupation of premises, an eviction petition by landlord against those who are in Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 11 of 23 occupation of premises, is a valid petition - it is not necessary for the landlord to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant or to implead even those who are not in occupation and possession of the premises Service of one of the joint tenant has to be considered service on the other joint tenant because in joint tenancy, tenancy remains oneIt is not separate tenancy and right of each of the joint tenants is in whole of the premises."
13. The respondents have also contended in leave to defend application that petitioner has not stated that shop in his possession is insufficient and further as to why his son does not want to carry out the established business of the petitioner in such large area of premises. It is also contended that the petitioner has not even stated as to what business he wants to start for his son which shows that there is no such requirement or any such proposal to start any other business as alleged by the petitioner.
14. In the petition itself the petitioner has categorically stated that the petitioner has got in his possession the accommodation as shown in green in the site plan which is a small portion and is not sufficient for the business of the petitioner as the petitioner wants to expand his business. It is also stated that the gallery portion attached to the shop is not fit for business purposes and it is not possible for the petitioner to accommodate his son in the said shop. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not stated that the Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 12 of 23 shop in his possession is insufficient as alleged by the respondents in leave to defend application.
15. So far the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not stated the reasons why his son does not want to carry out the business of the petitioner which is the established business of the petitioner is concerned, it is a settled law that landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. It is prerogative of the petitioner or his son to choose the business to be carried out by them of their choice. A tenant can not dictate terms to landlord and advice him what he should do and what he should not and it is always the privilege of landlord to choose the nature and place of business. Hence, there is no merit in the contention of the respondents that petitioner has not stated that why his son does not want to carry out the same business which is being carried out by the petitioner.
16. Similarly, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not disclosed that what business he wants to set up for his son which shows that there is no such intention to set up any other business is also without any merit. It is a settled law that it is not required for the petitioner to plead any specific business which he is going to set up. It has been held in "
Balwant Singh Chaudhary and anothers Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 13 of 23 Corporation Limited" 2004 (1) RCR 487 that it is not necessary for the landlord to plead and prove the specific business he wants to set up if the landlord wanted premises for business purposes.
17. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner has not even stated the age and current status and position of his son. It is contended that there is only one son of the petitioner namely Sh. Pankaj Kohli who is presently doing professional course from Amity College, Noida and is in 2nd year and after completion of said course generally such educated students either take up further course like MBA or take job in some companies at handsome salary and no such person with such qualification would like to do business and as such there cannot be any such bonafdie requirement by the petitioner for his son. Again there is no merit in this contention of the respondents. The petitioner has placed on record photocopy of certificate issued by Amity University, Uttar Pradesh dated 22.05.2009 which shows that son of the petitioner namely Sh. Pankaj Kohli has completed Bachelor degree in Computer Applications. The petitioner has also placed on record copy of his ration card which shows the year of birth of his son, namely, Sh. Pankaj Kohli of the year 1987. As such, the son of the petitioner was of 21 years of age on the date of filing of the present petition and it cannot be said that he is not competent to start a business or his age or status has not been Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 14 of 23 disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record sufficient documents to show that his son Sh. Pankaj Kohli has completed his graduation in Computer Applications and he is 21 years old and is competent to start any business.
18. So far the contention of the respondents that son of the petitioner Sh. Pankaj Kohli who is presently doing professional course and after completion of said course generally such educated students either take up further course like MBA or take job in some companies at handsome salary, is concerned, again there is no merit in this contention. It is the choice of the son of the petitioner either to start a business or to do job in a company. The respondents cannot presume that son of the petitioner will not do any business after completion of professional course from Amity University.
19. The respondents have further contended that the petitioner has large area in the shop in his possession which is more than sufficient for doing any such business and even most of the area of the shop in his possession is lying vacant. It is also contended that central portion of the shop is also lying vacant and only one corner of the shop has footwear and if the petitioner wants to expand or establish his son in the business, the same can be easily done from the said area of the shop only.
20. On the other hand, case of the petitioner is that he has got in his Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 15 of 23 possession the accommodation as shown in green in the site plan which is a small portion and is not sufficient for the business of the petitioner as the petitioner wants to expand his business and also wants to settle his son in the said shop which is not possible in a small portion under the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record the site plan showing the accommodation in his possession in green colour. Perusal of the site plan filed by the petitioner shows that the total area of the entire property bearing No. 81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi in which suit shop as well as shop under the possession of the petitioner is situated is 35' x 14' and out of this area three shops under different tenants including the suit shop have been carved out, which is not in dispute. It is also stated by the petitioner that initially 422.50 sq. ft area was allotted to him and, thereafter, another space of 19 sq. yards was allotted by L&DO vide letter dated 07.02.1975. The petitioner has also placed on record the site plan and letter dated 07.02.1975 issued by L&DO to show that total area of the aforesaid property is 35' x 14' which has not been disputed by the respondents. Now, out of this total area of 35' x 14' if three shops including the suit shop are carved out, the petitioner is left with the area measuring 12' x 12' excluding the gallery portion, which is narrow in size and cannot be used for business purposes which is evident from the site plan filed by the petitioner. The area Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 16 of 23 measuring 12' x12' under the possession of the petitioner cannot be said to be sufficient for business of footwear which is presently being run by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner wants to expand his business and also wants to settle his son by starting a new business which is not possible in such a small portion under the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is having more than sufficient accommodation under his possession which is suitable for running any business. Moreover, it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in M/s Bajaj Associates & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors, 2008 (4) CCC 442 that, "It is not for the tenant to dictate to landlord as to how he has to run or adjust his business."
21. So far the contention of the respondents that that central portion of the shop under the possession of the petitioner is lying vacant and only one corner of the shop has footwear and if the petitioner wants to expand or establish his son in the business, the same can be easily done from the said area of the shop only is concerned, the respondents themselves have placed on record the photographs showing the shop under the possession of the petitioner. The photographs placed on record by the respondents clearly show that everywhere in the shop footwear has been displayed and no portion has been shown to be vacant in the said photographs. As such, the Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 17 of 23 plea of the respondents that central portion of the shop under the possession of the petitioner is lying vacant is not tenable.
22. The next contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has let out two parts of area of the shop to one person, namely Sh. Kumar who is selling night suits and the petitioner has been charging daily rent from the said person for using the said area of the shop. It is further contended that the petitioner has also let out part of area of the shop to one Sh. Amod who is selling corns from the said area and has been paying rent of Rs. 12,000/ per month. It is also contended that the petitioner has also let out part of the area of the shop to one other person who is selling under garments from the said area and has been paying rent of Rs. 12,000/ to the petitioner and if the petitioner was having insufficient accommodation, he would not have let out the said area of his shop to said persons recently. The petitioner has denied all these allegations in the counter affidavit.
23. First of all, except taking bald plea nothing has been placed on record by the respondents to substantiate the aforesaid pleas. Though the respondents have placed on record some photographs, but the photographs placed on record by the respondents itself shows that business of selling night suits or selling corns or under garments are being run out of the shop of the petitioner on the road side and same is not a part of the shop under Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 18 of 23 the possession of the petitioner. As such, it cannot be said that petitioner has let out part of his shop to the aforesaid persons and he has no bonafide requirement of the suit shop.
24. Another contention of the respondents is that the site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct as per site and is manipulated as the petitioner has also other area in the basement of the said property which has not been shown. The petitioner has denied the same in the counter affidavit. First of all, availability of basement with the petitioner is of no avail as the basement cannot be said to be suitable for business purposes. As per the MCD bye laws basement of a property can be used only for storage or godown purposes. Moreover, the respondents have not filed any counter site plan to show that how the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect and it is a settled law that if a tenant does not file any site plan, then site plan filed by the landlord is assumed to be correct. Reliance may be placed upon in the authority titled as R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargav 1986 RLR 232 and Jagmohan Singh Vs. K.M. Bhatnagar 1995 RLR 527.
25. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner has also got another commercial accommodation at 52, basement, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi built on a area of 100 sq. yards and another premises at Dwarka and the petitioner has concealed about the same. In this Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 19 of 23 regard, the petitioner has stated in the counter affidavit that property at Vinoba Puri is 50 sq. yds and not 100 sq. yds. and the petitioner is in possession of the lower ground floor of the said property. It is stated that initially the petitioner was carrying on fast food business in the said accommodation at Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Nagar and the said accommodation was taken for sleeping of the workers in the night.
26. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is owner of basement of the said property No. 52, Vinobha Puri, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. As discussed herein above the basement of a property can be used only for storage or godown purposes and cannot be said to be suitable for business purposes carried out by the petitioner. Therefore, even if the petitioner is having basement of aforesaid property, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no bonafide requirement of the suit premises. So far the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is having alternative accommodation at Dwarka is concerned, the respondents have not placed on record any material to show that the petitioner is owner of any commercial property at Dwarka and even the particulars of the property at Dwarka has not been disclosed by the respondents. Hence, this plea of the respondents is not substantiated.
27. The respondents have also contended that they have been using Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 20 of 23 the tenanted premises for their livelihood and same is the only source of income for their family is concerned, it is a settled law that if the landlord has bonafide requirement of the premises in question, the comparative hardship of the tenant cannot be looked into. It has been held in Ajit Singh Vs. Inder Saran & Ors, 1979 (1) RCR, 602 that, "It is irrelevant that eviction would cause hardship to tenant."
28. Similarly, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has no bonafide need and the present petition has been filed with malafide intention to compel the respondent to increase the rent or with the intention to get it vacated so as to relet the same at higher rent is without any basis. First of all, there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has ever demanded the rent at the enhanced rate of rent. Moreover, Section 19 of the DRC Act takes care of this apprehension of the respondents that the petitioner wants to relet the suit property at enhanced rentals as by virtue of Section 19 of DRC Act, the landlord cannot relet or sell the premises at higher prices before expiry of 3 years from getting eviction order and in case the landlord after the eviction order relet the same, the tenant has right to reenter the suit premises.
29. So far bonafide requirement of the petitioner is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that he is carrying footwear business in the shop Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 21 of 23 shown in green colour in the site plan which is not sufficient for carrying out the footwear business smoothly. Further, he wants to expand his business and also wants to settle his son who has completed his graduation by starting a new business which is not possible in the existing space in possession of the petitioner and if the suit shop under the occupation of the respondents is vacated, the petitioner shall be in position to adjust his son and to expand his business in the said vacated portion. The intention of the petitioner for expanding his business to add on his source of income by enhancing the already existing business cannot be said to be malafide. Similarly, it is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent. Therefore, if the petitioner wants to expand his business or wants to settle his son in his life, it cannot be said that petitioner has any malafide intention. The respondents have miserably failed to establish that the petitioner is having any other suitable alternative commercial accommodation in his possession for expanding his business as well as for settling his son. Hence, the requirement of the petitioner of the suit shop for expanding his business and for settling his son is bonafide.
30. In view of aforesaid discussions, the respondents have miserably failed to raise any triable issue in leave to defend application. Accordingly, Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 22 of 23 the application seeking leave to defend the petition moved by the respondents is dismissed and an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents no.1 to 3 in respect of Shop No. 81C measuring 7'x5' approximately in property No. 81, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, more specifically shown in red colour in site plan Ex. C1 (exhibited today while passing the order). However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry of 6 months running from today. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 20th July, 2011 ARC(South), New Delhi Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 23 of 23 E. No. 21/08 20.07.2011 Present: Proxy counsel for the petitioner along with the petitioner. Respondents no. 1 and 2 in person.
Vide my separate order dictated and announced in the open Court, the leave to defend application filed by the respondents no.1 to 3 is dismissed and an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents no.1 to 3 in respect of the suit premises.
However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry of 6 months running from today. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(B.R. Bansal) CCJ/ ARC/ ACJ(South), New Delhi 20.07.2011 Eviction Petition No. E21/08 Page 24 of 23