Delhi District Court
Sh. Harish Kumar Margai vs Sh. Sanjeev Gupta on 11 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS BHAWANI SHARMA: ACJ/CCJ/ARC
SHAHDARA: KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
E95/2013
Unique Identification No. 02402C0268292013
Sh. Harish Kumar Margai
S/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan Murgai,
R/o 1/4637, Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar Extn.,
Shahdara, Delhi110032. .....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Sanjeev Gupta
S/o Sh. Rishi Kumar Gupta,
Prop: M/s New Gupta Shoes Store,
Shop on G.F. in premises No. 1/4637,
Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar Extn.,
Shahdara, Delhi110032. .....Respondent
Application for Eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958.
Petition filed on : 26.08.2013
Order reserved on : 11.11.2014
Date of Order : 11.11.2014
Decision : Leave to defend application of the
respondent - dismissed and
eviction order passed.
ORDER
1. This is a petition for eviction of tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) of E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 1 of 22 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as 'DRC Act').
2. The petitioner Sh. Harish Kumar Murgai filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Summons under prescribed format were served upon the respondent on 07.09.2013. An application seeking leave to defend the petition was filed on 19.09.2013. Petitioner filed reply to the same.
3. (a) The petitioner has sought an eviction against the respondent Sanjeev Gupta stating that he is the sole owner of the property bearing MCD no. 1/4637, Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi110032 which is in total measurement of about 202 sq. yds and the respondent is a tenant in respect of one shop on ground floor measuring about 16' x 10' as shown with red colour in the site plan at a monthly rent of Rs.935/ per month excluding electricity and all other charges. There is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is submitted that the tenancy period commences on the 1st day of each English calender month and ends on the last day of the same month.
(b) It is submitted that the petitioner requires the tenants shop for his own bonafide needs and requirements as the petitioner has no other alternative accommodation in the entire territory of Delhi or elsewhere to open his own shop and run his business to earn his livelihood. However, the tenanted shop is the most suitable E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 2 of 22 accommodation for the petitioner to run his shop for readymade garments.
(c) It is submitted that there are only two shops on the ground floor towards the main mandoli Road. Out of the two shops, one shop is occupied by the respondent and another small shop is occupied by his married son namely Pankaj Murgai who is running the said shop under the name and style of M/s Pankaj Traders. The petitioner was sitting with his son in the said small shop. However, due to some disputes between the petitioner and his son Pankaj, it is impossible to runthe shop altogether. Hence, the petitioner required the tenanted shop urgently for his own separate business.
(d) It is submitted that in the property there are two shops on the ground floor out of which one is occupied by the respondent and another is occupied by the son of the petitioner. On the ground floor, there are only two rooms and one kitchen in which the petitioner and his wife Smt. Praveen Lata are residing and major parts of back side are open and unconstructed. On the first floor, there are only two rooms and one kitchen and the same are used for residence by the son of the petitioner who is residing separately on the first floor with his wife Smt. Monica and one son Namit who is aged about 7 years and one daughter Km. Vironica aged about 5 years.
(e) The petitioner has no source of income at present. Due to E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 3 of 22 the nonavailability of separate shop, the petitioner is leading a very miserable life. The petitioner is at present penniless. The petitioner is facing acute problem of work and finance to earn his livelihood and the son of the petitioner is supporting him for the last more than one year. Thus the petitioner requires the shop in question bonafidely.
(f) The family of petitioner consisting the petitioner himself, his wife, his married son with his wife and two minor children. Apart from this one Seema Garg W/o Sh. Rakesh Garg who used to come from Punjab with her children in holidays and stay with the petitioner in holidays of children. Moreover, the petitioner has no source of income at present. Hence, the petitioner requires the tenanted shop bonafidely to start his own business of readymade garments.
4. (a) On the other hand, ld. counsel for the respondent has argued through his leave to defend application that the petitioner has not provided any detail of his alleged proposal to run a shop for readymade garments. Even the petitioner has not applied to any of the competent Authority including for registration under Shop and Establishment Act, if there was any intention on his part to carry out the alleged business from the tenanted premises. On the contrary, the petitioner is sitting with his son in the adjoining shop which is in possession of the petitioner and which has the hoarding of 'Pankaj Traders'. In fact, the said shop is lying vacant as hardly at any time his E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 4 of 22 son sits in the said shop but the petitioner regularly sits there in the said shop. If at all in the said shop being run under the name of 'Pankaj Traders', the son of the petitioner has been carrying out any business activity, the petitioner has not placed any document to support this stand to show that the adjoining shop is being run for some commercial activity. It is submitted that in absence thereof, it is established that even the adjoining shop carrying the hoarding of 'Pankaj Traders' is lying vacant and can be equally used for readymade garments. It is submitted that the petitioner alongwith his family is residing on the ground floor portion of the house behind the shop in which the two commercial shops are situated on the Eastern side facing the main Mandoli road.
(b) Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioner is living along with his wife and married son in a three cornered/side house and as such has got three entrance from three different sides. The site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect and dis not disclose the factual situation and the measurement shown therein are also factually incorrect. It is submitted that one entrance is on the Eastern side which has been shown as passage between the two shops viz. one shop under possession with the respondent and another shop in possession with the petitioner. It is submitted that hardly this passage is used as most of the time it remains closed. This passage has been E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 5 of 22 marked as 'Y' in the site plan filed by the respondent. The other entrance is on the Southern side in the Gali and behind the shop in possession with the petitioner. It is submitted that this is the main entrance from where the vehicles of the petitioner are used in gaining entrance from where the vehicles of the petitioner are used in gaining entrance. It is submitted that this entrance on the Southern side of the Gali is shown as 'Z' in the site plan filed by the respondent. The third entrance which has been shown as a door is on the Western side in the Gali. It is submitted that this passage is equally used and is shown in the site plan as 'A'. It is submitted that in the wake of there being three entrances all falling on the main road/street side and since the passage sandwiched between the shop of the petitioner and the shop of the respondent is not used as a common passage.
(c) The petitioner is regularly in use of said shop marked as 'B' in the site plan filed by the respondent and there is no question of any fight or strained relationship between the petitioner and his son as alleged. It is submitted that respondent is filing the photographs of the said shop in exclusive use and possession with the petitioner.
(d) It is further argued that if there had been any requirement of the petitioner, he would not given another shop to the respondent as earlier the respondent is in possession of half portion of the tenanted shop since 1985 and second half portion towards Southern side was E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 6 of 22 given on rent to him in the year 1990.
(e) It is further argued that the shop which is in possession of the petitioner is sufficient for the petitioner to carry out his business at present. It is submitted that the said tenanted shop is not being run by the son of the petitioner namely Pankaj Murgai but is under the control, supervision and ownership of the petitioner himself.
(f) The petitioner alleged that there is dispute between him and his son and as a result thereof the petitioner is not in a position to sit in the said shop because of the dispute with his son. It is submitted that on the contrary at no point of time, there arose any dispute between the petitioner and his son who still are in good and talking terms with each other as both the families are living in the same house.
(g) There is no bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises on the part of the petitioner as the petition has been filed as an abuse of the process of law and to take under benefit of the legal provision of 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of the DRC Act. There is additional space available with the petitioner which has been shown as passage between the two shops whose measurement has been shown to be 3 ft. which measurement again is incorrect. Since the petitioner is using the main entrance on the Southern in the Gali and since this passage shown in the site plan has a commercial value and can easily be used as another shop by the petitioner.
E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 7 of 22
(h) The petitioner is in habit of increasing rent not in phased manner i.e. 10% after one or two year. The present rent of the tenanted shop is Rs.2,000/ per month while the petitioner has been issuing the receipt for Rs.935/. Similarly, the petitioner has received the rent @ Rs.2,000/ per month up to May, 2013 but he has not issued any rent receipt from May, 2012 onwards. The petitioner pressurizing the respondent to increase the rent directly from Rs.2,000/ to Rs.5,000/ per month and as counter blast, he has filed the present petition.
(i) The petitioner is not the owner as he is landlord qua the tenanted shop. The premises is jointly owned by the petitioner and his wife Smt. Parveen Murgai. Thus, the wife of the petitioner is also a necessary party in the petition and her name should have been included in the array of the parties. The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present eviction petition qua the respondent hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
(j) It is further argued that the respondent has paid a 'Pagri' for a sum of Rs.30,000/ at one time and at that time, the petitioner was given possession of a portion of the tenanted shop which was then measuring about half of the portion of the present measurement of the shop in question. It is submitted that the respondent took the other half portion of the shop in question after paying another 'Pagri' of Rs. 1.05 lacs to the petitioner and a receipt was executed for a part sum of E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 8 of 22 Rs.30,000/ in favour of the brother in law of the respondent Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta against a receipt dated 07.03.2009. The balance amount of Rs.75,000/ was later on paid to the father of petitioner.
Thus, it is argued that the respondent has raised triable issues and the respondent is entitled to leave to defend.
5. Before adverting to the submissions of the parties, it would be apposite to encapsulate the legal provision under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs the current litigation. Section 14 (1) (e) provides that:
14. Protection of tenant against eviction. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one ore more of the following grounds only, namely:
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
6. In the present case the petitioner Harish Kumar Murgai has filed E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 9 of 22 the petition stating that he is the sole owner of the property bearing MCD no. 1/4637, Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi110032 which is in total measurement of about 202 sq. yds and the respondent is a tenant in respect of one shop on ground floor measuring about 16' x 10' as shown with red colour in the site plan at a monthly rent of Rs.935/ per month excluding electricity and all other charges. The petitioner has also claimed that the reason for eviction is a bonafide claim of starting his own business of readymade garments at the tenanted premises. He has no other property except the present property in the vicinity of Delhi.
7. What has to be seen now is whether the leave to defend application moved by the respondent has raised any triable issues or not for which evidence is to be led? I shall deal with all the defences raised in the leave to defend application of the respondent in a sequential manner:
8. The first ground on which leave to defend is sought is that the petitioner has not provided any detail of his alleged proposal to run a shop for readymade garments. Even the petitioner has not applied to any of the competent Authority including for registration under Shop and Establishment Act, if there was any intention on his part to carry out the alleged business from the tenanted premises. On the contrary, E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 10 of 22 the petitioner is sitting with his son in the adjoining shop which is in possession of the petitioner and which has the hoarding of 'Pankaj Traders'. In fact, the said shop is lying vacant as hardly at any time his son sits in the said shop but the petitioner regularly sits there in the said shop. If at all in the said shop being run under the name of 'Pankaj Traders', the son of the petitioner has been carrying out any business activity, the petitioner has not placed any document to support this stand to show that the adjoining shop is being run for some commercial activity. It is submitted that in absence thereof, it is established that even the adjoining shop carrying the hoarding of 'Pankaj Traders' is lying vacant and can be equally used for readymade garments. It is submitted that the petitioner alongwith his family is residing on the ground floor portion of the house behind the shop in which the two commercial shops are situated on the Eastern side facing the main Mandoli road. The entire leave to defend application has, by and large emphasized that since the other shop with the hoarding 'Pankaj Traders' belonging to the petitioner is lying vacant as no business activities being carried out there, as no documentary proof so as to support the contention that the adjoining shop is being run for come commercial activities. Such emphasis has been laid to demonstrate that the petitioner has been bent upon to get the tenanted premises vacated. This contention however has no bearing, so far as the triable issues are E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 11 of 22 concerned. What is to be examined by this Court is that whether the grounds for eviction are mere desire or wish of the landlord to have additional accommodation and whether the respondent has shown any triable issue, which would entitle him to be given a leave to defend this petition.
9. Another issue taken by the respondent is that the petitioner is not the owner as he is landlord qua the tenanted shop. The premises is jointly owned by the petitioner and his wife Smt. Parveen Murgai. Thus, the wife of the petitioner is also a necessary party in the petition and her name should have been included in the array of the parties.
10. The respondent's contention is that the petitioner is not the sole owner of the property as his wife Smt. Parveen Murgai is the coowner of the property in question. The whole argument of the respondent is irrelevant as firstly, he does not dispute that petitioner has rented out the premise to him. It is clear that the petitioner and respondent have entered into the shoes of the landlord Harish Margai and tenant Sanjeev Gupta respectively. Therefore, the respondent cannot at this stage, deny the ownership of the petitioner. Secondly, for the purpose of DRC Act, what has to be established is the landlordtenant relationship, which is not denied here. Under the DRC Act, the landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 12 of 22 Property Act. He is required to show that he is more than tenant (Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Leelawati & Ors., 155 (2008) DLT 383). Thirdly, by its own admission, the respondent has admitted that the petitioner is the coowner of the property in question, and under the Delhi Rent Control Act, it is sufficient if one of the co owners files a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. It is also 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. Counsel for petitioner relied upon judgment titled as 'Satnam Anand and anr. vs. Gurbachan Singh, passed by Delhi High Court decided on 17/02/2011 (Ex.FA no. 60/2011). In para no. 7 of this judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under: "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 E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 13 of 22 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."
11. I have already held that the petitioner is a landlord within the meaning of DRC Act. The Act does not require inclusion of all the owners for filing an eviction petition. The ratio of Satnam Anand's case (Supra) is also applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the noninclusion of other coowners cannot become triable issue.
12. Next point taken by the respondent is that the respondent has paid a 'Pagri' for a sum of Rs.30,000/ at one time and at that time, the petitioner was given possession of a portion of the tenanted shop which was then measuring about half of the portion of the present measurement of the shop in question. It is submitted that the respondent took the other half portion of the shop in question after E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 14 of 22 paying another 'Pagri' of Rs.1.05 lacs to the petitioner and a receipt was executed for a part sum of Rs.30,000/ in favour of the brother in law of the respondent Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta against a receipt dated 07.03.2009. The balance amount of Rs.75,000/ was later on paid to the father of petitioner.
13. As regards this 'Pagri', even if paid, would entitle the respondent to seek its refund, however, payment of this amount is not a triable issue entitling the respondent to leave to defend the petition.
14. It is further argued that if there had been any requirement of the petitioner, he would not given another shop to the respondent as earlier the respondent is in possession of half portion of the tenanted shop since 1985 and second half portion towards Southern side was given on rent to him in the year 1990. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent that the shop which is in possession of the petitioner is sufficient for the petitioner to carry out his business at present. It is submitted that the said tenanted shop is not being run by the son of the petitioner namely Pankaj Murgai but is under the control, supervision and ownership of the petitioner himself. The petitioner alleged that there is dispute between him and his son and as a result thereof the petitioner is not in a position to sit in the said shop because of the dispute with his son. It is submitted that on the contrary at no point of E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 15 of 22 time, there arose any dispute between the petitioner and his son who still are in good and talking terms with each other as both the families are living in the same house. It is further argued by the respondent that there is no bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises on the part of the petitioner as the petition has been filed as an abuse of the process of law and to take under benefit of the legal provision of 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of the DRC Act. There is additional space available with the petitioner which has been shown as passage between the two shops whose measurement has been shown to be 3 ft. which measurement again is incorrect. Since the petitioner is using the main entrance on the Southern in the Gali and since this passage shown in the site plan has a commercial value and can easily be used as another shop by the petitioner. It is also argued that the petitioner is in habit of increasing rent not in phased manner i.e. 10% after one or two year. The present rent of the tenanted shop is Rs.2,000/ per month while the petitioner has been issuing the receipt for Rs.935/. Similarly, the petitioner has received the rent @ Rs.2,000/ per month up to May, 2013 but he has not issued any rent receipt from May, 2012 onwards. The petitioner pressurizing the respondent to increase the rent directly from Rs.2,000/ to Rs.5,000/ per month and as counter blast, he has filed the present petition.
E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 16 of 22
15. As regards, the argument that the petitioner and his son are having healthy and sound relationship there been no friction between them, it is pertinent to mention here that for availing of the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, it is not necessary that the petitioner and his family inter se have to live separately or have to file any litigation between them, as such raising no triable issue, for the purpose of proceeding with the trial.
16. The another argument of the respondent is that the petitioner is regularly in use of said shop marked as 'B' in the site plan filed by the respondent and there is no question of any fight or strained relationship between the petitioner and his son as alleged. It is submitted that respondent is filing the photographs of the said shop in exclusive use and possession with the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has filed a wrong site plan.
17. Without filing any documentary proof, the arguments as advanced on behalf of the respondent, are wholly untenable and do not invite any triable issue for the purpose of proceeding further with the trial. The contention that one side of the premises of the petitioner can equally used in the wake of there been three entrances and the common passage lying vacant between the shop of the petitioner and the shop of the respondent can very well be used for the alleged bonafide E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 17 of 22 requirement is not sufficient so as to put forth the present petition to undergo the process of the trial. Further, compelling the landlord/owner to succumb to the arrangement proposed by the respondent would not only be detrimental to the petitioner but also to the business of the petitioner. A landlord/owner is the best judge of his own requirements.
18. In Krishan Lal vs. R.N. Bakshi, cited as 169 (2010) Delhi Law Times 769, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that it is settled law that it is not for a tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should adjust himself, without calling upon the tenant to vacate a tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of requirement of landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted. When the landlord shows a prima facie case, a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide, is available to be drawn. It is also settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter and it is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. The tenant cannot compel a landlord to live in a particular fashion and method until and unless the requirement shown is totally mala fide or E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 18 of 22 not genuine."
19. It is argued on behalf of the respondent has raised triable issues and the respondent is entitled to leave to defend. In this regard reference can also be had to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shafiqqudin vs. Mohd. Ibrahim, in R.C.Rev 502/2012, wherein it was held that: "It is important for the tenant, in any leave to defend application to submit relevant documents on record to support any triable issue raised by him. In absence of any material, the ARC cannot come to a conclusion as to the weight of the issue raised by the tenant. Thus impairing his power to decide whether an issue raised is triable or not."
20. It is also a settled law that it is for the landlord to decide how and what accommodation to use for meeting his bonafide requirement and tenant cannot dictate the same to the landlord.
21. In Sudesh Kumar Soni & Anr. vs. Prabha Khanna & Anr., 153 (2008) Delhi Law Times 652, the court observed as under: "It is not for tenant to dictate terms to landlord as to who else he can adjust himself without getting possession of tenanted premisessuitability has to be seen for convenience of landlord and his family members and on the basis of circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habit and E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 19 of 22 background."
22. Argument that petitioner is man of means and has got sufficient income and property to support him does not raise any triable issue.
23. It is argued on behalf of the respondent has raised triable issues and the respondent is entitled to leave to defend. It is already held that the petitioner is the best judge of his own requirement as per judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shafiqqudin Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim's case (Supra).
24. It is also a settled law that it is for the landlord to decide how and what accommodation to use for meeting his bonafide requirement and tenant cannot dictate the same to the landlord.
25. In Gulab Chand Pukhraj vs. R.B. Jinender Raj & Anr., 2009 (4) Civil Court Cases 748 (SC), it was held that once it is not disputed that landlord is in bonafide need of premises, court cannot dictate to landlord which floor he should use for his business. Moreover, it is well settled law that it is the landlord's prerogative as to in which location he prefers to run business and law should not and cannot prevent such preference by a landlord in order to meet his bonafide requirement.
Conclusion: E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 20 of 22
26. It is well settled law that leave to defend can be granted to the tenant in case of any triable issue has been raised by him, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence. The mere existence or averment of any triable issue is not sufficient. The nature of the triable issue raised by the tenant must be such that it would disentitle the landlord from obtaining the eviction order. The whole purpose and import of summary procedure under Section 25B of the Act would otherwise be defeated. The prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima facie case i.e. such facts which disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction, the Court should not mechanically & in routine manner grant leave to defend.
27. In the light of the aforesaid legal ratio, all the pleas taken by the respondent seems to be sham and moonshine, which have failed to raise any requisite triable issues. The contents of the application for leave to defend have failed to rebut the presumption of bonafide qua the need of the petitioner. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus rejected.
28. Consequently, an eviction order is passed under Section 14 (1) (e) ne of the DRC Act against the respondent regarding the O shop on E-95/13 Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 21 of 22 ground floor measuring about 16' x 10' in the property bearing bearing MCD no. 1/4637, Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar Extn., Shahdara, Delhi110032 as shown with red colour in the site plan as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner in this case.
29. However in light of Section 14 (7) DRCA, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
30. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
31. After compliance, file be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open (Bhawani Sharma)
Court on 11.11.2014 ACJ/CCJ/ARC (Shahdara)
(Order contains 22 pages.) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
E-95/13
Harish Kumar Murgai vs. Sanjeev Gupta
Decided on 11.11.2014 Page 22 of 22