Delhi District Court
Smt. Kusum Lata Sharma vs Sh. Satpal on 7 December, 2009
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARVEEN SINGH, ARC (NE),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
E222/09
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA
W/O SH. RAMVIR SHARMA
R/O 1/3202, RAM NAGAR,
MANDOLI ROAD,
NEAR SHANTI BLDG.,
SHAHDARA, DELHI. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
SH. SATPAL
S/O SHRI VIJAY SINGH
R/O VILLAGE MALAKPUR,
DISTT. MEERUT (U.P.)
ALSO AT:
1/3202, RAM NAGAR,
MANDOLI ROAD,
NEAR SHANTI BLDG.,
SHAHDARA, DELHI32. .... RESPONDENT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 24.07.2009
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGEMENT : 07.12.2009
DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 07.12.2009
:: 2 ::
JUDGEMENT
1. The petitioner had filed the present petition under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act against the respondent claiming herself to be the landlord/ owner of property bearing no. 1/3202, Ram Nagar, Mandoli Road, Near Shanti Bldg., Shahdara, Delhi. The tenancy is for nonresidential purposes for running a shop of hair saloon and the shop measuring 5.6' X 7.6'. The premises was letout to the respondent vide rent agreement dated 01.01.1979. The respondent is her tenant in respect of the aforesaid property at a monthly rent of Rs.90/ excluding electricity charges. The respondent has not paid any rent for the last three years from January 2006 to January 2009 with 10% increase, as per Section 6A of the DRC Act and thus, finally a legal demand notice dated 08.04.2009 was served upon the respondent but, the respondent has failed :: 3 ::
to clear the arrears of rent. It is further submitted that the shop is required bonafidely by the petitioner for her son Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma as he is a Graduate in B.E. (Electronics) from Nagpur University and there is no other shop for selling the electronic items available to the petitioner and the son of the petitioner is completely out of a job in spite of getting a degree in B.E. (Electronics) in 1998 and despite his best efforts, he has not been able to secure a job anywhere and thus, he wants to set up his business for purchasing and selling of electronic items in the tenanted shop and hence, the present petition.
2. As the respondent failed to file the written statement, his defence has been struckoff vide order dated 20.10.2009.
3. I find that the allegations against the respondent, as levelled in the petition, stand unrebutted. Therefore, I find, that :: 4 ::
as per the unrebutted position, the case of the petitioner, that she is the landlord/owner of property bearing no. 1/3202, Ram Nagar, Mandoli Road, Near Shanti Bldg., Shahdara, Delhi and further; that the respondent is her tenant in respect of these premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 90/ excluding electricity charges has to be believed. Further, it is also the unrebutted position that, the respondent has been in arrears of rent for the last three years i.e. from January 2006 to January 2009, despite the repeated demands and service of the legal demand notice dated 08.04.2009, the respondent failed to clear the arrears of rent. Further, it is also unrebutted that the shop is required bonafidely by the petitioner for her son Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma as he is a Graduate in B.E. (Electronics) and there is no other shop for selling the electronic items available to the petitioner. It is also unrebutted that son of the petitioner is completely out of :: 5 ::
a job in spite of getting a degree in B.E. (Electronics) in 1998 and despite his best efforts, he has not been able to secure a job anywhere and he wants to setup his business for selling and purchasing the electronic items in the tenanted shops and hence, the shop is required by the petitioner bonafidely.
5. In these circumstances, where the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent, respondent being in arrears of rent and despite service of legal demand notice not paying these arrears and the shop being required bonafidely by the petitioner is established; I find, that the petitioner has become entitled to an order of eviction u/S 14(1) (a) and (e) of the DRCA.
6. However, as per the mandate of DRC Act, the order u/S. 15(1) of the DRC Act has yet not been passed. In view of the unrebutted position, I hereby order u/S 15(1) of the DRCA :: 6 ::
that the respondent shall deposit in the court, within one month from today, the entire arrears of rent @ 90/ p.m. w.e.f. July 2006 till date (period permissible under the Law of Limitation).
7. However, an eviction order u/S. 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of premises no. 1/3202, Ram Nagar, Mandoli Road, Near Shanti Bldg., Shahdara, Delhi, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.C1 (as marked by the court today).
8. Although, the petitioner has been found entitled to an order of eviction but, as the order u/S 15(1) of the DRC Act has been passed today, be listed for consideration on the point whether the benefit of section 14(2) of the DRC Act is to be granted to the respondent or not?
9. Copy of the judgement be sent to the respondent :: 7 ::
through a court notice.
Announced in the open court
on this 7 day of December, 2009
th
(This judgement contains seven (PARVEEN SINGH)
pages and each page bears ARC(NE)
my signatures) KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI.
:: 8 ::
E222/09
07.12.2009
Present: Counsel for petitioner.
Final arguments heard.
Vide my separate judgement. an eviction order u/S. 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act has been passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. However, as the order u/S. 15(1) of the DRC Act has been passed today, be heard separately on the point whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act or not?
Put up on 10.01.2010.