Delhi District Court
Sh. Ramesh Verma vs Smt. Rekha Mehta & Ors on 27 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
EVICTION PETITION NO. 278/09
Sh. Ramesh Verma
.........Petitioner.
Versus
Smt. Rekha Mehta & Ors.
.........Respondents.
ORDER:
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application for leave to defend moved by the respondents.
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 on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of shop measuring 8'x 13' on the ground floor of property No. 33B (Portion of property No. 33), Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 110024 stating that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and has got two sons namely Rajat Verma aged about 33 Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 1 of 22 years and younger son Rohit Verma aged about 30 years. Both the sons of the petitioner did their graduation from Delhi University, but since both the sons of the petitioner were not professionally qualified they could not find good jobs in India. It is further stated that petitioner along with his sons started a small business of sale of readymade garments on the first floor and back portion of the aforesaid property as at that time there were 7 tenants on the ground floor of the property including the respondents. The said business was not a success and having no alternative, the petitioner requested his younger brother Sh. Naresh Verma who was settled in Dubai since 1977 to sponsor a visa for his elder son to start some business at Dubai. Accordingly, the younger brother of the petitioner sponsored visa and in 1994 the elder son of the petitioner started a business on a very small scale in Dubai dealing in Music Audio Cassettes and he started staying with his uncle. It is further stated that in 1977, the younger son of the petitioner also joined the elder son of the petitioner in the same business of Audio Music Cassettes at Dubai and they had to take separate room on rent. In 1999, the elder son's wife also joined him and in the year 2002 the petitioner along with his wife also joined their sons and by 2006 the petitioner had two grand sons and due to shortage of accommodation the petitioner was constrained to take four room set accommodation at Dubai where he is Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 2 of 22 staying till today and the rent for the accommodation is 1,44,900 Dirhams. Similarly, the office premises of the petitioner is also on rental basis with annual rent of 3,00,000 Dirhams.
3. It is further stated that in recent years due to introduction of FM Radio Channel, the music business started declining and income of the family of the petitioner went down considerably and the sons of the petitioner shifted to Hindi Movies Distribution and distributed a few Hindi movies, but after suffering losses in the said business, the same had to be stopped. It is further averred that the petitioner as well as his sons also tried their hands in real estate business from the same rented accommodation in Dubai, but since September, 2008 there is a big Global Financial crisis, the said business came to a halt and in these circumstances the petitioner along with his sons decided to come back to India where they had at least sufficient residential accommodation and the petitioner along with his sons wants to start his own business at his only commercial property in India i.e. 33, Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is further stated that during the course of earlier years, 5 out of 7 tenants have vacated the premises and now only two tenants are left including the respondents in the aforesaid property and the petitioner along with his sons want to use this property to start a business by reconstructing the said property since the present Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 3 of 22 construction is very old and the condition of the building is deplorable and part of the old construction is also tearing apart and falling. It is further stated that the respondents are doing the business of repairing suit cases and all leather items and are doing the business of Rs. 5,000/ per day and have enough means to purchase or take on rent any other shop in the same market or at the place of their liking, whereas the petitioner is in real trouble to support his big family having only this commercial place to start fresh business in India and, therefore, the petitioner require the suit premises bonafide. 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 premises.
4. The respondents have filed leave to defend application along with their supporting affidavits contending that the provisions of Section 14 (1)
(e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is not entitled to get an eviction order against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises. It is stated that the petitioner had earlier also filed two eviction petitions bearing No. E109/2000 & E832/2000 against the respondent in respect of tenanted premises as well as against the other tenants in respect of Shop No. 33A to 33F, Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, but he withdrew all the six Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 4 of 22 petitions without any condition and the petitioner has concealed this fact regarding the filing & withdrawal of the above eviction petitions because disclosure of the aforesaid petition would falsify his alleged intention to reconstruct the property. It is further stated that the petitioner had sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2008 for the enhancement of the rent in respect of the shop under the tenancy of the respondents from Rs. 185/ to Rs. 55,000/ per month which was duly replied by the respondents vide their reply dated 12.01.2009 and it shows that the petitioner has been initiating false and frivolous proceedings against the respondents with a view to pressurize the respondents to either increase the rent in respect of the shop under tenancy or to get the said shops vacated with the intent to let out the same on higher rent. It is further stated that the petitioner has not filed the complete, true and correct site plan of the property No. 33, Pushpa Market, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi of which tenanted shop forms a part intentionally and deliberately to conceal the extent of commercial accommodation available to him and to his sons.
5. The respondents have further stated that the property No. 33, Pushpa Market, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi consists of 7 shops and a large hall on the ground floor, a large hall, one room, one bath, a WC and open terrace on the first floor and a large room on the second floor, out of which Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 5 of 22 the petitioner is in occupation of 5 shops and a large hall on the ground floor and the entire first and the second floor of the said property and the same are lying vacant. It is further stated that the petitioner was carrying on the business of readymade garments under the name & style of Jazz from the first floor of the aforesaid property, but since both the sons of the petitioner got settled at Dubai and had been doing the diversified businesses in Dubai such as Audio Cassetts/ CDs/Electronics/ TV Games/ Emergency Lights etc. in the name & style of Quasim Trading Company and are the wholesalers of Rajnigandha Pan Masala/ Tulsi Mix Gutkha - Tulsi Zafrani Zarda/ Catch Spices etc. in the name & Style of Hanifa Supermarkets, and the said business of the petitioner's sons was flourishing, the petitioner wound up his business and also joined his sons in Dubai, however the said shop is still in occupation and possession of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner and his sons are engaged in aforesaid diversified businesses in Dubai in the name & style of Quasim Trading Company and they are also wholesaler of Rajnigandah Pan Masala etc in the name and style of Hanifa Supermarkets, which business is flourishing rather than shrinking meaning thereby the petitioner does not need the tenanted premises for his own use and even if the petitioner really wants to start any business as alleged by him in the present petition, then the premises available with and in his Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 6 of 22 occupation is highly sufficient for him for the said purpose. It is also stated that the petitioner also filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents in which application U/o 39 Rule & 2 was dismissed on the basis of report of MCD that no encroachment/ unauthorized construction is there in Shop No. 33B, Pushpa Market, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi. It has been denied that the daily income of the respondent from the tenanted premises is Rs. 5000/ per day or Rs. 1.5 lakh per month. It is stated that there are several triable issue which require trial, and, therefore, the respondents have prayed for grant of leave to contest the petition.
6. The petitioner has filed the reply to the leave to defend application in which it has been contended that the respondents have concealed in their application that they are owners of six properties bearing Shop No. 31, MCD Shopping Complex, Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, Property No. S69/R44/02, JJ Camp, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi, Property No. R16, JJ Camp, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi - 65, Property No. G220, Gali No. 8, Ratiya Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, Property No. G190, Gali No. 8, Ratiya Marge, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and Property No. G42, Nirmal Puri, Double Story, Lajpat NagarIV, New Delhi 24 and the respondents have further concealed that they are carrying on their business Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 7 of 22 from at least three of the aforesaid properties which have been purchased by them. It has been denied that the petitioner has concealed the filing and withdrawing of earlier eviction petition against the respondent and other tenants in the property intentionally. It is stated that the mention of petition No. E109 of 2000 and E832/2000 against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises as well as against the other tenants has no concern or relation with the age and state of building and it was only to get the property free hold from the lease hold, the said petitions were withdrawn by the petitioner. It is further stated that the construction of the building in which the suit property is situated is more than 46 years old and the building is in deplorable state. It is further stated that the petitioner is an NRI and the notice dated 19.12.2008 was got sent by him as the petitioner did not have knowledge regarding the grounds of bonafide requirements being extended to the commercial property as well and on learning the same he filed the present petition. It is further stated that one shop No. 33 which was the biggest shop among the 7 shops was got vacated on 07.10.2002 and since then the said shop is under the possession of the petitioner and is lying locked and similarly out of remaining six shops, four shops were vacated which were located in the gali and the said shops are also till date lying vacant and locked in the possession of the petitioner and, therefore the Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 8 of 22 allegations of the respondents that the petitioner wants to relet the premises is totally baseless.
7. It has been denied by the petitioner that he and his sons are carrying on the business of sale of audio cassette, CD, TV games and emergency lights under the name and style of M/s Qasim Trading Co. in Dubai and further that the petitioner is having agency of TSeries, media games etc. It has been further denied that the petitioner and his sons are carrying on the business of Pan Masala and spices under the name and style of Hanifa Super Market in Dubai or is having agency of various reputed companies. It is stated that the petitioner or any of his family members is not doing any such business in Dubai. It is further stated that since the Audio Cassette business declined due to the introduction of FM radio stations, the agreement with TSeries was terminated vide letter dated 03.04.2006 and similarly business of Media/TV games was only one time trading pertaining to year 199596 and apart that one shipment the said business was not continued. It is further stated that the sons of the petitioner tried their luck in real estate brokerage business in Dubai with a partnership company and the said company is under losses. It is further stated that the sons of the petitioner also took on lease two restaurants by name of Arvees Food Court at Vaishno Devi, Jammu, however same is the property of Vaishno Devi Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 9 of 22 Shrine Board and the said restaurants are only leased out to the said company which is also under the losses. It has been denied that the petitioner does not require the tenanted premises for any business or that the petitioner and his family is well settled in Dubai. It is stated that the petitioner wants to start fresh business in Delhi and the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient for starting any reasonable business by the petitioner and business cannot be started by the petitioner without reconstruction of the entire property, otherwise the petitioner could have by now already started his business in Delhi. The other contents of leave to defend 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.
8. Rejoinder has been filed by the respondents in which averments made in leave to defend application have been reiterated and reaffirmed and those made in reply to leave to defend application have been controverted.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
10. There is no dispute so far the ownership of the petitioner over the property in question is concerned. However, the respondents have contended that the provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act are not Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 10 of 22 applicable in the present case and petitioner is not entitled to get an eviction order against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises which was let out for commercial purposes. But, this contention of the respondents is without any merit because in view of the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India III (2008) SLT 553, the eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement is maintainable in respect of commercial premises also.
11. Now, the main contention of the respondents in leave to defend application is that the property No. 33, Pushpa Market, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi consists of 7 shops and a large hall on the ground floor, a large hall, one room, one bath, a WC and open terrace on the first floor and a large room on the second floor, out of which the petitioner is in occupation of 5 shops and a large hall on the ground floor and the entire first and the second floor of the said property and the same are lying vacant. It is further contended by the respondents that the petitioner was carrying on the business of readymade garments under the name & style of Jazz from the first floor of the aforesaid property, but since both the sons of the petitioner got settled at Dubai and had been doing the diversified businesses in Dubai such as Audio Cassetts/ CDs/Electronics/ TV Games/ Emergency Lights etc. in the name & style of Quasim Trading Company and are the wholesalers of Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 11 of 22 Rajnigandha Pan Masala/ Tulsi Mix Gutkha - Tulsi Zafrani Zarda/ Catch Spices etc. in the name & Style of Hanifa Supermarkets, and the said business of the petitioner's sons was flourishing, the petitioner wound up his business and also joined his sons in Dubai, however the said shop is still in occupation and possession of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner and his sons are engaged in aforesaid diversified businesses in Dubai in the name & style of Quasim Trading Company and they are also wholesaler of Rajnigandah Pan Masala etc. in the name and style of Hanifa Supermarkets, which business is flourishing rather than shrinking meaning thereby the petitioner does not need the tenanted premises for his own use and even if the petitioner really wants to start any business as alleged, then the premises available with and in his occupation is highly sufficient for him for the said purpose.
12. However, the case of the petitioner is that the business started by him along with his sons of sale of readymade garments on the first floor and back portion of the property was not a success and, therefore, the elder son of the petitioner went to Dubai and started a business on a very small scale in music audio cassettes and later on the younger son and the petitioner also joined him. But, due to introduction of FM Radio channel, the music business started declining and income of the family of the petitioner went Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 12 of 22 down considerably and ultimately the petitioner had to switch over to some other business. It is further case of the petitioner that his sons distributed a few Hindi movies but after suffering losses in the said business, the same had to be stopped and ultimately the petitioner as well as his sons tried their hands in real estate business from the rented premises in Dubai but due to big Global Financial Crises, the said business also came to a halt and, therefore the petitioner along with his sons decided to come back to India to start a new business from his only commercial property in India i.e. 33, Pushpa Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is also case of the petitioner that he wants to use his commercial property to start a business by reconstructing the said property since the present construction is very old and the condition of the building is deplorable.
13. As such, the case of the petitioner has emerged out that due to financial losses in the businesses being carried out by him along with his sons in Dubai, he has decided to start a new business in his commercial property in India after reconstructing the same. It is to be noted here that the respondents have categorically stated in their leave to defend application that petitioner and his sons are engaged in diversified businesses in Dubai such as Audio Cassettes/ CDs/Electronics/ TV Games/ Emergency Lights etc. in the name & style of Quasim Trading Company and they are the wholesalers Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 13 of 22 of Rajnigandha Pan Masala/ Tulsi Mix Gutkha - Tulsi Zafrani Zarda/ Catch Spices etc. in the name & Style of Hanifa Supermarkets and the said business of the petitioner is flourishing rather than shrinking.
14. The petitioner has denied in his counter affidavit that he and his sons are carrying on the business of sale of audio cassette, CD, TV games and emergency lights under the name and style of M/s Qasim Trading Co in Dubai and further that the petitioner is having agency of TSeries, media games etc. It has also been denied that petitioner and his sons are carrying on the business of Pan Masala and spices under the name and style of Hanifa Super Market in Dubai or is having agency of various reputed companies. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner or any of his family members is not doing any such business in Dubai.
15. However, denial of the fact that the petitioner and his sons are not carrying on the business of sale of audio cassette, CD, TV games and emergency lights under the name and style of M/s Qasim Trading Co in Dubai is contrary to the documents filed by the petitioner himself. The petitioner has placed on record the letter dated 03.04.2006 issued by Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. by which the agreement between Qasim Recording Co. and Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. was put to an end. The said letter has been addressed to Sh. Rajat Verma, Managing Director of Qasim Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 14 of 22 Recording Co. The petitioner has also placed on record photocopy of certificate dated 14.04.2009 issued by MVL Industries Ltd. by which it is confirmed that MVL Industries Ltd., manufacturer of TV, Video games and emergency lights had business dealing with Qasim Trading Co. way back in the year 19951996 and during their business tenure, there was only one shipment that was exported from their end to Qasim Trading Co.
16. As such, the documents placed on record by the petitioner himself show that petitioner along with his son was carrying the business of Audio Cassettes/ CDs/Electronics/ TV Games/ Emergency Lights etc. in the name & style of Quasim Trading Company. In this regard, the respondents have also placed on record the Internet generated advertisement/details showing Qasim Trading Co. as agents of Audio Cassettes, CDs and electronics, TV Games and Emergency Lights and Hanifa Supermarkets as agents of Rajnigandha Pan Masala/ Tulsi Mix Gutkha , Tulsi Zafrani Zarda and Catch Spices of which Sh. Rohit Verma, the son of the petitioner is Director.
17. The petitioner has also taken a plea in reply to leave to defend application that his sons also took on lease two restaurants by name of Arvees Food Court at Vaishno Devi, Jammu, however same is the property of Vaisno Devi Shrine Board and the said restaurants are only leased out to the said company which is also under the losses. The petitioner has also Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 15 of 22 placed on record the auditor report to substantiate this plea. However, from the report of the Auditors dated 04.09.2008, it is not ascertainable that the said company is running into losses. On the other hand, the respondents have placed on record the Internet generated company profile of Aarvees Food Court last updated on 31.03.2009 and company profile of Aarvees Group which boasts of the projects of the company. The aforesaid document placed on record by the respondents show that the company Aarvees Group is not running into losses, but it boasts of the projects of the company in which Sh. Rajan Verma, one of the sons of the petitioner is Managing Director. Therefore, it raises a triable issue as to whether due to suffering of business losses, the petitioner intends to run a new business from property in question and he requires the suit premises bonafide or that the petitioner and his sons have flourishing business and therefore the petitioner does not require the suit premises as alleged by the respondents.
18. I also find considerable force in the contention of the respondents that if the petitioner really wants to start a business, then the petitioner could have started the business in the accommodation available to him. The respondents have categorically stated that the property No. 33, Pushpa Market, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi consists of 7 shops and a large hall on the ground floor, a large hall, one room, one bath, a WC and open terrace on Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 16 of 22 the first floor and a large room on the second floor, out of which the petitioner is in occupation of 5 shops and a large hall on the ground floor and the entire first and the second floor of the said property and the same are lying vacant. It has also been stated by the respondents that initially the petitioner was carrying on the business of readymade garments under the name & style of Jazz from the first floor of the aforesaid property, but since both the sons of the petitioner got settled at Dubai and had been doing the diversified businesses in Dubai and the said business is flourishing, the petitioner wound up his business and also joined his sons in Dubai.
19. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that he has got vacated 5 shops out of 7 shops from the different tenants on the ground floor of the property in question and same are in his possession and are lying vacant. The petitioner has also not disputed that he was carrying on the business of readymade garment on the first floor and the entire first and second floor of the property in question are in his possession and are lying vacant. However, the petitioner has come up with a plea that he wants to start fresh business in Delhi and the extent of accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient for starting any reasonable business by the petitioner and business cannot be started without reconstruction of the entire property since the present construction is very old and the condition of the building is Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 17 of 22 deplorable . The respondents have controverted the same.
20. Both the parties have placed on record the photographs in support of their contentions. However, the photographs placed on record by both the parties do not show that the property in question is in dilapidated condition or that no business activities can be carried out from the property in question. Therefore, prima facie the contention of the petitioner that the present construction of the property in question is old construction and the building is deplorable does not seem to be tenable. As such, when a huge space is lying vacant with the petitioner and he has not put to use the said space, it raises a triable issue as to whether the requirement of the petitioner of the suit premises is bonafide or not because had the requirement of the petitioner bonafide, he could have started any business in the space available with him.
21. Though, it is a settled law that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement and neither the court nor the tenant can dictate terms to him or advice him how and in what manner the premises available to him is to be utilized. However, in the present case, the petitioner has stated that the extent of accommodation available to him is not sufficient to start any business, but he has not disclosed how such a huge space available to him is not sufficient to start any business. The petitioner has also not disclosed the Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 18 of 22 nature of the business for which such a huge space is required. Though, being the landlord, the petitioner is not required to disclose the nature of the business which he is going to start but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where a huge space is available with the petitioner and same is lying vacant as contended by the respondent and not disputed by the petitioner, therefore, unless petitioner discloses that he is going to start a particular business for which a huge space is required and the said proposed business can not be carried out in the space available, it raises a triable issue as to whether the need of the petitioner of the suit premises is bonafide or not.
22. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that before filing the present petition, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 19.12.2008 to the respondents for enhancement of rentals w.e.f. 01.01.2009 from existing rate of rent of Rs. 185/p.m. to Rs. 55,000/ p.m. and it substantiates the plea of the respondents that present petition has been filed either to increase the rent or to get the shop vacated with a view to let out the same on higher rent.
23. Though, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that if the petitioner has demanded the rentals at the enhanced rate vide legal notice dated 19.12.2008, it does not show any malafide on the part of the petitioner Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 19 of 22 and in this regard he has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a case titled as Bajaj Associates & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. I have gone through the said authority. The facts of the case referred in the said authority are distinguishable from the facts in the present case. In the said case, letter for enhancement of rentals was dated 01.02.1995 and the need for more space was realized in the subsequent year 19971998 and in those facts it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that there may not have been need of more space in the year 1995 and it came to be realized subsequent in the year 199798 and therefore mere writing of letter dated 01.02.1995 by the landlord to tenant to enhance rent on an earlier occasion is no ground to doubt the bonafide need of the landlord. But, in the present case legal notice for enhancement of rentals was dated 19.12.2008 and immediately after issuance of the said notice within 23 months, the present petition has been filed.
24. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that said legal notice dated 19.12.2008 was sent to the respondents for enhancement of rentals as the petitioner being settled in Dubai was not aware of the passing of the judgment in Satyawati case by which eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement is maintainable in respect of commercial premises also. However, I do not find any merit in this argument of the Ld. Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 20 of 22 Counsel for the petitioner as the judgment in Satyawati case was pronounced on 16.04.2008 by the Hon'ble Apex Court and there had been a sufficient gap between pronouncement of the said judgment and issuance of legal notice dated 19.12.2008.
25. Moreover, the legal notice dated 19.12.2008 was not issued by the petitioner himself, but the same was got issued by the petitioner through his Advocate and it cannot be believed that the Advocate was not aware of the judgment in Satyawati case. Further, there is not a single whisper in the legal notice dated 19.12.2008 that the condition of property in question is deplorable and building in dilapidated condition and the respondents should vacate the same. Had that been the position of the building, the petitioner would have asked the respondents to vacate the suit premises being in dilapidated condition instead of asking the respondents to continue the tenancy on the condition of enhancement of rentals manifold. Therefore, it again raises a triable issue as to whether the petitioner requires the suit premises bonafide or not.
26. So far the authorities (2003) 1 SCC 462, (2003) 1 SCC 191, (2008) 5 SCC 287, 97 (2002) DLT 997, (2007) 14 SCC 374. (2006) 2 SCC 724, 135 (2006) DLT 265, 135 (2006) DLT 453, (1999) 6 SCC 222, 155 (2008) DLT 383 and (1982) 3 SCC 270 relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 21 of 22 the petitioner is concerned, I have gone through the same. There can be no deviation from the law laid down in the aforesaid authorities, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case as there are several triable issue which cannot be decided without trial.
27. In view of aforesaid discussions, in my considered opinion, the respondents have raised several triable issues regarding the bonafide requirement of the suit premises by the petitioner which require trial and matter can not be decided at this stage without granting opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their contentions. Hence, leave to defend application moved by the respondents is allowed.
Announced in the open court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 27th September, 2011 ARC(South), New Delhi Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 22 of 22 E. No. 278/09 27.09.2011 Present: Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 with counsel.
Vide my separate order dictated and announced in the open court, the leave to defend application filed by the respondents is allowed.
Let written statement be filed within 30 days with advance copy to the petitioner's counsel who may file replication to the same.
Case is fixed for PE for 12.12.2011. Evidence by way of affidavit be filed with advance copy to the counsel for the respondents.
(B.R. Bansal) CCJ/ ARC/ ACJ(South), New Delhi 27.09.2011 Eviction Petition No. E 278/09 Page 23 of 22