Delhi District Court
Smt. Soma Devi Jain vs Smt. Anita Pawar on 31 August, 2013
Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANISH YADUVANSHI
SCJCUMRC (SOUTH) SAKET COURTS COMPLEX
NEW DELHI
E. No. 27/12
UNIQUE CASE ID NO. 02406C0070722012
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT. SOMA DEVI JAIN
W/O LATE SH. MUNI SUBRAT DASS JAIN
R/O G14, SECOND FLOOR,
SOUTH EXTENSION, PARTI,
NEW DELHI110049.
THROUGH HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
AND SON SHRI AURN JAIN.
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SMT. ANITA PAWAR
W/O LATE SH. NARESH KUMAR VERMA
2. SHRI AVIRAL PAWAR
S/O LATE SH. NARESH KUMAR VERMA
3. MS SHRUTI PAWAR
D/O LATE SH. NARESH KUMAR VERMA
4. MS DEEPALI PAWAR (MINOR)
Result: Application allowed Page 1 of 23
Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12
D/O LATE SH. NARESH KUMAR VERMA
THROUGH HER MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN SMT. ANITA PAWAR
ALL AT SHOP NO. G14, GROUND FLOOR,
SOUTH EXTENSION PARTI, NEW DELHI
ALSO AT:
R/O 2301, RAGHUVARPURA NO. 2,
GANDHI NAGAR, DELHI 110031.
....RESPONDENTS
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.03.2012
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 24.08.2013
DATE OF DECISION : 31.08.2013
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
1. In a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, referred 'DRC Act') filed by petitioner Smt. Soma Devi Jain through her GPA and son Sh. Arun Jain, the respondents No.1 to 4 filed an application for leave to contest under Section 25B (4) of the DRC Act. Same is under consideration.
2. The petitioner claims herself to be the owner and landlord of a Result: Application allowed Page 2 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 shop bearing No. G14, Ground Floor, South Extension, PartI, New Delhi approximately measuring 927 sq. feet as shown in yellow colour in the site plan (hereinafter, called 'demised premises') which was let out on rent for 11 months w.e.f. 01.02.1963 by the petitioner to one Late Sh. Sri Bhagwan vide a registered Lease Deed dated 19.08.1963, so registered on 23.08.1963. The said tenancy ended by efflux of time. A legal notice dated 15.10.1984 was also sent to Sh. Sri Bhagwan being a statutory tenant. The tenancy was also terminated by said notice. Sh. Sri Bhagwan died in the year 1996 as a statutory tenant and the tenancy devolved on his spouse. It is submitted that Sh. Naresh Kumar Verma, the husband of first respondent and father of respondents No.2 to 4 had set up a Will in his favour by Sh. Sri Bhagwan Dass and on the basis of which he claimed inheritance to the tenancy of Sh. Sri Bhagwan Dass. It is further stated that Sh. Naresh Kumar Verma was conducting business in demised premises only on account of being statutory tenant as the lease deed dated 19.08.1963 had expired by efflux of time.
2.1 According to the plaintiff, her family comprises of herself and as many as eight other members. She requires the demised premises Result: Application allowed Page 3 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 for bona fide used of herself and for the business of her son Sh. Arun Jain and his family, who were residing on the second floor of the demised premises. Sh. Arun Jain carries the business of Software Consultancy and sale of "Pluss", garments and accessories from the portion on the first floor of the said property. It is shown in green colour in the site plan. The entire first floor is admeasuring approximately 927 sq. feet. The passage and entry of this business place is from the rear side of the property which is a small road and is behind the main market. The prospective clients have to enter through the rear side and thus face a lot of inconvenience and ultimately reluctant to shop at the premises of Sh. Arun Jain thereby adversely affecting his business. Sh. Arun Jain wants to expand his business and thus required the ground floor also in order to use the ground floor as well as first floor to display his products in a better and well planned manner. In doing so, he can approach multinationals like Nike, Reebok, Puma, Levis, etc. for obtaining their franchisee. It is further submitted that on the ground floor and first floor Sh. Arun Jain can open a big showroom. It is also claimed that due to shortage of space, Sh. Arun Jain had to give up business of the company namely 'Red Result: Application allowed Page 4 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 Tape' and is constantly suffering losses. It is also stated that as the entire family is residing on second floor of same premises, it would be convenient for Sh. Arun Jain to expand his business on ground floor while staying on the second floor. The plaintiff herself claims that she is living with Sh. Arun Jain and she will be benefited if her son's business flourishes and at the same time her son would be always available at the premises itself.
2.2 It is also in the petition that previously, the petitioner filed a petition No. M24/11 under Section 14(1)(e) and (j) of the DRC Act; during pendency of which the petitioner filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC seeking liberty to withdraw the said petition and to file it under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act only. On 03.05.2011, the Court declined the said request and dismissed the said application. It is further submitted that instead of continuing with the pending petition, the Hon'ble Court consigned the same to the record room. The petitioner also filed an application seeking review of the said order but the review petition was also dismissed on 23.02.2012 on a view that the Court has no power to review its order. It is claimed that therefore the present petition is not maintainable. Along with the Result: Application allowed Page 5 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 application seeking leave to contest, the respondent No.1 i.e. Mrs. Anita Pawar filed a detailed affidavit in order to set out grounds for contest. It is set out that none of the requirement under Section 14(1)
(e) of the DRC Act have been fulfilled. It is claimed that soon after the death of husband of respondent No.1, the petitioner started false and frivolous litigations putting the answering respondent, who is a widow, in great difficulty. It is submitted that the petition is not maintainable being filed on the same cause of action earlier preferred in eviction petition No. 467/09. It is claimed that a similar bona fide requirement was projected in the earlier petition and it was at the stage of the evidence when the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition. In para 6 of the affidavit, the respondent has set out a comparative analysis of avernments in old petition and avernments in new petition, so far as it pertained to bona fide requirement. It is urged that the present petition is thus barred by the principles of resjudicata. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also taken contradictory stand in the previous petition and the present one. The same are sought to be described in para 7 of the affidavit in a comparative table. It is also stated that the petition does not show any document to the effect that the petitioner Result: Application allowed Page 6 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 has applied with MCD for change in site plan for constructing a staircase to the first floor on the front side. It is further submitted that the petitioner has entered or in process of entering into an agreement with some builder for sale and redevelopment of the building. 2.3 The respondent also claimed that the petitioner is having half portion of the first floor of premises which is totally lying vacant and unused and if petitioner's son is really desirous of expanding business, his need can be satisfied as the said half portion is lying vacant and unused. It is also claimed that petitioner's family consists of herself, her son and daughterinlaw, who have ample space for their living and business purposes.
3. It is further submitted that the area of the shop has been differently stated in para 8 of present petition as compared to the para 8 of the previous petition. Qua rent, it is denied that it is Rs.550/ per month. It is submitted that the rent of the premises was Rs.695/ per month till April, 2012 and has been so enhanced at the rate of 10% every three year which at present is Rs.765/ per month. It is being deposited with MCD in pursuance to an attachment order. The respondents denied that any Lease Deed dated 19.08.1963 was Result: Application allowed Page 7 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 executed between the petitioner and Sh. Sri Bhagwan. It is also denied that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question. The respondents admit that Sh. Naresh Kumar Verma carried on his business from tenanted premises as contractual tenant and at the same time it was denied that the tenancy was given by any lease agreement. It is further stated that the family members of the petitioner are not dependent upon the petitioner either for residence or business. It is stated that Sh. Arun Jain and his wife Dr. Sangeeta Jain are not financially dependent upon the plaintiff. It is further stated that Sh. Rajeev Jain and Mrs. Neeru Jain (son and daughterinlaw of the petitioner) are also not dependent on the petitioner. It is submitted that Ms. Upma Jain, Ms. Sanjogita Jain, Ms. Sarita Jain and Ms. Meena Jain (daughters of the petitioner) are already married and are not dependent for any purposes on the petitioner. They are living separately with their spouses.
4. It is also submitted that property No. G14 comprises of ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. On the ground floor, there are two shops out of which one is in tenancy of the respondents while the other is in tenancy of another tenant who conducts jewellery Result: Application allowed Page 8 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 business from the said portion. On the first floor, Sh. Arun Jain is doing his business of sales of shoes, and watches, garments, etc. which portion is just above the shop of the respondents. It is claimed that the other half portion of the first floor and above the shop of K.K. Jewellers is lying vacant and in exclusive possession of the petitioner along with her two sons and two daughtersinlaw, who are residing in the said premises. Thus, a family of five persons is occupying 2½ floors having approximately nine rooms, half portion of first floor apart from verandah, kitchen, bathrooms and the roof. The respondents states that one of the daughterinlaw of the petitioner is a professor and does not require any premises for commercial purpose. The other daughterinlaw is stated to be housewife who also does not require any premises for commercial purpose.
4.1 The respondents also denied that the passage to enter to the first floor which is from the rear side is either very small or behind the main market. It is thus, denied that there would be inconvenience to any prospective customer or to Sh. Arun Jain. It is further submitted that on the first floor of the property, the petitioner's son Sh. Arun Jain is doing business of Red Tape shoes, watches, computers, etc. Result: Application allowed Page 9 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 while the other half portion is lying vacant. The remaining respondents have also filed their affidavits in support of the affidavit of the respondent No.1.
5. In reply, the petitioner submits that previous litigation cannot operate as estopple against landlord or preclude her from instituting a fresh petition seeking eviction of tenant on the ground that petition has to be tested from the date of its filing. It is claimed that the earlier petition was not dismissed on merits. It is further submitted that even otherwise the bona fide requirement is a recurring and continuing cause of action. On bona fide requirement, it is submitted by the petitioner that the avernments of the respondent are moonshine. It is submitted that landlord is the best judge of her requirement and the expansion of business as also its growth is always a bona fide requirement. It is claimed that the respondents have raised bogus claims, bald allegations and have taken frivolous pleas. It is submitted that the respondents have failed to challenge that Sh. Arun Jain is doing trading business; that the only stairs to approach the first floor is from the back lane and not from the main market; that the business is bound to flourish and grow if it is run from bigger area; and that the Result: Application allowed Page 10 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 area of South Extension is a heavy commercial area where all big showrooms of multinational brands prefer to open their outlets.
6. On merits, the petitioner reiterates the contents of the eviction petition as correct while denying the pleas taken up by the respondents. It is pointed out that the petition does not state that the petitioner intends to set up a new staircase for approaching the first floor from the front and therefore the question of any sanction from MCD does not arise. It is further submitted that comparing the present petition with the old is nothing but to make the judicial record bulky as the question of resjudicata does not apply to the present proceeds. It is reiterated that area of tenancy, the facts and the dates of tenancy as provided in the petition are correct. Regarding the half portion on the first floor of the premises, it is stated that the said half portion of the first floor is in occupation of Sh. Rajiv Jain, the other son of the petitioner, who is carrying his own business from the said portion. The petitioner denies that her family members are not dependent upon her for any purposes as alleged. It is pointed out that bona fide need of the petitioner is for herself and his son Sh. Arun Jain and his family and not all the remaining family of petitioner and that the avernment qua Result: Application allowed Page 11 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 nonrequirement of commercial premises for other family members of petitioner has no legs to stand upon. It is also denied that Sh. Arun Jain is doing business of Red Tape shoes, watches and computers. It is reiterated that due to paucity of space the business of Red Tape has been given up. Other avernments are also specifically denied.
7. The respondents preferred a rejoinder along with affidavit in support. The contents of the same are in denial of the contents of petitioner's reply in totality. The respondents have reurged the grounds taken by them in the leave to contest application. At the same time, on the issue of the subsequent petition i.e. the present one, respondents stated in para 4(i) of the rejoinder that the withdrawal of the earlier eviction petition without seeking liberty or leave of court does not preclude the landlord from filing fresh eviction petition against the tenant. At the same time, the respondents also submitted that the present petition based on very same grounds as mentioned by the petitioner herein in the present eviction petition in comparison with the previous one is an act of misuse of the summary procedure. At the very same time in para 4(ii) of the rejoinder, the respondents also stated that the present eviction petition based on same facts and Result: Application allowed Page 12 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 cause of action as in the earlier petition is not maintainable in law. Besides the aforesaid addition to the already pleaded grounds, the remaining contents of the rejoinder are repetition of the contents of their leave to defend application.
8. Non surrejoinder was filed.
9. In arguments, the counsel for the petitioner urged the ground taken by the petitioner in the petition further amplified in her reply to the leave to contest application. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the following judgment:
a) Shamimuddin v. Babulal, 2012 (2) CLJ 645 (Del) to the effect that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and has a complete freedom in the matter. In the said case, the landlord required the shop on the ground floor of the premises and the two rooms at the first floor of which the landlord was already engaged in business of manufacturing of travel bags and school bags since last 20 years. It was found that the shop on the ground floor shall be suitable for petitioner's need.
b) Mukesh Kumar v. Rishi Prakash, 174 (2010) DLT 64 to the
Result: Application allowed Page 13 of 23
Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12
effect that the tenant cannot be permitted to be shooting in dark and raising all and sundry frivolous pleas in an irresponsible manner to which the Controller will not succumb in order to defeat the purpose of summary procedure.
c) Viran Wali v. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar, 174 (2010) DLT 328 to the effect that tenant cannot dictate landlord as to how and in what manner landlord should use his own property. In the said case, the basement in possession of the landlord was not found to be suitable for business purposes and thus the requirement was found to be bona fide.
d) Abdul Malik & Anr. v. Shashi Bhalla, 186 (2012) DLT 669 to the effect that the landlord is the best judge of his needs and it is not open for Court or tenant to dictate him terms.
e) Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimala Bai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252 to the effect that tenant cannot dictate terms to landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not and that it is always privilege of landlord to choose the nature and place of business.
f) N.R. Narayan Swamy v. B. Francis Jagan, (2001) 6 SCC 473 to
Result: Application allowed Page 14 of 23
Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12
the effect that in an eviction suit on the ground of bona fide requirement, the genuineness of the said ground is to be decided on the basis of requirement on the date of the suit. Further, even if a suit for eviction of such nature is filed and dismissed, it cannot be held that once the question of necessity is decided against the landlord he will not have the bona fide and genuine necessity ever in future.
g) Labhu Lal v. Sandhya Gupta, 173 (2010) DLT 318 to the effect that it is for the landlord to see as to which premises is more suitable to him and in what manner.
h) Manika Rani Ghosh & Ors. v. Dharwinder Kaur, 2013 I AD (DELHI) 146 to the effect that it is not for the Court to examine viability of business at suit premises or assess if it may be profitable venture for landlady.
i) Om Prakash Arora v. Rattan Mala Jain, 2013 I AD (DELHI) 253 to the effect that the comparative hardships caused to the tenant due to eviction cannot be the deciding factor while considering his leave to defend.
Result: Application allowed Page 15 of 23
Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12
j) Balbir Kaur & Ors. v. Roop Lal & Ors., 2011 (2) RCR (Rent)
593 to the effect that where landlords had already had huge business and sought eviction of tenant from the building to expand business, his need must be presumed as bonafide.
10. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents also set out the grounds stated by him in the leave to contest application and his arguments. He relied on following judgments:
a) Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand Kiran, JT 2000 (3) SC 397 to the effect that where a requirement of additional accommodation is set up, the question can be decided on full trial only.
b) Rajbir Pal & Anr. v. Kanwar Pratap Singh, RC. Rev. No. 209/2010 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 12.10.2011 again to the effect that in a case of additional accommodation of the landlord, leave to defend should normally be not refused to the tenant.
In the said case it was held that the petitionerstenants deserved to be granted leave to contest on the ground that the landlord required additional accommodation for better running of his existing business. Result: Application allowed Page 16 of 23
Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12
c) M/s S.K. Seth & Sons v. Vijay Bhalla, 2012 (2) RCJ 353 (Del.)
to the effect that while recognizing right of landlord with respect to choosing the best suitable accommodation for meeting his requirement, it is certainly a triable issue that whether shop available with landlord is sufficient to meet his requirement or not.
d) Accebeen Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Jai Shree Khanna, 2012 (2) RCJ 4 (Del.) to the effect that leave to defend is granted to tenant in case of any triable issue raised before the Trial Court which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence.
e) Prahlad Rai Mittal v. Rita Devi 2012 (2) RCJ 132 (Del.) to the effect that the tenant cannot be thrown out of tenanted premises at threshold. It was held that issue regarding alternative accommodation available with respondent as also her bona fide need of suit premises cannot be prematurely decided without adjudication by way of evidence and not merely on affidavits of parties.
f) Mohd. Jafar & Ors. v. Nasra Begum, 2012 (2) RCR (Rent) 236 to the effect that when it is a case of requirement of additional accommodation by respondentlandlord, leave to defend must Result: Application allowed Page 17 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 ordinarily be granted to the tenant.
11. In the present application, the respondentstenants have raised broadly two grounds viz:
a) That the present petition is barred by resjudicata in view of the earlier petition No. 467/09 disposed off by Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, the then ARC (South), Saket, New Delhi by his order dated 03.05.2011 and also by disposing off the review application against the said order on 23.02.2012.
b) That the petitioner has no bona fide need as Sh. Arun Jain has sufficient space to do his business on the first floor of the demised premises.
FINDINGS
a) That the present petition is barred by resjudicata in view of the earlier petition No. 467/09 disposed off by Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, the then ARC (South), Saket, New Delhi by his order dated 03.05.2011 and also by disposing off the review application against the said order on 23.02.2012.
Result: Application allowed Page 18 of 23
Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 In support of the first ground raised in caption above, the petitioner has mainly relied on N.R. Narayan Swamy's case (supra). The law on the said is beyond any controversy as on day. Same has been set out in catena of judgments including the judgment relied upon. It is to the extent that even if an earlier petition of bona fide requirement has been dismissed, such requirement may arise again for a landlord in due course of time. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "once a question of necessity is decided against the landlord, it cannot be said that he will not have a bona fide and genuine necessity ever in future. In the subsequent proceedings, if such claim is established by cogent evidence adduced by the landlord, decree for possession could be passed". A bare reading of the text of the judgment would also indicate that in a subsequent proceedings, the claim of the landlord has to be established by 'cogent evidence' to be adduced by the landlord. In simple words what implies is that a landlord is not precluded from bringing petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act on a subsequent bona fide ground earlier held against him but then in such circumstances such claim has to be established by 'cogent evidence'. If that be so, the tenant shall be entitled to leave to Result: Application allowed Page 19 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 contest. Thus, the law relied by the petitioner herein does not support her case in totality.
Furthermore, on this issue the respondents have blown hot and cold in same breath. I have pointed out earlier that in para 4(i) and 4
(ii) of their rejoinder they have stated that the landlord is not precluded from bringing a petition again on his bona fide need but then in the manner which the present petitioner has proceeded, the same amounts to misuse of summary procedure. At the same time, the respondents have also maintained their stand that the present petition is barred by resjudicata.
In this regard, the previous petition of the petitioner was based on similar ground as is raised in the present petition so far it pertains to bona fide requirement. The petitioner filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC to withdraw the said petition and filed it again on same cause of action. Ld. ARC passed detailed order on 03.05.2011 holding that the petitioner had not been able to make out a case to grant her permission to withdraw the said application with liberty to file a fresh petition on same cause of action. The application under Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC was therefore dismissed. However, the Court Result: Application allowed Page 20 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 proceeded to say in para para 11 of its order that the petition was 'dismissed as withdrawn'. The file of the said petition bearing No. 467/09 was ordered to be consigned to record room. Subsequently, the Court of Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, the then Ld. ARC, Saket, New Delhi also disposed off the review petition under Order 47 read with Section 151 CPC seeking modification of its earlier order dated 03.05.2011. While dismissing the review petition on 23.02.2012, it was held that the Court has no power to review its own order while expressing an opinion that there can be no deviation from the law laid down in that regard in cases reported in AIR 1970 Mysore 155; AIR 1977 Rajasthan 131; AIR 1974 Bombay 39 and AIR 1931 Mad 715. The effect of the above would be that the previous petition of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) was not permitted to be withdrawn in order for the petitioner to file the same on the same cause of action. The review petition was dismissed against consignment of file to record room. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal against orders dated 03.05.2011 as well as 23.02.2012 which attained finality. She preferred to file a petition on same grounds which is now under consideration. It is nobody's case that the present petition has not been filed on the same Result: Application allowed Page 21 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 cause of action. The respondents have presented two contrary stands on this issue. At the same time, judgment in N.R. Narayan Swamy's case (supra) would postulates grant of leave in a case subsequent to the one the bona fide requirement of which was held against the landlord. The effect of the two orders of Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, the then Ld. ARC, Saket would render the said orders as that of dismissal of the petition in its entirety. It being so, the present respondents shall be entitled for grant of leave to contest in view of the judgment in N.R. Narayan Swamy's case (supra).
b) That the petitioner has no bona fide need as Sh. Arun Jain has sufficient space to do his business on the first floor of the demised premises.
In this context, it is respondent's case that Sh. Arun Jain has vacant space available to him on the first floor of the premises. In this context, it is a contention of the petitioner that the said vacant space is in possession of her other son namely Sh. Rajeev Jain. None of the two sides have preferred to furnish any further details apart from the pleadings. Thus, in my considered view, it is the petitioner's word against the respondent on the issue. As to whether Sh. Arun Jain has Result: Application allowed Page 22 of 23 Smt. Soma Devi Jain v. Anita Pawar & Ors. E-27/12 or does not have additional space available to him on the first floor of the premises in question is therefore a triable issue. It is also established that the petitioner's son intends to add on to his existing business by operating from the ground floor of the building in the demised premises. The petition is therefore seeking additional accommodation and to that extent the relevance of the citations in cases at 10 (a); 10(b); 10(f) is correct. It becomes a case of seeking additional accommodation and the necessity of the same is therefore to be tested on merits.
12. In the result, the leave to defend application is allowed. The respondents are granted leave to contest accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (MANISH YADUVANSHI)
on 31.08.2013. SCJCUMRC (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
Result: Application allowed Page 23 of 23