Delhi District Court
Sukhdev Singh Bhurji (Since Deceased ... vs Amarjeet Singh on 6 September, 2014
Page no. 1 of 15
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ (WEST) THC, DELHI
UID No. 02401C0504692013
E No.60/2013 U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act
Date of institution: 04.10.2013
Date of Order: 06.09.2014
1. Sukhdev Singh Bhurji (Since deceased and represented through petitioners
no.2 to 6)
S/o Late Sh. Trilok Singh
R/o J-84A,Vishnu Garden
New Delhi-110018
2. Smt. Amrit Kaur
D/o. Sh. Sukhdev Singh Bhurji
W/o. Sh. Kuljinder Singh
R/o 220/J-44, Vishnu Garden
New Delhi-110018
3. Smt. Rani
D/o. Sh. Sukhdev Singh Bhurji
W/o. Sh. Manoj Singhal
R/o E-35, Guru Nanak Road
Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi-110033
4. Smt. Jasbeer Kaur
D/o. Sh. Sukhdev Singh Bhurji
W/o. Sh. Vipin Luthra
R/o Balaji Jewellers
Opp. Dhaliwal Kirana Store
Joginder Nagar, Rama Mandi
Jalandhar, Punjab
5. Ms. Sheetal Kaur
D/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh Bhurji
R/o J-84A,Vishnu Garden
New Delhi-110018.
6. Mr. Surjeet Singh
D/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh Bhurji
R/o J-84A,Vishnu Garden
New Delhi-110018. ....... Petitioners
Versus
Amarjeet Singh
Proprietor of M/s. Amba Radio,
Shop at Property no. J-84A,
Vishnu Garden, Khaila Road, Delhi. ...... Respondent
E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh
Page no. 2 of 15
Order deciding Leave to Defend in Eviction petition
U/sec. 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC Act, 1958
1) Vide this order the Court shall dispose of the application U/s 25-B (4 & 5) of DRC
Act of the respondent seeking leave to defend the eviction petition, filed on
01.11.2013.
2) The eviction petition U/sec. 14(1)(e) Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) was filed by the petitioners against the
respondent on 04.10.2013.
FACTS
3) The averments made in the petition are that:-
3.1 One shop at ground floor measuring 7'3''ft X 10'7.5''ft., in property No. J-84A, Vishnu Garden, Khaila Road, New Delhi. (herein after called tenanted premises/shop in question), as shown in red colour in the site plan, was let out by the late Smt. Chanchal Kaur wife of the petitioner no.1 and mother of petitioners no. 2 to 6 being owner thereof at monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month exclusive of other charges.
3.2 The said Smt. Chanchal Kaur had filed a petition bearing E No. 87/2011 against the respondent for eviction of the tenanted shop on the ground of non payment of rent u/s 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act. However, during its pendency, she expired. An application for impleading her LRs was filed in the said petition.
3.3 The wife of the petitioner no.1 died on 19.09.2012 leaving behind her husband Sh. Sukhdev Singh Bhurji (petitioner no.1), 1 son Sh. Surjeet Singh (petitioner no.6) and 4 daughters, namely Smt. Amrit Kaur (petitioner no.2), Smt. Rani (petitioner no.3), Smt. Jasbeer Kaur (petitioner no.4) and Ms. Sheetal Kaur (petitioner no.5) as her legal heirs. Petitioners no. 5 and 6 are unmarried.
E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh
Page no. 3 of 15
3.4 After the death of the wife of petitioner no.1 and mother of petitioner no.
2 to 6, all petitioners acquired/ inherited property no. J-84A, Vishnu Garden, Khaila Road, New Delhi being the co-owners 3.5 The wife of petitioner no.1 was the landlord/ owner of the above mentioned property and she used to collect the rent from the respondent/ tenant till her death.
3.6 The petitioner no. 1 is an old person and is feeding his family with great difficulty. The petitioner no.1 is not finding good matches for his son and daughter due to paucity of funds.
3.7 The tenanted shop is required by the petitioners for employment of petitioner no. 6 who is unemployed. The petitioner no.1 wanted to get started/ open a business for petitioner no. 6.
3.8 The petitioners do not have any other shop or suitable accommodation available with them for the business of petitioner no. 6, except the said shop.
3.9 The respondent is irregular and defaulter in payment of rent and extending threats to the petitioner.
4) The respondent has filed application for leave to defend along with affidavit wherein he admitted the following facts:
4.1 That there is a case pending before this Hon'ble Court wherein the landlord is Smt. Chanchal Kaur.1 4.2 That the respondent is an old tenant not of the petitioners and is facing continuous litigation throughout the tenancy period.2
5) Respondent has raised certain defenses in the application for leave to defend and the same are as under:
5.1 That the petitioners have not been made a party in another eviction petition already pending before this Hon'ble Court.
5.2 The petitioners have suppressed the fact that petitioner no.6 is running a 1 Para 5.B of the application under consideration.
2 Para 5.I of the application under consideration.
E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh
Page no. 4 of 15
shop in other property of the petitioners.
5.3 There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
5.4 The petitioners are not in need on any space to start any business from the said shop in question as they are all engaged in their respective professions.
5.5 That it is false to say that the petitioners are unmarried and unemployed. The petitioners are already occupying several shops.
5.6 That evidence is required to prove the ownership of the petitioners and his sons qua the respondent concerned.
5.7 That the petitioners have also suppressed their income from all sources. All of them are involved in their respective business and are earning about Rs. 1 Lac per month as well there is rental income from other tenants to the petitioners which was not disclosed by the petitioners.
5.8 That the eviction is being sought for dispossessing the tenant of the shop or to let out the same at higher rate of rent.
5.9 The shop in question is the only source upon which the respondent and the family members are entirely dependent.
6) The petitioners have filed a reply to the application for Leave to Defend along with affidavit and in the affidavit the petitioners have denied the defences taken by the respondent.
7) Arguments were heard on the application under consideration on behalf of both the parties. Material on record has been perused. Submissions considered.
8) It is pertinent to mention here that vide separate order of the even date the application of the petitioners u/O 22 R 3 CPC was disposed of with the directions that the name of petitioner no. 1 be deleted from the array of the parties as the requirement has been projected on behalf of all petitioners, specifically on behalf of petitioner no. 6 and the cause of action survives even after the death of petitioner no. 1.
REQUIRMENTS
9) In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14(1)(e) of the E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh Page no. 5 of 15 Delhi Rent Control Act the petitioners must establish that:
i.He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii.That he requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii.That he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation
10) The scope of the section has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India: AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3148 so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes also within the scope and ambit of a petition under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. The defences which are taken by respondent are discussed below and the same are as under:-
DEFENCES
11) The petitioners have not been made a party in another eviction petition;
there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; evidence is required to prove the ownership of the petitioners:
11.1 The present litigation is for eviction of an admitted tenant and as such the Court is not required to give a finding as regards absolute ownership of the property. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be owner, if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else, to evict the tenant and then to retain, control, hold and use the premises for himself.
11.2 In M.M.Quasim Vs Manohar Lal Sharma: (1981) 3 SCC 36 it was observed by the Apex Court that an "owner-landlord" can seek eviction on the ground of his personal requirement is one who has a right against the whole world to occupy the building in his own right and exclude anyone holding a title lesser than his own.
11.3 It was observed in Shanti Sharma Vs Smt Ved Prabha: AIR 1987 SC 2028 that the term "owner" has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. The E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh Page no. 6 of 15 Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But, at the same time, it has provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bona fide requirement is one of such grounds. Ordinarily, the concept of the ownership may be absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereon. But in the modern context, where all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some term from the Government or the authorities constituted by the State. The legislature, when it used the term "owner" in s.
14(1)(e), did not think of ownership as absolute ownership. The meaning of the term "owner" is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. In cases where the plot of land is taken on lease, the structure is built by the landlord and he is the owner of the structure.
11.4 In the present case the defence raised by the respondent as regards ownership is not tenable even prima facie for the simple reasons that the respondent has admitted that he was inducted as tenant by Smt. Chanchal Kaur.3 After her death, the respondent cannot deny that the petitioners are landlord and owners of the premises as he has not denied that they are the legal heirs of the deceased land lord. He has merely state that the ownership has to be proved in evidence. The respondent has also not stated that if the petitioners are not the landlords/ owners of the tenanted premises, then, who is. Further, the petitioners have filed copies of orders passed in E NO. 306/08 wherein the respondent is stated to have admitted the relationship of land lord and tenant between late Smt. Chanchal kaur and the respondent.
11.5 Even if it is the case of the respondent that the petitioners do not have exclusive ownership of the premises it amounts to indirectly admitting that the petitioners are the owner of the premises but not exclusive owner of the premises. Thus, the petitioners are having a right against the whole world to occupy the tenanted premises in their own right and exclude anyone holding a title lesser than their own. Consequently, they are entitled to file the present petition. Further, it is not essential that the eviction petition is to be filed even by all the co-owners of the property. As a co-owner petitioners can file 3 Para 5.B and 5.I of the application under consideration.
E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh
Page no. 7 of 15
eviction petition even without impleading other co-owners. Reliance is placed on judgments Kanta Udharam Jagasia Vs C.K.S Rao: (1998)1 SCC 403; Surender Kumar Jhamb Vs Om Prakash Shokeen: 2000(2) RCR 540; Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs Manohar Lal Jain: (2006) 2 SCC 724; India Umbrella Manufacturing Co Vs Bhagadandei Aggarwal: (2004) 3 SCC 178; Sri Ram Pasricha Vs Jagannath: (1976)4 SCC 184.
11.6 In these circumstances, the fact that the petitioners may not have been impleaded yet in another eviction petition filed by late Smt. Chanchal Kaur is immaterial. Thus, this defence raised by the respondent is a vague and sham defence and it does not raise any triable issue.
12) Need not Bonafide as the petitioners have numerous other properties and do not require the shop in question:
12.1 It has been observed in judgment titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors.: 155 (2008) DLT 383 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"11)....Thus, the affidavit filed by the tenant was shown to be false by the landlady on the basis of documents placed by it. No Rent Con-
troller is supposed to grant leave to the tenant on the basis of a false affidavit and false averments and assertions. Such affidavit should be outrightly rejected by the Rent Controller. Only those averments in the affidavit are to be considered by the Rent Controller which have same substance in it and are supported by some material. Mere as- sertions made by a tenant in respect of landlord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of alternate accommodation are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend."
12.2 In his application, the respondent has merely stated that the petitioners are having numerous other properties at different places. There is not a single averment in the application about what all alternative and suitable accommodations are available with the petitioners for the purpose of their requirement. On the other hand the petitioners have come out clean and averred that only the shop in question caters to their bonafide requirement.
E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh
Page no. 8 of 15
12.3 Accordingly, this defence raised by the respondent as regards bonafide requirement and as regards alternate accommodation is a sham defence and it does not raise any triable issue
13) Petitioner no.6 is running a shop in other property of the petitioners; Petitioners are not in need of any space to start any business from the said shop in question as they are all engaged in their respective professions; The petitioners have also suppressed their income from all sources. All of them are involved in their respective business and are earning about Rs. 1 Lac per month as well there is rental income from other tenants to the petitioners which was not disclosed by the petitioners:
13.1 It has been observed in judgment titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors. (Supra) by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under:
"...Only those averments in the affidavit are to be considered by the Rent Controller which have same substance in it and are supported by some material. Mere assertions made by a tenant in respect of land- lord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of alternate accom- modation are not to be considered sufficient for grant of leave to de- fend."
13.2 The respondent has made mere bald averments to the affect that the peti- tioner no. 6 is running another shop and the petitioners are running their re- spective businesses and earning Rs. 1 Lac per month. However, these are empty assertions without even a single document being filed by the respon- dent to support the same.
13.3 In a recent judgment it has been observed by our own High Court that it is the moral duty of a father to help establish his son. The relevant portion of the judgment titled Pawan Kumar Vs Sant Lal R.C.Rev 303/2012 decided on 6.8.2012 by Honorable Mr Justice M.L.Mehta is as under:-
"16. Further, submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that Dr. Ankit was not financially dependent upon his father and so the tenanted premises could not be got vacated for his requirement, is also E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh Page no. 9 of 15 only noted for rejection. It is trite that the landlord is entitled to help his son, establish his business. In Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta 2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi), it has been held by this Court that the children are very much dependant on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one. The right of the landlord for possession of his property for setting up a business for his son has been also recognized by the Apex Court in Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das 2009(2) RCR
455. The moral duty of a father to help establish his son was also recognized by the Apex Court in Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal AIR 2002 SC 2256 in the following words:
"24........Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire: (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
13.4 In the present case, it has been merely stated that the petitioner no. 6 is E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh Page no. 10 of 15 running another shop. Moreover, the respondent has filed nothing on record to show that any such shop is being run by petitioner no. 6 or to show that such income as alleged is being earned by the petitioners. These appear to be mere bald averments which have been denied by the petitioners and cannot be relied upon.
13.5 Further, even if it is assumed that the petitioner no. 6 is in fact running a shiop it may be noted that in Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal:
AIR 2002 SC 2256 (as referred to in aforesaid judgment) the situation was similar to the present case, as in the said case before the Apex Court the landlord had filed eviction petition for the office of his son who was a chartered accountant who was residing with him. Honorable Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti observed in the said judgment that such a requirement of the landlord is a genuine requirement. In the said case the Apex Court evicted the tenant from the premises for the said requirement of the landlord.
13.6 Assuming the aforesaid averment of the respondent to be true would make the present case similar to the case of Joginder Singh (supra) as in the present case the tenanted premises is required by the landlord/ petitioner no. 6 for business who, as per the respondent, is running another shop which the petitioners have categorically denied. Thus, this defence of the respondent does not raise any triable issue.
13.7 Every parent wants to settle his children in the best possible manner and if the petitioner no. 1 found it proper to help his son to start his business at the tenanted premises, then it would not be proper for the Court to interfere in such decision of the petitioners, as the petitioners are the best judge of their own requirements and that of the requirements of their family.
13.8 In the opinion of the Court it is the right of every person to excel in life.
If the petitioner no. 6 is of the opinion that it would be better in life to start a business from the tenanted premises, then it would not be just for this Court to direct the petitioner otherwise and thereby stop the financial growth of the family of the petitioner. The Court cannot ask the son of the petitioner to give up his dreams of excelling in life and to establish his own business from a E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh Page no. 11 of 15 premises owned by his family. Though the success of the business to be established by the son of the petitioner is not guaranteed, but, at the same time the Court cannot predict the failure of the same and thereby decline the petitioner and his family an opportunity to establish their own business from a premises owned by them. This also draws support from the submission that the petitioner no. 1 was unable to find a suitable match for his petitioner no. 5 and 6 who are of marriageable age, due to lack of petitioner no. 6's employment.
13.9 Further, it is settled law that neither the Court nor the tenant can call for details of the business that a land lord would want to venture into and scrutinize these details. Thus, the requirement of the petitioners is a bona fide requirement and there is no reason for the Court to find any malafide intention behind the same.
13.10 As such, these baseless submissions cannot be relied upon and the de- fence raised by the respondent is a sham. It dos not raise any triable issue.
14) That it is false to say that the petitioners are unmarried and unemployed. The petitioners are already occupying several shops.
14.1 A substantial portion of this defence has been dealt with above. As such, the said defence does not need detailed deliberation as mere empty denial of the petitioners' averments would not entitle the respondent for leave to defend without producing even an iota of material in support of his submissions.
14.2 Hence, the defence is sham and does not raise any triable issue.
15) The shop in question is the only source upon which the respondent is entirely dependent; and the petition has only been filed so that the said shop can be re-let after eviction at a higher rate of rent:
15.1 These defences are being taken up together as they are all interconnected and seek to raise doubt against the bonafide of the landlord's requirement. In the judgment titled as Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash: 167 (2010) DLT 80 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referring to the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini: (2005) 12 SCC 778 observed in para 17 as E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh Page no. 12 of 15 under:
"..It was held that the legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if there is any breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only..."
15.2 Thus, it is clear that the special summary procedure provided for u/s 25B of the DRC Act is an exception to the general intent to the Act. The intention of the legislature is to provide an expeditious remedy to landlords who seek eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement under the stringent conditions imposed in the special procedure. Thus, the mere bald averment of the respondent to the effect that the tenanted premises is his sole source of earning cannot disentitle the petitioners from relief that they are entitled to get after fulfilling the stringent requirements provided for in the special procedure. Thus, this submission of the respondent is found to be untenable.
15.3 The respondent has also taken defence in the application that petitioners after evicting the respondent, want to re-let the tenanted premises/shop in question on higher rent. Hence, there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioners. On the other hand, in reply to application, this has been denied by the petitioners and they have reiterated the fact that tenanted premises is required for establishing the business of petitioner no. 6.
15.4 It is well settled law that bald allegation without any material on record to substantiate the same could not be looked into as the mere bald allegations are not enough for grant of leave to defend. It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. Leelawati and Ors. (Supra) that:
11....."Only those averments in affidavit are to be considered by Rent E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh Page no. 13 of 15 Controller which have some substance in it and are supported by some material."
15.5 Moreover, It is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case tiled as Hari Shanker Vs. Madan Mohan Gupta: 111 (2004) DLT 534 that:
"Summary procedure in Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be defeated by merely making frivolous and vague allegations which can never be substantiated."
15.6 It is also held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Vinod Kumar Bhalla Vs. Sh. Nanak Singh: 1982 (2) RCR (Rent) 715 that in all applications for leave to defend the common defence raised by almost all the tenants, is that the landlord wanted to enhance the rent or to sell the property after getting it vacated. It was observed by the High Court that such types of allegations are without any foundation and that after an order of eviction is passed under section 14 (1)(e), the tenant is granted six months time to vacate the premises and the landlord is required to occupy the same within two months and the landlord is further dis-entitled for re-letting or alienating the whole or any part of the premises within three years from the date of obtaining possession from the tenant. Thus, the landlord is not in a position either to sell or re-let the tenanted premises for a period of three years and if a landlord does sell or re- let the premises within the said period then the tenant may proceed against the landlord for restoration of the possession under section 19 of the Act.
15.7 A similar observation was made in judgment titled Krishna Chopra & Anr. Vs. Smt. Raksha: 2000 Rajdhani Law Reporter 83.
15.8 Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid legal propositions the contention of the respondent is rejected as the same is a mere assertion without any substance. Moreover the contention of the respondent is not tenable because in such kind of cases protection/remedy available/provided for such tenants under the DRC Act itself as they can file petition for repossession if the premises are re-let or transferred by the landlord after evicting the tenant, but certainly the leave cannot be granted solely on this ground.
E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh
Page no. 14 of 15
15.9 Thus, this defence raised by the respondent is a sham defense and it does not raise any triable issue.
CONCLUSION
16) It is well settled that leave to defend is granted to the tenant in case any triable issue is raised by him, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence. The mere existence of any triable issue is not sufficient. The nature of the triable issue raised by the tenant must be such that it will disentitle the landlord from obtaining the eviction order.
17) In the judgment titled as Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi referring to the judgment of Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 observed in para 17 as under:
"...the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate in built strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of tenant unless his need is bona fide - no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this Section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the Court his requirement shall be presumed to be genuine and bona fide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine.." (emphasis supplied)
18) 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 cannot mechanically and in E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh Page no. 15 of 15 routine manner grant leave to defend. In the light of the aforesaid facts, circumstances and legal propositions, all the pleas taken by the respondent has failed to raise any triable issues regarding the ownership of the petitioners or the land lord-
tenant relationship; the bonafide requirement of the landlord; or the availability of any alternative suitable accommodation. The contents of the application for leave to defend have failed to rebut the presumption of bonafide qua the requirement of the petitioners. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus rejected.
19) As a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1) (e), DRC Act against the respondent regarding the tenanted premises i.e One shop at ground floor measuring 7'3''ft X 10'7.5''ft., in property No. J-84A, Vishnu Garden, Khaila Road, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan
20)However in light of Section 14 (7) DRCA, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from today.
21)The parties are left to bear their own costs.
22)File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 6th day of September, 2014 (SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI)
ACJ/ARC/CCJ(West)/06.09.2014
E. No. 60/2013 Sukhdev Singh Vs Amarjeet Singh