Delhi District Court
Vide This Order vs Gopi Ram E No.5/10 Page 1 /7 on 5 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH.MUNISH MARKAN,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
E No. -5/10
Rajinder Kumar Gupta
Versus
Gopi Ram
ORDER:
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application for leave to defend application moved by the respondent.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal for the application are that petitioner Sh.Rajinder Kumar Gupta has filed the present eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) read with 25B of DRC Act against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of tenanted premises i.e. shop no.S38/2, Green Park Market, Ground Floor, New Delhi measuring 10'10 1/2" x 18' - 3" as shown in green in site plan (hereinafter called the suit premises).
3. Petitioner in his petition has stated that the suit premises was let out to respondent in the year 1964 by mother of the petitioner Late Smt. Dharam Devi for commercial purpose vide rent deed dated 19.10.1964 on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/ per month. Petitioner further stated that earlier he was doing his business and operating from the shop situated at Ajmeri Gate, Delhi 6 for the last several years when his two sons were not grown up. But now because of his and his wife's Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Gopi Ram E No.5/10 Page 1 /7 ill health, he is facing difficulty for operating from aforesaid shop. Petitioner has also filed eviction petition against the persons in occupation of the other shop belonging to the petitioner. Petitioner contends that both of his sons are married and relations between them are not cordial and they want separate business without any interference from anyone. He has already separated his elder son in Ajmeri Gate shop and now to settle his younger son, wife and children of younger son who are in dire need of the suit shop, he needs the suit shop. He further averred that his younger son is without any business for long time and after getting the possession of the suit shop, his younger son can do some retail business like grocery from the suit shop. Petitioner further averred that he does not have any other suitable alternative accommodation except the suit shop. Therefore, the present petition.
4. In the leave to defend application filed within time, the respondent filed the detailed affidavit wherein he admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, respondent has contended that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide and petitioner has concealed material facts therefore necessitating the examination of the witnesses and raised triable issues. Respondent contended that petitioner has nowhere stated that his younger son is member of his family dependent upon him. Respondent further has taken the stand that site plan of the property is incomplete and the petitioner has intentionally and deliberately not shown the construction existing on the ground floor of the suit property behind the premises in dispute and the adjoining shop in order to conceal the accommodation available with the petitioner. Respondent in para 8 of the leave application further averred that the entire area of ground floor Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Gopi Ram E No.5/10 Page 2 /7 which is in the possession of the petitioner, is lying vacant which can be used for commercial purposes and is enough to fulfill the requirements of the petitioner.
5. Further, respondent has contended in para 10 that petitioner is running the business under the name and style of M/s Asian Marble and Paint House from shop no. 3968, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi6 for the last about 50years, being sole proprietor thereof and is being assisted by his two sons in day to day affairs. Respondent further stated that petitioner has not disclosed that he is in occupation of two more shop in the Ajmeri Gate area i.e. shop no.3963 City Market, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi6 and another shop at 5256, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi 6 and the said shops are in possession of the petitioner and lying vacant, unutilized and locked and therefore, petitioner has concealed the accommodation available with him.
6. Petitioner filed the reply to leave to defend application along with the affidavit and reiterated the averments made in the petition and controverted the stand taken by the respondent in the leave to defend application. Petitioner further stated that his younger son is dependent upon him for the place of business and simply denied the averments of the leave to defend application. Petitioner denied the contents of para 8 and para 10 of the petition as well.
7. Respondent filed the rejoinder wherein he controverted the pleas of the petitioner raised in the reply and reaffirmed the contentions raised by him in his leave to defend application.
8. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record carefully including the written submissions and judgments relied upon by the parties.
9. In the present case, the relationship of landlord and tenant Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Gopi Ram E No.5/10 Page 3 /7 between the parties is admitted by the respondent. Petitioner, in his petition, has not clearly stated about the extent of accommodation available with him. Respondent has specifically taken the stand that petitioner is in occupation of two more shops bearing no.3963 and 5256 Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. This fact has not been specifically denied by the petitioner in para 8 of his reply. But in the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner has himself mentioned that both the said shops are not owned by the petitioner and are rented accommodation and are situated in different zonal areas and not enough to meet the needs of the petitioner/ landlord. Further, Respondent has also taken the stand that petitioner is in occupation of the entire ground floor area of the suit property and has deliberately not shown the construction existing on the suit property behind the premises in dispute and the adjoining shop in order to conceal the accommodation available with the petitioner and has also taken the stand that entire area of ground floor is in possession of the petitioner and is lying vacant and is enough to fulfill the requirement of the petitioner. In this regard, in his reply in para 8,there is a vague denial made by the petitioner. Petitioner has not denied that he is in possession of the area behind the suit property. Further, there is no explanation regarding the area behind the suit shop.
10. Petitioner has relied on following judgments in support of his contentions viz Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs v/s UOI & Anr.; MANU/SC/1870/2008, Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Techchandani; MANU/DE/092/2008, Sharifuddin Vs. Babuddine etc. CRP 468/2002 dated 24.11.2008, Delhi, Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh ; MANU/SC/0823/2000, Sh.T. B. Jain Vs. Smt. Savita Rai & Anr.; MANU/DE/0562/2008, Rajender Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Gopi Ram E No.5/10 Page 4 /7 Kumar Sharma & Others Vs. Leena Wati & Others; MANU/DE/1386/2008, Rita Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh; MANU/DE/0813/2002, Rahgubir Chand Dhawan Vs. Swadesh Bhushan Chopra; MANU/DE/1214/2008, Sardar Surjit Singh Arora Vs. Sh.Ramesh Chopra; MANU/DE/1259/2008, Sanwal Ram Aggarwal Vs. Gian Wati; MANU/DE/0439/1999, Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Ins. Co. Ltd.; MANU/SC/0665/1998, Anar Devi Vs. Nathu Ram; MANU/SC/0712/1994, Smt. Munni Devi Vs. Manohar Verma & Ors. 2007 (1) RCR (Rent) 223, Narmada Joshi Vs. Laxmi Narayan Gupta; MANU/DE/0561/2008, Topanlal Dhar Vs. Yashpal Aggarwal; 1986 RLR 502, Pushker Singh Vs. Anusuiya; MANU/SC/8440/2006, R. K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargav; 1986 RLR 223, Ram Kishore Vs. Savitri Devi; MANU/DE/1176/2008, Harbans Lal Rabra Vs. Madan Lal Jolly; MANU/DE/1068/1997, Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini; MANU/SC/1339/2005, Mohd. Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed; Delhi In Rent Civil Revision No.29/2008, Sudesh Kumari Soni Vs. Prabha Khanna; MANU/DE/1458/2008, S. A. Satsangi Vs. Prem Kumar; 2002 (2) RCR 305, Anand Prakash Sharma Vs Ram Singh & Others; 2006 (91) DRJ 558, Sushila Devi & Ors Vs. Rahgunandan Prashad & Other ; 1996 DLT 426 (DB), Ram Lal Vs. Bharat Singh; MANU/DE/0675/1992, Krishan Kumar Vs. Vimla Singla; 1976 RCR 249, Chander Mohan Saini Vs. Ujjagar Singh;
MANU/DE/0392/2000, Partap RaiKalra Vs. Om Prakash Sharma; 2001 (2) RCR 519, Sarla Mittal Vs. K. C. Jain; 1982 RLR 452, Sheela Sapra Vs. New India Elec. Ind. Co. Pvt. Ltd.; MANU/DE/0670/1992, S. K. Gupta Vs. R. C. Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Gopi Ram E No.5/10 Page 5 /7 Jain; AIR 1984 Delhi 187, K. K. Ohri Vs. Dr. Balraj Seth; 2000 (1) RCR 66, Om Prakash Vs. Dev Raj Kohli; 1997 (2) RCR 318, Anil Kumar Vs. Harpal Singh Banwait and another; 2008(1) RCR (Rent) 638, Extracts from 'The Notaries Rules 1956"; Rule 15, Maganlal Vs. Nanasaheb; Civil Appeal No.6125 of 2008, Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta; MANU/SC/0432/1999, Hira Lala Kapoor Vs. Prabhu Choudhury; 1988 (2) RCJ 1, B. K. Khanna Vs. M. R. Batra; 1988 (2) RCJ 91, Shanker Lal Vs. Sh.Thambu Ram;
MANU/DE/0009/1999. Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar v/s Mahesh Chand and sons RC Rev no.95/12 DOD 17.08.12Perused.
On the other hand, respondent has relied on Puran Chand & ors v/s Yashpal 2005(1)RCR 328; Deena Nath v.s puran Lal (2001) 5 SCC 705; Manoj kumar v.s Behari Lal (2001)4SCC 655; S.J. Ebenezer v/s Velayudhan and Ors (1998)1SCC 633; Sultan Singh v/s Jai Chand Jain DLT vol2 1966 ; Shambhu Nath v.s Surinder kumar Sharma RCR 1991(2) Delhi 299 and Mattu Lal v.s Radhe Lal (1975) 1SCR 127. I have gone through these judgments.
11. At the time of considering the application for leave to defend, the point to be considered is if the respondent raises any triable issue in the leave to defend application or not. In the present case, the petitioner has not given the complete details of the accommodation available with him. Even in the reply to the leave to defend application, the petitioner has been evasive regarding the two other shops in his occupation in Ajmeri Gate and also about the portion behind the suit property which is in occupation of the petitioner. Therefore, the question of suitable alternative accommodation can only be decided by leading evidence and Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Gopi Ram E No.5/10 Page 6 /7 after examination of witnesses and therefore, a triable issue is raised in this regard.
12. Further, there is no specific averment by the petitioner in the petition that his younger son is dependent upon him for the purpose of place of business. Also, no document has been placed on record by the petitioner regarding his illness and illness of his wife. Further, the respondent has also challenged the contention of the petitioner that the relationship between both the sons of the petitioner are not cordial. All this coupled with the concealment of the accommodation available with the petitioner raises another triable issue regarding the bonafide requirement of the petitioner which can only be ascertained after examination of witnesses and therefore, triable issue in this regard is also raised. Therefore, leave to defend application is allowed.
13. Respondent is directed to file written statement within 30days from today with advance copy being supplied to petitioner. Put up for replication if any and PE on 20.03.2013.
Announced in the open court
(Munish Markan)
Additional Rent Controller (South)
Delhi New Delhi
Dated: 05.01.2013.
Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Gopi Ram E No.5/10 Page 7 /7