Delhi District Court
Smt. Jamuna Devi vs Mohd. Irfan on 18 December, 2013
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. SATISH KUMAR ARORA, ARC-1(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
E-28/12
1. Smt. Jamuna Devi
W/o late Chattru Ram
2. Sh. Dharamvir
3. Sh. Kuldeep
4. Sh. Bharat Bhushan
All S/o late Chattru Ram
All R/o 2956/41, Gali No. 41,
Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi.
5. Ms. Kaushalya Devi
Postal address: 2956/41, Gali No. 41,
Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05
(Petitioner no. 2 to 5 represented
through Petitioner no. 1)
...Petitioners
VERSUS
Mohd. Irfan
S/o Mohd. Umar
R/o 13/10 W.E.A Shop No. 103,
1st floor, Saraswati Marg,
Karol Bagh, Delhi-05.
Also at: 2956, Gali no. 42,
Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-05.
...Respondent.
Petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act
1. Date of institution of the case : 13.02.2012
2. Date of Judgment Reserved : 31.10.2013
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 18.12.2013
JUDGMENT
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the application u/s 25-B (4 & 5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short, 'DRC Act') filed by the respondent E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 1 of 15 //2// seeking leave to contest the eviction petition.
2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioners' is that property bearing H.No. 2956, Gali no. 41-42, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was allotted in the name of one Sh. Mohan Lal and Sh. Sukhdev, father-in-law of the petitioner no.1 herein. Sh. Sukhdev who expired on 27.02.1988 was survived by three sons namely Tej Singh, Manohar Lal and Chattru Ram, late husband of the petitioner no.1 herein. The property of Sh. Sukhdev after his death was partitioned by way of an oral agreement between Tej Singh, Manohar Lal and the present petitioners who are the LRs of late Sh.Chattru Ram who expired on 21.09.1992. By way of said oral partition, petitioners of which petitioner no.1 is the wife, petitioner no.2 to 4 are the sons and petitioner no.5 is the daughter of late Sh. Chattru Ram became the owners of the above said property to the extent of 1/6th share therein which comprises of three rooms on the first floor and one shop (the tenanted shop in the present matter) on the ground floor. It is the case of the petitioners that tenancy premises/shop which is identifiable as property no. 2956/42, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and more specifically shown in red in the site plan filed with the eviction petition was let out to the respondent Mohd. Irfan for commercial purposes at a monthly rent which as on date is @ Rs.354/- per month excluding electricity charges.
3. The bona fide requirement of the suit property/tenancy premises is claimed by the petitioners in terms of the following facts:- that petitioner no.1 has three sons namely Sh. Dharamveer (petitioner no.2) who is the eldest, Sh. Kuldeep (petitioner no.3) who is aged about 41 years and Sh. Bharat Bhushan (petitioner no.4) who is the youngest and aged about 35 years. The responsibility of the entire family of the petitioners is on the eldest son Dharamveer who is an electrician and due to lack of any shop to operate E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 2 of 15 //3// from, he operates from the shops of other electricians and as such is not earning well. Also, the other two younger sons of the petitioner no.1 have no permanent source of income and that the youngest one namely Sh. Bharat Bhushan is unemployed and stays at home. As only the eldest son of the petitioner no.1 is working, the family of the petitioner no.1 is hand to mouth and is passing through tough times. Also, due to lack of earning and having not been married the youngest son Bharat Bhushan of the petitioner no.1 has gone into depression. It is stated that the tenancy premises which is a shop in possession of the respondent/tenant Mohd. Irfan is the only shop having fallen into the share of the petitioners. It is stated that respondent was running his business under the name and style of M/s. Ruby Wears from the tenancy premises and since 2001 had shifted his business to a shop at 13/10, WEA, shop no. 103, first floor, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi where his said business is flourishing. It is further stated that the respondent only occasionally puts on the light in the tenancy premises and is not doing any business therefrom and as such when the petitioner no.1 had visited his other shop at WEA, Karol Bagh requesting him to vacate the tenancy premises, respondent had demanded an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs for vacating the shop which the petitioner being a poor lady was unable to arrange. It is on the basis of these facts that a prayer has been made for passing of an eviction order against the respondent and in favour of the petitioners in respect of the tenancy premises.
4. Respondent has challenged the eviction petition and the bona fide requirement of the petitioners in his leave to defend on the following grounds:-
(i) That the sons of the petitioner no.1 are independent, living separately, doing separate business and as such are not dependent upon the petitioner no.1.
E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 3 of 15 //4//
(ii) That the petitioners are not the owners of the premises and the allegations made in the petition are vague as it has no where been mentioned in the petition as to how the premises in dispute are bona fide required by the petitioners. The petitioners have not mentioned anywhere in the petition that they have no other reasonable and suitable accommodation and in the absence of these allegations, the petition is liable to be rejected u/o 7 rule 11 CPC.
(iii) That there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. The petitioners are neither the owners nor have got any right, title or interest of any kind in the property in dispute. The property in dispute was taken on rent by the respondent as well as one Mohd. Ikram S/o Mohd. Umar from Sh. Sukhdev and Mohan Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The rate of rent thereafter was increased many times and the last paid rent was of Rs. 354/- per month. That the petition as such is not maintainable having been filed only against one of the co-tenants and not against the other tenant Mohd. Ikram.
(iv) That the property in dispute has not been partitioned. The other legal heirs of late Sh. Sukhdev have not been impleaded as party to the present petition. The tenancy premises has not fallen into the share of the petitioners and after the death of Sh. Sukhdev, who was the absolute owner of the property in dispute, the rent was paid to Sh. Mohan Lal and the petitioners never claimed the rent from the respondent.
(v) The site plan filed by the petitioners is not correct and as such respondent has filed a correct site plan therein clearly showing that the petitioners are in possession of more than sufficient accommodation.
(vi) That the petitioners want to evict the respondent from the suit shop to re-let the tenancy premises at higher rate of rent. The petitioners have also E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 4 of 15 //5// demanded rent @ of Rs. 3000/- per month which was refused by the respondent and as such petitioners filed the present eviction petition.
(vii) That the property in dispute comprises of a three storey building having nine shops on the ground floor out of which one shop is in the possession of the respondent and two shops, one on the front adjoining the shop of the respondent and other at the backside of the property, are in the possession of the petitioners. The sons of the petitioner no.1 who are petitioner no.2 to 4 are carrying on the business in the said shops. One shop under the name and style of Super Handloom is in the possession of the petitioners and their family members. The upper three floors of the property in dispute are also in possession of the petitioners which comprises of more than 24 rooms and out of which three rooms are still lying vacant.
5. Petitioners controverted and refuted the grounds taken up by the respondent by filing their reply/counter affidavit. Regarding the relationship of landlord-tenant and the non impleadment of alleged co-tenant Mohd. Ikram, it was stated that it was the respondent alone who was inducted as a tenant and he was also paying the rent to the petitioner no.1 with respect to which receipts were also issued. As regards the ownership, it was stated that petitioners are the owners only with respect to 1/6th portion of the property in question and the respondent is making false claims while denying the ownership of the petitioners. It was further stated that the false claim of the respondent regarding his challenge to the ownership of the petitioners is apparent from the fact that whereas in para no. 5 of his affidavit, respondent states that petitioners are neither the owners nor have any exclusive right to file and institute the present eviction petition, contrary to this, in para no. 22 respondent claims the petitioners to be the owners of the entire property in dispute having two shops on the ground floor and also having the possession E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 5 of 15 //6// upper three floors of the property in dispute having three rooms lying vacant. It was stated that the respondent, thus, in an anxiety to raise objections has raised self contradictory objections. All the other averments of the leave to defend were denied as false and incorrect and those of the eviction petition were reiterated and reaffirmed. Respondent filed the rejoinder to the reply of the petitioners therein reiterating the case as projected by him in his leave to defend application.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsel for the respondent were heard and the file including the written submissions was carefully perused and considered.
7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners have filed the eviction petition on the ground that they are the exclusive owners of the 1/6th share in the property bearing no. 2956/41, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which comprises of one shop which is the tenancy premises in the present matter. It was argued that the said claim of the petitioners is fortified by the copies of the documents filed as annexure A-1 to A-3 (colly) with the eviction petition. Annexure A-1 is the death certificate of Chattru Ram, husband of the petitioner no.1 herein. Annexure A-2 is the death certificate of Sukhdev, father-in-law of the petitioner no.1 herein. Annexure A-3 (colly-1) is the mutation certificate issued by the DDA therein showing that the property in question stands mutated between Tej Singh, Manohar Lal and the petitioners herein to the extent of 1/6th share of the property in question. Annexure A-3 (colly-2) is the Jamabandi document pertaining to the property in question wherein again petitioners are shown owners only to the extent of 1/6 th portion. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners argued that as against these documents filed by the petitioners in support of their ownership claim, respondent only made a bald allegation that petitioners are not the owners of the property in question.
E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 6 of 15 //7// It was further argued that respondent took self contradictory stands regarding the issue of ownership, as whereas, in one of the para's of his affidavit ownership of the petitioners was denied, in the other para, petitioners were stated to be in possession of considerable portion of the same property. It was argued that thus respondent has failed to raise any triable issue so far as the question of ownership of the property in question is concerned. Regarding the relationship of landlord-tenant, it was argued by the ld. Counsel that petitioners in support of their claim of landlord-tenant between the parties again filed on record copies of counter foils of various rent receipts pertaining to various periods and bearing the signatures of the respondent herein. It was argued that respondent on the other hand only made a bald assertion that he alone is not the tenant and that one Mohd. Ikram is also a co-tenant in the tenancy premises. Regarding the availability of alternative accommodation, ld. Counsel for the petitioners argued that except the 1/6th share of the property no. 2956/41, petitioners have categorically stated that they own no other property. It was further argued that the details of the portion of the 1/6th share of the said property was also given by the petitioners as comprising of three rooms on the first floor and one shop on the ground floor which is the tenanted shop under the possession of the respondent herein. It was argued that the respondent again baldly asserted that petitioners are in possession of sufficient accommodation which includes two shops on the ground floor and in one of the shops business under the name and style of Super Handloom is being run. It was argued that petitioner's case has always been that they have only the tenanted shop in their share and that the other portions have fallen into the share of other co-owners namely Tej Singh and Manohar Lal, the other LRs of the original owner late Sh. Sukhdev. Regarding the bona fide requirement, it was argued by the ld. Counsel for the petitioners that it is only E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 7 of 15 //8// one of the petitioners who is petitioner no.2 Dharamvir who is the sole earning member of the entire family of the petitioners and is working as an electrician operating from the shops of other electricians due to lack of proper place for his work. It was argued that the wish and desire of petitioner no.1 to help her sons in standing on their own legs, earning livelihood to survive with respect and dignity and to get her youngest son married can by no stretch of imagination be termed to be unreasonable requirement, rather, these are the basic needs of every human being and as such petitioners requirement of the tenancy premises/shop is a bona fide requirement. It was further argued that respondent is running his business from premises bearing no. 13/10, WEA, shop no. 103, first floor, Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh and would not be effected if directed to vacate the tenanted shop which is hardly used by him for his business.
8. Per Contra, ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that respondent has raised a triable issued so far as the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioners is concerned, the details whereof have been given in the leave to defend affidavit. While so arguing, ld. Counsel relied upon the judgment cited as Santosh Devi Soni Vs. Chand Kiran, JT 2000 (3) SC 397 wherein it was held that "in the case of additional accommodation, leave to defend normally should not be refused". Ld. Counsel for the respondent further argued that a serious issue has been raised by the respondent so far as the ownership of the petitioners and the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties is concerned. It was argued that when such an issue has been raised, respondent is entitled for the leave to defend the eviction petition. While so arguing, ld. Counsel relied upon the judgments cited as Satpal Vs. Sahi Ram, RC Rev No. 25/2010 decided on 27.05.2011, Mohd. Illyas Vs. Nooruddin & Ors, RC Rev No. 133/2011 decided on 15.11.2011, E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 8 of 15 //9// Vijay Nayyar Vs. Om Prakash Malik, RC Rev No. 120/11 decided on 11.07.2011, Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. Sheela Devi, RC Rev No. 95/2011 decided on 13.10.2011, Dolly Chandra & Anr Vs. Rameshwar Prasad, RC Rev no. 171/2011 decided on 08.09.2011, Phoola Rani Vs. Rameshwar Sharma, RC Rev 182/2010 decided on 03.10.2011, Satpal Khurana Vs. Beerawati, RC Rev 287/10 decided on 21.07.2011 & Pradeep Kumar Sethi Vs. Rajender Kumar Sethi, RC Rev 127/10 decided on 18.07.2011. Ld. Counsel for the respondent also argued that whether or not the petitioner actually need the premises in question is again a triable issue and can be decided only when the petitioner is cross-examined during trial. It was also argued that even otherwise, the property in dispute is not a commercial premises as per the Master Plan 2011 and as such it is again a triable issue.
9. Section 14 (1) proviso (e) of the DRC Act provides that the Controller may pass an eviction order in respect of a premises let for residential purposes on the grounds that the same is required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Insofar as the purpose of letting is concerned which has been shown as residential in the aforesaid provision it has been done away with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union Of India III (2008) SLT 553, wherein an eviction petition was held to be maintainable on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of the property which were let out for commercial purposes as well. Thus, for the petitioner/landlord to establish his/her case u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, he/she has to establish the following:- (i) that he/she is the owner of the tenancy premises; (ii) that the tenancy premises is E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 9 of 15 //10// required bona fide by him/her for his/her own use or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her; & (iii) that he/she has no other reasonably suitable residential or commercial accommodation.
10. What should be the approach of the Controller when leave to defend is sought was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Precision Steel and Engineering Works & Anr Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 1518 wherein it was held that "the Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant under sub-section 4 of section 25-B and the reply, if any. On perusing the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply if any filed by landlord the Controller has to pose to himself the only question: Does the affidavit disclose, not prove, facts as would dis-entitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession on the ground specified in section 14 (1) (e)? If the averments in the affidavit of the tenant disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave."
In Charan Dass Duggal Vs. Brahamanand, 21 (1982) DLT 378 (SC), the law was reiterated in the following words that "when leave to defend is sought, the tenant must make out such a prima facie case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge and that in our opinion should be sufficient to grant leave. The test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action."
The issue concerning the grant of leave to the tenant u/s 25-B of the DRC Act again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh, 89 (2001) DLT 27 (SC). After making a reference and quoting with approval its earlier decisions in Precision Steel's case (supra) and Charan Dass Duggal's case (supra) it was observed that "at E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 10 of 15 //11// a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction." The law was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rachpal Singh & Ors Vs. Gurmit Kaur & Ors, (2009) 15 SCC 88.
11. Thus, as is to be seen, the test to be applied at the stage of grant of leave to defend is as to whether the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. Applying the principle as laid down to the facts of the present case, the grounds which have been raised by the respondent can be said to be falling under the following categories:-
(a) Ownership of the tenancy premises; (b) Availability of alternative accommodation; & (c) Bona fide requirement of the petitioners.
12. Taking up the grounds which fall under the category of the ownership of the tenancy premises, it is to be seen that the respondent in his leave to defend affidavit averred that petitioners are neither the owners nor have got exclusive right to file and institute the present eviction petition. While so stating, respondent further averred that he alongwith one Mohd. Ikram was inducted as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- in respect of the tenancy premises by Sh. Sukhdev and Sh. Mohan Lal and that after the death of Sh. Sukhdev, the rent was paid to Mohan Lal and the other LRs of Sh. Sukhdev namely Tej Singh and Manohar Lal who have always disputed the rights of the petitioners in the property. It is further to be seen that while so asserting and alleging, respondent did not file any material which could have been even a rent receipt issued in his name and in the name of the alleged co-tenant Mohd. Ikram. Contrary to this, petitioners filed on record copies of several E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 11 of 15 //12// counter foils of the rent receipts showing only the respondent to be proprietor of Ruby Wears as the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 354/-. The signatures of the respondent appearing on the said counter foils are the same as appearing on the leave to defend affidavit. Except a bald assertion that these counter foils are forged and fabricated, respondent did not utter a word as to how his signatures are shown appearing on such alleged forged documents. Going further, respondent admitted himself to have been inducted in the tenancy premises by late Sh. Sukhdev and Mohan Lal. Admittedly, late Sh. Sukhdev is the father-in-law of the petitioner no.1 and copy of his death certificate was filed by the petitioners on record alongwith the eviction petition as annexure A-2. Petitioners also filed copy of the death certificate of their predecessor in interest late Chattru Ram as annexure A-1. One more document which was filed on record by the petitioners was the copy of the mutation certificate issued by the DDA showing Tej Singh, Manohar, Lal and the petitioners herein to be 1/6th shareholders of the property bearing no. 2956/41, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Alongwith it, petitioners also filed copy of the Jamabandi of the above said property again showing their ownership only to the extent of 1/6th share. Thus, whereas, petitioners prima facie established on record their ownership of 1/6th share of the property in question as well as the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties, on the other hand, respondent only made bald assertions. The bald assertions of the respondent cannot by any means be said to be categorized as such facts which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an eviction order. Going further, admittedly, petitioners are one of the co-owners of the property in question and as per their claim they have obtained the 1/6 th share on account of an oral partition which also stands acknowledged by the DDA and the other public document which is the Jamabandi record. As such, respondent has no locus E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 12 of 15 //13// standi to challenge the inter-se arrangement between the co-owners once the petitioners by filing the counter foils of the rent receipts have succeeded in prima facie establishing the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Reference herein can be made to the judgment cited as K.C. Aggarwal Vs. Hardip Singh, 116 (2005) DLT 41 wherein it was observed that "the definition of landlord u/s 2 (e) of the DRC Act admits of little or no ambiguity and includes every person who is entitled to receive rent as also includes owner of the property. A co-owner is very much the owner of the whole unless premises has been partitioned and can maintain a petition even without impleading the other co-owners in the eviction petition who may be proper parties but not the necessary parties. While rejecting the contention that the petitioner-tenant never acknowledged the respondent-landlord as his landlord, it was observed that the so called acknowledgment is hardly of any consequence. A co-owner is owner of premises and deemed to be landlord for purposes of s. 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. It is not for the tenant to challenge the inter-se arrangement of owners as to how they should manage the property. So long as there is no dispute between the owners themselves, no advantage can be taken by the tenant".
13. Now taking up the grounds which fall under the category of availability of alternative accommodation and the bona fide requirement of the petitioners, it is to be seen that the respondent in his leave to defend affidavit alleged that property in dispute comprises of a three storey building having nine shops on the ground floor out of which one shop is in his possession and two shops, one on the front adjoining the tenanted shop and the other on the back side of the property are in possession of the petitioners wherein petitioner no.2 to 4 are carrying on their business. One shop under the name of Super Handlooms is in the possession of the petitioners. It was further E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 13 of 15 //14// alleged that petitioners also have three vacant rooms on the upper three floors of the property in dispute which comprises of 24 rooms. The documents filed on record by the respondent to substantiate his said claim was the site plan and a photograph of the tenancy premises. If the respondent can manage a photograph of the tenancy premises, he could have well managed to file another photograph showing a link between the petitioners with the other two shops on the ground floor. As has been seen, petitioners have succeeded in prima facie establishing that they are the owners only to the extent of 1/6th share of the property in question and it comprises of three rooms on the first floor and one shop on the ground floor which is the tenanted shop. As has also been noted, with respect to ownership of the petitioners, respondent failed to raise any triable issue. There is nothing on record except the bald assertion of the respondent so as to prima facie believe that petitioners have available with them other reasonably suitable accommodation. Moreover, as rightly argued by the ld. Counsel for the petitioners, respondent in his leave to defend affidavit took self contradictory stands so far as the availability of accommodation with the petitioners is concerned. Whereas, on one hand, it was asserted by the respondent that petitioners are not the owners and have no right or title in the property in question and that the other LRs are asserting their claims, on the other hand, it was asserted that petitioners are having in the property in dispute sufficient accommodation at their disposal. This taking of self contradictory stands by the respondent himself raises a doubt on the veracity of his own assertions rather than raising a doubt on the case projected by the petitioners in their eviction petition. The citations as relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable to the extent that in the cases relied upon there was sufficient material available before the Hon'ble Court to E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 14 of 15 //15// prima facie believe and conclude the availability of alternative accommodation that too reasonably suitable, with the landlord. As against this, in the present case there is nothing brought on record by the respondent to even prima facie disbelieve the case as projected by the petitioners that petitioner no.2 Dharamveer is the only earning member of the family and that he operates from the shops of other electricians for want of sufficient accommodation. There is again nothing on record to show or suggest that the intention of the petitioners is mala fide or that in the recent past they have let out any other adjoining property/shop to some other person at a higher rate of rent. Thus, respondent fails to raise any triable issue so far as the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioners and of their bona fide requirement of the tenancy premises is concerned.
14. Accordingly, the application of the respondent seeking leave to defend is dismissed and an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w s. 25-B of the DRC Act is passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the tenancy premises/shop which is identifiable as property no. 2956/42, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and more specifically shown in red in the site plan filed with the eviction petition. However, in terms of s. 14 (7) of the DRC Act, the petitioner/landlord will not be entitled to obtain possession of the tenancy premises for a period of six months from the date of this order. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court on 18.12.2013) (Satish Kumar Arora) ARC-1/Central/Delhi Tis Hazari Court E-28/12 Jamuna Devi & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Irfan Page no. 15 of 15