Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.3 It is submitted that vide registered partition deed dated 18.05.2022, the aforesaid property has been partitioned between the petitioner and legal heirs of late Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, pursuant to (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.2 of 31 RC ARC 354/22 Sh. Ravi Kumar Jain Vs Brij Mohan & Ors.

which petitioner became owner of four shops bearing no. 3601, 3601A, 3602 and 3602A besides half portion of the first floor and obtained symbolic possession of the said portion. The rental of the first floor portion is being shared equally by the petitioner on the one hand and legal heirs of late Sh. Anil Kumar Jain on the other. 2.4 It is stated that shop no. 3601 is in possession of tenant M/s. R Kumar and Co. who is paying rent @ Rs.586/- per month; shop No. 3601A is in possession of tenant M/s. Shyam Sons @ Rs.523/- p.m.; shop no. 3602 is in possession of tenant Sh. Shiv Prakash Ravi Prakash Gupta @ Rs.528/- p.m. and the tenanted bearing Shop no. 3602A is in joint tenancy of present respondent namely Sh. Brij Mohan, Sh. Ashish Agarwal and Sh. Gaurav Agarwal @ Rs.674/- pm. 2.5 It is submitted further that the Petitioner is married to Mrs. Savita Jain and from this marriage, one daughter Ms. Arushi Jain and one son Mr. Rishabh Jain are born.Petitioner is a Civil Servant and is presently posted as Commissioner, Income Tax in Delhi. He is educated upto B.Com (H) and LLB. He is aged around 60 years and is due to retire on 31.10.2022. He had been representing Income Tax Department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as Commissioner, Income Tax and before the Income Tax Settlement Commission as Director (Investigation) and is presenting or defending the cases on behalf of Income Tax Department which is akin to the role of a lawyer. Upon his retirement, the petitioner is willing to start his practice as an Advocate primarily in the taxation field of which he has gained vast experience while being in the employment for almost 34 years. It is stated that Mr. Rishabh Jain, son of the petitioner, after (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.3 of 31 RC ARC 354/22 Sh. Ravi Kumar Jain Vs Brij Mohan & Ors.

2.9 It is further stated that the wife of the petitioner is owner of property no. R-8, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.4 of 31 RC ARC 354/22 Sh. Ravi Kumar Jain Vs Brij Mohan & Ors.

which consists of 4 bedrooms and other amenities where the petitioner and his family members are presently residing. The said house is not even sufficient to accommodate all four of them for a decent living as it has covered area of only 1800 sq. ft. on the ground floor with no parking space. The said residential property is not suitable for any professional activity as entertaining any client therein shall disturb the household set up besides creating parking chaos. It is stated that the petitioner has no other suitable commercial property. Hence, the instant petition for eviction of the tenanted premises.

3. Summons were served upon the respondents who filed leave to defend application with document(s) alongwith separate detailed affidavit, by taking following grounds inter alia which can be outlined as follows:

3.1 It is averred that the present eviction petition is wholly malafide and is filed on manipulated and distorted facts with the ulterior motive to get vacated the disputed shop and thereafter to sell/alienate the same to some prospective buyers as similar eviction petitions have been filed against the other old tenants. 3.2 It is averred that the tenanted premises under the tenancy and occupation of the respondents does not bear shop No. 3602A, Chawri Bazar, Delhi and the respondents are the lawful tenants in respect of one shop bearing No. 3603, Ground Floor, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-6. Even in the Sale Deed 28.02.1985 by which the suit property was allegedly purchased by the petitioner and his brother Anil Kumar Jain, there is no mention of any shop bearing No. 3602-A, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. In the rent receipts also issued to the respondents, the tenanted shop has been described as Shop No. 3603, GF, Chawri (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.5 of 31 RC ARC 354/22 Sh. Ravi Kumar Jain Vs Brij Mohan & Ors.

15. 09.2021 and the said fact came to the knowledge of the respondents just prior to filing of the present petition and a dispute has arisen between the petitioner and the legal hairs of his brother and (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.17 of 31 RC ARC 354/22 Sh. Ravi Kumar Jain Vs Brij Mohan & Ors.

purchaser of shop no. 3603 so the best course was to file a petition for grant of administration so that public notice is circulated for filing the objections by the public, if any. It is clear that even Sh. Satish Kumar has not raised any objection to the present eviction petition so far. Further, it is clear from the partition deed that shop no. 3602A is in possession of tenants namely Sh. Brij Mohan, Sh. Ashish Aggarwal and Sh. Gaurav Aggarwal i.e. the present respondents. Hence, the petitioner has no concern with shop no. 3603 or any agreement to sell related thereto. Further, the contention on behalf of the respondents that the respondents are the tenants of shop number 3603 instead of 3602 A seems attractive in the first instance as has become clear from rent receipts and registration certificate of respondents. However, the said contention is meritless as no counter site plan has been filed with respect to shop no.3603. The shop no. 3602A has been clearly depicted in the site plan of the petitioner as well as amply mentioned in the partition deed. It is a settled law that in case counter site plan is not filed on behalf of the tenant then the site plan filed on behalf of the landlord has to be assumed to be correct. eliance can be placed in this regard on decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Satish Kumar Vs. Subhash Chand Aggarwal, 2012 SCC Online Del 4447 (SLP © No. 27341/2012)", wherein it has been held that "if a tenant does not file his site plan showing the site plan filed by the owner is incorrect, then, the site plan filed by the owner would be assumed to be true. In the present matter also, no such site plan has been filed by the respondent. Therefore, he has no right to question the site plan filed by the landlord to be (NEETU NAGAR) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ, South East District, Saket Courts (the then ARC-02, Central District, THC) 23.12.2023 Page no.18 of 31 RC ARC 354/22 Sh. Ravi Kumar Jain Vs Brij Mohan & Ors.