Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. In the absence of any material placed on record by the petitioner, it cannot be presumed that its contention that it only has 400 sq. ft. on the ground floor in its possession is correct and the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has 800 sq. ft. on the ground floor is false. Also, it must be noted herein that the petitioner has no where even mentioned in the entire eviction petition that the properties already available with it and its members are not suitable for the business requirement of the petitioner. This is another reason how the facts of the present case are different from the facts in the aforesaid case of Mittar Sen Vs. Rajesh Kumar wherein it was categorically contended by the landlord that there was no alternative suitable accommodation available with him. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Arjun Uppal & Anr. Vs. Seth & Sons Pvt. Ltd. RC (Rev.) No.28/2012 dated 04.09.2012 upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller by which leave to defend was granted since the requirement of the landlord was for additional accommodation. Leave was granted also for the reason that the tenanted premises was situated in slum area and therefore, there was a requirement for the landlord to take prior permission before carrying out structural change in the property which he had contended is required to be done before he can use it for his purported requirement. It was held that the landlord had not obtained prior permission for carrying out the structural change in the property. In the present case as well, it has been contended that the petitioner that it will be utilizing the tenanted premises by integrating and joining the properties adjoining the tenanted premises. Even though it has not been contended by the respondents in their application for leave to defend that the property is situated in slum area, yet, this Court can take judicial notice of the fact that since the property is situated at Daryaganj, Ansari Road, it is part of the walled city and the entire area of the walled city has been notified as slum areas. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Harish Chander Malik Vs. Vivek Kumar Gupta & Ors. 186(2012) DLT 697. In this case of Harish Chander Malik, the respondents had failed to file their written statement and as such, their defence could not be considered by the Court. However, the Hon'ble High Court held that the trial Court had correctly taken judicial notice of the fact that the tenanted premises is situated in a notified slum area. The following was held in this case:-

19. Since the petitioner intends to join the tenanted premises alongwith adjacent portions, it would require structural changes to be carried out in the property. Since the tenanted premises is situated in a notified slum area, the petitioner requires permission before it could carried out structural changes. Since the permission has not been obtained, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case of Arjun Uppal, this is another reason why the respondents should be granted leave to defend the present case since the non-filing of permission creates a doubt on the purported bonafide requirement of the petitioner for the tenanted premises.