RC.REV.--315/2015. Case: M/S SATYA PRAKASH & SONS (FIRM) & ANR. Vs. NARAIN KUMAR & SONS (HUF). High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | RC.REV.--315/2015 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | January 15, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 311/2015 & CM APPL.11593/2015
Pronounced on: 15th January, 2016
YODH RAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay K. Gupta &
Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocates.
Versus
NARAIN KUMAR & SONS (HUF) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
WITH
+ RC.REV. 315/2015 & CM APPL.11658/2015
M/S SATYA PRAKASH & SONS (FIRM) & ANR..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vijay K. Gupta, Advocate.
Versus
NARAIN KUMAR & SONS (HUF) ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J.
-
These are revision petitions filed by the two petitioners against rejection of their leave to defend application in Eviction
RCR 311/2015 & 315/2015 Page 1 of 28
No.E-2/2015 and E-3/2015 in cases titled Narain Kumar & (HUF) v. M/s. Satya Prakash & Sons (Firms) and Narain Kumar & Sons (HUF) v. Yodhraj respectively.
-
The facts in both the cases are almost similar except in the Eviction Petition No.E-2/2015, the shop in question is bearing No.1/1115 while as in E-3/2015 it is bearing No.1/1114, Bara Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. Therefore, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
-
Briefly stated the facts of the case as averred in the Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control 1958, are that the respondent/landlord is an HUF consisting Narain Kumar (Karta) and Smt. Uma Kumari and Smt. Kumari, who are the wife and the daughter-in-law respectively Karta Narain Kumar. So far as Sushil Kumar and Smt. Sangeeta Mehta are concerned, they are the coparceners of the HUF,
the son and the daughter respectively of the Karta Narain Kumar.
-
The case which has been set up by the HUF is that it is the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises which is required bona fide for the benefit of carrying on commercial as well as business activities
RCR 311/2015 & 315/2015 Page 2 of 28
by the members of HUF in different fields and that they have alternative suitable accommodation available to them other than two tenanted premises from which the eviction is sought.
-
So far as Eviction Petition No.2/2015 is concerned, it has averred that Sushil Kumar is running a sole proprietary
under the name and style of M/s. Sushil Instruments Service as another proprietary concern is bring run by Narain Kumar, father in the business name of M/s. Instrumentation Electronics. Narain Kumar is manufacturing high voltage testers, mega meters, Micro Ohm meters, etc. while as Sushil Kumar manufacturing panel meters. It has been stated that they have other commercial premises in the market which could be used showroom for showcasing/selling the instruments and equipments manufactured by both of them. The tenanted premises are stated be situated in a commercial area which is ideally suited for the aforesaid business of trading of these instruments/equipments. It has been stated in the petition that the tenanted premises situated in Kashmere Gate which is at a walking distance from Old Delhi Railway Station, inter-state bus terminal and inter-change
RCR 311/2015 & 315/2015 Page 3 of 28
Metro Station besides being at a walking distance from the electric and electronics goods market in Asia known as Bhagirath Palace. It is stated that the showroom if permitted to be opened the aforesaid tenanted premises will not only act as a collection centre and a showroom for displaying their products to customers but it can also act as a service centre for the goods.
-
The respondent/landlord has very fairly stated that the activity manufacturing of these instruments and equipments is being at 19-20, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi which is an industrial area and not a commercial one. It is also stated they do not have space for opening a showroom/shop for their instruments/equipments.
-
The respondent/landlord has given the details of accommodation owned by them one of which is a flat No.709, 7th floor of a multi-story building at 95, Vishal Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi which is under the tenancy of one AKM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. since 21.01.2009. It has been stated that the said premises cannot be used as a showroom
RCR 311/2015 & 315/2015 Page 4 of 28
under tenancy and in any case shop or showroom cannot be opened on the 7th floor.
-
So far as the premises No.1/1114 to 1/1118 in Bara Kashmere Gate are concerned the same are stated to be occupied by different tenants and the details of the same are also mentioned in the eviction petition. Premises bearing No.1/1114 and 1/1115 are occupied by the present petitioners/tenants of the present two cases while as other three shops bearing No.1/1116 is occupied by Bahl and two premises bearing No.1/1117 and 1/1118 are occupied by Manish Vora. The shops occupied by Manish Vora are on the ground floor and the second one on the first floor while the premises from which eviction is sought are situated on ground floor.
-
The petitioners/tenants filed their leave to defend applications. both the leave to defend applications filed through the counsel, similar grounds have been taken on the basis of which it is stated that these grounds if proved would disentitle respondent/landlord from seeking retrieval of possession of the suit premises.
RCR 311/2015 & 315/2015 Page 5 of 28
-
It has been stated that the respondent/landlord has used very clever tactics on its part to seek eviction of the present petitioners/tenants as they essentially want to re-let the premises at a higher rent alternatively sell the property as the rates of the properties in area have spiraled upwards. It has been stated that Sushil coparcener is running a proprietary firm from property No.19-20, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi and does require any space for opening any showroom. The equipments manufactured by him are not an eye catching products which required to be displayed for the purpose of attracting any customer. Similar averments have been also made about Narain Kumar the instruments manufactured by him are not required to be through display. It has also been stated that the respondent/landlord has alternative suitable accommodation available in the form of flat bearing No.709, 7th Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi and other bearing No.1/1116, Bara Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi which is their possession while as the possession of shop No.1/1118 been retrieved in the year 1978. On the basis of details of all
RCR 311/2015 & 315/2015 Page 6 of 28
properties it is alleged that they have sufficient alternative accommodation available to meet their requirement.
-
In addition to this, it has been stated that Narain Kumar, Karta aged around 80 years while as Sushil Kumar is 57 years old thus they are not in a physically fit state to open a showroom/shop and run the same as desired by them at this age.
-
The learned Additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial