RC. Rev. 311/2015, CM Appl. 11593/2015, RC. Rev. 315/2015 & CM Appl. 11658/2015. Case: Yodh Raj and Ors. Vs Narain Kumar & Sons. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | RC. Rev. 311/2015, CM Appl. 11593/2015, RC. Rev. 315/2015 & CM Appl. 11658/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vijay K. Gupta and Mehul Gupta, Advocates and For Respondents: Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate and Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate |
| Judges | V. K. Shali, J. |
| Issue | Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e), 19, 19(1), 25B(4) |
| Judgement Date | January 15, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
V. K. Shali, J.
-
These are revision petitions filed by the two petitioners against the rejection of their leave to defend application in Eviction Petition No.E-2/2015 and E-3/2015 in cases titled Narain Kumar & Sons (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 Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006. Therefore, both these revision 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 Act, 1958, are that the respondent/landlord is an HUF consisting of Narain Kumar (Karta) and Smt. Uma Kumari and Smt. Sunita Kumari, who are the wife and the daughter-in-law respectively of Karta Narain Kumar. So far as Sushil Kumar and Smt. Sangeeta Mehta are concerned, they are the coparceners of the HUF, being 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 by the members of HUF in different fields and that they have no alternative suitable accommodation available to them other than the two tenanted premises from which the eviction is sought.
-
So far as Eviction Petition No. 2/2015 is concerned, it has been averred that Sushil Kumar is running a sole proprietary concern under the name and style of M/s. Sushil Instruments Service while as another proprietary concern is bring run by Narain Kumar, his father in the business name of M/s. Instrumentation Electronics. Narain Kumar is manufacturing high voltage testers, mega Ohm meters, Micro Ohm meters, etc. while as Sushil Kumar is manufacturing panel meters. It has been stated that they have no other commercial premises in the market which could be used as a showroom for showcasing/selling the instruments and equipments manufactured by both of them. The tenanted premises are stated to be situated in a commercial area which is ideally suited for doing the aforesaid business of trading of these instruments/equipments. It has been stated in the petition that the tenanted premises are situated in Kashmere Gate which is at a walking distance from Old Delhi Railway Station, inter-state bus terminal and inter-change Metro Station besides being at a walking distance from the biggest electric and electronics goods market in Asia known as Bhagirath Palace. It is stated that the showroom if permitted to be opened at the aforesaid tenanted premises will not only act as a collection centre and a showroom for displaying their products to the customers but it can also act as a service centre for the goods.
-
The respondent/landlord has very fairly stated that the activity of manufacturing of these instruments and equipments is being done at 19-20, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi which is an industrial area and not a commercial one. It is also stated that they do not have space for opening a showroom/shop for selling their instruments/equipments.
-
The respondent/landlord has given the details of other accommodation owned by them one of which is a flat bearing No. 709, 7th floor of a multi-story building at 95, Vishal Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi which is under the tenancy of one M/s. AKM Logistics Pvt. Ltd. since 21.01.2009. It has been further stated that the said premises cannot be used as a showroom being 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 Bazar, 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 Sunil Bahl and two premises bearing No. 1/1117 and 1/1118 are occupied by Manish Vora. The shops occupied by Manish Vora are situated on the ground floor and the second one on the first floor while as the premises from which eviction is sought are situated on the ground floor.
-
The petitioners/tenants filed their leave to defend applications. In both the leave to defend applications filed through the same counsel, similar grounds have been taken on the basis of which it is stated that these grounds if proved would disentitle the respondent/landlord from seeking retrieval of possession of the suit premises.
-
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 or alternatively sell the property as the rates of the properties in this area have spiraled upwards. It has been stated that Sushil Kumar, coparcener is running a proprietary firm from property No. 19-20, Friends Colony, Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi and does not require any space for opening any showroom. The equipments manufactured by him are not an eye catching products which are required to be displayed for the purpose of attracting any customer. Similar averments have been also made about Narain Kumar that the instruments manufactured by him are not required to be sold 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 shop bearing No. 1/1116, Bara Bazar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi which is in their possession while as the possession of shop No. 1/1118 has been retrieved in the year 1978. On the basis of details of all these 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 is aged around 80 years while as Sushil Kumar is 57 years old and thus they are not in a physically fit state to open a new showroom/shop and run the same as desired by them at this age.
-
The learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) after hearing the arguments and examining the pleas raised by the petitioners/tenant did not find any merit in any of the averments made by them...
To continue reading
Request your trial