Vinod Sharma v. Kasturi Devi

V.B. GUPTA, J. 26th July, 2010

RB

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI RC. REV. No. 74/2010 & CM No.6014/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 21st July, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 26th July, 2010 Sh. Vinod Sharma S/o. Sh. Avtar Kishan R/o. A-7/31, 2nd Floor, Lal Quarters Krishna Nagar Delhi-110051. ….Petitioner. Through: Mr. R.K. Ahuja and Mr. P.N. Sharma, Advs. Versus Smt. Kasturi Devi W/o. Late Sh. Hari Kishan R/o. IX/668, Subhash Road Gandhi Nagar Delhi-110031. ….Respondent. Through: Mr. J.P. Mishra, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Present Revision Petition under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as "Act") has been filed against order dated 14th January, 2010 passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi vide which leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and eviction order has been passed in favour of respondent and against the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent is owner of property No.IX/668, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. Petitioner is a tenant therein in respect of one shop at the ground floor at the rate of Rs.440 p.m. excluding other charges. The said shop is lying locked/unused as petitioner has joined business of his brother at another place. 3. It is further stated that the respondent is a widow having a meagre rental income and she has 3 major and married sons namely Pramod Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Ajay Kumar. Her two sons are living separate with their wives and children but youngest son Ajay Kumar is living with her, who is unemployed and has no independent source of income to maintain his wife Smt. Ram Lata and three minor children. Sh. Ajay Kr. is fully dependent on the respondent financially as well as for the purpose of the accommodation and respondent is not in a position to maintain him and her family members. So she wants to settle him and to get open a General Store for him in the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. 4. Hence, shop in question is bonafidely required by respondent for the business of her said son as the same is most suitable for above said business for her son because the same is situated on the road in the main market notified by MCD. Respondent has no other reasonably suitable commercial premises/shop in her above said property. Moreover, respondent does not own any other property except Property No.IX/668, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, in which she and her above said sons are living with their respective wives and children, except shops with six tenants Sh. Vinod (Petitioner), Dhum Singh, Rama Maggoo, Ram Kr. Verma, Pradeep Kr. and Suraj Bhan. 5. Petitioner in his one page affidavit filed in support of leave application, has not mentioned any ground seeking leave. However, in the application for leave he has mentioned grounds which as per petitioner"s case disentitle the respondent to have an eviction order. 6. Vide impugned order, leave application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and eviction order was passed in favour of respondent and against the petitioner. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that trial court did not consider the application for leave to contest on merits and has made observations that in one page affidavit in respect of leave application, no grounds seeking leave have been mentioned. Since, petitioner has mentioned all the details in the leave application and has also filed affidavit (though the same was only one page) but that will not make any difference. In support of these contentions, learned counsel cited decision of this Court reported as Gian Chand v. Roop Narain, 1979 Rajdhani Law Reporter 469, in which it was observed; "In this case the tenant made an application as required by the summons. He made an affidavit in support of his application but it was a short one. In the affidavit he