M/S Sumiti Dass & Sons v. Vinay Kumar Mahajan

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 24, 2017 bs ..

(Corrected and released on 4th October, 2017)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24th July, 2017 + RC. REV. 112/2016 & CMs No.5784/2016 & 17873/2016 (both for stay) RAM SAROOP & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. O.P. Verma, Advs. Versus VINEY KUMAR MAHAJAN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mr. R.P. Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Mehra, Advs. AND + RC. REV. 130/2016 & CMs No.7021/2016 & 18430/2016 (both for stay) M/S SUMITI DASS & SONS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Singh, Advs. Versus VINAY KUMAR MAHAJAN ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Mr. R.P. Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Mehra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. These Rent Control Revision Petitions under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugn separate but identical orders, both dated 9th October, 2015, in E No.13/09/08 and E No.14/09/08 respectively of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi of dismissal of applications filed by the petitioner in each of the petitions for leave to defend the petitions for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent/landlord and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioners from Shop No.17-B and Shop No.18 respectively, Regal Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi wherein the petitioners in both the petitions are old tenants at rent of Rs.150/- per month and Rs.236.10 per month respectively. 2. RC REV. No.112/2016 came up first before this Court on 17th February, 2016 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. 3. RC REV. No.130/2016 came up first before this Court on 26th February, 2016 when notice thereof also was ordered to be issued. 4. Vide subsequent orders dated 11th May, 2016 and 18th May, 2016 respectively, the execution of the orders of eviction was stayed. Trial Court records were requisitioned in both the cases. On 25th April, 2017, when RC REV. No.112/2016 came up before this Court, the counsel for the petitioner stated that connected matter being RC REV. No.130/2016 was listed on 24th July, 2017 and both the matters be taken up together. The counsels though separate for each of the petitioners have argued the matter as one only and this common judgment disposing of both the petitions is being pronounced since the facts on which the petitions for eviction were filed are the same and the grounds on which leave to defendant was sought are also similar. 5. The respondent/landlord instituted the petitions for eviction against each of the petitioners pleading (i) that he was the owner landlord of the premises in tenancy of each of the petitioner, having purchased the property in shops wherein each of the petitioners was a tenant, by virtue of registered Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney and Will all dated 18th May, 1986 in his favour by the previous owners landlords and relying on Asha M. Jain Vs. Canara Bank 94 (2001) DLT 841; (ii) that the shops in the tenancy of each of the petitioners were bona fide required for furtherance of the activities of running a cinema theatre; (iii) that after evicting each of the petitioners, the premises in their respective tenancy shall be used for furtherance of activities of Regal Theatre which include expansion of Regal Theatre including setting up of such activities as permissible under the Cinematograph Act, 1951 and the Regulations framed thereunder. 6. The petitioners in RC REV. No.112/2016 sought leave to defend pleading (a) that the tenancy was in the joint name of D.S. Bedi and Ram Saroop and not in the name of M/s D.S. Bedi Ram Saroop against whom the petition for eviction was filed; (b) that the respondent, on the basis of Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney and Will, even if registered, did not become the owner of the property; (c) that the respondent did not bona fide require the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners; (d) that the shop in the tenancy of the petitioners had not been part of Regal Theatre though situated in the same building as Regal Theatre; (e) that besides the shop in the tenanc