- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decided
- 10 November 2017
- Bench
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
- Case no.
- RC.REV. 196/2017
Judgment
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. NOVEMBER 10, 2017 bs/pp (corrected & released on 27th January, 2018)
Case details
Parties and counsel
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 10th November, 2017. + RC.REV. 196/2017 MOHAN GOEL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Mr. Sanjay Sehgal and Ms. Ruchira, Advs. Versus RADHA RANI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Mr. Rachit Sahney and Mr. Manish Khurana, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW CM No.40689/2017 (of petitioner u/S 151 CPC) 1. The petitioner seeks stay of the order of eviction impugned. 2. The counsel for the respondent appears on advance notice. 3. The hearing of the Rent Control Revision Petition itself is advanced to today. 4. The application is infructuous and disposed of. RC.REV. 196/2017 5. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order [dated 3rd November, 2016 in E No.77147/2016 (Old No.160/2014) (UID No.02401C0296582014) of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC)-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioner from shop No.904, Ward No.VI, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. 6. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. The counsel for the respondent / landlady appeared and the matter stands adjourned to 5th April, 2018. The petitioner / tenant filed CM No.40689/2017 as aforesaid. With the consent of the counsels, the petition has been heard today itself. 7. The respondent / landlady filed the petition for eviction from which this petition arises, besides against the petitioner /tenant, also against one Raghubir Chand, pleading (i) that the said Raghubir Chand was tenant in the shop aforesaid and had sublet and parted with possession thereof to the petitioner / tenant herein, without any notice under Section 17 of the Act and without the knowledge and consent of the respondent / landlady and the petitioner / tenant was being impleaded as a party to avoid any delay in adjudication; (ii) that the respondent / landlady required the shop for providing commercial space to her son Sudhir Gupta, who was then carrying on business from his residence on the second floor of property no.357, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi, to expand his business; (ii) that the respondent / landlady along with her husband and the said married son Sudhir Gupta, his wife and his two children was residing in house no.357, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi; (iv) that Sudhir Gupta, son of the respondent / landlady, was running his business under the name and style of M/s Shiva Polymers dealing with all kinds of adhesives and chemicals, from the said residence only; (v) however with the growing age of her grandchildren, the respondent / landlady and her family members were finding paucity of accommodation and business activity being carried on by the son of the respondent / landlady from the residence was resulting in paucity of residential accommodation; (vi) that the son of the respondent / landlady Sudhir Gupta was unable to get a proper commercial exposure and outlet which is essential for enhanced sales, retailing and marketing; (vii) that Sudhir Gupta, son of the respondent / landlady was also unable to expand his business for the reason of carrying on the same from a residential premises; (viii) though the respondent / landlady is also the owner of second floor of 905,Chawri Bazar, Delhi – 110 006, but the said property was occupied by a tenant and was under litigation; (ix) that the respondent / landlady required the shop in the tenancy of petitioner, for use of her son Sudhir Gupta; and,(x) that the husband of the respondent / landlady was running business of sweets from a rented accommodation at Chandni Chowk. 8. The petitioner / tenant applied for leave to defend pleading, (i) that the respondent / landlady had sufficient accommodation with her in
Source: High Court of Delhi, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.