Virender Kumar & Anr v. Meena Verma & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 03, 2017 "pp"

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3rd August, 2017 + RC.REV. No.209/2017, CM No.15909/2017 (for stay), CM No.27407/2017 (under Section CPC) and CM No.27408/2017 (for stay). VIRENDER KUMAR & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajeev Verma, Adv. Versus MEENA VERMA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. J.C. Mahindro, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order (dated 21st November, 2016 in Case No.E-113/15 (New No.78417/16) of the Court of Additional Rent Controller-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioners / tenants for leave to defend the petition for eviction filed by the respondent / landlord under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioner from shop No.1465, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi – 110 006. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. 3. The counsels have been heard. 4. The two respondents namely Meena Verma and Gaurav Verma instituted the petition for eviction from which this petition arises, pleading (i) that the petitioners are old tenants at a rent of Rs.275/- per month; (ii) that the respondents are the absolute owner and landlord of the shop in the tenancy of the petitioners on the basis of registered Will dated 8th September, 1999; (iii) that the respondent no.1 / landlady is aged about 52 years and requires the shop in the tenancy of the petitioners for her bona fide need as the respondent no.1 / landlady wants to carry on business of artificial jewellery thereform; (iv) that the respondent no.1 / landlady has been working as sales executive at Shri Ram Hari Ram Jewellers and having experience of more than 25 years in the field of sale and purchase of jewellery; and, (v) that the respondent no.1 / landlady also has liability upon her to maintain her physically retarded daughter aged about 31 years. 5. The petitioners / tenants sought leave to defend pleading (i) that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners on the one hand and respondents on the other hand; (ii) that the petitioners / tenants have never recognised the respondents as landlords at any point of time; (iii) that the respondents are not the owners of the property and the Will produced by the respondents is not a lawful document being ambiguous; (iv) that the site plan filed by the respondents is incorrect and the accommodation available with the respondents has been concealed; (v) that "other portion which is also lying vacant has not been disclosed" by the respondents and there is no explanation why the respondents cannot use the other portion which is lying vacant; (vi) that the shop in the tenancy of the petitioners is not required bona fide by the respondents and the respondents simply have a desire and a wish to get an eviction order against the petitioners / tenants; (vii) that the respondents want to convert the property in dispute into a big business complex and want to let out the same on higher prices; (viii) that the petition for eviction filed by the respondents does not contain the necessary ingredients of Section 14(1)(e); (ix) that the respondents have not come to the Court with clean hands; (x) that the tenancy of the premises was in the name of partnership concern M/s. Praduman Kumar Virender Kumar of the two petitioners; (xi) that the respondent no.1 / landlady is already employed and drawing a handsome salary; and, (xii) denying that the respondent no.1 / landlady wanted to set-up artificial jewellery business. 6. The respondents, in the petition for eviction had shown their residence at B-19, 2nd floor, Gali No.1, Main Market, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 006. The petitioners / tenants, in their application for leave to defend, do not dispute that the respondents were residing at the said address. 7. The learned Additional Rent Controller, i