Amba Prasad Jadavjee & Co and Anr v. Rajesh Dhingra

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

AUGUST 17, 2017 "bs".. (Corrected and released on 28th September, 2017).

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 17th August, 2017. + RC.REV. 278/2016 & CM No.18982/2016 (for stay) AMBA PRASAD JADAVJEE & CO. AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. C.L. Sachdeva, Ms. Priyam Mehta and Ms. Garima Sachdeva, Advs. Versus RAJESH DHINGRA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav and Ms. Arti Anupriya, Advs. 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 16th February, 2016 in E No.267/2014 UID No.02401C0586582014 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (ARC)-1 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of the application of the petitioners for leave to defend the petition 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 property bearing No.183, First Floor, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 in the tenancy of the petitioners for decades, at a rent of Rs.103/- per month. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued and the counsel for the respondent/landlord who appeared on caveat stated that he will not execute the order of eviction during the pendency of the petition. The Trial Court record has been requisitioned. The counsels for the parties have been heard. 3. The counsel for the two petitioners (it is the plea of the respondent/landlord that it is only the petitioner No.1 who is the tenant and the petitioner No.2 is the illegal unauthorised sub-lettee) on enquiry states that the petitioners/tenants do not controvert that the respondent is the owner of the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners/tenants and that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The counsel for the petitioners/tenants states that the petitioners/tenants however controvert that the respondent/landlord bona fide requires the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners or that the respondent/landlord has no other alternate suitable accommodation available to him. 4. The respondent/landlord instituted the petition for eviction inter alia pleading (i) that he had acquired the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners vide Sale Deed dated 25th March, 1996; (ii) that the respondent/landlord required the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners for his business needs and for self use of himself and his dependent family members; (iii) that the space available to the respondent/landlord and his family is insufficient and they are in great hardship due to shortage of space; (iv) that the respondent/landlord was in the business of lace trading and was then operating from home; (v) that the daughter of the respondent/landlord was unmarried and was of growing age and the space available "for her also" is insufficient due to operation of business from home; (vi) that the respondent/landlord and his daughter wanted to start a new set-up of business of lace trading and required the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners therefor; and, (vii) that the respondent/landlord had no other alternate accommodation available to him. 5. The counsel for the petitioners/tenants has argued (a) that the Sale Deed dated 25th March, 1996 vide which the respondent/landlord claims to have acquired the premises in the tenancy of the petitioners is not only of property No.183 but of properties No.183 to 187; (b) that it was the plea of the petitioners/tenants that property No.184 had been let out by the respondent/landlord to one Neeraj Gupta; (c) that the respondent/landlord in reply to the application for leave to defend pleaded having sold the property No.184 to Neeraj Gupta; (d) however no sale deed of the said property No.184 has been filed till now; (e) that though before this Court also, time was sought by the respondent/landlord for filing reply but no reply to this Rent Control Revision Petition has been filed; (f) that it was also the plea of