Shyam Sunder Ahuja v. Shushil Kumar

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 "gsr"..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 11th September, 2017 + RC.REV. 312/2017, CM No.24292/2017 (for stay) & CM No.24294/2017 (for condonation of 106 days delay in re-filing) SHYAM SUNDER AHUJA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal & Mr. Prateek Kohli, Advs. Versus SHUSHIL KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: None. 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 23rd December, 2016 in RC/ARC No.172/2016 of the Court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (Shahdara), Karkardooma 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.1A in property No.1712 forming part of Plot No.15 in Khasra No.1309/1049/638 in village Chandrawali @ Shahdara in abadi of Rama Block, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdarda Delhi-110032 in which the petitioner is an old tenant since several decades. 2. The counsel for the petitioner, in furtherance of the earlier order dated 22nd August, 2017, has in Court handed over a complete certified copy of the trial court record and which is taken on record. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has been heard and the record perused. 4. The respondent instituted the petition for eviction, pleading i) that he had acquired the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner vide registered deed dated 6th November, 2009; ii) that the respondent is aged about 42 years and married, having minor children; iii) that the respondent has no permanent business of his own and the wife of the respondent is also a housewife and not working or earning livelihood; iv) that the respondent requires the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner for running his own business therefrom and which the respondent is not being able to run owing to non availability of a commercial shop. 5. The petitioner, though applied for leave to defend raising all sorts of pleas, including of denial of ownership of the respondent and denial of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant but the counsel for the petitioner, before this Court, acting fairly, has not urged any of the said aspects and has drawn attention only to paras no.19 to 21 of the application for leave to defend where the petitioner / tenant has pleaded i) that the respondent / landlord sold one shop in property No.MPL No.1712, Plot No.15, Rama Block, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi in the year 2011 to one Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhasin; ii) that the respondent / landlord sold out one shop in the year 2010 to Dr. Vinod Kumar Goel; iii) that the respondent / landlord also sold another shop forming part of "aforesaid property" and which shop is lying locked; iv) that had the respondent / landlord bona fide required the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner / tenant, he would not have disposed of / sold out the said shops; v) that the respondent / landlord is also owner of property ad-measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing No.27/2, Gali No.14, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi; vi) that the respondent had demolished the entire old construction on the aforesaid property "and now will raise new construction over the same and will construct various shops in the aforesaid property since the aforesaid property is situated on main road"; vii) that the respondent / landlord is a builder and engaged in the business of sale and purchase of property; viii) that the respondent / landlord is also owner of property situated at Pandav Road, Daksh Road, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi; ix) that the respondent / landlord is owner of several other properties. 6. The respondent / landlord in his reply to the application for leave to defend, with respect to the aforesaid i) did not dispute the sale of the three shops in the year 2010-11 but stated that the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner / tenant was the only