Chhitar Mal Rajender Prasad v. Chaudhary Ram Chander

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JULY 18, 2017 "pp".. (Corrected & released on 1st November, 2017)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 18th July, 2017 RC.REV. No.449/2016 & CM No.34042/2016 (for stay) DR DHARAMPAL (DECEASED) THR HIS LEGAL HEIR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ratnesh Bansal and Mr. Ashu Singh, Advs. Versus CHAUDHARY RAM CHANDER ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar and Mr. Mohit Singh, Advs. AND + RC.REV. No.480/2016 & CM No.36333/2016 (for stay) CHHITAR MAL RAJENDER PRASAD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ratnesh Bansal and Mr. Ashu Singh, Advs. Versus CHAUDHARY RAM CHANDER ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sudhir Naagar and Mr. Mohit Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. These Rent Control Revision Petitions, both filed under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, impugn the orders of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act of each of the petitioner from the shop in his tenancy under the same respondent / landlord and in the same property. The orders of eviction impugned in each of the petition though separate but are on the same set of facts. Both petitioners are represented by the same Advocate who has argued both petitions as one only. Hence, this common order in both the petitions. 2. The challenge in R.C.Rev. No.449/2016 is to the order dated 19th May, 2016 in EP No.113/2012 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (South), Saket District Courts, New Delhi. 3. The challenge in R.C. Rev.No.480/2016 is to the order dated 19th May, 2016 in EP No.109/2012 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller (South), Saket District Courts, New Delhi. 4. Notice of both the petitions was ordered to be issued and the counsel for the respondent / landlord appears. 5. The learned Additional Rent Controller, in the impugned orders, has found / observed:- (i) that the shop subject matter of R.C.Rev. No.449/2016 was let out to the petitioner / tenant 40 years back and the shop subject matter of R.C.Rev. No.480/2016 was let out to the petitioner/tenant therein years back with the petitioner/tenant in R.C.Rev. No.449/2016 paying a rent of Rs.220/- per month and the petitioner/tenant in R.C.Rev. No.480/2016 paying a rent of Rs.75/- per month; (ii) the respondent / landlord sought eviction of both the petitioners pleading:- (a) that he was 70 years of age; (b) that his family consisted of himself and his two married sons; (c) the elder son was residing separately from the respondent / landlord but the younger son was residing along with the respondent / landlord in the same house; (d) that both the sons were "unemployed" and surviving on meager rental income; (e) that the respondent / landlord along with his younger son, who was not very qualified, required the shop in the tenancy of the petitioners to open therein a Hardware & Sanitary Shop as the shops in the tenancy of the petitioners are located in the main market; (f) the younger son of the respondent / landlord had attained experience of about five years in hardware business while working with M/s. D.S. Hardware & Sanitary Store, Faridabad; (g) that petitions for eviction of tenants in other shops in the property were also being filed, as even a mediocre hardware and sanitary shop would require a space of about 50 sq. yds. and another 50 sq. yds. for godown / storage of pipes, tiles, tubs, fittings etc.; and, (h) that neither the respondent / landlord nor his sons had any other suitable commercial property available to them in Delhi; (iii) the petitioners / tenants applied for leave to defend, not disputing that the respondent / landlord was the owner and also not disputing that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent / landlord but pleading, (a) that the site plan filed by the respondent / landlord was incorrect; (b) that the respondent / landlord had wrongly pleaded in the petitions for eviction that there were in all six shops in the property; in fact there were seven shops; (c) that the certificate of experience qua the younger son of the respondent / landlord was forged and fabri