Naresh Kumar Jain v. S Shanmuga Sundaram

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

NOVEMBER 03, 2017 Mw.. (Corrected and released on 3rd January, 2018).

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3rd November, 2017 + RC.REV. 283/2017 NARESH KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner Through Mrs. Inderjeet Saroop, Advocate. versus S SHANMUGA SUNDARAM .... Respondent Through Mr.Prashant Katara and Mr. Soin Khan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act impugns the order (dated 28th March, 2017 in E.No. 6394/2016 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller, New Delhi) of grant of leave to the respondent to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act filed by the petitioner. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof ordered to be issued. Respondent has been served and the counsel for the respondent appears. The Counsels have been heard and the copies of the eviction proceedings on record perused. 3. Counsel for the respondent in his argument has not challenged that the petitioner is the owner of the shop with respect to which petition for eviction is filed and the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Thus the narration hereafter would be confined to the aspect of requirement and availability of alternate suitable accommodation. 4. The petitioner instituted the petition for eviction, from which this petition arises, for eviction of the respondent from one room/store (behind part adjoining shop no.S-25) of shop No. S-26, Ground Floor, Green Park Main Market, New Delhi, in the tenancy of the respondent at a rent of Rs.316/- per month, pleading (i) that the petitioner is the owner in possession of half of shop No.S-26, in front of the room/store in the tenancy of the respondent and is carrying on business from said half shop no.S-26; (ii) that the petitioner and his family are residing on the first and second floors above the said shop; (iii) that the shop No.S-26, was in fact owned by the father of the petitioner, who died leaving the petitioner and his brother as his heirs and the other half portion of shop no.S-26 fell to the share of the brother of the petitioner; (iv) that the respondent, besides being the tenant in the room/store behind the half portion of the shop in possession of the petitioner was also a tenant with respect to the other half portion of the shop which has fallen to the share of the brother of the petitioner; (v) that the brother of the petitioner has sold the said half portion of the shop which had fallen to his share to the respondent; (vi) that the room/store behind half portion of shop from which the petitioner is carrying on his business is required by the petitioner for meeting the requirements of the business being carried on by the petitioner from the said shop; the petitioner is facing crunch of space for selling his goods; (vii) that the petitioner is carrying on business from the said shop of sale of all school, office, computer stationeries, photocopy, spiral binding and lamination etc.; (viii) that the customers of the petitioner have no place to stand and have to adjust at the entrance of the shop which leads to a lot of difficulty and inconvenience; (ix) that the petitioner has to keep all his stationery, lamination, spiral binding and machine etc to meet the demand and requirement of his customers; (x) that the petitioner has no other portion of the shop in his ownership; (xi) that the wife of the petitioner also assists in the aforesaid business and sits in the shop; and, (xii) that the petitioner has no other alternate accommodation available to him. 5. The respondent sought leave to defend pleading; a) that the petitioner has been residing in the first and second floors above the shop and can also run his business therefrom; b) that the petitioner has no need to expand his business; c) that the petitioner for the last 25 years has been running his business from the same portion of the shop and there is no explanation as to why the petitioner now needs additional sp