Sunil Kumar Goyal v. Harbans Singh

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 18, 2017 "bs/gsr"..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 18th July, 2017 + SUNIL KUMAR GOYAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Zakir Hussain, Adv. Versus HARBANS SINGH ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Abhay Dixit, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW Caveat No.602/2017 1. The counsel for the caveator/respondent appears. 2. The caveat stands discharged and disposed of. CM No.23370/2017 (for exemption) 3. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 4. The application is disposed of. RC.REV. 300/2017 & CM No.23369/2017 (for stay) 5. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order (dated 24th March, 2017 of the Court of Rent Controller (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in E No.25615/2016 filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act) of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner/tenant for leave to defend and consequent order of eviction of the petitioner/tenant from shop No.1 in property No.C-147, Clock Tower, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. 6. The counsels have been heard. 7. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant has argued that the respondent/landlord suppressed from the petition for eviction that the term of the lease of another shop let out by the respondent/landlord in the same property was about to expire two months after the institution of the petition for eviction and the respondent/landlord has re-let the said shop and which falsifies the need/requirement pleading which the eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the shop in his tenancy was sought. 8. The counsel for the respondent/landlord states (i) that the respondent/landlord is the owner/landlord of only two shops i.e. one in the tenancy of the petitioner herein and the other which was let out two years back to one Mr. Naresh Sindhwani at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month; (ii) that it was a term of the agreement of letting out to Mr. Naresh Sindhwani that the lease after two years shall be renewed for another period of two years; (iii) that the said shop was let out at a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and the lease thereof in accordance with the agreement at the time of letting has been renewed for a further period of two years at the rate of rent of Rs.12,000/- per month; (iv) that the petitioner/tenant is an old tenant since the year 1987 paying rent of Rs.2,000/- only; (v) that the respondent/landlord is entitled to arrange his affairs to reap maximum return from his property and to seek eviction of a tenant in a low rent yielding shop rather than of a tenant in a high rent yielding shop. 9. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant states that the petitioner/tenant in the application for leave to defend also disputed the bona fide requirement pleaded by the respondent/landlord and contends that the respondent/landlord does not need the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner/tenant. It is stated that the act of the respondent/landlord of letting out / renewing the lease of another shop owned by him nullifies the requirement pleaded. It is further contended that if the respondent/landlord had any bona fide need/requirement of a shop for carrying on his own business, the respondent/landlord, instead of bothering about the rate of rent, would have got the other shop vacated and would have commenced his business therefrom. It is further contended that from the suppression of the imminent expiry of the term of the lease of the other shop, the plea of bona fide requirement of the shop in tenancy of petitioner / tenant is nullified. 10. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. 11. It cannot be lost sight of that according to the petitioner / tenant also, on the date of institution of the petition for eviction, the other shop was in occupation of another tenant. It is thus not as if the other shop already stood vacated and was concealed from the petition for eviction. The plea of concealment has to be judged in the context of the agreement of the respondent / landlord with the tenant i