Ramesh Kumar Verma v. Kishore Kumar Arora

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. OCTOBER 26, 2017 bs (corrected & released on 29th January, 2018)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 26th October, 2017. + RC.REV. 384/2017 & CMs No.30392/2017 & 30394/2017 RAMESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nitin Soni, Mr. Kewin Kunjappy and Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh, Advs. Versus KISHORE KUMAR ARORA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ankit Jain and Mr. Sarvesh Rai, 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 24th March, 2017 in E No.101/17 (Regd. ID No.87/17) of the Court of Pilot Court (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of the application of 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 bearing No.1641-A in property No.1639-1648, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. 2. The petition came up first before this Court on 25th August, 2017 when on the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner/tenant, with reference to the site plan of the property, that the respondent/landlord is in occupation of a large portion sufficient to commence business but had not commenced the business and that if the pleaded requirement was genuine, the respondent/landlord would have commenced business, notice of the petition was ordered to be issued. 3. The counsel for the respondent/landlord appears and the counsels have been heard. 4. The respondent/landlord instituted the petition for eviction from which this Revision Petition arises, pleading (i) that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent/landlord in the shop aforesaid at a rent of 429.55 paise per month and is an old tenant; (ii) that the respondent/landlord acquired the property No.1639-1648, in shop No.1641A wherein the petitioner is a tenant, vide Sale Deed dated 8th November, 2007; (iii) that the ground floor of property No.1639-1648 comprises of 9 shops, two godowns and one room, of varying sizes; (iv) that of the 9 shops, 4 shops are occupied by tenants, including the petitioner; (v) that there is also an open space between the shops; (vi) that the first floor of the property is residential; (vii) that the respondent/landlord is doing business in jewellery and is running a jewellery shop under the name and style of "Raj Kishore Jewellers" from property No.A-22-A, Lajpat Nagar-II, Delhi; (viii) that the elder son namely Nikhil Arora of the respondent/landlord, aged 32 years is assisting the respondent/landlord in Lajpat Nagar shop and having 10 years experience in the business of jewellery; (ix) that the younger son namely Kinshuk Arora of the respondent/landlord aged 27 years is doing retail business of garments from property No.A-203, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi; (x) that the elder son of the respondent/landlord wants to start his own independent big jewellery showroom in Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which is the biggest jewellery hub in Delhi; (xi) that the elder son of the respondent/landlord is totally dependent upon the respondent/landlord for the purposes of income and accommodation; (xii) that the respondent/landlord requires the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner for his elder son to set up a jewellery showroom; (xiii) that the respondent/landlord, after amalgamating all the shops and godowns on the ground floor along with open area on the ground floor, wants to establish a big jewellery showroom where his elder son can start his business independently; (xiv) that the respondent/landlord was also filing petitions for eviction against the tenants in the other three tenanted shops; (xv) that the respondent/landlord is possessed of sufficient funds to amalgamate all the shops and the open area and to start the jewellery showroom; (xvi) that the respondent/landlord has no other alternate suitable accommodation. 5. The petitioner/tenant, sought leave to defend pleading (a) th