Vijay Sharma v. Namita Aggarwal

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J SEPTEMBER 06, 2017 "pp" ..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 6th September, 2017 + RC.REV. No.422/2017 & CM No.32441/2017 (for stay). VIJAY SHARMA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Ahuja with Ms. Amita Sachdeva, Advs. versus NAMITA AGGARAWAL ..... 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 26th April, 2017 in E.No.189/17 (New No.199/17) of the Pilot Court (Central), Tis Hazari Courts) of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner / tenant for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act filed by the respondent / landlady and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioner / tenant from Shop No.2262, Shankar Gali, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi – 110 006. 2. The counsel for the petitioner / tenant has been heard and the copies of the Trial Court record filed along with the paper book perused. 3. The respondent / landlady sought eviction of the petitioner / tenant from Shop No.2262 aforesaid on the ground of her own self requirement of the same pleading (i) that the respondent / landlady had purchased the subject shop vide Sale Deed dated 16th June, 2008; (ii) that the petitioner / tenant is an old tenant in the shop at a rent of Rs.150/- per month; (iii) that besides the subject shop, the respondent / landlady also owns adjoining shops no.2263 and 2264; (iv) that shop no.2264 is in occupation and possession of the mother-in-law of the respondent / landlady who is running her business therefrom in the name and style of M/s. Earthing Material; (v) that the mother-in-law of the respondent / landlady has no source of income other than from the said business as the father-in-law of the respondent / landlady is paralysed and not able to move from the bed – therefore the respondent / landlady has allowed her mother-in-law to carry on business from the said shop no.2264; (vi) that the shop no.2263 is being used by the husband of the respondent / landlady from where he is running his business under the name and style of M/s. Pushpa Trading Company; (vii) the respondent / landlady is herself carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Sant Enterprises having factory at Ghaziabad but no office at Delhi from which she can trade in the goods manufactured or run her office; (viii) that the shop no.2262 in the tenancy of the petitioner / tenant is most suitable and reasonable for the respondent / landlady to have her office of trading of goods manufactured in the factory at Ghaziabad as in the adjoining two shops the mother-in-law and husband of the respondent / landlady are carrying on their business; (ix) that even otherwise, the aforesaid shops are situated in a commercial area most suitable for the business of the respondent / landlady in the name and style of M/s. Sant Enterprises and easily accessible for the customers of the said business; and, (x) that the respondent / landlady does not have any other reasonable / suitable accommodation. 4. The petitioner / tenant sought leave to defend pleading (i) that the "earlier landlord Girwar Singh" never asked the petitioner / tenant to pay rent to the respondent / landlady nor informed the petitioner / tenant of the sale in favour of the respondent / landlady; (ii) that though the petitioner / tenant had been depositing rent under Section 27 of the Rent Act in the name of the respondent / landlady but without admitting the respondent / landlady to be the landlady; (iii) that the "earlier landlord Girwar Singh" has been accepting rent from the petitioner / tenant; (iv) that the respondent / landlady along with the petition for eviction has filed documents with regard to her factory at Ghaziabad but has not filed any documents with regard to the two shops no.2263 and 2264; (v) that the respondent / landlady has also not mentioned the age of her mother-in-law and has not filed any documents on record; (