W H Brady & Co Ltd v. Sarita Jain

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. NOVEMBER 09, 2017 'gsr'.. (Corrected & released on 4th January, 2018)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 9th November, 2017 + RC REV.No.508/2017 W.H. BRADY & CO. LTD. .... Petitioner Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta & Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advs. with Mr. S.M. Mishra, Branch Manager of the petitioner company. Versus SARITA JAIN …... Respondent Through: Mr. Nagender Yadav, Adv. 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, 1958 (Rent Act) impugns order [dated 8th May, 2017 in Eviction Petition No.E-235/2017 of the Pilot Court (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi] of dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner for leave to defend the petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act filed by the respondent and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioner from ground floor of property No. 7530-B forming part of property bearing Municipal No. 7530 situated at Tel Mill Street, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. 2. The matter came up first before this Court yesterday when counsel for the respondent / landlady appeared on advance notice and substantial arguments were heard. Further arguments have been heard today and copies of the Trial Court record annexed to the paper book perused. 3. I have, at the outset, enquired from the counsel for the petitioner / tenant, whether the petitioner / tenant disputes ownership of the respondent / landlady of the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner / tenant from which the petitioner / tenant has been ordered to be evicted and the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 4. The counsel for the petitioner / tenant fairly states that though in the application for leave to defend a dispute in this regard was raised but the petitioner / tenant before this Court is not disputing that the respondent / landlady is the owner of the premises with respect to which the order of eviction has been passed and that the petitioner / tenant was a tenant under the respondent / landlady in the said premises. 5. The respondent / landlady sued for eviction of the petitioner / tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act inter alia pleading i) that the premises were let out to the petitioner / tenant by the predecessor- in-interest of the respondent / landlady as far back as in the year 1966 at a rent of Rs.572.65 paise and the petitioner / tenant at the time of institution of the petition for eviction was paying rent of Rs.770/- per month to the respondent / landlady; ii) that though the premises had been let out for commercial purposes but had been lying closed for some time under the lock and key of the petitioner / tenant and the petitioner / tenant had not been paying the electricity and water charges of the premises also which were in arrears of over Rs.1 lacs; iii) that the respondent / landlady has three growing sons viz. Sajal Jain, Lakshya Jain and Pulkit Jain, aged 22 years, 21 years and 17 years respectively; iv) that the respondent / landlady wants the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner / tenant for settling her son Lakshya Jain who wants to establish gems and diamond polishing and identification etc. business therefrom and in which skill the said son of the respondent / landlady had acquired qualification; v) that the respondent / landlady or her son did not possess any other alternate suitable premises; vi) that the upper floors of the said property were not suitable for setting up the said business; vii) that the petitioner / tenant is a private company having corporate office at Mumbai and having branch offices all over India including at Connaught Place in New Delhi; viii) that the respondent / landlady is also the owner of Ground Floor of property No.7575, Tel Mill Street, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi which is in occupation of tenants and generating a rent of Rs.90 lacs per month; ix) that the respondent / landlady, to settle her elder son Sajal Jain, had appointed the said son as atto