S Amolak Singh Correct Name Amolak Raj Singh v. Narender Kumar Dang

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J NOVEMBER 03, 2017 "pp".. (Corrected and released on 27th February, 2018)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3rd November, 2017 + RC.REV.628/2015, CM No.29111/2015 (for stay), CM No.3047/2016 (u/O XLI R-27 CPC & CM No.12758/2016 (for direction). S. AMOLAK SINGH CORRECT NAME AMOLAK RAJ SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. C.L. Sachdeva, Mr. P.S. Khandelwal, Mr. Preet Pal Singh and Ms. Priyam Mehta, Advs. Versus NARENDER KUMAR DANG ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja and Ms. Nisha Sharma, 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 July, 2015 in E.No.763/14/10 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller-02, 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 Act filed by the respondent and the consequent order of eviction of the petitioner from Shop No.242, Jawahar Hosiery Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006. 2. The petition was entertained and notice thereof issued. Vide subsequent order dated 28th January, 2016, the Trial Court record was requisitioned. Vide order dated 8th April, 2016, execution of the order of eviction impugned in this petition was stayed. The said interim order has continued to remain in force. The petitioner/tenant has filed CM No.3047/2016 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and to which reply / rejoinder have been filed. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant and the counsel for the respondent/landlord have been heard and the Trial Court record perused. 3. The respondent/landlord sought eviction of the petitioner/tenant pleading, (i) that the respondent/landlord is the owner/landlord of the shop, having along with three other persons purchased the building bearing no.219-226, Jawahar Hosiery Market and 239-244, Post Office Street, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006, in which the shop is situated, vide Sale Deed dated 20th November, 1978; (ii) that the subject shop, being the part of the said building, under the final decree for partition dated 22nd April, 2010 and 19th May, 2010 in a suit amongst the four co-owners of the building, fell to the exclusive share of the respondent/landlord; (iii) that at the time of purchase of the building by the respondent/landlord along with others, the subject shop was in the tenancy of Amar Singh, father of the petitioner/tenant; (iv) that the respondent/landlord is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Bhawani Dass Narender Kumar, from a rented shop bearing no.34, Narain Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006 in the vicinity of the subject shop; (v) that the subject shop is much better suited for the respondent/landlord and the respondent/landlord requires the subject shop in occupation of the petitioner/tenant for carrying on his own business therefrom; (vi) that Vishal Dang, son of the respondent/landlord is also carrying on his business from tenanted shops no.836 and 837, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006; (vii) the said son of the respondent/landlord is residing with the respondent/landlord in the same house; (viii) that the respondent/landlord wants to carry on his business from his own shop i.e. the shop in occupation/tenancy of the petitioner, by shifting his business therein from tenanted shop; (ix) that the respondent/landlord is facing problems from his landlord; and, (x) that similarly Vishal Dang, son of the respondent/landlord, is also facing problems from the landlord of the shop in his tenancy. 4. The petitioner/tenant applied for leave to defend pleading (i) that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; (ii) that the respondent/landlord is not the owner of the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner; (iii) that on the demise of the father of the petitioner/tenant, who was a tenant in the said shop, the tenancy rights were inherited by the mother and other siblings of the petit