Prakash Kumar v. Inder Pal Singh and Anr

INDERMEET KAUR, J MAY 04, 2016 ndn

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 04.5.2016 + RC.REV. 643/2015 & C.M. No.29615/2015 PRAKASH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sagar Hajelay, Advocate. versus INDER PAL SINGH AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr.H.S.Dhawan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR (oral) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2015 wherein the application filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking leave to defend in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) stood dismissed. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the two landlords (Inder Pal Singh and Inderjeet Singh) which was filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the DRCA. Suit property comprised of a shop on the ground floor of property No.D-103, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi and had been depicted in red colour in the site plan. The premises had been leased out to the tenant by the late father of the petitioners vide rent deed dated 01.9.1981. At this stage it would be relevant to point out that there is no dispute about the status of the landlord-tenant relationship. The need of the landlords has been projected in para 18 of the eviction petition. This need has been described as the need of petitioner no.1 for running a business of a cloth merchant. It is stated that the shop is situated in a highly commercially viable area and for running a business of a cloth merchant from the said shop would be suitable option for the petitioner no.1 who is presently carrying on his business of sale of clothes from the carrier of a bicycle. Attention has been drawn to the site plan. Submission is that there is no other property available with the landlords to carry on this business. The other shops on the ground floor are already occupied; Gulzar Singh is a tenant in an adjacent shop who is running a shop of a chemist; tenant Dinanath is carrying on a business of garments under the name and style of "Krishna Garments" in another tenanted shop; "Weekender Readymade Garments" is another tenant besides one ATM of Canara Bank. The property now stands mutated in the names of the petitioners. Petitioner no.1 has no other place from where he can carry out his garments business. At the cost of repetition, he is now carrying on his business of selling of garments from the carrier of his bicycle. In the application seeking leave to defend primary contention of the tenant is that petitioner no.2 is running a business of a property dealer. The petitioners are gainfully employed. The first floor of property at D-58, Shivaji Market, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi is also in their possession and has been used for a commercial purpose. They can well use that area for the business of petitioner no.1. These were by and large the triable issues which were raised by the tenant. Relevant would it be to note that this application seeking leave to defend was filed on 23.7.2012 i.e. within the stipulated period. Thereafter on 04.9.2013 an additional affidavit was sought to be filed by the tenant seeking leave of the Court to bring on record certain additional facts. These additional facts are detailed in para 3 of the affidavit which reads as under: " That after the filing of the said application dated 23rd July, 2012 the petitioner has given on lease a shop with a L6 licence for sale of wine and beer to the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation on the Ground Floor in the property bearing No.D-58, Shivaji Market, Tagore Garden Extension, Near Central School, New Delhi-110027. In addition another portion on the first floor of the property bearing no.D-58, Shivaji Market Tagore Garden Extension, Near Central School, New Delhi-110027 has been given on lease to the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation. The Deponent has taken a photograph of the said property which shows the factum of leasing out of the property by the petitioner." Learned counsel fo