This revision petition challenges the Additional Rent Controller's order granting the respondent-tenant leave to defend an eviction petition, as the tenant alleged the landlord had other suitable premises. The court held the lower court's reasoning was not perverse and dismissed the revision.
The revision petition was dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA nc.REV.293/2011 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data i s as p er the physical file and no page is missing.
T
The respondent-defendant had'sought leave to contestthe eviction petition on the ground that his landlord was runninghis businessfrom another shop no. 44,Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market,New Delhi andbesidesthat he was also having shops in Karol Bagh.
,i
The petitioner in reply claimed that as far as shopno. 44, Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, New Delhi isconcernedthe same belongs to.his brother and he is carrying on his own businessfrom that shop. ILegarding the premises in Karol Bagh his case is that those premises are not suitable for his businessand further that for running his business at KarolBagh he has to engageextra labour a1d further that the premises inquestion are most suitable for expansionof the existing business of sale of poultryproductsetc.
The learned Additional Rent Controller has dealt withthe rival contentions rnade by the respondent - tenant in the irnpugnedorderand has acceptedthecase of the respondent-tenant thatthere were triable issuesinvolved which entitle him to leave to defend. The relevant paras from the irnpugned order are re-produced
below:-
l-.
"In the present case it has beenstatedby the respondent in his affidavit filed alongwith the application brleave to defend that the applicant is having other suitable accommodation at Karol Bagh which can satisfy his fuilher business needs. Inhis application for eviction of the tenant the applicanthas mentioned that he is having a differentpremises inKarol Bagh but according to the applicant the premises at KarolBagh are not suitablefor his busincss needs and further at Karol Bagh he has to engage extra laboru. On the other hand the contention of the respondent is that the prernises at Karol Bagh alequite suitableand, therefore,the application for eviction is notmaintainable.
Further it has been stated by the respondentin his affidavit that the applicant is having another shop near the premises namely, the shop no. 44, Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi where the applicant has been carrying on his business. In supporlof his claim the respondent has alsoproduceda documentpuporting to be water/electricity bill which showsthat the said bill has been issued in the name of one Ayodhaya Prasad, Shop no. 44,back of Bhagat Singh Place, New Delhi. The applicant denies these statements of the respondent and according to the applicant the owner ofthe shop is his brother and he isnot possessingthe samc.
RC.REV. 293120I I
Page 2 of 3
t
In the light of thejudgments ofthe Hon'bleSupreme court andin the face of the rival contentionsmadeby the respondent and the applicant in their affidavitand counter affidavit on the pointthat the applicant is possessingalternative accommodationat Karol Bagir *d ut shop no.44,backof BhagatSingh Place, New Delhi, which are reasonably suitable for.theapplicant this Courl is of the considered view that on this aspectthere are disputed questionsof facts and the issues are triable.The Court is of the view that if the contents of the affrdavit ofthe respondentare proved during the trial of the case then the samemay disentitle thc applicantfrom obtaining an order for the lecoveryof posscssionof the premises in question."
After having heard the learnedcounsel hrthe petitionerand the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Courtin its various judgments whichCourts are to keep in mind while dealing withsuch likeleaveto defend applications of the tenants and whichjudgments have beenreferredto in the irnpugned orderby the learned Additional Rent Controlleralso and the above quoted reasoning of the trial Court given for granting leave tothe respondent, Iam of the viewthat the reasoning given by the learned AdditionalRent Controllercannotbe said to be perverse or unreasonablejustifying anyinterference by this Court in exercise of its revisionaljurisdiction. This revisionpetition is accordinglydismissedin limine.
iF
AUGUST 04,20lllpg
RC.REV.293l20ll
Page 3 of3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there are triable questions of fact on the tenant's claim of alternative accommodation to justify granting leave to defend the eviction petition.
Whether the reasoning of the Additional Rent Controller granting leave to defend is perverse or unreasonable to subject to revisional interference.
Respondent
Applicant/Landlord
Amulya N. K.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
