This order dismisses a revision seeking quashment of the quiet enjoyment granted in an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Act. The court finds no bonafide issue or triable question raised by the tenant, upholding the lower court's order.
Revision dismissed; impugned order dated 31.05.2018 of the SCJ/RC (East) upheld.
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.
$~61
SALEEM AHMED ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajender Kumar, Mr. Giriraj Rajora, Advs.
versus
SAVITRI @ SARBATI ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
O R D E R % 14.08.2018
CM APPL. 32602/2018 (exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application is disposed of.
RC.REV. 393/2018
Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
The petitioner assails the impugned order dated 31.05.2018 of the SCJ/RC (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the application under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC, 1958 as amended seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the petitioner as response to the said Eviction Petition RC/ARC No. 1238/2016. The petition filed by the landlady Smt. Savitri @ Surbati under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of DRC, 1958 as amended, was declined with time having been granted in terms of Section 14(7) DRC, 1958 vide the impugned order dated 31.05.2018 in terms thereof for a period for a period of six months w.e.f. 31.05.2018.
The petitioner submits through the contentions raised that the Eviction Petition was not filed of bonafide in as much as the contentions raised RC.REV. 393/2018 page 1 of 2
page 1 of 2
by the respondent to the present petition i.e. the landlady were to the effect that the premises of H. No. 72, Main Road, Shakarpur Khas, Delhi -92, which is a shop on the ground floor and Tin Shed in front of the said shop, was required for her son Yogesh, aged 34 years for running the business of lighting, generator set etc in as much as they had no commercial accommodation to run the said business of the landlady and during the course of the submissions that have been made on behalf of the petitioner to the present petition, it has been submitted that the son of the landlady is running his business at Laxmi Nagar. Significantly, there is no such averment in the application seeking leave to defend that had been filed by the petitioner herein before the Rent Controller.
Documents are now sought to be placed by the petitioner of the present petition in support of the said averments, which cannot now be allowed to be placed on record.
On a perusal of the submissions made in the Eviction Petition that had been filed by the landlady, there is nothing to indicate that the petition was not filed bonafide and apparently the copy of application for leave to defend placed on record filed by the present petitioner does not bring forth any triable issue.
There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 31.05.2018 of the SCJ/RC (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The petition is declined.
ANU MALHOTRA, J
AUGUST 14, 2018/MK
page 2 of 2
RC.REV. 393/2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order declining leave to defend in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Act, 1958 involves infirmity requiring revocation.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Saleem Ahmed
Savitri @ Sarbati
Anu Malhotra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
