Remanded

Sh Ashok Kumar and Anr. v. Sh Jagdish Chander Malhotra

Delhi HC1 May 2024RC.REV./121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC Delhi dismissed tenant's challenge to eviction order, finding no grounds to quash the lower court finding on bona fides. Stay application dismissed due to pending possession issues. Matter settled; tenant to vacate by July 1, 2025; eviction stay until then.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; tenancy to end by July 1, 2025; eviction order stay granted until that date upon payment of use-and-occupation charges.

Sh Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs Sh Jagdish Chander Malhotra — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~24

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- RC.REV. 121/2024

¶4

SH ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Himal Akhtar and Mr. Junaid Salmani, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

SH JAGDISH CHANDER MALHOTRA, ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikas Mehta, Ms. Upasana Pahuja and Mr. Praveen Pahuja, Advocates

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 01.05.2024 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶11

CM APPL. 25256/2024 (exemption)

¶12

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

¶13

CM APPL. 25255/2024 (stay)

¶14

This petition has been filed under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the tenant to challenge the order dated 06.11.2023 of the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby application of the present petitioner for leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed.

¶15

Today, preliminary hearing is carried out. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant has assailed the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Additional Rent Controller did not adjudicate upon the rival site plans insofar as the site plan filed by the respondent/landlord did not depict measurements of the portions other than

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/05/2024 at 12:33:56

¶17

the subject premises and the said site plan wrongly depicted the area of godown as bathroom and toilet. Secondly, learned counsel for petitioners/tenants has also challenged the bona fides of the requirement set up by the present respondent in the eviction petition insofar as sons of the present respondent, for whose commercial benefit the eviction petition was filed are already well settled and financially independent.

¶18

The learned Additional Rent Controller in para 12 of the impugned order has elaborately dealt with the issues of bona fide requirement and availability of reasonably suitable alternate accommodation and prima facie I am unable to find any infirmity in that view, which has been fortified by the learned Additional Rent Controller with a large number of judicial pronouncement from this Court as well as the Supreme Court. It would be significant to note that the requirement set up by the present respondent is that his sons do not have any place where they can start retail showroom or use any space for storage as a godown, so merely because they are financially independent, the bona fides of the requirement cannot be suspected. Besides, it is also significant to note that the requirement set up by the present respondent is for not just his sons, but daughters-in-law as well, who intend to start their independent business from the subject premises.

¶19

So far as the rival site plans are concerned, it is other way round in the sense that the measurements of portions other than the subject premises have been mentioned in the site plan of the present respondent (pdf page 428) and not in the site plan of the petitioner (pdf page 114). The importance of the site plan is twofold, namely identity of the subject premises and the availability of alternate accommodation. Identity of subject premises in the

¶20

¶21

present case is not in doubt. As regards availability of alternate accommodation, the learned Additional Rent Controller in paras 13-16 and 19 of the impugned order has elaborately dealt with the same and prima facie I find no error in that. Ofcourse, it is correct that the learned Additional Rent Controller did not discuss the rival site plan in the impugned order. But that cannot be a ground prima facie to set aside the impugned order in the above circumstances.

¶22

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners further contends that the present respondent had filed four eviction petitions pertaining to six shops, which have been allowed, so the requirement for the subject premises would cease. But in response to a specific query, learned counsel for petitioners fairly admits that pertaining to those six shops only eviction orders have been passed and the possession is yet to be restored to the present respondent.

¶23

Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to stay the operation of the impugned eviction order. Therefore, the stay application is dismissed.

¶24

RC.REV. 121/2024

¶25

Learned counsel for respondent who appears on advance notice accepts notice. Digitized record of the learned Additional Rent Controller be requisitioned atleast one week before the next date.

¶26

Relist for arguments on 09.09.2024.

¶27

MAY 1, 2024/ rk

¶28

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶29

¶30

At this stage, matter is again taken up on oral request of learned counsel for both sides. It is submitted by learned counsel for both sides on instructions of their respective clients present in the court room that they have settled the disputes. It is agreed by both sides that the present petitioner shall vacate the subject premises on or before 01.07.2025 and till then he may be protected. The petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition, undertaking to vacate the subject premises on or before 01.07.2025 and till that day he shall continue to pay the use and occupation charges at a rate of Rs.2,000/- per month plus electricity, water and other utility charges. However, in case the petitioner does not vacate on or before 01.07.2025, the respondent shall be at liberty to execute the impugned eviction order and also claim use and occupation charges at market rate for the period with effect from this date i.e., 01.05.2024. Towards acknowledgment of these terms, both sides have counter-signed this ordersheet.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the directions that the operation of the impugned eviction order shall remain stayed till 01.07.2025 but if by 01.07.2025, the petitioner does not vacate the subject premises, the respondent shall be at liberty to get the impugned eviction order executed in accordance with law and claim the use and occupation charges as mentioned above. The date of 09.09.2024 is cancelled.

¶32

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

¶33

MAY 1, 2024/ rk/ry

¶34

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶35

Sh Ashok Kumar and Anr. v. Sh Jagdish Chander Malhotra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Ashok Kumar and Anr. v. Sh Jagdish Chander Malhotra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Rani Vs Kewal Arora

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Vs LIC of India & Anr.

Nirmala Devi Vs Nagesh Kapoor

Manjeet Singh Vs Naresh Chand

Jagbir Singh Bhati Vs Saroj Garg

Krishan Gopal Vs Ajay Gupta