Kranti Kumar Sharma vs Rakesh Kumar Garg

M.L. Mehta, J.—This revision petition u/s 25B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short ''the Act'') seeks assailing order dated 17.10.2011

of Additional Rent Controller (ARC) whereby leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. The petitioner is a tenant in

respect of the tenanted premises comprising of six rooms, one Dalan, one varanhah, Courtyard and toilet on the ground floor of premises bearing

No. 25, Bazar Lane, Bhogal, New Delhi since 1958. Petitioner''s eviction is sought on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted

premises by the respondent for his business as well as residence. The respondent''s case, as set up in the eviction petition is that he along with his

family is residing at the first floor of the premises which is not sufficient and suitable for his living. It is his case that he is living with his son and his

family with whom he does not have cordial relations and otherwise also, he having suffered a stroke in November, 2010, is unable to climb the

stairs. His further case is that he has vacated his business premises at I-21, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II on 22.02.2010 and does not have any

other suitable accommodation for running his business.

The leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner on various grounds.

It was alleged that one large shop on the ground floor was got vacated by the respondent from Mahender and is now in the possession of the

respondent. It was averred that present accommodation with the respondent, comprising of three big rooms, one big covered drawing room on the

first floor, is not only sufficient, but suitable for their requirement. It was denied that the respondent was not having cordial relations with his son, It

was averred that the daughter of the respondent is not residing with him, but lives at Hyderabad and the granddaughter is only about 3 years old. It

was also alleged that the respondent is quite healthy and is looking after the business of sale of hardware products with his son on the ground floor.

With regard to the plea that one shop on the ground floor of the premises was got vacated from Mahender, the response of the respondent is

that the said shop has been handed over by him to his brother Mukesh Kumar, by virtue of a settlement that was recorded in mediation. The

learned ARC has outrightly believed this response of the respondent to be correct, despite the case of the respondent that all the accommodation

available in the premises 25, Bazar Lane, Bhogal, New Delhi are jointly owned by him and his brother Mukesh Kumar. On what understanding

this portion, which was recently got vacated from Mahender, was given by the respondent to his brother, is required to be tested by way of

evidence to assess the bonafide of the respondent. It is the case of the respondent that this portion could not be used as residence, whereas,

undisputedly, tenant Kranti Kumar Sharma was using this accommodation for his business purposes and that being so, it could not be said that this

accommodation was not suitable for running a business. The plea of the respondent that he is not having cordial relations with his son, has also

been outrightly believed by the learned ARC, observing that this assertion of the respondent could not be rejected unless it was shown by the

petitioner the same to be malafides and without any basis. The relation between father and son are personal to them and an outsider may not be

able to prove the relation to be cordial, unless afforded an opportunity in this regard. The fact that the respondent has been living with his son and

his family members from the beginning, without there being any cause of complaint against each other brought on record, prima facie shows them

to be having cordial relation, unless contrary is proved. It was upon the respondent/landlord to prove that he was not having cordial relation with

his son. In any case, this was an issue which would require to be tested to assess the bonafides of respondent/landlord.

As per the respondent''s own showing that he has suffered stroke and is unable to climb the stairs, this aspect would also require to be tested as

to whether in such physical condition he was capable of living alone and setting up an independent business at this age.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the averments of leave to defend application, as indicated

above, it makes me to observe that the petitioner has raised certain Triable issues, which the learned ARC has overlooked and outrightly rejected.

I, therefore, find that the petitioner needs to be afforded an opportunity of establishing his defence, instead, at the threshold, of being thrown out of

the premises, which is in his possession for more than 50 years.

Further, during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to some of the photographs filed in this

proceeding to show that the respondent is running the business of home d�cor products in the lower ground floor of the suit premises, just

beneath the business of hardware shop of his son, to substantiate that they have amicable relations and the respondent is not able to run his

business without the assistance and guidance of his son. There is no need to go into this aspect in present proceedings. In view of my above

discussion, the impugned order seems to be suffering from material illegality and perversity, and is set aside. The leave to defend is granted. The

parties are directed to appear before the ARC on 5.10.2012 for further proceedings.