SUDESH KUMAR BAJAJ Vs. P C KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 31.10.2006 which was an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller Tribunal (ARCT) endorsing the findings of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 29.03.2003 whereby eviction petition filed by the landlord namely P.C. Khanna seeking possession of his tenanted premise i.e one godown and one kolki comprised in Municipal No. 5316-18 at plot No. C-358, Regharpur, Khanna building, Hardhian Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi filed under Section 14(1)(a)(b)(c) and (j) of the DRCA had been decreed in favour of the Petitioner.

(2.) This order shall also dispose of the contempt petition which has been preferred by the tenant seeking a contempt of court proceedings to be initiated against the landlord Rajesh Khanna for having willfully and intentionally violated the status quo order passed by this Court on 22.01.2007; contention being that in spite of notice of this order whereby the execution proceedings had been stayed they had obtained warrants of possession qua the suit property and got the tenant forcibly evicted from the suit premises on 10.08.2007.

(3.) Record shows that the erstwhile landlord of these premises was Ms. Memo Devi; she had vide rent note deed dated 04.08.1969 let out one godown i.e. the part of the disputed premises as aforenoted to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- in March 1972 one kolki was also added to this godown and rent was also enhanced from Rs. 80/- to Rs. 110/- per month. Contention is that the Respondent in order to gain space had demolished the wall bearing structure of the kolki. Rent was also not being paid at the rate of Rs. 121 to the landlord; notice of demand dated 06.09.1995 was served upon the tenant. Further contention of the landlord is that the tenant had also defaulted in payment of rent. Further contention is that the tenant Sudesh Kumar Bajaj has also willfully and without any consent in writing of the landlord parted with the possession of the suit premises in favour of one Mahesh Kumar who was independently running his business in the disputed premises under the name and style of M/s. B.K. Leather Store; the tenant was charging a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month from Mahesh Kumar who was the proprietor of M/s. B.K. Leather Store; contention is that the premises had been let out to the tenant only for the purpose of running a godown; they are also being misused. The premises are being used as a shop and ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(c) of the DRCA is thus attracted as in spite of notice dated 06.09.1995; this mis-user has not stopped; there is also a substantial damage to the suit premises as the walls of the kolki have been broken to make the godown into a bigger space. Eviction has been prayed on all the aforenoted grounds.