SHASHI KANT JAIN Vs. TILAK RAJ SALOOJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 03.04.2010; eviction petition filed by the landlord Tilak Raj Salooja and another against his tenant Shashi Kant Jain seeking his eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) from the disputed premises i.e. the shop located on the ground floor of property bearing No. E-175, Kamla Nagar, Delhi- 110007 had been decreed; the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been declined.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; premises comprising of a shop had been let out to the tenant from where he is running a readymade garment store under the name and style of 'M/s Sheetal Readymade'; monthly rent was Rs.293/- exclusive of electricity charges. Contention in the eviction petition is that the premises are required bonafide by the petitioners for running a business by petitioner No. 1; petitioner No. 1 has a medical problem and because of blood pressure and a prostate problem, he is unable to travel; in these circumstance, he was forced to resign as a director of 'M/s Saluja Brothers Pvt. Ltd' where he was earlier working as a director. Both the petitioners wish to open a readymade garment outlet and the aforenoted disputed shop is accordingly required by them for the aforenoted purpose; contention being that this shop is located at the main front side of the property and is a commercially viable venture for running the aforenoted business. Further contention is that the petitioners are the owners of this property; they have no other reasonable suitable accommodation from where they can carry out this business; details of the other tenants who are occupying the front portion of the ground have been given in para 5 of the eviction petition. It is contended that this property comprises of three floors; the mezzanine floor consists of two rooms one of which has been let out to Salooja Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and other has been rented out to Dr. Neha Bhargava who is running a dental clinic. The first floor has also been rented out to a Chartered accountant and the back portion of the first floor is under the tenancy of 'M/s Study Overseas India Pvt. Ltd.' i.e. a centre who helps students to be suitably selected for higher education. The second and third floors are being used for residential purpose and are presently in occupation of the present petitioners. Eviction petition has accordingly been filed.

(3.) THE first argument urged before this Court is that during the pendency of this petition, certain additional facts have come to the knowledge of the tenant which are material and if these facts are taken on record, leave to defend would automatically be granted in favour of the tenant. This additional information has been incorporated by way of an application filed by the present petitioner in the proceeding before this Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). Averments made in this application have been perused. Contention of the petitioner is that on 11.03.2008, the sole Arbitrator had passed an Award inter-se proceedings between the landlord and Rakesh Gulati (another tenant on the ground floor) whereby the two shops which are in occupation of Rakesh Gulati have been handed back to the landlord; this Award was passed on 11.03.2008; meaning thereby that on the date of filing the eviction petition i.e. on 29.01.2009, this fact was well known to the landlord but for reasons best known to him, he has deliberately concealed this material fact; contention being that a person must come to the Court with honesty and he has concealed the fact which has a material bearing on the issue in controversy, such a litigant deservers no sympathy and in such an eventuality the Court should not mechanically and in a routine manner grant leave to defend in favour of the tenant.