SANT LAL KATHURIA Vs. D.K. MIGLANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned before this Court is the order dated 31.05.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed; application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been declined. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed on the ground of bona fide requirement; contention of the petitioner is that he has two sons who are married and living with him alongwith their families; for a peaceful division of the family the petitioner wants to separate his two sons as also from the joint mess; he wants to establish the business of his sons independently; portion under the tenancy of the tenant is accordingly required by the landlord for settling the business of his aforenoted two sons namely, Yogesh Kumar Miglani and Rakesh Kumar Miglani.

(2.) APPLICATION seeking leave to defend had been filed by the tenant; a specific contention had been raised by the tenant that the landlord has owned other properties also i.e. property No. B -42, Ganesh Nagar and B -37 & B -24, Ganesh Nagar which have not been disclosed by him in his eviction petition. The corresponding para of the reply filed to the application seeking leave to defend have been perused. There was a categorical denial; the landlord has stated that he is in no manner connected with the properties at B -42, Ganesh Nagar and B -37 & B -24, Ganesh Nagar; they are neither owned by him nor is the petitioner their owner. A sale deed dated 05.01.2011 has been placed on record showing that Yogesh Kumar (son of the petitioner) had sold the property bearing No. B -24 Ganesh Nagar to one Smt. Anita substantiating the submission of the tenant that in fact property No. B -24 Ganesh Nagar was owned by Yogesh Kumar (son of the petitioner); a specific query put to the Learned Counsel for the landlord on this count, his submission is that this property is owned by his son and not by him; the averments made in the eviction petition disclose that the landlord is seeking eviction of the tenant from the aforenoted disputed premises only to settle his two sons namely Yogesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar; property bearing no. B -24 Ganesh Nagar is owned by Yogesh Kumar which fact has been concealed by the landlord and thereafter even on a specific averment made by the tenant in his application seeking leave to defend which has been denied by the landlord, clearly shows that the landlord has not come to the court with clean hands; not only that he has made active concealment; all these raise triable issues. The eviction petition having been decreed in this background suffers from an infirmity; impugned order is set aside.