USHA KALRA Vs. ARYA SAMAJ BHOGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned is the order dated 23.7.2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to defend in a pending eviction petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act had been declined.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present petition has been filed qua the suit premises which is a shop No.2,407, Arya Samaj Bhogal (Jangpura), Hospital Road, Bhogal, New Delhi. Contention is that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the said shop; respondent was inducted as a tenant in September 1988 at a monthly rent of Rs.600/- per month; petitioner is an association of the followers of Mahrishi Dayanand and is attached with the Delhi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, 15, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. Resolution no.5 was passed in their Annual General Meeting by virtue of which the managing committee of the petitioner had decided to open a sale counter for the exhibition and sale of vedic literature/material/articles from the aforenoted tenanted shop which is located on the main road known as the hospital road. Premises are required bonafide by the petitioner for the sale and exhibition of the aforenoted vedic literature.

(3.) SITE plan by both the parties i.e. the landlord and the tenant had been filed which are not disputed documents. Photographs have also been filed. The site plan filed by the landlord shows that the shutter of shop No.2 opens out on to the main hospital road; shop No.1 is the only other shop in the premises; it is in the back portion and opens out into a bye lane; this shop is admittedly with Dr.Meenakshi from where a homeopathic dispensary is being run. The landlord in his reply has clearly and categorically stated that there is no other shop in the tenanted premises which is available with him. This is also clear from the site plan filed by him. The corresponding site plan which has been filed by the tenant has also been perused. This shows that the store and the office which are with the landlord have been depicted as shops; the further submission of the tenant that all these four shops are in a row is negatived from the site plan itself; shop no.1 is admittedly on the back portion and the size of the store and the office (dimensions not given) are definitely much smaller in size than the other two shops; less than 1/5th of shop No.2 and 1/3rd of shop No.2; this store and office thus cannot qualify as a shop. The landlord has specifically averred that keeping in view the nature of the work which has been assigned to the petitioner an office and a store are essential requirements of the Association and as depicted and shown in the site plan. The submission of the tenant that the store and the office are in fact shops which have been tenanted out to other persons and which have since been vacated has been vehemently denied. Moreover the photographs filed in the eviction proceedings also depict no such feature.