MUKESH SHARMA Vs. HARMESH SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order dated 27th February, 2012 passed by learned ARC (East) Delhi in an eviction petition filed by the respondent in respect of a shop at the ground floor of the property bearing No. 27/48, Gali No. 6, Vishwas Nagar, Shahadra, Delhi - 110032 (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted shop") whereby the application of the petitioner for leave to defend was dismissed. Findings of the Trial Court

(2.) THE learned trial court by the impugned order observed that though the relationship of the parties is contested by the petitioner, he has neither stated to whom had he been paying rent nor has he stated who was the landlord/owner of the said property and who received rent from him. On the contrary, the petitioner on his affidavit submitted that the respondent had recently let out the back portion of the said property to the scrap dealer and that the only motive to vacate the petitioner from the tenanted shop was to receive an enhanced rent. In fact the petitioner himself had stated that the third shop is being used by the respondent to run his business, however, did not state that the respondent is doing so in capacity other than that of the owner. The learned Trial Court opined that the contradictory statement given by the petitioner with respect to the relationship between the parties was merely to negate the plea of the respondent without any basis.

(3.) AT the same time, it has also been observed in various cases that if in the process of landlord trying to prove his bonafide requirement the tenant is able to raise any triable issue then the Court has to allow the leave to defend application. It has been held in the case of Ram Dass vs. Ishwar Chander & Ors, AIR 1988 SC 1422, that while exercising the power of revision, in appropriate cases the High Court can reappraise evidence if findings of the trial court are contrary to law. Under these circumstances, it has been observed in various cases that by allowing the leave to defend application an opportunity should be given to the tenant to try and test the contention of the landlord as the bonafide requirement is the state of mind and unless a person claiming requirement is subject to cross -examination, requirement without his evidence cannot be established.