ASHOK KAPOOR & ORS Vs. VIDYA SHANKAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an order dated 17.8.2013 whereby the petitioners application for leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was passed in respect of the tenanted premises being Shop No.2470 on the ground floor and tin shed on the first floor, Gali No.9, Beadon Pura, Main Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi- 110005. The respondent/landlord had sought the eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the premises on the ground that it was required by him for his personal use. It was his case that although he was working in a general store in Dilshad Garden, his family including himself and two children required to augment the family income by starting a modest business enterprise; he claimed ownership of the shop by virtue of a Will dated 6.9.1975 and stated that he did not own or possess any other commercial property in Delhi.

(2.) The tenant had sought leave to contest the eviction petition on the ground that the landlord had taken a security amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and had enhanced the rent to Rs.1,000/- per month from 1.7.1988; that earlier the landlord had sought to terminate the tenancy through a legal notice dated 13.11.2007 on the ground of alleged subletting but there is no mention of bona fide requirement; that on another occasion the landlord had proposed to sell the premises for a total consideration amount of Rs.47.00 lakh and had indeed accepted an advance of Rs.1.11 lakh hence there was part payment of the sale-amount for the sale of the tenanted premises, but now the landlord had resiled from the agreement despite the service of notice upon him. The tenant also argued that the eviction-petitioner was the owner of property No.E-135, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 from where he was carrying on a business of foreign exchange and running a school, namely, R.V. Public School.

(3.) After considering the arguments, the Trial Court was of the view that the tenant had not disputed that the petitioner's family comprised four members and that he was working in the shop of his step brother Arvind, at paltry wages. The issue of foreign exchange business from Dilshad Garden property and of also running of a school therefrom was taken for the first time in the rejoinder to the application for leave to defend. These constituted new pleas. The Trial Court rejected the amendments seeking to raise the aforesaid pleas, on the ground that in a rejoinder, additional pleas cannot be taken up and the purpose of rejoinder is only to explain of rebut the facts as may be made in the landlord's reply to the application for leave to defend. Although the agreement to sell the property in 2003 was admitted, it was not considered fatal to the eviction petition or to cast a doubt on the bona fide requirement of the landlord when the petition was filed. The issue of the agreement to sell related to 2003 and no monies were paid thereafter hence the agreement was not followed up. The Trial Court was of the view that the tenant had failed to raise any triable issue hence the eviction order was passed.