SUBHASH CHAND CHHABRA Vs. RADHEY GOVIND ROHATGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed in E-56/2014 titled Radhey Govind Rohtagi v. Sh. Subhash Chand Chhabra & Anr. by virtue of which leave to defend application of the present petitioner-tenant was dismissed and an order of eviction was passed in respect of a shop measuring 8 ft. x 12 ft., ground floor, situated at property No.1/11700A, Panchsheel Garden, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The detailed facts are given in the impugned order. Suffice it would be here to mention that the respondent-landlord is claiming himself to be the owner of the aforesaid property situated on a 400 sq. yds. plot of land on the basis of the Sale Deed purported to have been executed by one Smt. Shashikanta in his favour on 14.11.2012 which is stated to be duly registered with Sub-Registrar IV, Seelampur, Delhi.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent-landlord that before the purchase of the suit property a school is being run in the name of K.D. Field School since 1996 at the premises in question by a trust known as Shri Mannu Lal & Smt. Surajwati Charitable Society. The said school is also being run on an adjoining plot of land measuring 350 sq. yds. The respondent-landlord is working as a Secretary of the Society which is running the school and is also designated as a Manager. Since he is the owner of the property, he is receiving rental income from the school although quantum of rent is not disclosed. So far as the duties of the respondent-landlord as a Manager of the School are concerned as to whether he is receiving any remuneration for the same is also not disclosed but it is averred that the respondent-landlord is under a duty and obligation to take all the necessary steps and to provide all facilities for the purpose of effective utilization and functioning of the school. It has been stated that in the present times it is almost a practice of all the schools to have a store room and a book shop in the school premises itself and, therefore, the respondent-landlord wants to create such a facility for the purpose of the school. It has also been stated that the respondent-landlord would also use the said premises that is the shop measuring 8 ft. x 12 ft. which is under the occupation of the present petitioner-tenant for the purpose of running a stationery shop which will give him some employment instead of making him sit idle at home. The respondent-landlord has also stated that his financial position would be eased and his mental hardship would also be reduced. It was alleged by the respondent-landlord that the petitioner-tenant is occupying the shop and running a godown for storing the medicines which is of no help for the purpose of running a school as it is a godown for storing the medicines.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant filed his leave to defend application and contested the claim of the respondent-landlord. He challenged the identity of the property. It was contended by him that the Sale Deed which is sought to be relied upon by the respondent-landlord is reflecting the property number as 1/11700 while as in the Claim Petition he has given the property number as 1/11700-A. It is disputed by him that the respondent-landlord is the owner of the property. It has been stated by him that the respondent-landlord had filed a suit for possession against the present petitioner which came to be decided by one Shri G.N. Pandey, learned Additional District Judge, North-East bearing Suit No. 22/2009 in which the learned ADJ had dismissed the claim of the respondent-landlord with regard to his ownership of the suit property. The appeal was taken by the respondent-landlord to the High Court, however, curiously enough the same was also withdrawn and not pursued by the respondent-landlord. It has been stated that these facts have not been revealed by the respondent-landlord purposely so as to mislead this Court with regard to the ownership of the suit property. The existence of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent that of tenant and landlord was also disputed. It was stated that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by one Smt. Shashikanta who too had filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner bearing No.E-132/1999 which also came to be dismissed.