PRITAM SINGH Vs. SANJAY SHARMA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM 7479/2015 in RC.REV.191/2015

(2.) In the eviction petitions it was stated that the tenanted premises were two shops on the ground floor of the property bearing No.EA-20, Inderpuri, New Delhi measuring 11.5 x 6.00 ft. each and were being used as commercial premises at the monthly rent of Rs.266/- and Rs.293/- respectively. It was stated that Sanjay and Ajay were joint owners and landlords of the tenanted shops. They had jointly purchased 5 shops situated on the ground floor of suit property vide sale deed dated 22nd December, 1993. All the shops were occupied by tenants out of which one was with Pritam Singh and other with Bakshish Singh. Pritam Singh and Bakshish Singh started tendering the rent of shops to Sanjay and Ajay and thus attorned them as landlords. Later one shop came in to possession of Sanjay who was using it as cement store and other two shops were under tenancy of Ram Singh, Rameshwar Sharma and Narender Sharma. It was stated that Sanjay was doing the business in the name and style of M/s S.K. Traders and Sanjay Store and was trading in building material. He had two shops for storing building materials, a small office at F-556-557 Budh Nagar, Inderpuri, New Delhi and one shop which was being used as cement store at EA-20, Inderpuri, New Delhi i.e. the suit property. The shop at the suit property in occupation of Sanjay was a small shop due to which he was constrained to buy small quantity of cement. Thus, he needed two more shops for the said purpose. Sanjay was also running a stationery shop in the name and style M/s Sanjay Store at CSC LIG at Prasad Nagar, New Delhi. Sanjay had taken one shop on rent from Smt. Nirmal Sharma at EA-20, Inderpuri, New Delhi. Smt. Nirmal Sharma is doing business from a shop taken on rent at 11881/1 Street No.10, Sat Nagar, Karal Bagh, New Delhi for which an eviction order has been passed against Smt. Nirmal Sharma and she has to vacate the said shop by 14th March, 2014 as per orders of this Court. Thus, she required Sanjay to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the shop for doing her business and thus Sanjay was required to shift his store from the shop of Smt. Nirmal Sharma. It is further stated that Ajay was not doing his own business and was working with Sanjay at stationery shop. Ajay was blessed with one son and one daughter and he has decided to do the business of trading in Hardware, Paints, Sanitary fittings, Bathroom fittings, Ceramic Tiles etc. Thus, Sanjay and Ajay required three shops at the suit property which are occupied by the tenants. It was stated that tenanted premises were suitable to carry out the business.

(3.) In the leave to defend applications, common grounds were taken by Pritam Singh and Bakshish Singh stating that Ajay was neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted premises. Pritam Singh and Bakshish Singh have never paid any rent to Ajay. Sanjay and Ajay have various residential and commercial properties in Inderpuri itself. The particulars of the premises were stated in the leave to defend applications and it was stated that these premises are besides the four shops at the suit property and that they have got shops vacated from all tenants Smt. Sudesh Raj and K.L. Trehan. Sanjay and Ajay have very well established business and thus they have no requirement of the premises. Further the sale deed in favour of Sanjay and Ajay was in respect of half of the suit property i.e. EA20, Inderpuri and it is not clear which shops have been purchased by Sanjay and Ajay.