RAJESH JAIN Vs. PREM NATH MAKKER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord before this Court is aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2014 wherein leave to defend had been granted in favour of the tenant. The concluding paragraph while granting leave to defend to the tenant had been summed up by the ARC as follows:

(2.) The eviction petition has been filed by the landlord seeking eviction of the suit property i.e. shop bearing No. 3013, ground floor, Ganda Nala, Ram Bazar, Mori Gate, Delhi. Rate of rent was Rs. 24/ - per month. Contention in the eviction petition was that vide partition deed dated 5.6.2000 entered into between Ravinder Parsad Jain (deceased father of the petitioner) and Mahinder Prasad Jain (uncle of the petitioner), the suit property had come to the share of the family of the petitioner i.e. his father Ravinder Parsad Jain. This property had devolved upon the father of the petitioner through inheritance. It is further averred in the eviction petition that the entire property bearing No. 2997 -3001, 3010 -3013 was built on a land measuring 370 square yards situated at Gati Chakki Wali, Ganda Nala, Mori Gate. It comprised 14 shops, three rooms, three godowns, store and open Court yards. The suit property was owned by the grandfather of the petitioner and after the death of their grandfather vide partition deed dated 5.6.2000 between the father of the petitioner (Ravinder Prasad Jain) and his uncle (Mahinder Prasad Jain), this suit shop had come to the share of the father of the petitioner and after his death, the petitioner is a co -owner of the property. It was stated that the relationship of landlord -tenant exists between the parties and rent was regularly being paid initially by Laxmi Chand (father of the respondent) to the father of the petitioner. Rent deed dated 1.4.1968 had also been executed between the parties and attention has also been drawn to the rent receipts dated 13.8.1982 issued by Laxmi Chand in favour of the father of the petitioner. Submission is that the landlord -tenant relationship is a foregone conclusion. The bona fide need of the petitioner has been explained as the need of Rajesh Jain who is presently doing a private service from where he is earning only Rs. 7,000/ - per month. He has to look after his family which comprises his widowed mother, wife and two children aged 3 and 5 years respectively. His income is insufficient to meet the requirements of the family. He wishes to carry out the business of automobiles spare part from the suit property and his business is likely to flourish keeping in view the viable location of the property. He has no other alternate suitable accommodation in his possession. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

(3.) In the application seeking leave to defend, the most vehement contention raised by the tenant was that there is no relationship of landlord -tenant between the parties. The affidavit annexed along with the application seeking leave to defend has been perused. The tenant has submitted that the landlord has not come to the Court with clean hands. He is not the single owner of the suit property. The other co -owners have not joined him. There is no relationship of landlord -tenant. It is stated that in the year 1952 -53, the 'caretaker' of the suit property had inducted the father of the tenant namely Laxmi Chand in the suit property and this suit property is accordingly in possession of Laxmi Chand and his family right from 1952 -1953. A 'Pagri' amount was also paid to the said 'caretaker'. Relevant would it be to note that name of the caretaker and the amount of 'pagri' has not been detailed in the application seeking leave to defend. Even otherwise, the contention that the tenant had become the owner of the suit property has not been stated in the said application as is now orally sought to be projected. On a candid query to the learned Counsel for the respondent, he admits that he had no document to support his stand that he is the owner of the suit property. An oral averment to the said effect has however been made which not being supported by any document and not having been taken in the application seeking leave to defend is an argument which merits no consideration.