MADAN MOHAN SINGH Vs. SUKHPAL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eviction petition filed by the landlords Sukhpal Singh and Mahender Kumar under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed. The application filed by the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed qua a property bearing no.2278/68, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi. The landlords Sukhpal and Daljit Singh both sons of Surjit Singh, claimed to be the owner and landlord of the suit property. One shop bearing no.1 in the aforenoted property i.e. the property bearing no.2278/68, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been tenanted out to the tenant. The tenanted property has been encircled in red in the site plan. The grounds for eviction have been detailed in para 18 of the eviction petition. Contention of the landlord is that there are seven shops on the ground floor portion of the property; all of them are contiguous and all of them are owned by the petitioners. Out of the seven shops one is in occupation of the petitioners and other six shops are in occupation of six other tenants. Eviction petition has been filed against two tenants and it has been informed to this Court that the petition filed against Satbir Singh under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the DRCA had been dismissed. The petition filed against another tenant namely Charanjit Singh has been decreed. Possession of the suit property is yet to be obtained by the landlord. No eviction petition has been filed against the other four shops. Contention of the landlord is that the hotel Rama Deluxe of which petitioner no.1 is a partner has got a very small reception area on the ground floor which measures 16 sq. ft. The hotel has 26 rooms of which 9 rooms are on the first floor, 9 rooms on the second floor and 8 rooms on the third floor. The reception area being small, there is no place for the guests staying in the hotel for either sitting or standing in this area when they come for booking rooms in the hotel. The entry passage leading to the hotel is 4' 8''. The tenanted property which is contiguous and adjacent to the hotel be permitted to be included and used as passage and as the reception area to make it larger and thus more conductive for the running of the aforenoted hotel. (The site plan depicting the reception area has been shown in blue colour.) It is stated that there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation with the petitioners, therefore, they require this accommodation bonafide.

(3.) Leave to defend has been filed by the tenant. In this application, it is stated that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. They have sufficient accommodation. The landlord has concealed the fact that earlier there was a restaurant at the ground floor portion of the property (shown in black colour) which has now been closed and the petitioners have carved out shops in the same area and the same have been let out to respective tenants at higher rates of rent, if they required additional accommodation for their reception area they could have used the same before letting it out to the other tenants. The present petition has been filed malafide. The original space as depicted in the site plan has been deliberately reduced to create grounds for eviction of the present premises. A site plan has also been filed. It is pointed out that the stairs which were initially at point D have now been shifted to point C which has reduced the reception area. The area already in possession of the petitioners is sufficient for a reception as admittedly there is no room on the ground floor; the rooms are all on the first, second and third floors. This is only a case of desire which is not manifest in an act.