LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-294

BHARAT DEEP SETHI Vs. SONIA TAKKAR

Decided On January 11, 2018
Bharat Deep Sethi Appellant
V/S
Sonia Takkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent had instituted a case (E-146/16) seeking an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide need against the petitioner invoking Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of commercial premises described as Shop Private No. 1 forming part of property bearing Municipal No. 2/9, Roop Nagar, Delhi-110007.

(2.) It is undisputed case that the property of which demised premises forms a part was earlier owned by Shri Umrao Singh Maheshwari Aushadhalya Trust. The respondent claims to have purchased from the erstwhile owner the said property by Sale Deed dated 07.02011 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi. She instituted the case for eviction on 08.06.2016 on the ground that she requires vacant possession of the demised premises for purposes of her son who wanted to establish himself in the business of car accessories and for such purposes she did not have suitable alternative accommodation. It may be added here that as per the site plan (at page 74 of the paper book), the property in question (at the ground floor) comprises of large space including one portion described as private shop no. The said private shop no.2 is stated by the respondent to be in tenancy and occupation of her husband Dinesh Kumar, he having also been inducted by the erstwhile owner.

(3.) On being served with the notice under Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the petitioner submitted an application seeking leave to defend, inter alia, denying the existence of landlordtenant relationship between the parties, disputing the grounds on which the bonafide requirement has been pleaded stating, inter alia, that the respondent had deliberately concealed the fact that she was the owner in possession of the first and second floor of property bearing no.2/9, Roop Nagar, Delhi, a number of portions whereof being commercial in nature were lying vacant. Pertinently, he denied the claim of the respondent as to she being the owner of the subject property referring in this context to the challenge to the legality and validity of the sale deed dated 07.02.2011 by civil suit instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).