Shadab Raza vs. C P Singh & Anr

Held

The High Court held that the learned ARC rightly granted leave to defend to the respondents. The Court found that triable issues had indeed arisen, particularly concerning the petitioner's claim of unemployment and bona fide need for the tenanted premises. The respondents had presented evidence, including GST registration and invoices, suggesting the petitioner was actively involved in running businesses under different entities at multiple locations. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to conclusively demonstrate that his brother was the sole proprietor of M/s Standard Engg. Co. (Regd.) and that the GST number was not in his name. The petitioner would need to establish in the subsequent proceedings that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation for his business and that his petition was filed bona fide. Therefore, the grant of leave to defend could not be faulted. The petition was declined.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Shadab Raza, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking possession of Shop No. 7289, Old Rohtak Road, Azad Market, Delhi. He claimed the premises were bona fide required for his independent business to support himself and his family, stating he was married with children and unmarried sisters, and was unemployed. The respondents, statutory tenants, sought leave to defend, asserting the petitioner was already engaged in multiple businesses and owned several properties. The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) allowed the respondents' application for leave to defend, finding triable issues regarding the petitioner's business activities and financial status. The petitioner assailed this order before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned ARC erred in granting leave to defend to the respondents, thereby creating triable issues when none existed, under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the learned ARC ought to have disallowed the grant of leave to defend as no triable issues arose. He argued that his liabilities had increased after marriage and fathering children, and his current business at Shop No. 36, Masjid Takia Wali, Shivaji Road, Azad Market, Delhi, was run by his elder brother, where he only used the address for correspondence. He claimed there was a paucity of space at Shop No. 36 and he genuinely needed the tenanted premises for his independent business and livelihood. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was already engaged in multiple businesses, including manufacturing coffee machines, pop corn machines, sugar candy machines, and air compressors under M/s S.R. Enterprises and M/s Standard Engg. Co. (Regd.) at various addresses in Delhi, including shops 7290, 7291, 7292, and 36, Masjid Takia Wali. They also pointed to a GST Number issued in the petitioner's name for M/s Standard Engg. Co. (Regd.) and submitted invoices and photographs as evidence of his existing business activities, suggesting he was not unemployed and had other suitable accommodations.