Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> High Court of Delhi Revisional power cannot be equated with a power of re-consideration of all questions of facts as a Court of first appeal MANU/DE/1601/2019 - (07 May 2019) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Kuldeep Raj Arora Vs. Rohtash Kumar Seewal and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present petition challenges the order passed in eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) whereby the leave to defend application was dismissed and eviction was allowed. The Respondents have filed an eviction petition in respect of the tenanted shop. The said shop is required by Respondent no. 1 for his professional purposes viz. he being a lawyer, has been practicing since 2005 and has no suitable accommodation in Delhi to be used as his office for practicing as a lawyer. 
The learned Trial Court has duly considered that, property is an ancestral property where on the first floor, Respondents No. 4 is residing alongwith his wife and a college going son; the second floor is occupied by Respondent No. 5, who is residing alongwith his wife and two college going daughters. The third floor is used by Respondents No. 1, 2 & 6 as and when they come to stay on family ceremonies and festivals. Nevertheless, Respondents have categorically stated even if the third floor is lying vacant, it cannot be used for running an office of an Advocate since the foot fall of his clients shall be very less on the third floor and it shall be highly inconvenient for senior citizens to climb the stairs till third floor. This view is accepted by the learned trial Court. 
In A.K. Woolen Industries & Others vs. Narain Gupta, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that, ground floor is more suitable for commercial purposes and further in Praveen Kumar Arora vs. Akshay wherein it was held that, needs of the shop on the ground floor needs to be viewed from the different perspective than the availability of the business space on the upper floors, hence there is no ground to interfere with the view of the learned trial Court. 
There is no cogent reason shown by the Petitioner to interfere with a reasoned order passed by the learned Trial Court. A bare perusal of the reasoning given by the learned trial Court do show that, it does not suffer from any error of law and is not perverse or arrived at without consideration of the material evidence filed before it. The revisional power, even otherwise, cannot be equated with a power of reconsideration of all questions of facts as a Court of first appeal. Petition dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : A.K. Woolen Industries & Others vs. Narain Gupta <manuid>MANU/DE/3454/2017</manuid></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Eviction, Bonafide, Legality</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>