Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

Ranvir Singh Vs. Rajinder Kumar Jain - (High Court of Delhi) (18 Oct 2019)

Bonafide necessity would lie only if there is a bonafide need as distinct from a mere desire for additional space



Petitioner impugns order whereby the leave to defend application of the Petitioner has been dismissed and an eviction order passed. Eviction petition was filed by the respondent on bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking eviction of the Petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that, what Respondent has contended is a mere desire as distinct from a bonafide necessity to expand. He submits that no material has been placed to even prima facie show that there is any bonafide need.

A petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of Act, 1958 on the ground of bonafide necessity would lie only if there is a bonafide need as distinct from a mere desire for additional space. Respondent has not placed on any material to even prima facie establish that there is a bonafide need to expand the business as distinct from mere desire or wish to expand the business.

As the plea of the Respondent is that material is available to establish that there is a genuine and bonafide need for expansion of business and for additional accommodation and no material is filed on record, an opportunity would be required to be given to the respondent to place on record additional material and to lead evidence. Further, application for leave to defend shows triable issues arise in the case. Petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of his application seeking leave to defend has raised grounds which, if proved, would disentitle the landlord of an order of eviction.

In view of the above, impugned order declining leave to defend is set aside. Leave to defend the eviction petition is granted to the Petitioner. Keeping in view the fact that petition was filed in the year 2013 and the respondent is aged 77 years, Rent Controller is directed to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date fixed before the Rent Controller. Petition is allowed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved