My Legal Advisor, Lawyers india, free legal advice


M/S Seth & Sons Private Limited vs Arjun Uppal & Anr on 10 October, 2017

RC REV.116/2016 Page 1 of 17
The admitted fact is that the petitioner has been a tenant of the
property for more than 60 years and has been paying rent to the respondents.
Now, six years after filing of the Eviction Petition the petitioner seeks to
argue that the actual owner of the property is Waqf Board and not the
respondent. It is manifest that the application is nothing but a dilatory tactic
devoid of merit. In view of section 116 of the Evidence Act the respondent is
estopped from challenging the title of the respondent.
Application is dismissed.
RC.REV. 116/2016

1. This revision petition is filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as The DRC Act) seeking to
impugn the order/decree dated 27.08.2015 passed by the Additional Rent
Controller (hereinafter referred to as The ARC) under section 14(1)(e) of the
DRC Act. The respondent/landlord filed an Eviction Petition against the
petitioner/tenant under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for property being a
shop measuring 1208.4 sq.ft.bearing Municipal Number 1647, Shyama
Parshad Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-110006. The rent being paid by the
petitioner is stated to be Rs.208.63 per month. The respondents are joint
owners of the property. It is urged that the respondent No.2 is a hotelier and
is running a hotel under the name and style of M/s.New Royal Hotel from
the first and upward floors of the property in question. The Eviction Petition
is filed for the need of respondent No.1 who is said to be very ambitious
person keen on starting his own independent business after completing his
studies. He has completed his MBA from a University in Australia and has
come to India in 2008 with a motive of starting his own independent
business. He has decided to open a plush restaurant for which he has got a

RC REV.116/2016 Page 2 of 17
project report prepared. It is urged that there are about 50 hotels in the
vicinity of the tenanted property but there is no posh restaurant in the area.
The respondent is said to require an area of approximately 5000 sq.ft. to
open his restaurant and hence requires the entire ground floor portion to
complete his project. Respondent No.1 is said to have sufficient knowledge
and experience of working at the family hotel business since he has returned
from Australia. It is pointed out that earlier also an Eviction Petition was
filed but the same was withdrawn as it had been filed prematurely before the
expiry of five years from the date of respondent No.1 having become the
owner by virtue of Gift Deed in his favour by Smt.Raj Rani Uppal which
was executed on 23.12.2004.

Source: Indian Kanoon


About Author



Related Articles


No Comments Yet!

There are no comments at the moment, do you want to add one?

Write a comment

Write a Comment