ANIL BAJAJ Vs. VINOD AHUJA
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
May 08,2014
ANIL BAJAJ
Appellant
VERSUS
VINOD AHUJA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SANTOSH KUMAR VS. BHAI MOOL SINGH [REFERRED TO]CHARAN DASS DUGGAL VS. BRAHMA NAND [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
INDIRA KHER VS. NIRMALA DEVI NATHANI [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-143] [REFERRED TO]AKHECHAND BHIKAMCHAND DHARMADA TRUST VS. BHARAT LAL SONI [LAWS(CHH)-2018-10-225] [REFERRED TO]
MODI KAPILABEN CHIMANLAL JIVRAM VS. PATEL NATWARLAL RAMKISHANDAS [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-1568] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH BAWA VS. ASHA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-240] [REFERRED TO]
KUNDAN LAL MAHESH CHAND VS. PADAM CHAND JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH BAWEJA VS. AMARJEET SINGH KHURANA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-211] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYAWATI VS. GAUTAM MAHAJAN & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD VS. HITENDRA KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2017-3-158] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPINDER SINGH BAWA VS. ASHA DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNEEK SHAH VS. CHANDRA KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2017-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ABHILAKH VS. RAM PHAL TYAGI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-419] [REFERRED]
HARMINDER SINGH KOGHAR VS. RAMNATH EXPORTS PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER SINGH VS. GIAN PRAKASH SAINI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-300] [REFERRED]
ANIL BHASIN VS. IMARTI DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-72] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH NAGI VS. M/S NEW SILVER LINE TRADERS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIV GUPTA VS. S.S. VERMA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-246] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RASHID VS. NAWAB ALI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-207] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL WADHWA VS. M.M.L. KAPUR [LAWS(DLH)-2024-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, S/O DHANNARAM AGRAWAL VS. SAVITA MUKHARJEE, WIDOW OF LATE SHRINATH MUKHARJEE [LAWS(CHH)-2018-9-102] [REFERRED TO]
GULAM RABBANI, S/O GULAM JILANI VS. RAMNIWAS SHARMA, S/O SHRI RAMLAKHAN SHARMA [LAWS(CHH)-2019-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRASHEKHER MALHOTRA VS. PRAVIN CHAND [LAWS(CHH)-2019-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN VS. CHANDRA KANTA AGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-153] [REFERRED TO]
ASHA SAWHNEY AND ORS. VS. KAMINI GUPTA & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-235] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA DEVI SHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ANR VS. YADUKUL GUGLANI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-186] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SHARMA VS. NAMITA AGGARAWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-131] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKER RASTOGI VS. ALLAHABAD BANK [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-164] [REFERRED TO]
BABU RAM GUPTA VS. CHANDER PRAKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. VIVEK TRIMBAKRAO PATURKAR VS. SOW. SULOCHANABAI W/O. GANGADHARRAO [LAWS(BOM)-2022-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
SANATAN SAH VS. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(PAT)-2023-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY BAFNA VS. KAMLA BAI BHATTAD [LAWS(CHH)-2018-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
DALIP KUMAR BAKSHI VS. VIVEK KHURANA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-180] [REFERRED TO]
C P SEHGAL VS. ARCHANA GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-570] [REFERRED]
MACHINE SALES AND SERVICE VS. JUGAL KISHORE LOHIA [LAWS(GAU)-2019-11-111] [REFERRED TO]
NIYOTI DEV VS. AHMED TEA COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2017-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
W H BRADY & CO LTD VS. SARITA JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-83] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR BABBAR VS. RAJNI GARG [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-316] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR MOHAMMD VS. KANTA AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-295] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR VS. SURENDER KUMAR GULATI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-10-69] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH GUPTA VS. JAGDISH LAL MALIK [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
VASANTRAO HARIBHAU DEDGAONKAR VS. GOVIND SADASHIV MADADGAONKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
KAMGAR KALYAN KENDRA CHALISGAON DIST JALGAON VS. KASHINATH BRINDAVAN BUNDELKHANDI [LAWS(BOM)-2018-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
JAGMEET SINGH KHALSA VS. SUDHAKAR PANDEY [LAWS(CHH)-2018-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA DEVI VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD DALMION [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH PRAKASH PUJARI VS. RAICHAND [LAWS(CHH)-2022-4-142] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS VS. SUBHASH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-573] [REFERRED]
RAJAN PAL VS. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-11-314] [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN LAL GUPTA VS. NAND KISHORE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-490] [REFERRED]
HASNA RAHMAN VS. AHMED TEA COMPANY (P) LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2023-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
SWARANJIT SINGH VS. SHRIMATI SAROJ KAPOOR [LAWS(DLH)-2023-11-133] [REFERRED TO]
BOSCO JOSEPH VS. RAJ KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-230] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERICAL ELECTRIC WORKS VS. SHARDA GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-4-44] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ TRAVELLING STORES VS. RANJIT KUMAR RATHORE [LAWS(CHH)-2018-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO PRASAD GUPTA VS. KAMAL PRASAD [LAWS(CHH)-2020-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BIHARI AGARWAL (BHAGAT) VS. SHRI SUNIL CHAND KOTHARI [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIJIT BOSE VS. AJAY JAIN [LAWS(CHH)-2021-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
YODH RAJ AND ORS. VS. NARAIN KUMAR & SONS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-97] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR AHLUWALIA VS. BISHAN CHAND MAHESWARI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-75] [REFERRED TO]
NALINI KANT GUPTA VS. LAJJA GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-167] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH KUMAR JAIN VS. S SHANMUGA SUNDARAM [LAWS(DLH)-2017-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
JAI GOPAL & ORS. VS. VIKAS BANSAL [LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER SINGH TALWAR VS. KAMAL CHAND DUGAR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-503] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY S/O AVINASHCHANDER KAPOOR VS. GANDHI ELECTRICALS [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-155] [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA DAS VS. BLOCK H SAHAKARI UPBHOKTA BHANDAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-12-87] [REFERRED TO]
M VIJAY KUMAR VS. N MADHUSUDAN RAO [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-6-78] [REFERRED TO]
KALYAN RATANCHAND SHAH VS. M/S. SHESHMAL DHIRAJI, A FIRM BY ITS PROP.GHEVARCHAND KAPURCHAND JAIN (DECEASED) [LAWS(BOM)-2021-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH JAIN & ORS VS. TARO DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-11-445] [REFERRED]
MAHESH VS. CHANDER PRAKASH RISHI [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-228] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER SINGH VS. RAJESH ARORA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR DAYAL VS. PREETI GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-326] [REFERRED TO]
ALOK BHANDARI VS. DEWAN CHAND [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-172] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDER AHUJA VS. SHUSHIL KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-138] [REFERRED TO]
M/S SETH & SONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ARJUN UPPAL & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-143] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER KUMAR JAIN VS. SARDAR MOHD. KHAN & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR KHURANA VS. H.S. BAJAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-61] [REFERRED TO]
ABID-UL-ISLAM VS. INDER SAIN DUA [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
DRAUPADI DEVI (DECEASED) AND ORS VS. GULSHAN KUMAR ANAND [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-522] [REFERRED]
NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. KUSUM LATA JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
RAM DULARI AND ORS. VS. BRIJ MOHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
CHARU LODHA VS. ASIAN HOTELS (NORTH) LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-166] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV CHUGH ( DECEASED)THROUGH HIS LRS VS. OM PRAKASH BATRA & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-70] [REFERRED TO]
KHANNA VS. S. C. KHANEJA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-182] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SALEEM VS. ZAHEER AHMAD [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH CHAND VS. GIRDHAR GOPAL GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellants, who are the landlords, seek to challenge the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi granting leave to the respondent-tenant to contest the proceedings for his eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The order of the High Court is in reversal of the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Additional Rent Controller who had refused to grant leave to defend to the tenant.
(3.)The matter lies within a short compass notwithstanding the elaborate application filed by the respondent-tenant seeking leave duly supported by an affidavit and the detailed manner in which the appellant-landlords had contested the claim of the tenant.
Briefly stated, leave was sought by the tenant on the ground that the landlords own several other properties in the vicinity of the tenanted premises from where they are carrying on business or have rented out the same. As such, the tenanted premises i.e. No.38-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi is not bonafide required for the use of the landlords.
In response, the landlords contend that the first appellant, Anil Bajaj is running a kiryana shop in premises No. 25-UB, Jawahar Nagar, which is located in a lane 15 feet in width. According to the appellants on account of the location of the tenanted premises, the appellant No.1 is unable to generate sufficient business causing acute hardship to his large family. Therefore, the appellants need the tenanted premises which is situated on the main road. According to the appellants they had offered the premises in possession of the Appellant No.1 i.e. No.25-UB Jawahar Nagar to the tenant in exchange for the tenanted premises i.e. 38-UB, Jawahar Nagar which offer has been declined by the tenant. The appellants have further averred that while most of the other properties alleged to be in their ownership are not presently owned by the appellants, some other items of property mentioned by the tenant in the application seeking leave to defend are owned and utilized by other family members of the appellants and the first appellant has no connection with such properties or business carried on by the other members of the family.
(2.)The appellants, who are the landlords, seek to challenge the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi granting leave to the respondent-tenant to contest the proceedings for his eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The order of the High Court is in reversal of the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Additional Rent Controller who had refused to grant leave to defend to the tenant.
(3.)The matter lies within a short compass notwithstanding the elaborate application filed by the respondent-tenant seeking leave duly supported by an affidavit and the detailed manner in which the appellant-landlords had contested the claim of the tenant.
Briefly stated, leave was sought by the tenant on the ground that the landlords own several other properties in the vicinity of the tenanted premises from where they are carrying on business or have rented out the same. As such, the tenanted premises i.e. No.38-UB, Jawahar Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi is not bonafide required for the use of the landlords.
In response, the landlords contend that the first appellant, Anil Bajaj is running a kiryana shop in premises No. 25-UB, Jawahar Nagar, which is located in a lane 15 feet in width. According to the appellants on account of the location of the tenanted premises, the appellant No.1 is unable to generate sufficient business causing acute hardship to his large family. Therefore, the appellants need the tenanted premises which is situated on the main road. According to the appellants they had offered the premises in possession of the Appellant No.1 i.e. No.25-UB Jawahar Nagar to the tenant in exchange for the tenanted premises i.e. 38-UB, Jawahar Nagar which offer has been declined by the tenant. The appellants have further averred that while most of the other properties alleged to be in their ownership are not presently owned by the appellants, some other items of property mentioned by the tenant in the application seeking leave to defend are owned and utilized by other family members of the appellants and the first appellant has no connection with such properties or business carried on by the other members of the family.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.