RC. REV. 105/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV.105/2010 and CM 8322/2010 Date of decision : 05.05.2010 IN THE MATTER OF : PARMANAND ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh with Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advs. with petitioner in person. versus SUMAN SHARMA & ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Manish Kohli, Adv. CORAM * HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL) Caveat No.127/2010 Counsel for the caveator is present and states that a complete set of the paper book has been furnished to him. The caveat stands discharged. RC.REV. 105/2010 and CM 8322/2010 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.2010, by which the learned Additional Rent Controller has rejected the RC. REV. 105/2010 Page 2 of 4 leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant in respect of two shops situated in the premises bearing No.K-13, Navin Shahdara, Delhi. 2. As per the averments made by the respondents/landlords, in the eviction petition filed by them under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the aforesaid two shops are bonafide required by them for the purposes of carrying out commercial activities. 3. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner/tenant confines the challenge laid to the impugned order to the findings returned by the learned Additional Rent Controller, as mentioned at page 24 of the impugned order, wherein reference is made to the fact that the respondents have one godown on the ground floor of the suit premises, which is under the tenancy of another tenant, Sh.Narendra Kumar Dhunna. It is stated that though the respondents had made a mention of the said godown in the eviction petition and in his leave to defend application, the petitioner/tenant had taken a stand that the respondents had not made any effort to get the said godown vacated, however, during the pendency of the eviction petition, the respondents had succeeded in their eviction petition in respect of the said godown. As a result, order dated 20.10.2009 came to be passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the leave to defend application filed by the tenant therein, Shri Narender Kumar Dhunna. 4. It is stated today that not only did the respondents succeed before the learned Additional Rent Controller, the Revision Petition RC. REV. 105/2010 Page 3 of 4 No.84/2010 filed by Sh.Narendra Kumar Dhunna in the High Court came to be disposed of as a compromise was arrived at between the parties, as recorded in the order dated 16.4.2010, copy of which is handed over in Court and taken on record. Under the compromise, the aforesaid tenant has agreed to handover vacant peaceful possession of the godown to the respondents on or before 30.6.2011. It is, therefore, stated by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the changed circumstances, which have occurred after passing of the impugned order, the need of the respondents has been duly met and the requirement of having the tenanted premises vacated, no longer subsists. 5. The aforesaid contention is vehemently denied by the counsel for the respondents/landlords, who states that three of the respondents/landlords have set out their bonafide requirement for the two shops under the tenancy of the petitioner, and that availability of the godown in July 2011 shall not be sufficient to meet all their needs. 6. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid events are subsequent events which have occurred after filing of the eviction petition by the respondents/landlords. The availability of a godown on the ground floor of the suit premises has a fundamental impact on the right to relief as set out by the respondents/landlords in the eviction petition. The same shall also have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to the relief and requires to be determined by the learned Additional Rent Controller. It would therefore be just and meaningful if the aforesaid facts and RC. REV. 105/2010 Page 4 of 4 developments which are subsequent in nature, are brought to the notice of the learned Additional Rent Controller, to enable him to examine the stand of the petitioner that availability of the godown to the respondents/landlords shall be sufficient to meet their requirements and that now the need to have the tenanted premises vacated no longer subsists. 7. Limited to the aforesaid aspect, the matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Rent Controller for consideration and for returning a finding thereon. The parties shall file their additional affidavits on this aspect within two weeks, while exchanging copies thereof with each other. 8. The parties shall appear before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 26th May, 2010 to address arguments on the aforesaid aspect. 9. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application, on the aforesaid lines. 10. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry directly to the learned Additional Rent Controller for perusal. (HIMA KOHLI) MAY 05, 2010 JUDGE sk