BEFORE THE RENT CONTROLLER,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, (CENTRAL DISTT), DELHI
SUIT NO. 625 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
MOHD FAISAL KHAN
SON OF LATE SHRI TANZEEM AHMED
R/O 1504, FOURTH FLOOR
SARAI KHALIL SADAR BAZAR …PETITIONER
VERSUS
SHRI IMAMUDDIN
SON OF SHRI SALAHUDDIN
PROP. OF M/S ROUNAQ SWEING MACHINE CO.
SHOP ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN
PROPERTY BEARING NO. 1562,
SARAI KHALIL SADAR BBAZAR,
DELHI -110006
_____ …Defendant
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND ON BEHALF OF
THE DEFENDANT
The Defendant most humbly submits as under :-
1. That the present leave to defend is in reply to the
meritless Summary Suit instituted by the Plaintiff in the
abovementioned matter. That the present petition is not
maintainable and deserves outright dismissal for the
reason that no cause of action arises in favor of the
Petitioner and against the Respondent and the present
petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost upon
the Petitioner
2. That the property bearing No. 1562, both the northern
& southern part of the property situated at Sarai Khalil,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi 110006 was owned by Late shri
Salahuddin the father of the respondent, who had
purchased the same through a sale deed dated
01/06/1973 executed in his favor by the previous
owner Mr.Elahi Bux, resident of house No 1583, Bhola
Nath Nagar Shahdra Delhi. Shri Salahuddin was the
tenant in the said property since 1950, and later on
bought the same from previous owner. The petitioner
Bought the other sections of the said property but not
the shop no. 1562 of the northern & southern part of it.
which respondent claimed to proof in the counter claim
for the aforesaid suit.
3. That the petitioner is one of the oldest enemy of the
respondent because of the property dispute started in
1985 and always tried to claim his rights on the
property occupied by the respondent, the said building
was very old and in depilated condition so the
respondent hired them to reconstruct the said property
since then the petitioner’s Father fraudulently occupied
the property through goons. Later on in an amicable
settlement gave the said property to the respondent.
4. That the petitioner and respondent had an heated
argument thus the petitioner in revenge filed the
present petition just with an ulterior motive to harass
and torture the Deponent and get vacated the suit
property while making the sheer misuse of provisions of
law, on false and frivolous grounds.
5. That the family of the respondent consists of himself,
his wife shri Shameem begum, six sons namely
Naeemuddin aged about 38 years, Nadeem aged about
36 years, Rahimuddin aged about 34 ,fahim aged about
32 ,Islamuddin aged about 31, ziyauddin aged about
28, who are living altogether with their wives and
children in the same premises the eldest son
Naemuddin and Rahimuddin work with the respondent
in the disputed property, and relied on the income from
the disputed property.
6. That the disputed property is in legal possession of the
respondent and his deceased father from last 50 years
also proof of the same are annexed.
7. That the Petitioner has filed the present petition on false
and frivolous grounds. The petitioner still running the
factory in manufacturing of wick kerosene laltain at
Main Jagatpur road, bagiabad, wazirabad, Delhi,
110084. Also earning well enough from his other side
businesses. He have enough suitable and reasonable
commercial accommodation available to him for
business.
8. It is important to mention here that Petitioner is further
having various properties at different locations. The
Deponent has come to know that the Petitioner is
having other residential accommodations. It is
submitted that the respondent will furnish the complete
details of the properties as when he gets to know about
the same. It is thus crystal clear that the Petitioner is
not having any bonafide requirement of the premises in
question and has filed the present petition just with an
ulterior motive to harass and torture the respondent
and get vacated the suit property while making the
sheer misuse of provisions of law, on false and frivolous
grounds.
9. That the petitioner herein is in the business of flipping
properties. As they have sold out many other properties
Moreover, the Petitioner is not even the owner of the
tenanted/disputed premises which is exemplified by the
fact that the same falls in 1562 Sarai Khalil Sadar bazar
which belongs to Imamuddin as the legal heir of late
shri Salahuddin.
10. That the property No. 1503 to 1509, mentioned in
the suit was under the tenancy of one shri Noor Alam,
from whom they vacated the same through the court of
law and he himself hold the possession of the same in
the name of his handicapped brother.
11. That the Respondent is a private limited company
registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956
and is primarily based in Delhi & engaged in the
business of selling & repairing of sewing machines on
the said property, the Respondent running the same
from almost 50 years and a known trader in the market
and the petitioner wants to usurp the Goodwill and
business of the Respondent.
12. It is humbly submitted that the respondent is not
a tenant in the said premises, hence not liable to pay
any rent to the petitioner and is in legal possession of
the said property from last 50 years.
13. That the rent agreement attached in the name of
respondent and petitioner signed by only on the first
page by both the parties is fraud, frivolous, & vexatious
as respondent denies to signed the same.
14. That on the basis of the unequivocal contention of
the plaintiff that the defendant s not a tenant at all and
there is no relationship of landlord and the tenant, this
suit has got no legs to stand.
15. That because of this contention the present suit
for eviction of the defendant does not disclose any cause
of action.
16. That while considering this aspect the court
should be careful to look beyond the clever drafting and
see on the root of the case as to whether the plaintiff
has any cause of action or not. The provision of
rejection of plaint has been enacted to discourage the
litigants from flooding the courts with frivolous and
vexatious claims. Whenever the court even on its own
motion finds a suit to be deficient in having a cause of
action, such suit should be rejected so that there is no
more any abuse of the process of the court.
17. That the court can reject a plaint at any stage of
proceeding if it is satisfied that the conditions of the
provision is satisfied. Clever drafting creating an illusion
of cause of action are not permitted in law and a clear
right to sue must be shown in the plaint. Moreover, the
power under order 7 rule 11 is not exhaustive and the
court has got inherent powers to see that the vexatious
litigations are not allowed to take or consume the time
of the court. It is needless to submit that the provision
for rejection of plaint is mandatory and the court is
bound to act if the plaint is found to be lacking in cause
of action or debarred to proceed ahead by any provision
of law.
18. That the defense raised in the present application is
neither a sham nor based on moonshine and the same
is a substantial one wherein the Defendant has a valid
right of counter claim along with the interest and
damages on account of the unprofessional conduct of
the Plaintiff and therefore present application for leave
to defend ought to be allowed by this Hon’ble Court.
19. That there are many triable issues involved in the
presently suit are as under:
a. Whether the present petition has been filed
without any cause of action?
b. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as
claimed in the petition?
PRAYER
1) In the circumstances mentioned above it is therefore be
prayed
a) That your honor be pleased to reject the plaint as
provided for under the provision of order 7 rule 11 of
CPC, And to pass such other order as deemed fit and
proper.
b) Or: For the foregoing reasons, it is thereby humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant
unconditional leave to defend the suit and thus render
justice.
FILLED BY
SANA PARVEEN
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT
NEW DELHI
DATE: 30/09/2023
