* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV.No.262/2013 & C.M.No.11296/2013
% 14th October, 2014
SH. TILAKRAJ TANEJA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajat Aneja with Mr.Vijay
Kasana, Advocates.
VERSUS
SH. NAVIN SONI & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms.Manindra Acharya, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.Om Prakash and Mr.Sidhant
Kaushik, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 12.4.2013 by which the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed and eviction petition has been decreed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the suit/tenanted premises being one shop admeasuring 7' x 21' feet on the RC.REV.No.262/2013 Page 1 of 6 front side of the property bearing no.3, DLF, Industrial Area, Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
2. The case as set up by the respondents/landlords was that in the entire ground floor of the premises where the tenanted shop is located, they are carrying on an industrial unit of manufacturing of Cork Sheets, Rubberized Cork Sheets, Gaskets Sheets for automobiles industries and electrical industries in the name and style of M/s India Cork Industries. The respondents/landlords claim that they have in the ground floor portion only one small office of 6' X 10' feet, which is grossly insufficient with respect to the requirement for installing of computers, account section etc etc. The respondents/landlords also plead that there is no proper space for sitting of the customers, senior officers of the buyers company, senior officials of Govt. bodies etc who frequently visit the industrial unit of the respondents/landlords. The respondents/landlords have expressed their further difficulty that the office which they are presently having of 6' X 10' feet is situated at the back of the property and all persons including the customers have to reach the office by entering in the premises from the main gate of the factory and they witness the entire work/manufacturing process which causes gave prejudice to the clients whose goods are manufactured, RC.REV.No.262/2013 Page 2 of 6 because there is some sort of confidentiality required with respect to the manufacturing of different products. The first floor above the ground floor portion which is with the respondents/landlords is said to be not suitable because it is stated to be in a dilapidated condition. The respondents/landlords also plead that his one of the sons, Shobit Soni has passed his electronics engineering and he wants to extend the business activities by modernizing the same by taking the suit/tenanted premises which is situated within the factory premises.
3. In a bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, three aspects are required to be seen for decreeing the eviction petition. The first aspect is that the eviction petition is filed by the owner/landlord of the property. The second aspect is that the landlord needs the premises for the bonafide use of himself and/or his family members. The third requirement is that the landlord should not have an alternative suitable accommodation.
4. In the present case, there is no dispute with respect to the respondents being the owners/landlords of the premises. The dispute is with respect to RC.REV.No.262/2013 Page 3 of 6 the bonafide necessity and availability of an alternative suitable accommodation.
5. The basic stress laid on behalf of the petitioner/tenant by his counsel was that the respondents/landlords can use the first floor of the property for their office, and consequently once there is an alternative suitable accommodation on the first floor, not only there is alternative suitable accommodation, but the eviction petition is not bonafide. The petitioner/tenant has also challenged the claim with respect to confidentiality in the manufacturing process as is averred by the respondents/landlords.
6. In my opinion, the Additional Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the leave to defend application because the petitioner/tenant cannot force the respondents/landlords to incur expenditure for renovating and repairing the first floor which is lying in a dilapidated condition, and which aspect is to be taken with the fact that surely a ground floor portion and that too in the front of the premises is more preferable as an office than any other portion on the first floor. Therefore, in my opinion, the first floor portion above the tenanted premises and the premises where the respondents/landlords are RC.REV.No.262/2013 Page 4 of 6 carrying on business cannot be said to be a suitable alternative accommodation.
7 (i) During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner/tenant sought to argue that the respondents/landlords have not filed the site plan showing the occupation of the different portions of the ground floor of the suit/tenanted premises by the respondents/landlords and as to how some space is not available on the ground floor itself, however, when I put a query to the counsel for the petitioner/tenant to show that if any such ground is raised in the leave to defend application that a particular specific portion on the ground floor is available for office use by the respondents/landlords, nothing could be pointed out in the leave to defend application urging such a stand on behalf of the petitioner/tenant. I may note that the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that courts can only consider grounds urged in a leave to defend application filed within the statutory period of 15 days, and which period of 15 days is an inflexible and a mandatory period. Effectively the Supreme Court has held that after the statutory period of 15 days, no grounds can be urged or no additional affidavit and documents can be considered with respect to the issue of grant of leave to defend. Therefore, I RC.REV.No.262/2013 Page 5 of 6 refuse to look at a ground which does not form part of the leave to defend application, especially because by the self-serving bald averment it cannot be presumed that certain suitable portion of the ground floor is available with the respondents/landlords.
(ii) I may note that a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Madhu Gupta Vs. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. 184 (2011) DLT 103 relying upon the judgment of Prithipal Singh's case (supra) has held that after a statutory period of 15 days, a leave to defend application cannot be amended because this will destroy the sanctity of 15 days statutory period as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra) i.e whatever grounds which are urged within 15 days statutory period prescribed for filing leave to defend can only be considered for the issue of leave to defend.
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 14, 2014 KA RC.REV.No.262/2013 Page 6 of 6