* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV.No.594/2012 & C.M.No.20598/2012 (stay)
% 03st September, 2014
MOHD. IMTIYAZ ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
VERSUS
MOHD. NASEEM ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.R.D.Mishra, Advocate.
+ RC.REV.No.600/2012 & C.M.No.20783/2012 (stay)
MOHD. SIRAJ ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.
VERSUS
MOHD. NASEEM ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.R.D.Mishra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Both these petitions under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the impugned order RC.REV.Nos.594/2012 & 600/2012 Page 1 of 6 dated 23.7.2012 of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the leave to defend applications can be disposed of by this common judgment as the landlord in both the cases is the same and who is the respondent herein, and, the need prayed in the eviction petitions is also common i.e for the son of the respondent/landlord Mohd. Jafar who is unemployed and not doing any job, and therefore the need for the suit/tenanted premises.
2. For the sake of convenience, reference is being made to the facts of the RC. REV.No.594/2012.
3. The respondent/landlord filed the subject eviction petition for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the tenanted room on the ground floor with common latrine and bathroom in property bearing no. AB-430, Amar Puri, Nabi Karim, New Delhi on the ground that the respondent/landlord has a son namely Mohd. Jafar who as of date is about 23 years of age and not doing any job, and therefore the respondent/tenant needs the tenanted premises as a shop for his son to start his business. The respondent/landlord pleaded that he has no other alternative suitable accommodation/commercial premises for his son to carry on his business. The respondent/landlord also pleaded that the expenditure of his RC.REV.Nos.594/2012 & 600/2012 Page 2 of 6 family is increasing, and therefore he needs his son Mohd. Jafar to start his business and earn money so as to meet the family expenses.
4. The petitioner/tenant contested the eviction petition by filing his leave to defend application. Two main grounds were urged before the Additional Rent Controller and which are also urged before this Court for grant of leave to defend. Firstly, it is pleaded that the respondent/landlord owns one commercial premises at Dilshad Garden, Delhi as also another commercial property bearing no.7203 at Main Qutub Road, Delhi, which were pleaded to be alternative suitable accommodation. The second reason on which the leave to defend was prayed to be granted was that the respondent/landlord had transferred the suit premises to one Sh.Bijender Singh, and therefore though originally the respondent was the owner/landlord of the premises with whom the rent agreement was executed, subsequently the respondent/landlord has ceased to be the owner/landlord of the suit property. Reference is invited to a civil suit which is said to be pending between the respondent and Sh.Bijender Singh in the court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Ld. ADJ, Delhi.
5. In my opinion, both the grounds urged for seeking leave to defend are totally misconceived and the Additional Rent Controller was justified in dismissing the leave to defend application.
RC.REV.Nos.594/2012 & 600/2012 Page 3 of 6
6. The first ground urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant was a bald self- serving averment, and the Additional Rent Controller has rightly rejected this contention by observing that once the respondent/landlord has denied that he owns the properties as stated by the petitioner/tenant, no bonafide triable issue arises, and which would have only arisen if the petitioner/tenant had filed some documents to show that the properties at Dilshad Garden and Main Qutub Road belonged to the respondent/landlord. The Additional Rent Controller is justified in rejecting the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant, inasmuch as, if on the grounds such as these leave to defend is to be granted, then all that the tenants will have to do is to make a reference to some imaginary property being owned by the landlord and the courts would be compelled to grant leave to defend in their favour, however, that is not a position in law. The first argument urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant is therefore rejected.
7. The second argument urged on behalf of the petitioner/tenant that the respondent is no longer the owner/landlord of the suit/tenanted premises, this argument is also without any basis because the petitioner/tenant admits that there was a rent agreement with the respondent and to whom the rent was paid. The issue as to whether the respondent has lost the ownership of the RC.REV.Nos.594/2012 & 600/2012 Page 4 of 6 suit/tenanted premises to one Sh.Bijender Singh cannot be held today against the respondent unless there is a final judgment in a civil suit which holds that the respondent is no longer the owner of the suit/tenanted premises and that the suit premises are allegedly owned by one Sh.Bijender Singh. I may note that the respondent/landlord has specifically pleaded before the Additional Rent Controller that Sh.Bijender Singh had played a fraud with the respondent, and with respect to which an FIR No.44/04 u/S 420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) has been lodged in the Police Station Nabi Karim. Also, mere pendency of a civil suit and even if there is a status quo order passed in favour of the parties thereto cannot mean that the respondent has lost the title because a status quo is only an interim order during the pendency of the suit to maintain status quo inter se the parties in that suit, but that status quo order has no concern with an eviction petition which is filed by the respondent/landlord to evict his tenants. There is no order of the civil suit which is filed that the respondent/landlord cannot take possession from the tenants.
8. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner/tenant that the respondent/landlord cannot have requirement of two shops for his one son, Mohd. Jafar, however, surely for the respondent/landlord's son to carry on his RC.REV.Nos.594/2012 & 600/2012 Page 5 of 6 business if two shops are required, then the tenants cannot object that the business should be carried on only from one shop area of which is just 10ft X 14ft and not from another shop also.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in these petitions, and the same are therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 03, 2014 KA RC.REV.Nos.594/2012 & 600/2012 Page 6 of 6