* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 295/2014 & C.M.Nos.14888/2014 (stay)
&14889/2014 (Exemption)
09th September, 2014
MRS. INDU NAGPAL & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Rishabh Sancheti with Ms.Padma
Priya, Advocates.
versus
MR. SURINDER MOHAN BHANDARI ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Lalit Gupta with Mr.Ashish Kumar and Mr.Saharsh Bhall, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Caveat No.779/2014
Since appearance has been put in on behalf of the
caveator/respondent, the caveat stands discharged. RC.REV.No.295/2014
1. By means of this petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') the petitioners/tenants challenge the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated RC.REV.No.295/2014 Page 1 of 4 19.5.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenants in a bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act.
2. The impugned judgment decrees the eviction petition with respect to the suit/tenanted premises comprising of two rooms, one WC, one bathroom, one kitchen and open varandah on the ground floor in the premises no.L-32, Kalkaji, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition.
3. The bonafide necessity eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlord stating that he had with him only one bedroom, one drawing-cum-dining room with amenities of kitchen, bathroom etc on the ground floor and one store and a small toilet with an open varandah in the premises on the first floor and the said accommodation is grossly insufficient for the respondent/landlord because the respondent/landlord in his family besides himself has one younger son aged 21 years, one another elder married son and one married daughter aged 51 years. The respondent/landlord further stated that since he required one room for himself, one for his younger son, one for his grand son, one guest room and RC.REV.No.295/2014 Page 2 of 4 one servant room because a servant is required who cannot be kept because of paucity of space, besides the amenities of drawing-cum-dining room, kitchen, bathroom etc., the respondent/landlord therefore was short of accommodation because the requirement was of at least four bedrooms but the respondent/landlord had only one bedroom, and hence the bonafide necessity eviction petition.
4. The Additional Rent Controller by the impugned judgment has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition on account of the aforesaid facts, and which facts/aspects are not disputed before this Court by the petitioners/tenants, but, the dispute which is actually raised is that in 1997 the husband of the petitioner no.1 had agreed to purchase the suit property by paying a sum of Rs.70,000/- out of the sale consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent/landlord and consequently the petitioners are entitled to leave to defend. This argument has been rejected by the Additional Rent Controller by referring to the fact that no documents are filed by the petitioners/tenants to show any validity with respect to the contentions. The petitioners/tenants were disbelieved by the Additional Rent Controller qua her/petitioner no.1's averment that she did not have even a copy of the agreement to sell. To the conclusions of the Additional Rent Controller, I RC.REV.No.295/2014 Page 3 of 4 would like to add that the averments with respect to the agreement to sell in favour of the husband of the petitioner no.1 (respondent no.1 before the Additional Rent Controller) are not only not supported by the main document (agreement to sell), yet the petitioners/tenants could have at least filed some proof to show that in fact consideration of Rs.70,000/- was paid under the agreement to sell, however even with respect to the alleged consideration of Rs.70,000/- being paid nothing has been filed. Also, it is not believable that from 1997 when the agreement to sell was allegedly entered into, till 2013 when the eviction petition was filed, no rights pursuant to the agreement to sell would have been claimed either by the husband of the petitioner no.1 or by the petitioner no.1 by seeking enforcement of the agreement to sell in a court of law or on the basis of that agreement to sell seeking mutation of the tenanted premises in the name of the petitioners/tenants, and which admittedly have not been done.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is therefore dismissed with the costs of Rs.10,000/-. Payment of costs shall be made by the petitioners to the respondent within a period of two weeks from today.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2014/KA RC.REV.No.295/2014 Page 4 of 4