Bijender Gupta vs Pushpa Devi
2011 Latest Caselaw 5170 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 20.10.2011


+             R.C. Rev. No. 125/2011 & CM No. 13041/2011

BIJENDER GUPTA                                 ...........Petitioner
                        Through:    Mr. N.R. Sharma, Advocate.

                  Versus


PUSHPA DEVI                                    ..........Respondent
                        Through:    Mr. S.C. Kalra, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                Yes

    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                         Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated

27.01.2011 vide which the application for leave to defend filed by

the tenant in a pending petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with

Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been

dismissed.

2 Record shows that the petitioner is the landlady of the suit

premises i.e. property bearing No. C-31, New C Block, Acharya

Kriplani Road, Adarsh Nagar Extension, Delhi which has been

leased out on a monthly rental of Rs.295/- to the tenant Bijender

Gupta. Tenancy had been created in the year 1979; the petitioner

whose family comprised of 8 members had now increased to 15;

requirement of bonafide was evidenced in the eviction petition

seeking prayer of eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act (DRCA).

3 Application for leave to defend had been filed by the tenant.

His contention was that the premises were not owned by the

petitioner; wrong address had been mentioned of the disputed

premises; details of the legal heirs and persons dependent upon

the landlady had also not been detailed; landlady has failed to

disclose that property bearing No. C-29, Shankracharya Road

comprises of eight rooms, two kitchens, bathroom, toilet on the

first floor and eight rooms, two kitchens, bathroom and toilet on

the second floor as also the same accommodation on the ground

floor is also owned by the landlady; besides this she also owned

another property bearing No. A-214, Majlis Park, Adarsh Nagar

which comprises of four rooms; this petition is an abuse of the

process of the Court.

4 These submissions were denied on affidavit by the landlady.

5 Record has been perused. The relationship of landlord and

tenant was not in dispute; under Section 116 of the Evidence Act

once the tenant has attorned to the landlord, the tenant cannot

question the ownership of the landlord; he is estopped from doing

so. The Apex Court has noted this proposition in AIR 1966 SC 629

Veeraju Vs. Venkaura. The petitioner being one of the legal heirs

of the earlier landlord and the tenant having attorned to the

petitioner, this argument has no force.

6 Before this Court the only other contention raised by

learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated

28.09.2010, the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the tenant

to introduce and bring on record certain subsequent facts;

subsequent facts were to the effect that the petitioner had been

granted possession of shops No.1 & 2 which in turn he had sold on

14.07.2010 vide a sale deed to one Ravinder; contention being

that need of the landlady was definitely not bonafide as had it

been bonafide, she would not have sold the aforenoted two shops

on 14.07.2010 i.e. during the pendency of the eviction petition;

further contention being that these subsequent facts have not

been dealt with; they have been ignored in the impugned order.

7 Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner qua the

factum of subsequent events having been brought on record vide

order dated 28.09.2010 is not in dispute. The impugned order has

however dealt with these subsequent facts. It had correctly noted

that although the aforenoted two shops had been delivered to the

landlady yet because of financial crisis she had been constrained

to sell these two shops; financial crisis being for the reason that

she had become a widow and needed money. This was held by the

trial court to be a 'justifiable explanation'. The Apex Court in the

judgment reported in 1996 (5) SCC 353 Prativa Devi Vs. T.V.

Krishnan has noted that the landlord is the best Judge as to what

is his bonafide need and what is not; it is for the tenant to

discharge the onus that the need of the landlord is not bonafide or

it is merely fanciful; this the tenant has failed to do in this case;

the vehement contention that the sale of two shops by the

petitioner destroys her bonafide need has no basis; bonafide need

is a changing need; the petitioner has explained the financial

crisis she was undergoing as a result of which she had been

constrained to sell these two shops; this would not take away the

bonafide need of the landlady for which she had filed the eviction

petition on 03.11.2008. In 155 (2008) DLT 681 Dharam Pal Gupta

& Others VS. Anand Prakash a Bench of this Court has noted that

the bonafide need has to be noted on the date when the suit is

instituted. Impugned order suffers from no infirmity.

8 Reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner on the

judgment of Amarjit Singh Vs. Smt. Khatoon Quamarain 1987 (1)

RCR 192 is misplaced. The impugned order has taken into account

the subsequent events which had been permitted to be taken on

record vide order of the ARC dated 28.09.2010. Reliance upon

2002 VI AD (Delhi) 885 Banarsi Dass Sodhi Vs. Shri Om Prakash is

also misplaced. Ratio of the case being that the owner/landlord

cannot himself create paucity of residential accommodation and

then plead that he has a bonafide need for additional

accommodation. Admittedly the sale of the two shops in this case

was made after filing the eviction petition; this was vide sale deed

dated 14.07.2010; eviction petition had been preferred on

03.11.2008. Ratio of this judgment is wholly inapplicable. Petition

is without any merit.

9      Dismissed.



                                                INDERMEET KAUR, J


OCTOBER 20, 2011
a