Shri. Suresh Kumar Gupta vs Dr. Sunil Abrol & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5193 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Date of Judgment: 21.10.2011

+             R.C. Rev. No. 420/2011 & CM Nos.19472-73/2011

SHRI. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA                           ........... Petitioner
                   Through:            Mr. J.C. Seth, Advocate.
              Versus
DR. SUNIL ABROL & Anr.                                ..........Respondent
                   Through:            Nemo.

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 `This is an eviction petition filed by the landlord Sunil Abrol

under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); he

is seeking eviction of the ground floor of property bearing No. M-

27, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi; his contention is that he is living

on the first floor and the ground floor of this property is now

required by him to carry on his consultancy service; it is not in

dispute that the petitioner was the Director General, Consultancy,

Development Centre, Ministry of Science and Technology,

Government of India; it is also not in dispute that he has

superannuated on 30.04.2011; contention is that this

accommodation on the ground floor is required by him to run is a

consultancy business along with his two sons who have presently

gone to USA for further studies.

2 An application for leave to defend had been filed by the

tenant; contention of the tenant is that both sons of the petitioner

have working visas in the USA and they are working there. There

is little chance of their coming back; bonafide requirement of the

landlord is in fact malafide; he does not wish to use the

accommodation; eviction petition has been filed only with an

ulterior motive to extract a higher rate of rent. Further contention

is that the petitioner has a flat in Gurgaon and he is actually a

resident of Gurgaon and this is evident from the fact that his

vehicle has a registration number of Haryana, Gurgaon.

3 These facts have been disputed by the landlord; contention

of the petitioner is that although admittedly his vehicle has been

registered at Gurgaon, Haryana yet he is a resident of M-27,

Greater Kailash-I and to support this submission he had filed

documentary evidence which included the passport of himself, his

wife and two sons showing that they are residents of M-27,

Greater Kailash-I; further his wife being a vice-principal in a

College has also filed her Identity Card showing her address at

the same place. Contention of the landlord is that the vehicle had

been registered at Gurgaon because of lower excise rates and the

law permits him to do so because of his having a flat at Gurgaon;

this is a forceful submission. The documentary evidence filed by

the landlord in fact shows that he is a resident of M-27, Greater

Kailash-I. The landlord has two sons aged 27 & 24 years

respectively. The elder son is a qualified Ph. D and he has got a

job for one year at the Engineering College in USA; contention of

the landlord is that this is only a one year temporary job and his

son is bound to come back. The other son is admittedly a student.

Even presuming for the sake of argument that the elder son is

planning to stay on in America, it does not take away the bonafide

requirement of the landlord to run his consultancy service from

his premises at ground floor at M-27, Greater Kailash-I in view of

the fact that he is a qualified consultant; he has already

superannuated and is intending to run his consultancy service

either with his younger son or even it is by himself alone; his

bonafide requirement is not affected.

4 The Apex Court has time and again reiterated that it is the

landlord who has to decide his bonafide need; it is not for the

tenant to dictate terms to the landlord and decide the manner in

which he has to live his life; the bonafide requirement f the

landlord is best known to himself; unless the tenant is able to

show that the need as set up by the landlord is malafide, fanciful

and not bonafide and there being no triable issue; an application

for leave to defend cannot mechanically in routine be granted.

5 Reliance by learned counsel for the petitioner upon (2009)

15 SCC 88 Rachpal Singh & Others Vs. Gurmit Kaur & others is

misplaced.. In this case, the Court had noted that a triable issue

has been made out by the tenant wherein the Supreme Court had

not interfered in the leave to defend which had already been

granted; the landlord in that case was an NRI and her desire to

get the tenant evicted was on the ground of her desire for setting

up a house in India; the landlord-tenant relationship had also been

disputed as also the averment that the landlord was an NRI;

triable issues having arisen, the Court had granted leave to

defend; facts of each case are different.

6 Impugned order had correctly noted that no triable issue

has arisen in this case. Petition is without any merit.

7      Dismissed.



                                             INDERMEET KAUR, J


OCTOBER 21, 2011
a