Shri Devender Pandey vs Smt. Bimla
2011 Latest Caselaw 5194 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 21.10.2011

+             R.C.R. No. 426/2011 & CM Nos. 19521-22/2011

SHRI DEVENDER PANDEY                           ........... Petitioner
                 Through:           Mr. Kartikay Mathur,
                                    Advocate.

                   Versus

SMT. BIMLA                                      ..........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 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated

28.05.2011 whereby the application for leave to defend filed by

the tenant Shri Devender Pandey had been dismissed.

2 Record shows that the present eviction petition has been

filed by Bimla against her tenant under Section 14 (1)(e) of the

Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); she claims herself to be the

owner/landlord of shop measuring 6' X 3' situated at the ground

floor of property bearing No. 40/2976, Bidanpura, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi; premises have been let out at a monthly rental of

Rs.375/-. She is a widow having three daughters and one son; the

bonafide requirement of the shop is for her two unemployed

daughters i.e. for a commercial purpose i.e. stitching suits.

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

tenant; his contention was that the petition has been filed

malafidely only to extract enhanced amount of rent; further

contention being that the permission under the Slum Act has not

been obtained; in the application for leave to defend, it has further

been averred that the property in question is a five storeyed

building and various portions have been let out to various other

tenants; this by itself destroys the bonafide need urged by the

petitioner. However the only argument urged before this Court

today is that the five storeyed is building of the landlord is

disentitled to ask for this shop which is only a small shop

measuring 6'X 3' which would even otherwise not be suitable for

running a stitching business; moreover the landlord already has

possession of the portion on the first floor of the house. Other

grounds mentioned in the application for leave to defend have not

been pressed.

4 The prayer made in an application for leave to defend can be

granted only if some triable issue is shown; in the absence of

which a defence which is sham or moonshine is not sufficient to

entertain such an application. The only bone of contention of the

petitioner is that the premises is a five storeyed building and the

premises have been let out to other tenants which by itself

destroys the bonafide need of the landlord; on a specific query put

to the petitioner who under instructions from his client has

admitted that this portion of the property which has been let out

are all old tenancies; thus even presuming that these premises

have been let out at earlier times; the need of the petitioner is

now a room on the ground floor in order that her two daughters

can carry on the stitching business which the petitioner is also

doing; it is not in dispute that the petitioner herself along with her

family is living on the first floor and this shop thus is bonafidely

required by her for the said purpose i.e. as averred in the petition.

5 Impugned order suffers from no infirmity. No other ground

has been urged or argued.

6     Dismissed.

                                             INDERMEET KAUR, J


OCTOBER 21, 2011
a