Praga Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Manohar Lal Kapur
2012 Latest Caselaw 2515 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Judgment:18.04.2012.

+     RC.REV. 238/2010

      PRAGA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD                 ..... Petitioner
                      Through Mr. Ajay Kapur, Sr. Advocate
                              with Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Adv.
               versus

      MANOHAR LAL KAPUR                           ..... Respondent
                  Through                Mr. Ashok Sapra, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The impugned judgment is dated 06.07.2010; the eviction petition

filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control

Act (DRCA) had been decreed. The application seeking leave to defend

filed by the tenant had been declined.

2 The disputed premises have been described as flat No. 491, first

floor, ward No. 14, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.

3 Record shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the

landlord against his tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement;

contention being that the premises are required by the petitioner for

himself and his family members who are dependent upon him; he is

owner of the premises. Premises are required by the petitioner for

starting the business of his son Ajay Kapoor who is living on rent at flat

No. 303, PWO Housing Complex, Section-43, Gurgaon along with his

father; the family of the petitioner comprises of himself, his wife, two

sons and three married daughters; elder son is SanjayKapoor and the

younger son is Ajay Kapoor; he is yet to be married. The petitioner has

only two properties in Delhi i.e. the property in dispute and shop No.

492, ground floor, ward No. 14, Bartan Market, Sadar Bazar; this second

premises is in possession of another tenant; present premises is required

by the petitioner for enabling his son Ajay Kapoor to carry on his

business who is presently working with the Unitech but he wants to start

his own business; for the aforenoted reason, the eviction petition has

been filed.

4 Leave to defend has been filed and the averments contained

therein have been perused. No triable issue has arisen. Averments made

in this application are to the effect that prior to filing of the eviction, the

landlord had approached the tenant and had asked him to purchase the

property for Rs.7 lacs; he was also seeking enhancement of rent from

Rs.1,000/- to Rs.2,500/- per month which was not agreeable to the

tenant; on one pretext or the other, the petitioner/landlord seeks eviction

of his tenant and his need is not bonafide; bald submission has also been

made that a property bearing No. 27-D, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi which

is a two and half storeyed built up was partly owned by the father of the

petitioner and after his death, the petitioner has inherited a part of it;

further contention being that the need of the landlord is not clear;

whether he requires the premises for the residence or for the business

purpose of his son Ajay Kapoor has not been clearly deciphered;

moreover, it is not in dispute that Ajay Kapoor is presently working with

Unitech company.

5 Corresponding paras of the reply filed by the landlord to this

application have also been perused. It is vehemently reiterated that Ajay

Kapoor seeks to carry on his own business which is of real estate from

the aforenoted premises; presently he is working in a real estate

company namely Unitech and he is qualified in the business of real

estate; it has vehemently been denied that property No. D-27, Kamla

Nagar is in any manner connected to the petitioner; contention being

that this is the property of Vijay Kapoor, the brother of the petitioner

and the present petitioner has no right, title or interest in the said

property.

6 These are the only issues which have been raised; they in no

manner can be said to be triable issues. The landlord has clearly made

out a case of bonafide need; he has two sons and as noted supra, he is

living in a rented accommodation in Gurgaon; his son is working in the

Unitech which is a real estate company; Ajay Kapoor is 36 years of age;

it would probably be the right age to venture out to start his own

business; eviction petition has clearly deciphered that this need of the

petitioner is for the business house of his son Ajay Kapoor; there is no

confusion; it has been denied that this premises is required for any

residential purpose.

7 The submission of the tenant that triable issues have arisen and

the petitioner is only seeking enhancement of rent and the landlord has

in fact approached the tenant to purchase the property can in no manner

be said to be issues for which a trial is required.

8 In Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan reported in

(1996)5SCC353 it was held that the landlord is the best Judge of his

requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to

how and in what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is

a question of fact and should not normally be interfered with.

9 Unless and until, a triable issue arises, leave to defend should not

be granted in a routine or a mechanical manner.

10 In Nem Chand Daga Vs. Inder Mohan Singh Rana 94 (2001) DLT

683, a Bench of this Court had noted as under:-

"That before leave to defend is granted, the respondent must show that some triable issues which disentitle the applicant from getting the order of eviction against the respondent and at the same time entitled the respondent to leave to defend existed. The onus is prima facie on the respondent and if he fails, the eviction follows."

11 The application seeking leave to defend had clearly raised no

triable issue.

12 In this factual scenario, the eviction petition having decreed and

the application seeking leave to defend having been declined by the

impugned order suffers from no infirmity.

13     Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.



                                                     INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL        18, 2012
A