Rajeev Kaushik vs Agyawati
2012 Latest Caselaw 2609 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Judgment:20.4.2012


+     RC.REV. 168/2012 CM No.7007-08/2012


      RAJEEV KAUSHIK                      ..... Petitioner
                      Through:        Mr.D.K.Singh, Advocate.
               versus


      AGYAWATI                          ..... Respondent
                         Through:     Nemo.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. Present eviction petition had been filed under Section 14(1)(e)

and 14(D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act; this was by Agyawati; her

contention was that the premises had been let out by her deceased

husband to the tenant Rajeev Kaushik. The premises have been

described as Municipal No.30/39-B, Gali No.8, Kunti Marg, Vishwas

Nagar; eviction petition states that the premises are residential but the

tenant is using the same for godown which premises remained largely

closed. Need of the landlord has been described in para 18 wherein it

has been stated that after the death of her husband the landlord is living

in the great hardship; presently she is on the second floor but because of

serious ailment suffered by her including stone in the gall bladder,

swollen legs she is unable to climb the stairs and as such the ground

floor premises are required bonafide for the purpose of her residence.

Her contention is that she has three sons; one son is residing separately;

premises are thus required bonafide in order that she can set up her

residence on the ground floor and the present accommodation where she

is living is on the second floor is almost inaccessible to her.

2. Application for leave to defend had been filed. Landlord-tenant

relationships is not in dispute. It is stated that the premises had been let

out at a monthly rent of Rs.1250/-; at the time of creation of tenancy a

security amount of Rs.1,00,000/- had also been paid; this is by and large

only contention raised and urged before this Court. There is also

nothing else which is contained in the body of the application seeking

leave to defend which in any manner can be said to have raised a triable

issue. It merely states that the grounds for eviction stated by the

petitioner cannot be believed and a bald submission has been made that

the grounds of eviction made out by the petitioner cannot be believed

and a viable defence has been made out by the defendant but what is that

viable defence has not been detailed.

3. The whole arguments urged before this Court is that a security of

Rs.1,00,000/- had been given which has not been refunded and this has

raised a triable issue and this has also been admitted by the landlady.

Even presuming that this amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as security paid by

the tenant to the ertwhile landlord and has been admitted it can in no

manner amount to a triable issue which would disentitle the landlord for

an eviction order.

4. Eviction petition has been decreed under Section 14(D) of the

DRCA. The necessary ingredients of Section 14(D) enunciate :

i- that the tenancy must be created either by husband of the

landlady or by the landlady who is a widow at the time of filing of

the petitioner;

ii- premises are required for residential purpose;

5. The aforenoted ingredients have clearly been fulfilled in this case.

This is clear from the averments made in the eviction petition. In fact

Section 14(D) is a summary procedure which has been engrafted for a

special class of landlord as one aforenoted in this case. The object of

this Section is to assist a vulnerable and needy section of the society to

recover possession of premises as expeditiously as possible and without

usual trial and tribulation.

6. Unless and until a triable issue arises which has to emanate from

the application filed by the tenant, leave to defend cannot be granted in a

routine manner. Premises are admittedly residential and this is clear

from the averments made in the eviction petition; mere because the

premises were being used as a godown would not take away the right of

the landlord to ask for eviction of her tenant from the premises which

are required by her for her own residence.

7. Courts have time and again reiterated that unless and until a

triable issue arises leave to defend should not be granted in a routine or

mechanical manner. In (1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel &

Engineering Works & another Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal the

Apex Court has held:-

"Prayer for leave to contest should be granted to the tenant only where a prima-

facie case has been disclosed by him. In the absence of the tenant having disclosed a prima-

facie case i.e. such facts as to what disentitles the landlord from obtaining an order of

eviction, the Court should not mechanically and in routine manner grant leave to defend."

8. Since both the twin requirements of Section 14(D) of the DRCA

have been met and no triable issue having arisen impugned judgment

decreeing the eviction petition suffers from no infirmity. Petition is

without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

APRIL 20, 2012 nandan