Abdul Rehman vs Jeevan Lal
2012 Latest Caselaw 2610 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Date of Judgment:20.4.2012.

+     RC.REV. 167/2012 & CM No.6962-63/2012


      ABDUL REHMAN                        ..... Petitioner
                  Through:             Ms.Rekha Rustagi, Adv.

                   versus


       JEEVAN LAL                        ..... Respondent
                            Through:   Nemo.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Impugned order is the order dated 19.02.2012; eviction petition

filed by the landlord Jeewan Lal seeking eviction of his tenant from the

tenanted premises (i.e. Shop No.2 in property bearing No.100, E- Block,

South Anarkali, Delhi) (depicted in red colour in the site plan) had been

decreed. Application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had

been declined.

2 Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by

landlord Jeewan Lal against his tenant Abdul Rehman. The premises as

aforenoted have been let out to the tenant at monthly rental of Rs.534/-

this was vide an oral agreement; contention of the petitioner/landlord is

that he was the owner of the suit premises; he became the owner of the

suit property after the death of Chand Rani which he had inherited from

her. The petitioner is in urgent need of the premises as he wishes to start

his own business having retired from Life Insurance Corporation of

India in the year 2009 and he is unable to carry out any such business as

he has no reasonably suitable premises to carry out this business. His

son is also umemployed as he is running a STD/PCO from a shop

measuring 5'x2' and is earning very miserable income; the need of the

petitioner for the aforenoted premises is thus bonafide which is for the

purpose of running a business. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

3 The averments made in the application seeking leave to defend

have been perused. No triable issue has been raised. The averments

made in this application are largely to the effect that this application

had not been filed bonafide; the tenant has been depositing rent

regularly; premises had been taken on rent by the tenant for a

commercial purpose which is not which is not covered Section 14(1)(e)

of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Code). This

is largely what is contained in the application.

4 In view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 148(2008)

DLT 705 (SC) Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India

the distinction between residential and commercial premises has been

given a goby and even if the premises are required bonafide by the

petitioner for his business need a petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the

DRCA is maintainable.

5 Unless and until a triable issue arises leave to defend cannot be

granted in a mechanical manner. This has been reiterated by the Courts

time and again. 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."

6 No triable issue as aforenoted has been pointed out; triable issues

have to be emanated from the pleadings of the parties i.e. necessarily

from the application seeking leave to defend. No such triable issue has

arisen. The landlord has been able to show his prima facie bonafide

need for the aforenoted shop which is for the purpose of running a

business as he having been retired from the Life Insurance Corporation

of India in the year 2009 and now wishes to carry out his business; his

son is also earning poultry income from a shop measuring 5'x2' from

where he is running STD/PCO. The landlord has no other reasonably

suitable accommodation. In this background the eviction petition

having been decreed and the application seeking leave to defend having

been dismissed suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit.

Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

APRIL 20, 2012 nandan