Delhi High Court

Sagar Mal vs Sudhir Kumar Kapoor on 27 April, 2012

Author: Indermeet Kaur

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                          Date of Judgment:27.04.2012

+     RC.REV. 178/2012 and CM Nos. 7562-7563/2012

      SAGAR MAL                                     ..... Petitioner
                            Through   Mr. J.C. Mahindru, Adv.
                   versus

      SUDHIR KUMAR KAPOOR                           ..... Respondent
                  Through None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Impugned judgment is dated 20.07.2011; eviction petition filed by

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

(DRCA) had been decreed; the application filed by the tenant seeking

leave to defend had been declined. Premises have been described as

Shop No. 3 as part of property bearing No. B-3, Rana Pratap Bagh,

Delhi had been tenanted out @ Rs. 152/- per month.

2 Record shows that the eviction petition has been filed on the

ground of bona fide requirement; petitioner claims to be the owner of

the suit property; he had purchased the same by virtue of a registered

sale deed 04.04.1962. Initially the premises have been tenanted out to

the tenant where he was carrying on the work of embroidery thereafter

he has changed the said work of embroidery and converted it into Video

cassettes Library. The petitioner is a Civil Structural Design Engineer;

he was working with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas; he is a

post graduate in Civil Engineering from the Delhi University and also

possess a certificate of Chartered Engineers recognizing him as certified

practitioner; he is due to retire in October 2010 i.e. when he will

superannuate at the age of 60 years; he wishes to carry out a business of

consultation after his retirement i.e. for the purpose of giving civil and

structural design consultancy and he wishes to carry out the business

of civil and structural design in the afrorenoted premises.

3 Contention is that for the working of this office he requires

minimum 400 sq. ft. to accommodate himself, the enclosures for 1

design engineer, two drafting personnel, one clerk as also the

infrastructure i.e. printer, fax machines, zerox machine and storage

space for books and literature. After the aforenoted premises are vacated

the petitioner will even then have only 200 sq. ft. working area; the

aforenoted premises are required by him urgently. Further contention is

that the younger son of the petitioner namely, Neeraj who is married

has one daughter; he is also unemployed and lives with the petitioner; he

is a graduate from Delhi University and has cleared 3 years GNIIT; his

son shall associate him in this aforenoted consultancy business which

the petitioner wishes to carry out. Petitioner's family comprises of 6

adults i.e. of himself, his wife, two sons and two daughters in law and

one grand-daughter. He has close family relatives which includes six

married sisters; all are living in Delhi who regularly visit him. The

accommodation presently available with the petitioner consists of one

living room on the ground floor; one drawing room, one living room,

one kitchen and a verandah on the first floor; on the second floor, there

are three bed rooms. There are three shops on the ground floor, one of

which is with the present tenant; all these structures have been built on a

plot of 100 sq. yds.; the residential accommodation presently available

with the petitioner is also insufficient; present premises are required by

the petitioner by fulfilling his need to start a consultancy business in

which he will be helped by his younger son-Neeraj; further contention is

that the tenant was earlier using the shop himself and since the last 5 to

6 years, he has in fact sub-let it. . Eviction petition on the ground of

bonafide need was accordingly filed.

4 Leave to defend has been filed and the averments contained

therein have been perused. This application is bereft of any details; it

hardly raises any triable issue; by and large, the averments made in the

application for leave to the defend are to the effect that this eviction

petition has been filed by the landlord only to extract a higher rate of

rent from the tenant. Contention is that the electricity in the aforenoted

premises has also been disconnected; tenant is merely being harassed;

petitioner is in possession of shop No. 2 on the ground floor as also two

rooms on the back side of the shop; sub-letting has been dis-continued.

In fact para 10 to 12 have been highlighted; contention is that the

accommodation presently available with the petitioner is sufficient and

the present eviction petition has been filed only with malafide intent;

but no details whatsoever have been given apart from this bald

averment.

5 Reply to the corresponding paras of the application seeking leave

to defend has been perused; all these paras have been denied; it was

denied that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation; contention is

that the petitioner is living with his family members on the first floor

and second floor; accommodation is insufficient for the residential

purpose; the shop on the ground floor is required by the landlord in

order that he can able to get a space of minimum of 200 sq. ft for the

purpose of starting his consultancy business which he wishes to start

after his retirement; document shows that the petitioner shall retire in

October; further submission being that he will be actively associated by

his son Neeraj who is a graduate and has a three years diploma from

GNIIT.

6 The submissions of the petitioner have been substantiated. Before

this court, Court has also been informed that the premises have since

been vacated by the tenant and the landlord in the course of the

execution proceedings has taken possession of the suit premises.

7 The landlord is the best judge of his requirement and this has been

reiterated by the courts time and again that the landlord knows the needs

of himself and his family; it is neither for the court nor for the tenant to

dictate the terms to describe the manner in which the landlord should

live. The Supreme in Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan (1996)

5SCC 353 had held in this context inter alia noted as:-

"The landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts

to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own."

8 Leave to defend cannot be granted in a routine manner. If this is

done the whole purport and purpose of the summary procedure as

contained in Section 25 B of the DRCA would be given a go by. This

was not the intent of the legislature.

9 In (1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel & Engineering Works &

another Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal the Apex Court had noted

that the 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.

10 Impugned order having decreed the petition and dismissed the