Sanjay Batra vs Gulshan Sahani & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 1156 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 21.02.2012.

+                  R.C.R. No.429/2011 & CM No. 19597/2011


SANJAY BATRA                                             ..... Petitioner
                            Through    Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Adv.

                   versus


GULSHAN SAHANI & ANR                                  ..... Respondents
                 Through               Nemo.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Impugned judgment is dated 14.07.2011; eviction filed by the

landlord seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop bearing No. 62,

Khursheed Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi measuring 6X3 square feet as

depicted in the red colour in the site plan had been decreed in favour of

the landlord. The application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant

had been dismissed.

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

the landlord against two tenants qua the aforenoted premises. Contention

is that the premises have been let out to the tenant on 18.12.1990 vide a

rent agreement; the landlord is the owner of the suit premises having

purchased them from one Narender Kumar vide a registered power of

attorney and other allied documents dated 15.11.1990; the present tenant

was inducted into the shop vide a rent agreement dated 08.12.1990; he is

running a business of wholesale of various kinds of cloths under the

name and style of 'M/s Sun Raj Sports' in the aforenoted premises. The

landlord is living with his family comprising of four family members i.e.

his wife, his elder son aged 25 years and younger son aged 20 years;

family is living together at the ground floor of Prashant Vihar in a

tenanted premises at a monthly rental of `9,000/-. The landlord is also

carrying out the business of dealing in various kinds of towels under the

name and style of 'M/s Gulshan Agency'; he is the proprietor thereof;

his business has now expanded; his elder son is running his own

business under the name and style of 'Deepak Agencies' from the

residential premises from where the present petitioner is also carrying

out his proprietorship business. Both the petitioner and his son are using

their residence for keeping their stock which place is highly insufficient;

their drawing room and verandah is thus occupied by the stocks of both

the petitioner and his son. It has specifically been averred that the family

of the petitioner has no other alternate accommodation available with

them and the present premises are accordingly required by him as also

for his son for stocking of their goods which are presently being kept in

their residential accommodation which place is a tenanted place and

even otherwise is highly insufficiently space for the said purpose; the

shop/godown which has been tenanted out to the tenant is accordingly

bonafide required by the petitioner for the aforenoted purpose.

3 Leave to defend had been filed by the tenant. His contention is

that the present accommodation is not a shop but an Almirah measuring

6'X 3' square feet which would not suffice the purpose for which the

present petition has been filed as this place is highly insufficient. Further

contention being that the landlord is confused as to whether the bonafide

need is for himself or for his son; contention being that in another

eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide need,

need has been depicted of his son Deepak.

4 Arguments have been addressed and record has been perused.

5 It is not in dispute that the present premises (whether it is a

almirah or a space in which the almirah has been kept) is a space which

had been leased out by the owner/landlord to the tenant; there is no

dispute on this count; whether it has wrongly been described as a shop

and is actually a space in which an almirah has been fitted will not affect

the bonafide need of the landlord and the requirements which are

required to be established by the landlord while establishing his case

under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). This

argument is thus bereft of any merit as the admitted position is that vide

a rent agreement dated 08.12.1990 these premises had been rented out to

the present tenant. The landlord is living in a rented accommodation at

the ground floor at Prashant Vihar; his family comprises of four persons;

his elder son is also carrying on his business under the name and style of

'Deepak Agencies'; the landlord is carrying out the business of dealing

in various kinds of towels under the name and style of 'M/s Gulshan

Agency'; both of them are carrying on their business from the ground

floor of their tenanted premises; they are stocking their goods in the

same premises; this space is highly insufficient and their goods have

taken the space of one room, their balcony and the verandah. The shop

space i.e. the tenanted premises is in a highly commercial area in

Khursheed Market, Sadar Bazar, Delh is bonafide required by the

landlord for stocking of their towels and other allied material. In fact

there has been no dispute on this Court at all. The only argument urged

before this Court is that a triable issue has arisen for the reason that the

property has been ill-described. This does not in the view of this Court

tantamount to a triable issue. Whatsoever has been tenanted out to the

tenant is in terms of the rent agreement dated 08.12.1990 which has

described the said premises; the need of the landlord to take back these

premises in the factual scenario has prima-facie established. The

landlord has no other suitable accommodation to store his goods either

for himself or for the business of his elder son. Premises are bonafide

required by them. All the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) have been

fulfilled. No triable issue has been raised by the tenant.

6 The Courts time and again have held that unless and until a triable

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

mechanical manner. If this is allowed, the very purpose and import of

the summary procedure as contained in Section 25 B of the DRCA shall

be defeated and this was not the intention of the legislature.

7 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."

8 Impugned order thus decreeing the eviction petition of the

landlord suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit.

Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 21, 2012 A