Narinder Pal Singh vs Sudesh Sharma
2012 Latest Caselaw 968 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Judgment: 13.02.2012.

+            RC.REV. 302/2011


      NARINDER PAL SINGH                                  ..... Petitioner
                   Through            Mr. J.P. Sengh, Sr. Advocate with
                                      Mr. Praveen Aggarwal, Adv.

                   versus


      SUDESH SHARMA                                   ..... Respondent
                  Through             Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

CM No. 2691/2012

1 Notice. Counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

2 This is an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule

17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code')

seeking certain amendments in his revision petition.

3 After some arguments, it has been agreed that those amendments

which are consistent with the pleadings of the petitioner in his

application for leave to defend shall be permitted to be argued and those

which are inconsistent are not been pressed.

4     Application disposed of in the above terms.

RC.REV. 302/2011 & CM No. 14696/2011

1     Arguments have been heard.

2     At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

bank balance of the landlady had evidenced that she was transacted

sums of more than `2 crores which in fact reflects the averments made

by the petitioner that she is a rich lady; he seeks permission of this Court

to place on record the said document. Admittedly this bank statement

which the petitioner now proposes to be produced was not a part of the

trial court record; this prayer is also not accompanied by any application

making any prayer to the said effect. It cannot be gone into. This oral

prayer is accordingly rejected. Reliance by learned counsel for the

petitioner on the judgment of a Bench of this Court in R.C.Rev. No.

12/2011 Rajnish Kumar & Others VS. Mohan Singh in this scenario is

misplaced; as noted supra, there is no application filed before this Court

seeking permission to file any document.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned

judgment whereby his application seeking leave to defend had been

dismissed in pending eviction proceedings filed by the landlady under

Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA)\

4 Record shows that the landlady is Smt. Sudesh Sharma; she is the

widow of Suraj Prakash Sharma; her husband had expired on

18.02.1977 on account of kidney failure; he was 42 years at that time; he

had left behind his widow, two daughters and one son. Eviction petition

contends that because of progression of his disease, her husband wanted

to secure the safety and security of his family; he had purchased the

present property i.e. shop No. 2, A Block, Community Centre Market,

Vasant Vihar, New Delhi which was constructed and a doctor's clinic

with a wooden cabin having a small reception area was tenanted out to

the respondent namely Narinder Pal Singh. Admittedly Narinder Pal

Singh was an employee with Suraj Prakash Sharma at his pharmacist

store at South Extension; his pleas that he had small children to look

after and because of the difficult circumstances that he was facing, he be

permitted to run a chemist shop from the aforenoted premises which has

been purchased by Suraj Prakash Sharma was acceded to by Suraj

Prakash. Accordingly a partnership was entered into between Suraj

Prakash Sharma and Narinder Pal Singh agreeing to run a chemist shop

from the demised premises under the name and style of 'Link' which

was the drug store being run by Suraj Prakash Sharma at South

Extension. Unfortunately Suraj Prakash Sharma died on 18.02.1977.

Later on slow and steady saving the landlady was able to accumulate

money from her efforts and was finally able to purchase the rented

premises at South Extension which was done vide a registered sale deed

dated 25.12.1977. Further contention of the landlady is that her eldest

daughter Anupama Sharma who is a qualified pharmacist was working

with PSRI Drug Store from where she was earning about `26,000/- per

month; her last contract which was a two years contract was to expire in

June, 2010; certificate from the said Drug Store dated 20.07.2009

substantiating this submission has been filed along with eviction

petition. Further contention being that Anupama Sharma had got

married but because of compelling circumstances, on the grounds of

cruelty and desertion she was divorced from her husband on 03.03.2008;

even during the period of her marriage because of a strain in her marital

status, she started living with her mother at the landlady's residence; two

children were also borne from the wedlock of Anupama Sharma with

her husband. After the divorce, Anupama Sharma has become

completely dependent upon her mother both financially and

emotionally; the decree of divorce dated 03.03.2008 has in fact spelt out

the cruelties which had been meted out to Anupama Sharma and same

had also been filed on record. It is also an admitted position that

Anupama Sharma has two children who are also living with her. In

October, 2004, Anupama Sharma had been diagnosed with a polycystic

kidney disease and the diagnosis of her disease suggested that her

medical condition would worsen day by day which would untimately

even require a renal transplant. The medical certificate of Dr. D.S. Rana

and Dr. H. Jauhari, Senior Consultants (Nephrology Department), Sir

Ganga Ram Hospital evidencing this diagnosis of Anupama Sharma as

also the treatment to be meted out to her substantiating the submission

of the landlady that her daughter is in fact suffering from a chronic

kidney disease which is renal impairment which may in the future even

require a renal transplant had been placed on the record of the ARC.

Today this Court has been informed that Anupama Sharma has in fact

undergone a kidney transplant; there is no dispute to these factual

submissions.

5 Contention of the petitioner in the eviction petition which was

filed in 2009 is that because of the progress of the disease of her

daughter as also the fact that she has been divorced from her husband,

she having two children to look after, she also being dependent upon her

mother for all her needs, both financial as also emotional, the bonafide

need of the landlady Sudesh Sharma had arisen and she requires the

present shop at Vasant Vihar in order that her daughter can set up an

independent chemist and drug store to build up her independent

financial status. This need of the landlady which has been defined in the

eviction petition is a bonafide need.

6 The application for leave to defend has been perused. The

vehement contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is a very

rich landlady and she has a huge property in South Extension which is

enough to accommodate herself and her daughter for their business

needs; no separate accommodation is required for the daughter. It is

further submitted that Anupama Sharma is already working in a drug

store i.e. the PSRI Drug Store and she is earning a handsome figure

from the said firm; she does not require any independent business status.

These are the only two grounds which have been urged in the

application for leave to defend and which are the only two grounds

urged and argued before this Court as well. In the corresponding paras

of the reply filed by the landlady it is vehemently denied that the need of

the landlady and daughter Anupama Sharma can be looked after from

the same premises i.e. the drug store at South Extension. The

documentary evidence which includes the certificate from PSRI Drug

Store also shows that Anupama Sharma who is admittedly a qualified

pharmacist was working on contract basis with the said institute which

contract is valid up to June, 2010. Even assuming or presuming that this

contract is renewable, it does not take away the bonafide need of the

landlady which in the circumstances of the present case, is an acute need

i.e. the desire and wish of the mother to set up an independent earning

via-media for her divorced daughter who has two children and is living

with her; and more so as she has been diagnosed with a chronic kidney

ailment (which was also probably the reason for the death of her father);

the fact also not being disputed that this divorced daughter is dependent

upon her mother for all her needs i.e. for accommodation, financial

need, emotional need and even her psychological needs. In this

scenario, the submission of the tenant being that need of the daughter is

not bonafide and the fact that she is already working with PSRI has

sufficiently answered her need is an argument without any force.

7. Anupama Sharma is admittedly a qualified professional; she is a

pharmacist; she has two children to look after; her contract with PSRI is

last renewable only up to June, 2010; even it is renewed again, it will

not take away the need of the landlady to provide for her daughter a

medium for her daughter to independently stand on her feet in order that

she can earn a livelihood for herself and also for her two children;

Anupama Sharma is admittedly a single parent and the amount of

`26,000/- per month being presently earned by her may not be sufficient

to support a family. It was in these circumstances that the landlady had

set up the bonafide need of the requirement of this tenanted shop which

being located in highly viable commercial area of Delhi i.e. in the heart

of Vasant Vihar Market would enable her daughter to earn handsomely;

admittedly a drug store is being run from this premises by the present

tenant who had entered into a partnership with the husband of the

landlady and was being run under the name of 'Link Store'; Anupama

Sharma also proposes to carry on the same business from the said shop

and she has both the professional qualification as also the experience to

do so. In these circumstances, the need of the landlady for these

premises is a genuine and a bonafide need which stands established.

8 The contention of the petitioner that this need of the landlady

amounts to an expansion of an earlier business and the leave to defend

in these circumstances be automatically granted is also an argument

worthy of no merit; the landlady is running her chemist shop from South

Extension; premises are required for the need of her daughter who is an

independent individual and would thus in no manner amount to an

expansion of the business of the landlady.

9 In 111 (2004) DLT 534 Shri Hari Shanker Vs. Shri Madan

Mohan Gupta and 155 (2008) DLT 383 Rajender Kumar Sharma &

Others Vs. Smt. Leela Wati and Others the Courts have time and again

reiterated herein as under:-

"The Courts cannot and should not in a mechanical or in a routine manner grant leave to defend."

10 In Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 it

was held herein as under:-

"The landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to 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 be normally be interfered with."

11 In (2001) 2 SCC 604 Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava it was

held herein as under:-

"The need of the landlord is to be examined on the date of the institution of the eviction petition."

12 In the instant case, it is clear that on the date when the eviction

petition had been filed which was in the year 2009, the bonafide need of

the landlady is made out; her daughter was divorced on 03.03.2008; she

had two children from this estranged relationship; the children as also

their mother i.e. Anupama Sharma were dependent upon their

grandmother for accommodation. In this scenario, ARC decreeing the

eviction petition and dismissing the application for leave to defend

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

INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 13, 2012 A