Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar Prasad @ Raj Kumar Verma vs Smt. Inder Wati on 6 March, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 06.03.2012
+ RC.REV. 305/2011 & CM No.14869-70/2011
RAJ KUMAR PRASAD
@ RAJ KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.S. Singh, Mr. Rahu Singh
and Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advs.
versus
SMT. INDER WATI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Atul Bandhu, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The impugned judgment is dated 11th May, 2011; eviction
petition filed by the landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') had been
decreed; the application seeking leave to defend filed by the
respondent/tenant had been dismissed. The suit premises is a shop
forming a part of property bearing no. 1/7226, Shivaji Park, Shahdara,
Delhi (as depicted in red colour in the site plan filed in the trial court
record).
2. The eviction petition had been filed by the landlady on the
ground that she is the owner and landlord of the aforeoted shop; her
husband has let out this property measuring 44.44 square yards to the
tenant for commercial purposes; the tenant was irregular in the payment
of rent; the petitioner is a widow lady having no independent source of
income except a meager rental income; she has one son and two
daughters who are dependent on her for their residential and financial
needs; the petitioner is suffering from extreme financial hardship to
maintain the family and to meet her day to day expenses; she wants to
resume the family milk dairy business which was earlier been carried
out; she requires this shop to run the family business with the help of
her domestics and to meet her needs.
3. Leave to defend was filed by the tenant. The first submission of
the tenant is that the landlady has a sound financial position as she is a
pensioner and getting more than ` 8,000/- per month from DESU
department and she has four other shops which have been tenanted out
from where she is getting monthly rental income of ` 12,000/- from all
the four tenants and thus, she has sufficient income. The second
submission was also that she also has an alternative property at Karawal
Nagar, Delhi and the present shop is thus not required by her bonafidely.
4. The reply filed by the landlady to the corresponding averments
have been perused; there is no doubt that the landlady is having rental
income as also the fact that she is drawing a pension. However, the
amounts as mentioned in the application for leave to defend have been
denied; in the reply, details of the pension amount or the rental income
which the landlady is receiving have not been disclosed. Be that as it
may, even presuming that she is receiving a pension of ` 8,000/- per
month and ` 12,000/- per month as a rental income, the submission of
the landlady that she requires the present shop for running an active
business which was the earlier business of the family (which was for
running a dairy business) substantiates her bonafide need. This is
business activity in which she wants to engage herself and to pursue it
from the afore-noted shop; merely because she has got a financial return
by way of certain passive credits in her account (by way of rent and
pension) would not deprive her of the need made out by her to have an
active lifestyle and to resume the business of dairy and milk products
which admittedly was the earlier business of the family. It is also not in
dispute that she has a son and two daughters; she can seek help of her
son and also of her domestics to run this business; this has been
explained by her in the eviction petition; her financial needs for her
growing family comprising of one son and two daughters are needs
which cannot be sufficiently met out of her rental income and her
pension and thus, her requirement for the present shop for running the
afore-noted business has clearly been made out and prima facie
established by her. This objection of the tenant thus has no merit.
6. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the landlady has an alternate accommodation at Karawal Nagar has
been vehemently disputed by her; even otherwise, no further details
have been given by the tenant; a mere bald submission by the tenant that
an alternative accommodation is owned by the landlord without any
further details having been disclosed and which fact has been
vehemently denied by the landlady would again raise no triable issue.
On this count also the objection of the tenant is clearly without any
merit.
7. The site plan filed on record has been perused. The site plan
shows that the disputed shop measures 44.44 square yards and has been
tenanted out to the tenant; the landlady is living in West Gaurakh Park,
Shahdara; all these particulars have been disclosed by her in her eviction
petition. The need for the present shop is for a commercial purpose; that
is for running her family business; on no count does any triable issue
arise. Time and again, this court has held that unless and until a triable
issue arises, leave to defend should not be granted in a routine or in a
mechanical manner. The Supreme Court in a judgment reported in
(1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. vs.
Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal, has noted as follows:
"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. No other argument has been urged or raised. In this background,
the eviction petition having been decreed and the application seeking
leave to defend having been dismissed suffers from no infirmity. The
petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MARCH 06, 2012
Sd
