Delhi High Court
Atik Ahmed vs Smt Kamla on 10 May, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:10.05.2012
+ RC.REV. 325/2011 & CM No. 15466/2011
ATIK AHMED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P.N. Tiwari, Adv.
versus
SMT KAMLA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. for R-2 &
R-3.
AND
+ CONT.CAS(C) 689/2011
ATIK AHMED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. P.N. Tiwari, Adv.
versus
KAMLA & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv. for R-2 &
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The impugned order is dated 31.01.2011; the eviction petition
filed by the landlady Kamla seeking eviction of her tenant Atik Ahmed
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) from the
disputed premises i.e. a shop forming part of property bearing No. B-6,
New Seelampur, Delhi (as depicted in red colour in the site plan) had
been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend had been
dismissed.
2 This revision petition has been preferred against the said
judgment. On 19.08.2011 a Bench of this Court had stayed the eviction
order and notice had been issued for 30.08.2011. Contention of the
petitioner before this Court is that on 23.08.2011 inspite of interim order
staying the eviction order, the landlord along with Police had evicted
him forcibly from the disputed premises. The police was in fact hand in
gloves with the landlady; contempt has been committed of the order of
this Court for which action should be taken.
3 The averments made in the contempt petition have been perused.
There is not a whisper in the contempt petition that the order which had
been obtained dasti by the tenant on 19.08.2011 had in fact been served
upon the respondent; in the absence of this specific averment having
come on record, the question of contempt does not arise as the
submission of the landlord is that she was not aware of this order dated
19.08.2011. In the body of the contempt petition, it has baldly stated that
on the next day i.e. on 20.08.2011, respondent No. 1 (Kamla) had been
informed about the orders passed by the Court; however, there is no
specific averment made to the effect that the impugned order staying the
eviction proceedings had been served upon the landlady after
19.08.2011 or on any date prior to 23.08.2011 when by due process of
law in the course of execution proceedings, the tenant stood evicted.
4 In this background, it can in no manner be said that there is a
willful disobedience of the order of the Court. No contempt is made out.
Contempt petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
5 Record shows that an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide
requirement has been filed; contention of the landlady is that she is a
widow running a small tea stall in the shop adjacent to the tenanted
premises; she had four children; the elder son Rahul has attained the age
of majority and wants to run his own business; tenanted shop adjacent to
the place where mother Kamla is running her tea stall is required by the
son of the petitioner to run his tea business as there is no other business
space and as such this is the bonafide need disclosed by her.
6 In the application seeking leave to defend, no triable issue has
been raised; mere submission being that the landlady is no longer a
widow; she has remarried; she has two children from her first marriage
and two children from the second marriage; she is earning Rs.6,000/-
per month which is sufficient for her needs and her son is also running a
tea stall.
7 The site plan filed on record shows that there are four shops on
the ground floor which are in 'L' shape; one shop is being used by the
landlady where she is running a tea stall and other three shops, including
the tenanted shop, are in occupation of the tenants and they are in 'L'
shape. The fact that the landlady has an elder son who wants to start his
independent business is not a disputed factum; the fact that she has no
other alternate accommodation available with her has also not been
disputed.
8 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."
9 In (1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel & Engineering Works &
another Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal the Apex Court has held
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 The landlord is the best judge of his requirement; it is not for the
tenant or the court to dictate terms as to how and in what manner he has
to meet his needs for an accommodation. In Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs.
T.V. Krishnan reported in (1996)5SCC353 it was noted:-
"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."
11 In this background, the impugned judgment decreeing the eviction
petition in favour of the landlord and dismissing the application seeking
leave to defend suffers from no infirmity.
12 Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 10, 2012
A
