Delhi High Court
Umesh Kumar Batra vs Mahendra Nath Singhal on 11 May, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:11.05.2012
+RC.REV. 55/2012 & CM No.2232/2012 & CAVEAT No.124/2012
UMESH KUMAR BATRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Akhilesh Kumar Jha and
Mr.Kumar Manish, Advs.
versus
MAHENDRA NATH SINGHAL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.K.S.Singh and Mr.Rahul
Singh Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Impugned order is dated 18.10.2011; eviction petition filed by the
landlord Mahender Nath Singhal seeking eviction of his tenant Umesh
Kumar Batra from shop No.4, forming a part of property No.P-40-A,
Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi had been decreed. Application filed by
tenant seeking leave to leave to defend had been declined.
2 Eviction petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide
requirement. Contention of the petitioner is that he requires the
premises bonafide for his own use; he is a senior citizen aged about 68
years and he has retired from Education Department of Mathura, U.P.
and has been residing at second floor of the same property which is
property bearing No. P-40-A, Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi; he is a
chronic patient of asthma, high blood pressure and also having pain in
joints of knee; he cannot climb the stairs from ground floor to second
floor; he requires these premises in order that he can use these premises
for the purpose of his residence; his contention is that he requires one
room, latrine and bathroom for the purpose of his own use; eviction
petition has been filed for this shop in order that he can convert it in a
latrine and bathroom; there is no dispute to the fact that the
corresponding eviction petition has been filed by the landlord qua shop
No.2 of the same premises which he wants to use as a room; the present
premises i.e. shop No.4 is required by him for converting it into a latrine
and bathroom for his own use. In para no.3 petitioner/tenant has himself
averred this fact that an eviction petition in respect of another shop is
also pending in the court of same ARC.
3 Application seeking leave to defend has been perused.
Contention is that there are six shops in the ground floor of the premises
and the present petition has been filed by the landlord qua Shop No.4 in
order to harass the tenant; he does not require the premises bonafide in
fact his need is malafide. Contention of the tenant is that entire first
floor has been let out for commercial use to other tenants; and the
landlord is in possession of entire second floor; he has no medical
ailment. The replies filed to corresponding paras of the leave to defend
application have also been perused.
4 Record has been perused.
5 The site plan of the property filed with the eviction petition shows
that there are six shops on the ground floor; admittedly this eviction
petition is qua shop No.4. Admittedly shop No.2 is also the subject
matter of a connected eviction petition which is pending before the same
ARC i.e. Mr.Ravinder Singh, ARC. The shop No.2 is required by the
petitioner in order that he can use it for a bed room and shop no.4 is
required to be converted in to a latrine and bathroom in order that the
petitioner can use the ground floor as his residence. It is also not in
dispute that the petitioner is a senior citizen who has retired from
Education Department, Mathura, U.P. and is presently living in the
second floor. It is also not in dispute that in old age almost every person
suffers from knee/joints pains and arthritis complaints; this is also so in
the present case; old age in fact by itself qualifies as a disease with the
aforenoted accompanying hazards; the fact that the landlord is suffering
from high blood pressure, knee and joint pains is also admitted. In these
circumstances it is highly derogatory on the part of the tenant that the
landlord has to occupy the second floor of the premises for his residence
and has to climb stairs even if he is of 68 years of age only because his
own ground floor premises is in occupation of a tenant. It is for the
landlord to judge his own requirement; it is not for the tenant or the
court to dictate terms to him 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."
6 There is also no dispute to the fact that the other shops are not in
the occupation of the present landlord; shop No.3 is with the tenant; so
also shop No.1. Shops No.5 and 6 are the shops from where the
business of three sons of the landlord is being carried out. First floor of
the suit premises is also tenanted out. The second floor is the portion
where the landlord is residing with his family.
7 In this factual scenario the need of the landlord to set up his
residence on ground floor by using the shop no.2 as a room and
converting the shop no.4 into latrine and bathroom is a bonafide need.
It is difficult to imagine that a senior citizen is made to climb stairs
when he can well set up himself on the ground floor in the premises
which belongs to him. In these circumstances, it can in no manner be
said that the need of the landlord is malafide. Only because the tenant
has been carrying on his business since long in the aforenoted premises,
this fact is not going to affect the right of the landlord which will remain
unfettered. In AIR 2004 SC 2049 P.S.Pareed Kaka & Ors.Vs.Shafree
Ahmed Saheb the Apex Court had in fact held that the comparative
hardship of the tenant is of little consequence.
8 The impugned order dismissing the application seeking leave to
defend and decreeing the eviction petition in favour of the landlord
suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 11, 2012
nandan
