Kanwarjit Singh & Ors vs Jaswant Singh
2012 Latest Caselaw 3362 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Judgment:18.05.2012

+     RC.REV. 301/2010 & CM No.22211/2010


      KANWARJIT SINGH & ORS              ..... Petitioners
                   Through  Mr. Prem Prakash, Adv.

                   versus

      JASWANT SINGH                               ..... Respondent
                   Through            None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The impugned judgment is dated 01.11.2010 whereby the eviction

petition filed by the landlord Jaswant Singh on the ground of bonafide

requirement under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act

(DRCA) had been decreed; 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 seeking eviction of his tenant Kanwarjit Singh from a shop

measuring 10'X10' (as depicted in red colour in the site plan) i.e. shop

No. 44, Central Road, Jangpura, Bhogal, New Delhi; the petitioner

claims himself to be the owner of the suit premises; premises are

required by him bonafide for the need of his son and grandson who has

completed studies and they want to do independent business of general

merchant and kiryana. The petitioner's son and grandson are dependent

upon the petitioner for their livelihood and also for their need for

accommodation. Presently the petitioner is carrying on his business from

the adjoining shop which is 10'X12' which is the business of Atta

Chaki; there is not enough space even to put a chair in the suit premises.

The shop which is adjacent to the shop is accordingly required by the

petitioner, his son and grandson in order that his son and grandson can

carry out the business from the said shop in an independent manner.

3 Leave to defend has been filed. There is no dispute about the

status of the petitioner as the landlord/owner. Contention is that the

accommodation available with the landlord is sufficient and he does not

require the present premises; it has been averred that the alternate shop

available with the landlord is three times bigger that the tenanted shop;

site plan however depicts otherwise. The site plan shows that what has

been tenanted out to the tenant as a shop 10'x10' and the shop which is

presently available with the petitioner is 10'X12'. Behind that there is a

store i.e. a store and not a shop. It is not in dispute that the present shop

tenanted out to the tenant opens out into the main lane; the store and

back portion would in no manner serve the purpose for which the

landlord has filed the eviction petition which is to set up and run the

business of his son and grandson both of whom are dependent upon the

landlord for their need for accommodation. It is also not in dispute that

the premises have since been vacated and the possession of the same has

been handed back to the landlord. Vehement submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned judgment has disregarded

the law vide which his application seeking leave to defend had been

summarily dismissed. For this proposition, he has placed reliance upon

(2001) 1 SCC 706 Inderjeet Kaur Vs. Nirpal Singh; contention being

that the leave to defend should be granted where the tenant has been

able to disclose a prima-facie case.

4 The proposition as aforenoted is not in dispute. However, the crux

of the matter is whether a prima-facie case has been made out by the

tenant or not. As noted supra, in view of the averments made in the

application seeking leave to defend, it is clear that no such case is made

out.

5 In this background impugned order decreeing the petition and

dismissing the leave to defend application filed by the tenant suffers

from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.

                                             INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY       18, 2012
A