Delhi High Court
Shamimuddin vs Babu Lal on 18 May, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:18.05.2012
+ RC.REV. 8/2012 & CM No. 481/2012
SHAMIMUDDIN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.D. Ansari, Adv.
versus
BABU LAL ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Vinay Tandon, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The impugned judgment is dated 17.08.2011 whereby the eviction
petition filed by the landlord Babu Lal 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 Shamimuddin from a shop on
the ground floor of property bearing No. 6445, Factory Road, Nabi
Karim, Pahargunj, Delhi as depicted in red colour in the site plain.
Monthly rent is Rs.500/-. Premises had been let out to Babuddin father
of the respondent and after his death, the present tenant has attorned in
favour of the landlord. The petition has been filed on the ground of
bonafide requirement. His contention is that his family comprises of
himself, his wife, three sons and a daughter all of whom are dependent
upon him for their livelihood. Contention is that the petitioner is
engaged in the business of manufacturer of travel bags and school bags
which he is carrying on from the last 20 years and presently the busing
is being carried out from two rooms situated on the second floor of the
aforenoted suit premises; this accommodation is highly insufficient and
the petitioner is not able to expand his business. The suit premises is a
shop on the ground floor which is now required by the petitioner for the
sale of these school bags/travel bags which are being manufactured from
the second floor; this shop on the ground floor will be suitable for the
need of the petitioner and his sons who are carrying on the business
together; accordingly the present eviction petition has been filed.
3 Averments made in the application filed by the tenant seeking
leave to defend have been perused. Relationship of landlord-tenant has
not been disputed. The contents of the eviction petition have by and
large been reiterated; contention in the application seeking leave to
defend is that this is a cooked up story and the need of the landlord is
not in fact bonafide. The landlord is deliberately not accepting the rent
in order that he can build up a ground for eviction; petition has been
filed in an arbitrary fashion. This appears to be the gist of the application
seeking leave to defend.
4 In this background, on no count can it be said that a triable issue
has arisen.
5 In (1982) 3 SCC 270 Precision Steel & Engineering Works &
another Vs. Prem Devi Niranjan Deva Tayal the Apex Court had noted
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.
6 Unless and until a triable issue has arisen leave to defend cannot
be granted; if this is done the very purpose and import of the Section 25-
B of the DRCA will be given a go by; which was not the intent of the
legislature.
7 The Supreme Court in Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan
(1996) 5SCC 353 had held in this context inter alia noted as:-
"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."
8 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.
9 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
