Delhi High Court
Naresh Kumar Sharma vs Bengali on 21 May, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:21.05.2012
+ RC.REV. 227/2012 & CM Nos.9292-93/2012
NARESH KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.D.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus
BENGALI ..... Respondent
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The impugned order is dated 15.02.2012 whereby the eviction
petition filed by the landlord Bengali seeking eviction of his tenant
Naresh Kumar Sharma from the disputed premises i.e. a shed bearing
No. B-16, DSIDC, Kalyan Puri, Delhi on the ground of bonafide
requirement had been decreed; the application filed by the tenant
seeking leave to defend had been declined.
2 Record shows that the petitioner was the allottee of the aforenoted
shed; on 22.08.2005, the same had been tenanted out to the tenant at a
monthly rent of Rs.1,200/-; the plaintiff has six children of whom his
elder son Govind is handicapped as he had suffered an accident and his
right leg has been crushed; because of this physical disability his son
Govind cannot do a sitting business which requires a greater physical
labour. Document showing the medical condition of his son has been
placed on record. The second child of the petitioner namely Geeta was
married to Mahesh who had died in an accident; Geeta along with her
four children is living with the petitioner which causes a financial
burden upon the petitioner; Geeta is also handicapped and is unable to
earn or fend for herself; her disability certificate has also been placed on
record. None of the aforenoted documents have been disputed. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has sought vacation of these premises on the
ground of bonafide requirement for the use of his son and daughter as
also for himself as he being a senior citizen aged 62 years and presently
earning his livelihood by selling vegetables on the road; he wants to run
his livelihood from this shop; in fact this shop is required for himself as
also for all the aforenoted family members who because of their
handicap cannot earn their livelihood. Eviction petition was accordingly
filed.
3 The averments made in the application seeking leave to defend
have been perused. It is not in dispute that the landlord is the allottee of
the aforenoted premises; a bald submission has been made that the
family of the petitioner is self-dependent and as such there is no liability
upon the landlord; disability certification of both his children namely
Govind and Geeta have not been disputed; there is also not a whisper in
the application seeking leave to defend that the said children are not
handicapped; in view of this admitted position being that the plaintiff
himself is a senior citizen and two of his children are handicapped as
also the additional fact that Geeta is a widow with four children and is
staying with the petitioner, the financial burden on the petitioner is no
doubt heavy; it has also not been disputed that the petitioner is presently
carrying on the business of selling vegetables on the road side; this shed
is accordingly bonafide required by him for enabling him to carry on
some means of business which he can do with the assistance of his
handicapped children. The other averments made in the application
seeking leave to defend are to the effect that the tenant himself has no
other space from where he can run his shop and this is the only source of
income; he himself having a large family any occupying the premises
since the last several years.
4 No triable issue has arisen on any count.
5 It is also a settled position at law that leave to defend cannot be
granted in a routine or a mechanical manner. If this was permitted the
whole intent and purpose of the provisions of Section 25-B of the Delhi
Rent Control Act which contains a summary procedure would be given
a go-by and this was not the intent of the legislature.
6 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.
7 There is also no dispute to the factum that the landlord is the best
Judge of his requirement.
8 The need of the landlord vis-à-vis tenant, if balanced, would show
that the need of the landlord is much greater which even otherwise is not
to be taken into account while dealing with an eviction petition under
Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA; comparative hardship of the tenant is of
little consequence.
9 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.
10 In this background impugned judgment having decreed the
eviction petition and having dismissed the leave to defend application
suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY 21, 2012
A
