Delhi High Court
Shafiquddin vs Mohd. Ibrahim on 8 October, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.C. REV 505/2012
Date of Decision: 08.10.2012
SHAFIQUDDIN ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr.J.H.Jafri, Adv.
Versus
MOHD. IBRAHIM ...... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This is a revision petition u/S 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"), assailing the order dated 13.04.2012
passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, whereby the leave to
defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed and
consequentially an eviction order was passed.
2. The respondent filed an eviction petition u/S 14(1)(e) of the Act
with respect to ground floor of the property bearing no.282, Gali
Garhaiya, Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
"the tenanted premises") wherein the petitioner is the tenant. The
respondent in his eviction petition stated that the tenanted premises is
required by him for residential purposes as he has a large family of
four daughters, three unmarried sons and three married sons along with
their families. The petitioner raised the ground that the landlord had
alternative accommodation. He submitted in his leave to defend
application and also in this petition that the respondent's sons are
owners of built up three storey property bearing no. 240 Gali Jain
Mandir, Shahdara, Delhi, which has four shops on the ground floor and
eight rooms on the above floors where they are residing comfortably.
It is also submitted that the petitioner along with his brother Mohd.
Idris owns property No. 1526, Gali No. 1, Shahdara. In reply to all
this, the respondent stated that no property bearing no. 240 Gali Jain
Mandir, Shahdara is owned by his sons, and neither does he know of
the existence of such a property. As regards the property bearing no
1526, Gali No. 1, Shahdara, the respondent submitted that the said
property was exclusively owned by his brother Mohd. Idris and that he
has no concern in the said property. The Ld. ARC dismissed the leave
to defend application and this order is under challenge in this revision
petition.
3. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties, I must reiterate that the power of this Court
under Section 25-B (8) Act are not as wide as those of Appellate
Court, and in case it is found that the impugned order is according to
law and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court must
refrain from interfering with the same. The power under this provision
is limited and supervisory in nature. Only when it is evident that the
Rent Controller has committed grave illegality or came to a conclusion
which was not possible, based on the material produced, should this
Court interfere in the orders passed by the Rent Controller.
4. In light of the above principle of law, I have heard the counsels
for the parties and examined the records.
5. The case set up by the petitioner was that the respondent had
alternate accommodations available to him. He lists out two alternative
accommodations allegedly owned by the respondent. Though the
petitioner has stated that these alternative accommodations available
were with the respondent, he was not able to submit any document
supporting his submissions. As regards the property bearing no. 1526,
Gali no. 1, Shahdara, the petitioner submitted that there was a
relinquishment deed entered into by the petitioner and his siblings by
which all the rights and interest in the tenanted premises were
relinquished in favour of the respondent. The petitioner urged that in
the relinquishment deed, there was reference to the said property
bearing no.1526, it could be seen that it was jointly owned by the
respondent and his brother Mohd. Idris. But when asked in court to
point out this relevant fact in the relinquishment deed, the counsel for
the petitioner could not do so and conceded that the relinquishment
deed did not contain any such fact as relied upon by him. The
petitioner further contended that three sons of the respondent were
owners of property No. 240, Gali Jain Mandir, Shahdara, but to
substantiate the same, he did not place on record any sort of document.
On the other hand, the respondent has categorically denied this
ownership and has gone further to state that he has never heard of the
existence of such a property. The petitioner has not put on record
anything that proves the ownership of the respondent's sons in the said
property. It is settled law that mere assertions cannot be made by the
tenant. The issues raised by the tenant should be substantiated with
some material placed on record. Bald assertions will not be entertained
by the court. As held by this court in "Rajender Kumar Sharma &
Ors. vs. Leelawati & Ors, 155 (2008)DLT 383":-
"11.......Mere assertions made by a tenant in respect of
landlord's ownership of other buildings and in respect of
alternate accommodation are not to be considered
sufficient for grant of leave to defend. If this is allowed,
the whole purpose of Section 25-B shall stand defeated
and any tenant can file a false affidavit and drag a case
for years together in evidence defeating the very purpose
of the statute. The Rent Controller is thus not precluded
from considering the material placed before it by the
landlord in response to leave to defend to show that the
tenant's assertions and averments were totally false."
It is important for the tenant in any leave to defend application to
submit relevant documents on record to support any triable issue raised
by him. In absence of any material, the ARC cannot come to a
conclusion as to the weight of the issue raised by the tenant, thus
impairing his power to decide whether an issue raised is triable or not.
In the case of "Krishan Kumar Gupta v. Swadesh Bhushan Gupta,
(2008) 152 DLT 556", this court has held that:-
"12......Unless, the learned ARC scrutinizes each of the
objections raised by the tenant with the help of documents
and the material placed on record, the entire purpose of
providing summary proceedings in respect of the eviction
proceedings fails. Thus, it is incumbent upon the ARC to
scrutinize all objections carefully in the light of law laid
down and in the light of the material placed on record. It
cannot be argued that the learned ARC was not required
to go into the details of the objections and come to a
conclusion on the basis of affidavits and once objections
are raised leave to defend must be granted. Leave to
defend can be granted only in those cases where the
tenant is able to show by material on record that the
petition was filed by the landlord mala fidely."
6. In light of the above discussion, it is evident that the
petitioner/tenant has not been able to raise any triable issues. I do not
see any need to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. ARC as it
was passed according to law and suffers from no infirmity. The
petition is hereby dismissed
M.L. MEHTA, J.
OCTOBER 08, 2012
rmm
