Mohan Lal vs Bansi Lal
2013 Latest Caselaw 4387 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Order delivered on: September 24, 2013

+                      RC. Rev. No.228/2013 & C.M. No.10127/2013

       MOHAN LAL                                                ..... Petitioner
                            Through      Mr.Rajender, Adv. alongwith
                                         Petitioner in person

                            versus

       BANSI LAL                                              ..... Respondent
                            Through      Mr.J.M. Kalia, Adv. respondent in
                                         person
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner Mohan Lal filed the present revision petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 19th February, 2013 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Central, Delhi, in eviction petition bearing No. E-155/2011 filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) on the ground of bonafide requirement, whereby the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The brief facts as stated in the eviction petition are that the respondent is the owner of the property in question. The petitioner is tenant in respect of one shop No.10 in the property No.11881/1, Street No.10, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, measuring 6½ ft X 9½ ft which is shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the suit premises).

3. The petitioner was inducted by the mother of the respondent as tenant in the suit premises in the year 1985 at a monthly rent of `200/- and security

amount of `10,000/- was given by the petitioner to the mother of the respondent and the present rent is `670/- per month.

4. In the petition, it is mentioned that the rent has not been paid since March, 2011. The respondent along with his wife and his family members are residing at the first floor of house bearing No.11881/1, Street No.10, First Floor, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. It is a plot of 100 yards. The first floor consists of two rooms, one kitchen and two latrine bathrooms which is shown in green colour in the site plan. As per petition, the suit premises was required bonafidely by the respondent for residence of the respondent and his family members. They are facing acute paucity of accommodation. There is no reasonable or suitable accommodation available to them except the suit premises. Family of the respondent consists of respondent himself, his wife and one son. The respondent is retired from Airports Authority of India. Wife of the respondent is housewife. Son is studying in the final year of graduation and is willing to pursue his master degree. He requires separate room for study.

5. It is stated in the petition that the respondent needs two rooms set on the ground floor to accommodate his family. He and his wife are unable to approach to first floor due to their old age. The wife of the petitioner is suffering from acute, asthmatic, bronchitis, osteoporosis since 2008. It is stated in the petition that the respondent will change the entire portion of the ground floor and will use it exclusively for their own residential purposes. He will prepare two rooms set on the ground floor out of which one room is required for residence and other room is required for relatives/guests who visit them.

The respondent requires at least seven rooms in total for his use, one room for personal use, one room for his grown up son, one for his son's

study, one for guests, one for puja and one for his consultancy office and one as drawing room. It is stated by the respondent that he is not having any other accommodation to reside.

He was charged with a fine of `1,96,296/- by the L&DO for using/let used the property as commercial from April, 1976 to January, 2006 although the allotment/licence is to use it as residential. The L&DO had intimated that the lease deed cannot be executed until the misuse on the premises is removed.

6. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, learned ARC passed the eviction order against the petitioner on merit. The learned trial court also gave its finding that even leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was not within a period of 15 days from the date of service. Six months' time was granted to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 19th February, 2013 to vacate the suit premises i.e. Shop No.10 in property No.11881/1, Street No.10, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi measuring 6½ ft X 9½ ft which is shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.C-1. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court.

7. When the matter was listed before Court on 9th July, 2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner after arguments, upon instructions, made a statement that the petitioner, who was present in Court, was not pressing the petition on merit. The petitioner made the request for extension of time to vacate the suit premises. On limited issue, the notice was issued to the respondent for 8th August, 2013. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner Mohan Lal signed on the statement. He was duly identified by his Advocate. The signatures of the petitioner Mohan Lal and his Advocate are appearing in the order dated 9th July, 2013.

8. On 8th August, 2013 no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Even notice to the respondent was not issued as process fee was not filed. The petition was dismissed in default for non-appearance and non- prosecution. Later on the petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the petition. The same was restored. Fresh notice was issued to the respondent for 2nd September, 2013 in terms of order dated 9th July, 2013. When the matter is taken up today, it was stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has changed his mind and is not ready to give an undertaking for vacation of premises despite of extension of time even if agreed by the respondent.

9. The said change of stand by the petitioner is very unfortunate and strange as after addressing the arguments on merit the statement was made by the counsel for the petitioner after taking instructions from the petitioner in the presence of parties. Now he cannot back out despite of signing the same by him and his counsel.

10. Having gone through the impugned order, pleadings and material placed on record and even otherwise I do not find any merit in the case therefore, impugned order does not call for any interference. Under these circumstances, the present petition is dismissed. In the interest of justice, six months' period is granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit property. During this period, the petitioner shall not sublet or create any third party interest in the suit property.

11. No costs.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 24, 2013