Delhi High Court
Diwan Chand vs Darshan Singh on 22 April, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 22.04.2014
+ CM APPL 6777/2014 in RC.REV. 347/2013
DIWAN CHAND
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajiv Talwar with Mr.Tarun
Rana, Advocates
versus
DARSHAN SINGH
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Goswami, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)
CM APPL 6777/2014 (under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC on behalf
of the petitioner for staying the operation of the impugned order
dated 19.08.2013 in RC.REV. 347/2013
At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is
taken up for final hearing. Hence, this application has become
infructuous and stands disposed off as such.
RC.REV. 347/2013
1. This petition impugns an order of eviction passed on
19.08.2013 directing the eviction of the petitioner. Admittedly, leave
to defend was filed after the statutory period of 15 days, hence, it
could not be taken into consideration. The Trial Court reasoned that
the petition shall be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent-
tenant and that the landlord would be entitled to an order of eviction.
Accordingly, the eviction order was passed with respect to the
tenanted premises being mezzanine shop in property No. 70, Arjun
Nagar, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that de
hors the application for leave to defend, the Trial Court would be
required to satisfy itself of the merits of the eviction petition; that
eviction order can be passed only after the Court is satisfied that the
case for bona fide need is made out.
2. He relies upon the following judgments for the proposition that
even if any compromise deed is filed between the tenant and the
landlord apropos an agreement for eviction, the Court would still be
required to satisfy itself that the ground for eviction is made out:
(1) Smt. Srimathi Kaushalya Devi & Ors. v. Shri K.L. Bansal
(1969) 1 SCC 59;
(2) Precision Steel & Engineering Works v. Prem Deva
Niranajan Dev Tayal (1982) 3 SCC 270;and
(3) Surjeet Singh Kalra v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87
3. He submits that in the present case, the Court did not consider
the facts of the eviction petition and has not decided it on its merits.
He also relies upon Swami Krishnanand Govindanand v. M.D.
Oswal Hosiery (Regd.) (2002) 3 SCC 39 to contend that even where
the ground of eviction is admitted, the Court would still be required to
satisfy itself of the bona fide need; in the absence of material to
support the alleged need to the satisfaction of the Court, an order of
eviction cannot be passed. However, this Court is of the view that in
the present circumstances the tenant's documents and pleas could not
be considered since they do not come in the realm and zone of
consideration. This would be possible only if the tenant had file the
application for leave to defend within the prescribed statutory period
of 15 days as proved in the summary proceedings under section 25-B
of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Insofar as tenant failed to reach the
portal of the Court in the time prescribed he would have no defence
against and objection to the eviction petition filed by the landlord.
4. Be that as it may, the Court notices that in paragraphs No. 3 and
4, the Trial Court has dealt with the grounds for the eviction petition
which read as under:
"3.Petitioner Sh.Darshan Singh has filed his
petition seeking eviction of tenant/respondent Sh.
Diwan Chand from tenanted premises i.e. tailor
shop with mezzanine in property no.70, Arjun
Nagar, New Delhi, admeasuring 12 ft. x 11 ft.
stating that the premises comprising one shop with
mezzanine had been let out to tenant for running his
tailoring shop upon monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per
month, excluding electricity charges. He has further
stated that property no. 70, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi
110029 measuring about 200 sq. yds. Situated in
Khasra No. 71, 146 of Revenue Estate of
Humayunpur, New Delhi-29 was originally owned
by his father late Sh. Pritam Singh, S/o Late Sukhdev
Singh and his father at the time of his demise left
behind a duly registered Will registered as document
no. 1881 in additional book no. 3, Volume no. 220,
pages 87 to 88, in the office of Sub-Registrar, New
Delhi on 03.08.1982, bequeathing the property to
him and his brother Sh. Gurnam Singh in equal
shares which has been mutated in their names in the
record of MCD, R.K. Puram, Sector IX, New Delhi,
vide mutation letter no. TAX/RKP/SAU/2435 dated
16.03.2005. Respondent is stated to be an old tenant
in the original property inherited by petitioner and
his brother from their father and by means of
partition deed dated 28.06.2010, property no. 70,
Arjun Nagar, New Delhi has been mutually
partitioned between them into two separate portions
of 100 sq. yds. each and the portion of property ad-
measuring 100 sq. yds. Adjoining property no. 69,
Arjun Nagar has fallen in his share which has been
shown in blue in the site plan. The tenanted shop
forming portion of property no. 70, Arjun Nagar fell
in his share and respondent having become his
tenant started paying rent to him.
4. Petitioner has sought respondent's eviction
from the tenanted premises stating that after his
retirement from Delhi Transport Corporation w.e.f.
31.08.2012 he intends to start an electrical shop for
gainfully employing himself by opening an electrical
spare parts and repair shop dealing in electrical
items and works and his wife may also help and
assist him or carry on her own work from the
demised premises for running their small time
business/shop as part of their self-employment.
Petitioner has also mentioned that his son is a
qualified Graphic Designer and holds a Bachelor's
Degree in Fine Arts whose work profile primarily
involves working on computer and designing books,
magazine etc. which can be carried out by his son
from the shop/tenanted premises bearing no.70,
Arjun Nagar, New Delhi."
5. This Court is of the view that insofar as the aforesaid grounds
were not challenged by the tenant since he did not file the application
for leave to defend within the statutory period, there existed no
ground to disbelieve the averments in the eviction petition. The
Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(1998) 8 SCC 119 has held as under:
"when a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his
own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the
presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other
conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a
prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a
presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide."
Section 25-B(4) of the Act provides that "the statement made
by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be
admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order
of eviction on the ground aforesaid."
6. In the absence of any controversion of the landlord-petitioner,
the clear stipulation of Section 25-B of the Act and the dicta of the
Supreme Court as aforesaid, the eviction order was rightly passed.
7. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned
order. The petition is dismissed as being without merit.
NAJMI WAZIRI
(JUDGE)
APRIL 22, 2014/acm
