Delhi High Court
Shri Mishri Lal vs Shri Ramesh Chander on 28 February, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.02.2014
+ C.R.P. 25/2014, CM APPLs. 3846-47/2014
SHRI MISHRI LAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. V. S. Gupta, Mr. N. K.
Bhambri and Mr. Gaurav Kaushik,
Advocates
versus
SHRI RAMESH CHANDER ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)
1. This is a revision petition against the order of the ARC directing
eviction of the petitioner from property bearing No.5026-5028, Roshanara
Road, Delhi. There are 25 grounds raised by the petitioner. However, the
impugned order has found none of them substantial enough to be considered
triable. The petitioner has been directed to vacate the premises vide the
impugned order passed on 30.08.2013. The 25 grounds are as under:
"a) That the petitioner is neither the owner, nor the
landlord;
b) That the Will dated 24.06.1963 executed in favour of
the father of petitioner is forged and fabricated;
c) That the petitioner has deliberately concealted the
alternate properties owned by him and his son;
d) That the adjoining ground floor shop is in the
possession of the petitioner and not his son;
e) That the petitioner is doing property dealing from
the ground floor shop under the name and style of
"M/s Shakti Properties";
f) That the son of the petitioner is not running any shop
at the ground floor but is rather doing his own
business;
g) That the petitioner has not disclosed the nature of
the business run by his son from the ground floor shop;
h) That the petitioner is comfortably residing at the
first floor whereby he needs no further
accommodation;
i) That the site plan of the petitioner is wrong and not
in accordance with the factual position;
j) That the petitioner has deliberately not filed any site
plan of the portions respectively occupied by him and
his son, nor has disclosed the details like municipal
number etc. of these properties;
k) That there is no dispute between the petitioner and
his son and rather both of them are residing together;
l) That the petitioner is no handicapped and thus has
not filed any documentary evidence in support thereof;
m) That neither the son, nor the daughters of the
petitioner are his dependents;
n) That the provisions of Section 14(1)(a) DRCA are
not applicable as the only applies to residential
tenancies and premises;
o) That the sole motive behind the filing of the petition
is to evict him by all means possible;
p) That the petitioner has a malafide design to evict
him so as to sell the tenanted shop or re-let the same at
higher rent;
q) That the tenanted shop is his only accommodation
and source of livelihood;
r) That he has paid regular rent to the petitioner up till
2008 whereafter the petitioner has been refusing and
avoiding to accept the same;
s) That the petition is a counter blast to his petition U/s
27 DRCA, which was allowed by concerned RC on
08.07.2011;
t) That the petitioner is a chronic litigant who has
previously filed the frivolous petition U/s 19(1)(a),
Slum Area (Improvement & Clearance) Act against
him for seeking eviction;
u) That the premises is not lying locked since
December 1999 and is rather being regularly used;
v) That the petitioner has taken contrary stand
regarding the user of the tenanted shop by alleging on
one side that it is lying locked since December 1999
and on another side alleging that it is being misused by
M/s. Corrosion Prevention Systems;
w) That the petitioner has caused substantial damage
to the tenanted shop by his acts and omissions whereby
water seeps into it, which once has caused a fire
whereby he suffered a loss of Rs. 2 Lakhs;
x) That he has been allotted any alternate plot by the
MCD; and
y) That the petitioner has contradicted himself by
alleging on one side that the electricity connection is in
the name of the respondent while on other hand, he
says that the respondent has not paid electricity
charges since January 2004."
2. Counsel for the petitioner reiterates each of the grounds before this
Court. Additionally he has tried to bring on record photographs to show that
respondent/landlord is using an adjacent shop which was earlier allegedly
being used by his son to run his own business under the name and style of
"M/s Shakti Properties". He submits that the subsequent development would
show that the petitioner was actually in possession and use of the said
adjacent property. Hence, the petitioner has no bonafide need of any
additional space or of the tenanted premises, for carrying out his business as
proposed in the eviction petition. He further submits that son and father
already have the first and second floors with them and thus do not need
additional space. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Seshambal
(Dead) through LRs. Vs. M/s. Chelur Corporation Chelur, in Civil Appeal
No. 565 of 2005 which says that subsequent events can be brought on record
for consideration in the revision petition. He also relies upon the judgment
by this Court in Sandeep Kumar Vs. Nihal Chand 207 (2014) DLT 104
which permits taking into consideration subsequent events and documents in
the revision petition. However, both these judgments hold that the court
ought to proceed cautiously apropos the subsequent change in the facts,
circumstances and events. It is not in dispute that the photographs which
have now been sought to be adduced in these proceedings, pertain to a
situation which existed when the application for leave to defend was filed.
Indeed, the impugned order itself, in paragraphs 15 and 17, specifically
traces the arguments sought to be advanced through the photographs as
additional evidence. Therefore; the proposed "additional evidence" has to be
and is cautiously rejected.
3. The learned counsel then contends that there is no requirement for the
landlord for additional space since the space on the first and second floors is
sufficient for him and his son. In this regard, the Court would not lose site
of the relationship between son and the father which are stated to be so
strained that they do not talk with each other and are living in utmost silence
between themselves. This Court is of the view that there can be no greater
disquiet for a father, suffering from 50% physical disability - proof of which
has been brought on record, that he be not on talking terms with his son,
causing him much anguish and pain at the evening of his life, coupled with
the challenge of having to start his own business to support himself and his
wife.
4. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the circumstance that the
landlord has two married daughters who, although settled in their respective
matrimonial homes, continue to visit their father every fortnight or so, hence
they would need space/accommodation for themselves. This Court is of the
view that in some ways the expectation of a married daughter from her
father increases. He remains an emotional embankment for her, his
responsibilities as a social elder do increase. Socially and as the head of the
paternal family he is expected to provide appropriate accommodation to his
visiting married daughters, sons-in-law, their extended families, etc.
Therefore, for one to contend that simply because daughters have married
the need to have additional rooms or retain accommodation for them is not
essential, is not acceptable. Indeed, daughters marry they are not married
off. Familial and sociological security requires that married daughters
should be provided adequate accommodation, if not at least retain their
accommodation in their parental homes. In these circumstances, it cannot be
said that the landlord's bonafide need is not proven. This Court concurs that
no triable issues were raised in the leave to defend and finds that the
impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities. The petition is without
merit and is frivolous. It is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be
deposited in Prime Minister's Relief Fund within the next two months.
FEBRUARY 28, 2014/acm NAJMI WAZIRI
(JUDGE)
