Delhi High Court
Man Mohan Dass vs Ajay Tyagi on 5 February, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 05.02.2014
+ RC.REV. No.85 of 2014 & CM No.3533 of 2013
MAN MOHAN DASS ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Aurobindo Ghose, Adv.
versus
AJAY TYAGI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Nitin Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
This Revision Petition impugns an eviction order dated 5.12.2012,
whereby the defendant's application for leave to defend was dismissed and
the eviction order apropos property No.WZ-48, Basai Darapur, New Delhi-
110015, comprising one hall admeasuring 26.6 ft. X 23 ft. was passed. The
case of the landlord/eviction-petitioner was that the tenanted premises were
let out in the year 1975 to the deceased brother of the present tenant
(petitioner herein) for godown purposes wherefrom the latter had been
running a small casting unit at a monthly rent of Rs.225/-. After the demise
of the said brother, the present tenant took over the possession of the suit
premises, his tenancy was accepted at an enhanced rent of Rs.700/- per
month and currently the rental is Rs.800/- per month. The landlord issued
rent receipts as and when the rent was paid by the tenant. The last rent was
paid on 31.12.2009. The tenant has been in arrears of rent since 1.1.2010.
_______________________________________________________________________
According to Government policy of relocation of industrial units operating
from non-conforming areas an industrial plot bearing No.218/D had been
allotted to the tenant in the name of his proprietorship firm, viz. M/s. Janta
Foundary Works in the year 1995-96 in Bawana Industrial Area-II
(Bhorgarh) measuring 100 sq.mtrs. vide his application No.19488 under the
relocation scheme by the DSIIDC to protect the residents of the area from
pollution. The eviction-petitioner claimed that he requires the premises for
starting his own business of electrical spare parts to meet the demands of his
ever-increasing daily expenses and the tenanted premises being a hall would
most aptly be suited for the purpose; that the petitioner was a graduate from
Delhi University and MBA from Sikkim Manipal University and previously
he had worked in the banking sector as well as in sales and marketing; that
he had good education but was not gainfully employed to take care of his
old and ailing parents, who were living with him and were dependent on
him, besides his wife too was not keeping good health, thus, need to
augment his income from a business enterprise was most urgent and bona
fide. The landlord further contended that he had no other suitable
accommodation for doing the business; therefore, the eviction of the tenant
from the tenanted premises was sought.
In the application seeking leave to defend, the tenant had stated that
the landlord had several other residential premises in the same area which
were let out for industrial or commercial purposes, therefore, his bona fide
need was not made out and since the premises were leased out for residential
purposes and not required for residential purposes, the same could not be
sought for starting a business; that Section 14(1)(e) of the Act does not cover
_______________________________________________________________________
commercial accommodation, therefore, the petition would not be
maintainable; that the tenanted premises did not fall into the share of the
eviction-petitioner in the 'family settlement'; that the tenanted premises
were let out for non-residential purposes for the last 36 years and being so
used; the monthly rental of Rs.800/- was admitted; that the rent was being
deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller and stands paid up till
31.5.2011; that the industrial area where the tenant has been allotted an
alternate plot is still not developed and, in any case, the unit at the tenanted
premises caused almost no pollution for which safety measures had been
taken by the Government and it does not cause any inconvenience to the
neighbours; that the petition has been filed primarily to evict the petitioner
and deprive him of his livelihood and the reasons mentioned in the eviction
petition are all fanciful.
The Trial Court found that the respondent/tenant had not disclosed
details of any accommodation which could be said to be suitable alternate
accommodation available to the landlord. It found that the application for
leave to defend failed to raise any triable issue and accordingly it was liable
to be dismissed. The Trial Court was of the view that the issue of
commercial property coming under the purview of Section 14(1)(e) of the
Act was settled by the judgement of the Supreme Court in Satyawati
Sharma (dead) by LRs v. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 1 RCR (Rent) 457
(SC). The Trial Court further observed that although the tenant was paying
the rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord, he had not disclosed who
the owner of the suit property was. In the circumstances, the tenant could
not challenge the title of the eviction-petitioner. It is settled law that for
_______________________________________________________________________
maintaining an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, all that
the eviction-petitioner has to show is that he has a superior right than that of
the tenant. Insofar as the tenant himself has accepted the respondent as the
tenant, nothing more is required to be established [Ref: Rajender Kumar
Sharma & Ors. v. Leelawati & Ors. 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383].
The Trial Court also concluded that the non-issuance of rent receipts against
payment of rent was not a triable issue and appropriate redressal in this
regard was under Section 26 of the Act. The Trial Court further observed
that comparative hardship of the tenant could not be a ground for denial of
eviction nor can it be a triable issue as has been set out in Sushila v. II
Additional District Judge Banda AIR 2003 (SC) 780. Accordingly in
absence of any triable issue, the eviction order was passed.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the same arguments as
were raised in the application for leave to defend. The tenant further argued
that the landlord was actually in employment when he filed the eviction
petition and, therefore, he could not start his own business and thus, there
was no bona fide need. The respondent/landlord has placed on record a
print-out of the e-mail dated 31.10.2011 sent to the Branch Manager, Axis
Sales, Delhi, whereby he had resigned from his service and after the notice
period of one month the service would cease w.e.f. 30.11.2011. A
photocopy of the resignation letter dated 31.10.2011 duly received by the
bank, has also been placed on record. This Court notices that the eviction
petition was filed after 2nd November, 2011, i.e. after the resignation was
tendered. Although property No.WZ-238 has not been mentioned in the
_______________________________________________________________________
application for leave to defend, the petitioner has explained that it is located
at some distance and was not a reasonably suitable accommodation. A
perusal of the application for leave to defend shows that no triable issues
were raised and no material irregularity can be found in the impugned order
in holding so.
In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is of the view that
conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court was based upon the material on
record and the view taken by it is plausible in law. The impugned order does
not suffer from any material irregularity. There is no infirmity in the
impugned order calling for interference by this Court.
The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
FEBRUARY 05, 2014 NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
b'nesh
_______________________________________________________________________
