Sh. Sat Prakash Garg vs Sh. Chaman Lal & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 573 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                Date of Decision: 29.01.2014
+       RC.REV. 48/2014

        SH. SAT PRAKASH GARG                                 ..... Petitioner
                      Through:          Mr. M.R. Chanchal, Adv.

                          Versus

        SH. CHAMAN LAL & ANR.                                  ..... Respondents

                     Through:           None

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

%       MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)

1. This petition impugns an order dated 18.12.13 whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Property No. D-93, New Govindpura, Parwana Road, Delhi-51 admeasuring 8 x 10 sq. ft. occupied by him. The order was passed in a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the landlord- respondent. The Trial Court declined the tenant leave to defend on the ground that the eponymous application disclosed no triable issues.

2. The tenant had contended that the landlord had not come to court with clean hands; did not require the premises bonafidely; wanted to evict the tenant by any means whatsoever; only to re-let it out at a higher rent; that the tenant had not other accommodation for running his livelihood and would be severely prejudice if he were evicted from the premises and finally the landlord had not given complete details of the property in petition. This

Court notices that the application for leave to defend as well as the affidavit along with it are almost identical and apart from the aforesaid bare submissions they do not contain anything substantive to be even considered as a triable issue. Anyway, having considered the aforesaid averments the Trial Court took note of the fact that the landlord had disclosed that property bearing No. D-93, New Govindpura, Delhi-51 consisted of two shops out of which one was in his possession and was being put to use for dyeing business. The tenant's eviction was sought from the second shop. It was stated that the landlord being of old age was unable to manage the dyeing business hence was assisted by eviction-petitioner no.2. The latter's sons, aged 27 and 22, were unemployed and required the premises for opening a mobile phone shop. Although, being of marriageable age, their marriages could not be solemnized since they were unemployed and otherwise had no separate independent business. The landlord disclosed that they were residing in their own residential property at 6/201 Geeta Colony, Delhi while another property being C-33/1, Gali No. 4, New Govind Pura, Delhi owned by them being wholly residential, was let out to one Mr. Virender Singh for residential purposes. The petitioners claim to be not owning any other property for their requirement hence, they sought the eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises for bonafide use. The Trial Court found that since the tenant had failed to disclose any details of other properties being owned by the landlord, which could be considered to fulfil their claimed requirement, no triable issue was even contended by the tenant. The Court further reasoned that the unmarried sons of eviction- petitioner no. 2 would not be considered employed simply because they were assisting their father or grandfather in the latters' business. They were

in economic terminology 'under-employed'. Under the scheme of Delhi Rent Control Act a court could proceed on the presumption that the requirement claimed by the landlord is bonafide unless a case to the contrary is made out by the tenant which could disentitle an eviction order under section 25B of the Act, in a summary trial. The leave to defend was accordingly dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any new arguments other than what was raised in the leave to defend application and duly considered in the impugned order. I am unpersuaded by counsel's contentions to take a different view. The decision of the Trial Court and the reasons therefor are not only plausible in law but also sound and correct. This court finds no reason to interfere with the eviction order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as being without merit.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) JANUARY 29, 2014/acm