Delhi High Court
Sh. Jagdish Prasad vs Smt. Kamla Jain on 14 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC REV No. 115/2014
% 14th July , 2014
SH. JAGDISH PRASAD ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Sushobhan, Advocate.
VERSUS
SMT. KAMLA JAIN ...... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By the impugned judgment, the leave to defend application of
the respondent/tenant has been allowed inter alia on the following grounds:-
".....Fifthly, the petitioner and his wife are actually residing at Flat
No.21, T.T. Marg, Panchkuian Road, New Delhi as the petitioner is
employed with Lady Harding Hospital and the said accommodation is
sufficient to meet the requirement of the petitioner.
Sixthly, the petitioner had purchased property no.220, which is the
adjoining property to the tenanted premises comprising of ground
floor, first floor and second floor. The said property is lying vacant
and therefore, there is no bonafide requirement of the petitioner in
respect of the tenanted premises. The petitioner is also owner of
property no.E-1361-B, 46, Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi where the
petitioner is carrying on business and upper floors of the said property
RC REV No.115/2014 Page 1 of 4
comprising of first floor and second floor are available with the
petitioner.
Seventhly, the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Satyawati Sood is per incurium as it has been delivered
without considering the judgment delivered by the said court in the
case of "A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak", AIR 1984 S.C. 718.
It is further stated that the respondent had also filed an application
U/s 151 CPC on 07.12.2012 for taking into consideration subsequent
events as during the pendency of the present petition, the petitioner
had been successful in getting eviction order against his brother
Roshan Lal in respect of one room and store situated on ground floor
of the property in question. Therefore, the entire ground floor of the
property in question is in possession of the petitioner and there is no
bonafide requirement in respect of the tenanted premises.
On the other hand, it is stated in the written submissions filed on
behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier filed five eviction
petitions against his tenants in respect of the tenanted premises and in
four eviction petitions, the petitioner had been successful in getting
eviction orders. The petitioner requires the tenanted premises as his
family consists of the petitioner himself, his wife, three minor sons,
one brother, two widow sisters, two grandsons, three granddaughters.
The averments made in application for leave to defend, filed on behalf
of respondent have been denied.
The court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has given
vague reply with regard to specific averments of the respondent
regarding availability of alternative accommodations i.e. Property
No.220, Katra Pehran, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli, Delhi Property No.E-
1, 361-B, 46, Shiv Ram Park, Nangloi and the ground floor of the
property in question which has been got vacated from other tenants.
He has also given vague reply regarding averment of being in
occupation of government accommodation i.e. Flat No.21, T.T. Marg,
Panchkuian Road, New Delhi. Moreover, there is a dispute regarding
correctness of site plan, filed by the petitioner. The truth/veracity and
falsehood of the pleadings between parties and disputed questions of
facts, as aforementioned, can only be decided during trial. Therefore,
the application for leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent is
allowed."
2. I have gone through the reply filed by the present
RC REV No.115/2014 Page 2 of 4
petitioner/landlord to the application for leave to defend and I note that
except stating that the contents of the application for leave to defend are
wrong and denied no particulars whatsoever have been given.
3. In my opinion, the reply to leave to defend application is an
apology for a reply to an important application such as one for leave to
defend. In order to understand the frivolous/inadequate nature of the reply,
I am reproducing below the entire reply filed to the leave to defend
application:-
"1. That the contents of para 1 of the application are matter of
record.
2. That the contents of para 2 of the application are matter of
record.
2(A). That the contents of para 2(A) of the application are wrong
and are denied.
2(B). That the contents of para 2(B) of the application are wrong
and are denied.
2(C). That the contents of para 2(C) of the application are wrong
and are denied.
2(D). That the contents of para 2(D) of the application are wrong
and are denied.
2(E). That the contents of para 2(E) of the application are wrong
and are denied.
2(F) That the contents of para 2(F) of the application are wrong
and are denied.
2(G). That the contents of para 2(G) of the application are wrong
and are denied.
2(H). That the contents of para 2(H) of the application are wrong
and are denied.
REPLY TO PRELIMINARY LEGAL SUBMISSIONS:-
That it is submitted that the judgment in Smt. Satyawati Sood's case
decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the case of the petitioner is
RC REV No.115/2014 Page 3 of 4
absolutely covering and in the light of the said judgment the
petitioner has filed the present petition. It is further submitted that
until and unless the said judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is overruled the plea taken by the respondent is non-est. It is
further submitted that under the same facts and circumstances one
of the court of the similar jurisdiction has decided the eviction
petition filed by the petitioner in his favour.
3. That the contents of para No.3 of the application are wrong
and denied. The respondent is not entitled to leave to appear and
contest the eviction petition.
The prayer clause of the application is wrong and denied being
false, frivolous and misconceived and hence needs not
consideration by this Hon'ble Court.
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application under
reply may kindly be dismissed with costs."
4. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no illegality in the
impugned order granting leave to defend. The present petition is therefore
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 14, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
