Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar Sethi vs Sunil Kumar Verma on 15 July, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 470/2013 & C.M.No.19938/2013(for stay)
% 15th July, 2014
RAJ KUMAR SETHI ......Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
VERSUS
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA ...... Respondent
Through: Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is enjoying the benefit of interim order dated
28.2.2014, by which the impugned order dismissing the leave to defend
application is stayed.
2. This petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated
26.9.2013, by which the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the leave to
defend application filed by the present petitioner and decreed the eviction
petition for bonafide necessity.
RC.REV.No.470/2013 Page 1 of 7
3. The tenanted premises in this case is one shop on the ground floor of
the property, i.e E-10, Mansarover Park, Shahdara, Delhi-32. The
respondent/landlord states that he requires the shop for opening of a
jewellery shop for his son. The respondent/landlord is already having one
shop in the same premises. The family of the respondent/landlord beside
himself consists of two married sons and two grand-daughters.
4. The main defence of the petitioner/tenant is that the bonafide
necessity petition is not bonafide because the respondent/landlord has space
behind the shop which he can use for opening the shop, if really the need is
there of the respondent/landlord to extend the shop for carrying on business
of his son. In the leave to defend application, it is also pleaded that the
respondent/landlord has a property in Faridabad, and consequently, the
respondent/landlord has reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. In
the leave to defend application, no details are however furnished of this
Faridabad property.
5(i) On the basis of the fact that the respondent/landlord has the Faridabad
property and possibly a property which is shown by means of photographs at
pages 40 to 43 of this petition paper book, interim orders were granted to the
petitioner on 28.2.2014.
RC.REV.No.470/2013 Page 2 of 7
(ii) Since respondent is present in person, I have shown the photographs
and asked him whether the property belongs to him or to any of his family
members, and if the property is found belonging to him then he will be
prosecuted for perjury. The respondent after looking at the photographs
categorically states that he has absolutely no concern with the property
shown in the photographs and though the same is of one Sunil Verma (the
name Sunil Verma as shown in the name plate in the photographs) the
property is not of the respondent. The respondent states that he is ready to
face any consequence of prosecution/perjury, in case his statement is proved
incorrect. The respondent also denies that he has any property at Faridabad
details of which in any case have not been given in the application for leave
to defend.
6. In my opinion, the Additional Rent Controller has not committed any
illegality or perversity in dismissing the application for leave to defend
because the respondent/landlord has no other alternative suitable
accommodation for the requirement of his son opening a jewellery shop. It
is not for the courts to dictate to the landlord that he should not be allowed to
evict the tenant, if the portion with the tenant can be used for the business of
one of his sons. In the present case, the son of the respondent/landlord used
to carry on a business in the tenanted premises but that tenanted premises
RC.REV.No.470/2013 Page 3 of 7
was sold in the year 2011 because the jewellery business was not successful
at the other tenanted premises. In any case, the respondent/landlord has
another son for whom the tenanted premises are sought to be got evicted for
carrying on the business.
7(i) The contention of the petitioner/tenant that the respondent/landlord
can extend the area behind the shop where there is additional space, is an
argument without any merit for two reasons.
(ii) Firstly, the so-called space behind the back of the shop is part of the
residential area of the family of the respondent and his sons. The area behind
the shop on the ground floor as also other additional area on the ground floor
is used for the residential purpose, by the landlord and his family of two
married sons with their two children who also are using three rooms on the
first floor for residence. Whatever residential portion is there in the premises
is already in use on account of the very large family of the
respondent/landlord having two married sons with their two grand-
daughters.
(iii) The second reason is that the petitioner/tenant has himself averred in
the leave to defend application that, as per the policy prevalent in Delhi in
the area where the tenanted premises are situated, no commercial activity
can be carried-on on the ground floor except on the existing commercial
RC.REV.No.470/2013 Page 4 of 7
shops which have been opened prior to the drive of the municipal authority
to prevent any commercial misuser. This is specifically stated in para 3 of
the affidavit accompanying the leave to defend application. Therefore, to
the other area on the ground floor or the second floor no commercial activity
can be carried out.
8. The resume of the aforesaid facts show that the family of the
respondent/landlord comprises besides himself of his two married sons and
two grand-daughters. The respondent/landlord is asking for the
petitioner/tenant to vacate the shop because the shop is proposed to be used
by the son of the respondent/landlord for his jewellery business and which
reason is a justified/bonafide necessity. If the landlord has the tenanted shop
which he can give to his son for opening of a business, the courts cannot
prevent him by holding that the need of the landlord is not a bonafide need.
9. With respect to the property at Faridabad besides the fact that no
details are given, in any case, it is a settled law, that when the Courts have to
look at an alternative suitable accommodation such an alternative suitable
accommodation has to be in Delhi and not outside Delhi. The property at
Faridabad which is outside Delhi, therefore, in view of the settled law cannot
be said to be alternative suitable accommodation.
RC.REV.No.470/2013 Page 5 of 7
10. I have already observed above that the respondent/landlord states that
the photographs which are filed in this petition are not with respect to any
property which is owned by him. Accordingly, it is clear that the
respondent/landlord needs the tenanted shop for his bonafide necessity for
opening of the business of his son.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in fact one of the sons
of the respondent/landlord is already carrying on the business in another
premises. When asked to show what is the specific averment in the leave to
defend application along with the property where the
respondent's/landlord's son is carrying on business, the counsel for the
petitioner had no option but to admit that there is no such averment in the
leave to defend application. Obviously, it is easy to make baseless allegation
but difficult to substantiate them with specifics.
12. Also, I may note that any ground which is not taken up in the leave to
defend application cannot be permitted to be taken up after a period of 15
days period which has been sacrosanct by the Supreme Court in the case of
Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15
observing that whatever has to be stated by the tenant has to be stated within
15 days by filing of the leave to defend application and there can be no
RC.REV.No.470/2013 Page 6 of 7
extension of time for filing of the leave to defend application. Once there
can be no extension beyond 15 days that means that additional affidavits
containing additional grounds cannot be filed time and again by the tenant to
add to the averments which are made in the leave to defend application.
13. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is
therefore, dismissed with interim application, leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
JULY 15, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
KA
