Delhi High Court
Kishori Lal vs Ram Saran on 22 July, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC REV No. 313/2011 and C.M. No.15149/2011
% 22nd July, 2014
KISHORI LAL ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.D. Sharma, Advocate with Mr.
Rajat Sharma, Advocate and Mr.
Chetan Sharma, Advocate.
VERSUS
RAM SARAN ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.L. Vashistha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugns the judgment of the
Additional Rent Controller dated 9.5.2011 by which leave to defend
application filed by the petitioner/tenant has been rejected and the eviction
petition has been decreed.
2. Eviction petition was filed with respect to one shop on the
ground floor of the property bearing no.102, Village Ghondali, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi. Respondent/landlord stated that he was a driver in DTC and
RC REV No.313/2011 Page 1 of 5
he has retired and he needs the suit premises for doing business by himself
and/or his sons Sh. Shakti and Sh. Pintoo whose financial position is not
good.
3. On behalf of the petitioner, leave to defend was prayed for on
two main counts. Firstly, it was stated that the son of the petitioner Sh.
Shakti is doing the business of property dealing in Krishna Nagar and
therefore the need of Sh. Shakti cannot be considered. The second aspect
which was urged was that there are a total of six godowns and one shop in
the property in question on the ground floor and three godowns/shops on the
ground floor are lying vacant which are alternative suitable accommodation
to the respondent/landlord.
4. The aforesaid two points which were emphatically canvassed
before this Court also on behalf of the petitioner/tenant have no substance
and are rejected for the reasons stated hereinafter.
5. So far as the aspect that one son of the respondent/landlord Sh.
Shakti is carrying on the business of property dealing in a self-owned shop
in Krishna Nagar is concerned, the Additional Rent Controller has rightly
rejected this argument because the address of the shop and the details of the
shop are not provided. In my opinion, the averment of alternative
accommodation must be specific with respect to a property number because
RC REV No.313/2011 Page 2 of 5
it is very easy otherwise for a tenant to make self-serving averment and
claim that there arises a triable issue on that basis. In my opinion, this sort
of stand on behalf of the tenant giving a vague averment without providing
details of the address of the alleged shop of one son Sh. Shakti is without
any substance and was accordingly rightly rejected by the Additional Rent
Controller and is also rejected by this Court.
6. I would also like to observe that even if one son Sh. Shakti is
carrying on business in Krishna Nagar that would be irrelevant to the fact of
bonafide necessity of the landlord/respondent himself who says that he
wants to carry out the business in the said shop after his retirement from
DTC. The respondent/landlord has also pleaded bonafide necessity of his
other son Pintoo. Therefore, even assuming the other son Sh. Shakti has a
shop in Krishna Nagar bonafide need will exist so far as respondent/landlord
and his other son Sh. Pintoo.
7. The second argument which was urged before this Court was
that the respondent has three godowns in the same premises which are
vacant and which are alternative suitable accommodation. In this regard, in
the reply given to the application for leave to defend, the
respondent/landlord has stated that out of the six godowns, two godowns are
with Shiv Tent House, two godowns are with Khurana Tent House and the
RC REV No.313/2011 Page 3 of 5
remaining two godowns are with Sudhanshu Tent House and Regal Tent
House each. Therefore, the respondent/landlord has given the particulars of
tenants with respect to each of the godowns, and therefore such godowns
cannot be said to be alternative suitable accommodation because three of
them are not lying vacant as is being urged before this Court.
8. The Additional Rent Controller has rightly noted that once the
respondent/landlord filed reply to the leave to defend application giving
details of tenants in three godowns, petitioner/tenant was bound to file a
rejoinder denying this aspect but the petitioner/tenant did not file any
rejoinder. The Additional Rent Controller therefore held that there was no
triable issue because there are no vacant godowns in the premises in which
the suit shop is located.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally sought to argue that
the respondent/landlord should have given details of all the godowns with
him, however, I do not agree with this argument because in an eviction
petition, the landlord has only to state that how he has no other alternative
suitable accommodation and he need not give details of each and every
property belonging to him. Whether or not a particular property as stated in
the leave to defend application is an alternative accommodation will and can
be dealt with by the landlord while filing reply to the leave to defend
RC REV No.313/2011 Page 4 of 5
application and which was done in this case and as noted by the Additional
Rent Controller, the petitioner/tenant did not file any rejoinder to contest his
position.
10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition, and
the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JULY 22, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
