Sheikh Shah Alam vs Kabul Singh
2014 Latest Caselaw 2770 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                Date of Decision: 28.05.2014
+      RC.REV. 447/2013 & CM Nos. 19299 & 19300 of 2013
       SHEIKH SHAH ALAM                                      ..... Petitioner
                    Through:            Mr. Anzar Hussain, Advocate

                          Versus

       KABUL SINGH                                        ..... Respondent

                Through:         Mr. Anil Sharma with Mr. Gurpreet Singh,
                                 Proxy counsel for Caveator/respondent

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

%      MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)

1. After having heard counsel for the parties, this Court started dictating

an order and indicated that it was inclined to dismiss the case. However,

counsel for the petitioner sought some time to obtain instructions about

whether he would like an order to be passed on merits or whether some

additional time could be granted for vacation of the premises. Accordingly,

the case was passed over. When the matter was called out second time, the

counsel did not turn up. Now, the proxy counsel seeks an adjournment.

Clearly there is an attempt to delay the pronouncement of an order in the

case. Hence, the case is being dealt with on its merits.

2. This petition impugns an order of 08.10.2013 which rejected the

petitioner‟s/tenant‟s application for leave to defend. In the

respondent‟s/landlord‟s eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958 („the Act‟ for short), an eviction order has been

issued against the tenant with respect to the tenanted premises i.e. property

bearing No. N-26, Mahindra Park, near H-4/1636, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.

3. The case of the landlord in the eviction petition was that he had a

large family comprising of himself, his wife, a married son and his wife and

two granddaughters aged four and two years; his married daughter would

often visit him with her two children. Furthermore, his two brothers and two

sisters also would visit him with their respective families. That the

accommodation available to him at his residence D-152, Pitampura, Delhi

was woefully insufficient as it comprised only one drawing room, kitchen on

the ground floor and there is one drawing room, one bedroom and kitchen

on the first floor; that this accommodation was not only woefully

insufficient but he being an asthmatic patient had been advised not to climb

stairs. That his requirement for additional accommodation was most

essential for himself and his immediate family members and guests along

with a room in which he could offer prayers. Also the accommodation had

to be in accordance with his social status. Therefore, tenanted premises,

having eight rooms, was most suitable for his needs.

4. The tenant sought to contest the eviction petition on the grounds (i)

that the eviction petitioner had deliberately and incorrectly described the

property as N-26, Mahindra Park, Delhi, near H-4/1636, Jahangir Puri,

Delhi, whereas the tenant was actually occupying property No. H-4/1636-

1640, Jahangir Puri, Delhi; and (ii) that the eviction petitioner was residing

comfortably at property No. D-152, Pitampura, Delhi on a plot area

admeasuring 80 square meters, built up from ground floor to first floor and

comprising six bedrooms in total.

5. The Trial Court taken into consideration the fact that a recovery suit

for payment of arrears of rent had been decreed in favour of the eviction-

petitioner on 05.02.2010. In the suit, Sheikh Saha Alam, the tenant, had

admitted on 27.02.2009 that the plaintiff i.e. the eviction petitioner had

inducted him as a tenant. Therefore, the issue of landlord and tenant

relationship was duly settled. In any case, the bar under Section 116 of the

Indian Evidence Act would come into operation against the tenant. The

Court further reasoned that the controversy regarding the correct address i.e.

whether it was N-26, Mahindra Park, Delhi or H-4/1636-1640, Jahangir

Puri, Delhi was meaningless. The Trial Court took note that the ownership

of the plaintiff over property No. N-26 had already been dealt with by the

Civil Court with respect to the sale deed dated 08.03.1972 in favour of the

plaintiff/eviction petitioner. The deposition of Sheikh Saha Alam on

18.03.2008 as DW-1 in the aforesaid suit, mentioned the tenanted address as

N-28, Mahindra Park, Delhi, near H-4/1636. He also deposed that his wife

had filed the Written Statement and had given the residential address as

mentioned in the memo of parties in the suit. The eviction-petitioner never

claimed ownership of property No. H-4/1636-1640. He had only sought

eviction apropos property identified by "Municipal No. N-26, Mahindra

Park, near H-4/1636, Jahangir Puri, Delhi". Therefore, the tenant‟s

contention in this regard was rejected. No other issue was raised by the

tenant in support of his application seeking leave to defend. The contention

that the landlord had sufficient accommodation at D-152, Pitampura, Delhi

was a bald statement unsupported by any ex-facie material. In the

circumstance, the Trial Court rightly rejected the application for leave to

defend since it did not disclose any triable issue.

6. This Court is of the view that the eviction petitioner had sufficiently

established that he was owner of the premises; there was a decree in his

favour; the tenanted premises were duly identified; the tenant-landlord

relationship was established; the need of the landlord too was duly

established by the fact that he had a large family and would require at least

one room each for himself and his wife, for his son and his family, for his

visiting daughter, and the grandchildren, a pooja room and a room for guests

and otherwise an accommodation commensurate with his social status. In

contrast, the tenant was unable to show any ground which would be a valid

objection in the passing of the eviction order such as the availability of

sufficient alternate accommodation.

7. No case has been made out for interfering with the impugned order.

The reasons for and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are based

upon the record. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) MAY 28, 2014/acm