Rani vs Somnath
2014 Latest Caselaw 5602 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       RC.REV.No.60/2013 and C.M. Nos.2522/2013 & 16795/2013

%                                                    10th November, 2014

RANI                                                          ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocate.


                          VERSUS


SOMNATH                                                       ...... Respondent

                          Through:       Mr. Rahul Thukral, proxy counsel.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8)

of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by

the petitioner/tenant impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent

Controller dated 11.1.2013 by which the Additional Rent Controller has

dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner/tenant and

has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section

14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted premises comprising of one

room admeasuring 8.7' X 6.6' in the property bearing no.B-21, Vikram

Nagar, Kotla Feroz Shah, New Delhi. I may note that statutorily only six

months is granted to a tenant to vacate the premises after passing of the

eviction order on the ground of bonafide necessity and since the impugned

judgment was passed on 11.1.2013, the period for vacating the suit premises

expired long back on 11.7.2013. Petitioner however continues to stay in the

premises because of an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of

this Court on 3.7.2013.

2. The bonafide necessity eviction petition was filed by the

respondent/landlord stating that he is residing alongwith his son Sh. Praveen

Kumar Seth in the same property bearing no.B-21. The family of Sh.

Praveen Kumar Seth comprises of Sh. Praveen Seth, his wife, one son and

two daughters out of which one is married. The son of Sh. Praveen Kumar

Seth is said to be of a marriageable age. The other son of the

respondent/landlord i.e Sh. Bhisam Seth has retired from the ordinance

factory at Murad Nagar on 31.8.2011 and requirement for Sh. Bhisam Seth

and his family is pleaded which comprises of Sh. Bhisam Seth, his wife and

his widowed daughter-in-law and two children from the widowed daughter-

in-law. Therefore, as per the eviction petition, bonafide necessity is pleaded

to exist for the respondent, his son Sh. Praveen Kumar Seth with his wife,

one son Sh. Aman, one married daughter and one unmarried daughter Ms.

Purnima and Ms. Divya respectively, his other son Bhisam Seth with his

wife, his widowed daughter-in-law, and two children of the widowed

daughter-in-law. Therefore, the family of the respondent comprises of nine

adults and two children being the grand children of the respondent/landlord

and the children of the deceased son of Sh. Bhisam Seth. The respondent

will therefore require one bedroom for himself, one bedroom for Sh. Praveen

Kumar Seth and his wife, one bedroom for Sh. Aman (son of Sh. Praveen

Kumar Seth) of marriageable age, one bedroom for the unmarried daughter

of Sh. Praveen Seth, one bedroom for the married daughter of Sh. Praveen

Seth i.e as a guest room, one bedroom for Sh. Bhisam Seth and his wife, one

bedroom for the widowed daughter-in-law of Sh. Bhisam Seth and one

bedroom for the two children of the widowed daughter-in-law. Therefore, a

total of eight rooms are required besides the requirement of living-cum-

dining room and other amenities of kitchen, bathrooms etc. The petitioner

has opposed to his requirement of eight rooms, as even the respondent has a

total of four rooms i.e two rooms in property no.B-21 and two rooms in

property no.B-22.

3. Before me, on behalf of the petitioner the following grounds are

urged for allowing of the petition and grant of leave to defend:-

(i) Respondent is not staying in the property no.B-21 and is living with

his daughters.

(ii) Sh. Aman who is the grandson of the respondent (son of Sh. Praveen

Kumar Seth) is living in Gurgaon and working in Gurgaon and therefore

there is no requirement for Sh. Aman.

(iii) The second son Sh. Bhisam Seth is having his own house at Murad

Nagar and does not intend to shift to Delhi.

4 (i) For the sake of argument, let me assume that Sh. Aman, the

grandson of the respondent is living separately but that will at best take away

requirement of one bedroom i.e instead of eight bedrooms, seven bedrooms

will be required.

(ii) The issue then arises is whether the respondent requires the

accommodation for his son Sh. Bhisam Seth and the family of Sh. Bhisam

Seth.

(iii) Another issue, of course is also as to whether the

respondent/landlord is not residing in property no.B-21 as is argued by the

petitioner.

5. So far as the aspect that the respondent/landlord is not living in

property no.B-21 but is living with his daughters is concerned, even if I

accept this argument as correct, the same cannot mean that the

respondent/landlord is not entitled to one bedroom in his own house,

because, admittedly the respondent/landlord will have no legal right to stay

in an accommodation with the daughters. In law, once there is no right to

stay in the premises where the landlord is staying, such a premises cannot

said to be an alternative suitable accommodation for being considered by the

court at the time of granting leave to defend. This argument of the petitioner

is therefore rejected.

6. The only other argument is as to whether Sh. Bhisam Seth with

his family members is residing in his own house at Murad Nagar and does

not intend to shift to Delhi. In this regard, when we see the pleadings in the

leave to defend application, it is found that the petitioner impliedly admits

that the house in which Sh. Bhisam Seth is living in Murad Nagar is of the

Government i.e of the ordinance factory where Bhisam Seth was working.

This becomes clear from a holistic reading of the leave to defend application

inasmuch as the residence provided by the ordinance factory is admitted and

no particulars have been given as to which is the alleged house at Murad

Nagar which is owned by Sh. Bhisam Seth. Self-serving bald averments

cannot create grounds for grant of leave to defend. I therefore reject the

argument that the son Sh. Bhisam Seth has his own house in Murad Nagar

and he does not intend to shift to Delhi.

7. In view of the aforesaid position which arises out of the pleadings

on record, it is clear that at best instead of eight rooms, seven rooms will be

required by the respondent/landlord, and even as per the case of the

petitioner, the respondent/landlord however only has four rooms i.e three

rooms are short for the respondent and his family members which are not

available and hence the bonafide necessity eviction petition is justified.

8. No other issue or argument is urged before this Court which will

in any manner affect the aforesaid conclusions arrived at by this Court. It

may be noted that counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the relationship

of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the respondent is the

owner of the suit/tenanted premises.

9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 10, 2014 Ne