Delhi High Court
Smt. Draupadi Devi (Deceased Thr. ... vs Gulshan Kumar Anand on 9 September, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.C.Rev. No. 199/2014
% 9th September, 2014
SMT. DRAUPADI DEVI (DECEASED THR. LRS.) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.R.Mehta, Adv.
VERSUS
GULSHAN KUMAR ANAND ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. J.S.Bakshi and Mr. A.S.Bakshi
and Ms. Ankush Sharma, Adv.
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 25-B(8)
of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act') impugning the
judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 9.12.2013 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 being a shop on the ground floor of property bearing no. 39/2988,
Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi (as shown in red colour in the site plan
annexed with the eviction petition).
RCR 199/2014 Page 1 of 6
2. Respondent/landlord is admittedly the owner/landlord of the
premises and this issue is not disputed as noted in para 9 of the impugned
judgment. The issues are as to whether the need of the respondent/landlord
is bonafide and whether the respondent/landlord has any other alternative
suitable premises for carrying on business.
3(i) As per the admitted facts which emerge on record the
respondent/landlord is presently carrying on his jewellery business from the
side lane of the suit premises and which side lane has been found to be
inconvenient for opening of a showroom of jewellery and for which shops
on the main road are more suitable. This aspect is noted in para 10 of the
impugned judgment and the Additional Rent Controller has placed reliance
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Viran Wali Vs. Kuldeep Rai
Kochhar 174 (2010) DLT 328.
(ii) In addition to the reasoning and conclusion of the Additional
Rent Controller, I would like to refer to the recent judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja in Civil Appeal
No.5513/2014, decided on 8.5.2014: 210 (2014) DLT 58 (SC) wherein the
Supreme Court has said that tenants cannot dictate to the landlords once the
landlords want to carry out business from a less advantageous location to a
RCR 199/2014 Page 2 of 6
better location on the main road. Therefore, once the requirement is of a
showroom of jewellery, the alternative premises on side lane is not a suitable
alternative premises.
4. So far as the issue of bonafide need is concerned, the
respondent/landlord stated that all the three shops on the front portion of the
premises are very small shops and it is only on combining of the three small
shops that a jewellery showroom can be opened. He has stated that with
respect to one tenanted shop there is already an eviction order and with
respect to another shop the tenant has agreed to shift to the first floor once
the suit/tenanted premises are vacated by the present petitioner/tenant. A
reference to the photographs filed of the other two shops, the same show that
they are extremely small shops of about 7ft X12 ½ ft, and therefore, it is
only on combining of the three shops that the jewellery showroom can be
opened in the front portion of the property situated on the main road. The
respondent/landlord has rightly put forth a case that he will in fact combine
the shop on the side lane with the shops on the main road for carrying on the
jewellery business.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted this Court to take
note of various facts as stated in a fresh application filed in this Court being
RCR 199/2014 Page 3 of 6
CM No. 14940/14, however, it is now settled law that whatever facts which
have happened prior to the expiry of 15 days statutory period for filing of the
leave to defend application must be stated in the leave to defend application
and it is not permissible after the 15 days statutory period to file additional
affidavits or documents or to amend leave to defend application to add new
facts, affidavits and documents. This is because of the ratio of the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead)
through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 wherein the Supreme Court has held that
there cannot be condonation of delay of even one day beyond the statutory
period of 15 days for filing of the leave to defend application ie effectively
the Supreme Court holds that after the period of 15 days nothing can be
added or subtracted to a leave to defend application. This has accordingly
been so held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Madhu
Gupta vs. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. 184 (2011) DLT 103 relying upon the
ratio in the case of Prithipal Singh (supra). The facts in CM No. 14940/14
pertain only to the facts and circumstances which have happened prior to the
expiry of 15 days period for filing of the leave to defend application and thus
they cannot be considered by this Court and the application being CM
14940/14 is accordingly rejected.
RCR 199/2014 Page 4 of 6
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner then sought to argue that the
respondent/landlord has been letting out the shops in front portion of the
premises, however, a reading of the leave to defend application shows that
letting out which is mentioned of the shops is of the year 2002 whereas the
eviction petition is filed in the year 2009. Therefore, letting out of shops
prior to seven years before filing of the eviction petition cannot mean that
eviction petition is not bonafide and that a premises let out 7 years before
filing of the eviction petition can be treated as an alternative suitable
accommodation.
7. In sum and substance the case is that the respondent/landlord is
in bonafide need of the tenanted shop with two other shops for shifting his
business from the side lane and which premises are not suitable premises for
carrying on business of showroom of jewellery and therefore three shops
including tenanted shop in the front portion of the premises which is on the
main road, are required. Therefore, the eviction petition filed was justified
for bonafide necessity and Additional Rent Controller has rightly dismissed
the leave to defend application.
RCR 199/2014 Page 5 of 6
8. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and
therefore the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
