Mrs. Indu Nagpal & Anr vs Mr. Surinder Mohan Bhandari
2014 Latest Caselaw 4297 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+             RC.REV. 295/2014 & C.M.Nos.14888/2014 (stay)
              &14889/2014 (Exemption)

                                                        09th September, 2014


MRS. INDU NAGPAL & ANR                                        ..... Petitioners
                          Through        Mr.Rishabh Sancheti with Ms.Padma
                                         Priya, Advocates.

                  versus
MR. SURINDER MOHAN BHANDARI                   ..... Respondent

Through Mr.Lalit Gupta with Mr.Ashish Kumar and Mr.Saharsh Bhall, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

Caveat No.779/2014

      Since    appearance    has    been     put   in   on   behalf    of    the

caveator/respondent, the caveat stands discharged.

RC.REV.No.295/2014

1. By means of this petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') the petitioners/tenants

challenge the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated

19.5.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave

to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenants in a bonafide necessity

eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the

Act.

2. The impugned judgment decrees the eviction petition with respect to

the suit/tenanted premises comprising of two rooms, one WC, one bathroom,

one kitchen and open varandah on the ground floor in the premises no.L-32,

Kalkaji, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the

eviction petition.

3. The bonafide necessity eviction petition was filed by the

respondent/landlord stating that he had with him only one bedroom, one

drawing-cum-dining room with amenities of kitchen, bathroom etc on the

ground floor and one store and a small toilet with an open varandah in the

premises on the first floor and the said accommodation is grossly

insufficient for the respondent/landlord because the respondent/landlord in

his family besides himself has one younger son aged 21 years, one another

elder married son and one married daughter aged 51 years. The

respondent/landlord further stated that since he required one room for

himself, one for his younger son, one for his grand son, one guest room and

one servant room because a servant is required who cannot be kept because

of paucity of space, besides the amenities of drawing-cum-dining room,

kitchen, bathroom etc., the respondent/landlord therefore was short of

accommodation because the requirement was of at least four bedrooms but

the respondent/landlord had only one bedroom, and hence the bonafide

necessity eviction petition.

4. The Additional Rent Controller by the impugned judgment has

decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition on account of the aforesaid

facts, and which facts/aspects are not disputed before this Court by the

petitioners/tenants, but, the dispute which is actually raised is that in 1997

the husband of the petitioner no.1 had agreed to purchase the suit property

by paying a sum of Rs.70,000/- out of the sale consideration of

Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent/landlord and consequently the petitioners are

entitled to leave to defend. This argument has been rejected by the

Additional Rent Controller by referring to the fact that no documents are filed

by the petitioners/tenants to show any validity with respect to the contentions.

The petitioners/tenants were disbelieved by the Additional Rent Controller qua

her/petitioner no.1's averment that she did not have even a copy of the

agreement to sell. To the conclusions of the Additional Rent Controller, I

would like to add that the averments with respect to the agreement to sell in

favour of the husband of the petitioner no.1 (respondent no.1 before the

Additional Rent Controller) are not only not supported by the main

document (agreement to sell), yet the petitioners/tenants could have at least

filed some proof to show that in fact consideration of Rs.70,000/- was paid

under the agreement to sell, however even with respect to the alleged

consideration of Rs.70,000/- being paid nothing has been filed. Also, it is

not believable that from 1997 when the agreement to sell was allegedly

entered into, till 2013 when the eviction petition was filed, no rights

pursuant to the agreement to sell would have been claimed either by the

husband of the petitioner no.1 or by the petitioner no.1 by seeking

enforcement of the agreement to sell in a court of law or on the basis of that

agreement to sell seeking mutation of the tenanted premises in the name of

the petitioners/tenants, and which admittedly have not been done.

5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition, and the

same is therefore dismissed with the costs of Rs.10,000/-. Payment of costs

shall be made by the petitioners to the respondent within a period of two

weeks from today.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J SEPTEMBER 09, 2014/KA