Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar @ Satish Singh vs Laxmi Chand Jain And Ors on 29 January, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 171/2012 & CMs. 7225/2012 & 7227/2012
% Decided on: 29th January, 2015
SATISH KUMAR @ SATISH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Adv.
versus
LAXMI CHAND JAIN AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sanjay Dua and Mr. Uday Joshi,
Advs.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order dated 18 th November,
2011 whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner was declined
in an eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the DRC Act).
2. In the eviction petition the respondents herein i.e. respondent No.1
Laxmi Chand Jain, respondent No.2 Laxmi Chand Jain & Sons HUF and
respondent No.3 Suresh Chand Jain pleaded that petitioner No.1 and 3 are
brothers and owners of the suit property bearing No. 4262/2 Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi which devolved on them on the demise of their
father Shri Amir Chand Jain and their mother Smt. Premwati. In 1987 an
oral partition took place between Laxmi Chand Jain and Suresh Chand Jain
and the property was divided into two portions. This oral partition was
subsequently reduced into writing by a deed of partition dated 20 th July,
1994. However since the said deed was lost the same was again re-written
on 11th March, 1997. Thus half the portion of the suit premises wherein the
tenanted shop is situated vested in petitioner Laxmi Chand Jain who is the
respondent herein.The tenanted premises consists of one shop which was let
out to Surjeet Singh. After the death of Surjeet Singh, the petitioner herein
i.e. Satish Kumar occupied the premises as he was working with him as a
servant. Surjeet Singh left no legal heir as he was unmarried.. Thus, the
petitioner herein remained in illegal possession and was served with a notice
by the respondent No.1 herein on 9th February, 2006. It is further stated that
the respondent's son Dr. Mukul Jain is running a clinic which is on the three
side of the tenanted premises. After the partition the respondent Laxmi
Chand Jain came to own one shop No. 367, Naya Katra, Chandni Chowk and
three small shops on the first floor of Shop No.312, Naya Katra, Chandni
Chowk measuring less than 100 sq.ft. Besides on the second floor there are
three shops which are all tenanted and all shops have a low roof of about 7
feet. Laxmi Chand Jain runs his business as cloth merchant from his shop
bearing No.367, Naya Katra, Chandni Chowk, Delhi as the sole proprietor in
the name and style of 'Amar Chand Laxmi Chand Jain & Sons' for which
purpose he has to travel daily from his residence, at Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj which is on the first floor of the suit premises, to Chandni Chowk.
Respondent No.1 Laxmi Chand Jain aged 69 years of age is suffering from
old age ailments and has developed acute back and knee pain besides high
blood pressure and epilepsy. For the knee pain he has been advised knee
transplant and has been asked to avoid squatting or sitting cross legged on
the floor. The shop at Chandni Chowk can be run only by sitting on the
gaddi on the floor and thus the respondent No.1 is facing serious problems
and needs a shop on the ground floor to carry out his business. The site plan
of the suit premises wherein the tenanted premises was situated was duly
filed. The same shows that the suit property has been given numbers 4244 to
4251 Prem Bhawan, Darya Ganj admeasuring a total of 270 sq.yds. The
first floor and the second floor are being used by the respondent No.1 and his
brother for residential purposes.
3. In the leave to defend application the grounds taken are that the son of
the respondent Dr. Mukul Jain was running his Dental clinic from Vasant
Vihar and his other son Rajneesh Jain was running garments business from
some other place. It is further stated that behind the tenanted premises there
is sufficient place on the ground floor of the property and thus the tenanted
premises was not required bona-fidely.
4. The respondent in the reply to leave to defend application has placed
on record the partition deed by virtue of which the back portion of the
ground floor as stated in the leave to defend application has fallen in the
share of respondent No.3 i.e. brother of respondent No.1. Copy of the
eviction petition has also been placed on record wherein the back portion of
the ground floor premises has been directed to be vacated. The said petition
was filed by Nikhil Jain and Manoj Kumar Jain sons of Suresh Kumar Jain,
nephews of respondent No.1. From the documents on record it was clear
that an alternate accommodation which was alleged to be available to the
respondent No.1 Laxmi Chand Jain, was not available to him but was in fact
with the nephews of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has placed on
record photographs and postal envelops to demonstrate that his son Dr.
Mukul Jain was running a dental clinic from the ground floor of the suit
premises which encloses the tenanted premises in a 'U' shape.
5. The learned ARC considered all the pleas and came to the conclusion
that the petitioner herein has not denied the ailment suffered by the
respondent No.1 and that in the shop at Chandni Chowk he has to sit on the
floor on gaddi, thus aggravating his ailment. The Court noted that Dr.
Mukul Jain was running a dental clinic from the shops bearing No. 4244/2,
4545/2 and 4247/2 of the suit premises at Ansari Road, Darya Ganj has been
demonstrated and thus even if he was running another clinic at Vasant Vihar
the same was immaterial. As regards the alternative accommodation at the
backside of the suit premises, the learned ARC looked into the partition deed
as per which the rear portion fell to the share of respondent no.3 herein and
not respondent No.1. Thus there being no suitable accommodation available
and the tenanted premises being bona-fidely required, the learned ARC came
to the conclusion that the leave to defend did not raise any triable issues.
6. The main plea of the petitioner before this Court is with respect to the
subsequent event i.e. back portion of the ground floor premises being
available. In Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 , the
Supreme Court after reviewing its earlier judgments on the requirement to
consider subsequent events in an eviction petition seeking eviction on the
ground of bona-fide requirement held that the Courts must only take
'cautious cognizance' of subsequent events and unless and until subsequent
events totally extinguish and demolish the bona-fide necessity, the eviction
petition on the grounds of bona-fide requirement would subsist.
7. The fact in relation to the availability of the back portion in the suit
premises was considered by the learned ARC. It noted that the said portion
fell in the share of respondent No.3 and not respondent no.1 as per the
partition deed. The respondent No.1 has placed on record the copy of the
order dated 20th August, 2011 wherein the rear portion of the suit premises
was directed to be evicted. The said petition was filed by Nikhil Jain and
Manoj Kumar Jain both sons of Suresh Chand Jain i.e. respondent No.3 and
not respondent No.1. The same further fortifies the stand of respondent No.1
that the back portion of the suit had fallen to the share of respondent No.3 as
per the partition deed which fact has been duly considered by the learned
ARC.
8. In view of the facts noted above, it is apparent that the respondent
No.1 has been able to show the landlord tenant relationship between the
parties, requirement of the tenanted premises is bona-fide and that he has no
other suitable accommodation. Hence, the view taken by the learned ARC is
a plausible view and warrants no interference by this Court in the present
petition.
9. Petition and applications are accordingly dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2015
'ga'
