Delhi High Court
Amarjit Singh vs Ravinder Kumar Kandh on 29 January, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 43/2015
% Decided on: 29th January, 2015
AMARJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Khusbhir Singh, Ms. Guncha
Anand, Advs.
versus
RAVINDER KUMAR KANDH ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anil Sharma, Adv.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CAVEAT 43/2015
Learned counsel for the caveator enters appearance. Caveat is
discharged.
CM 1225/2015
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM 1226/2015
For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 10 days in
refilling the petition is condoned.
RC.REV. 43/2015 & CM 1224/2015 (stay)
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 30th October, 2014 whereby
the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner was dismissed 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 respondent pleaded that the respondent
was the owner of the properties bearing No. 8697, 8698, 8699, 8700 and
8702 at Mohalla Bhar Garh, Near Palace Cinema, Gali SBI, Roshanara
Road, Delhi which were merged together as one property and the total area
of the five properties was approximately 90 sq.yds. In the said suit property
one room on the ground floor of property No.8700 was given on tenancy to
the mother of petitioner Smt. Davinder Kaur. On her death the tenanted
premises devolved on her husband and thereafter on her husband's death on
the petitioner herein. The brothers of the petitioner shifted from the tenanted
premises during life time of their mother who were also impleaded as
respondents No.2 to 4 in the eviction petition. The respondent/eviction
petitioner stated that his family consisted of his wife, two sons of
marriageable age and two married daughters. The younger son was doing
engineering whereas the elder has completed the same. The respondent is in
possession of first floor and second floor of the suit property comprising of
one bed room, one kitchen, one drawing room and one dining room on the
first floor and one room, bathroom, open terrace and one dilapidated room
on the second floor which is used for store and washing of the clothes. The
wife of the respondent is suffering from spinal problem and the Doctors have
advised her not to climb stairs. Therefore one room is required on the
ground floor for the wife and the other room for converting the same into
kitchen. Further the respondent was also suffering from arthritis and thus it
was difficult for him to climb the stairs. Thus since both the respondent and
his wife would be living on the ground floor they would also need space for
bathroom for themselves. It is stated that the respondent also requires a
guest room for the married daughters when they come and one room for
pooja. Further one room was being used as garage, the other for store to
keep household articles. Since sons of the respondent are of marriageable
age they would also need independent rooms for their personal needs.
3. The petitioner filed leave to defend application wherein he pleaded
that the respondent had not disclosed the existence of Will in his favour, that
additional accommodation was available at Shastri Nagar and a DDA Flat at
Rohini and that the respondent and his dependents were in occupation of
three rooms, kitchen with WC on the first floor, three rooms and WC on the
second floor and an open terrace which was sufficient accommodation for
the respondent and his family members to live comfortably and that one
room of premises 8698 was lying vacant on the ground floor. Thus the
entire thrust in the leave to defend application was on sufficient
accommodation available with the respondent and thus there was no bona-
fide requirement.
4. The petitioner placed no material before the learned ARC to show that
the respondent had additional accommodation at Shastri Nagar and DDA
Flat at Rohini nor gave details of the said properties and in the reply to the
leave to defend application, the respondent denied that he had alternate
accommodation at Shastri Nagar or DDA Flat at Rohini. Without any
particulars having been given this plea could not have been taken any
further.
5. As regards the available accommodation, the respondent placed on
record a site plan. The respondent has explained that the vacant place
available at premises 8698 on the ground floor was being used as a garage
and the other as a store room and to park the motorcycle of his son. No
counter site plan has been filed by the petitioner. From the site plan filed by
the respondent it was clear that the accommodation on the first floor and the
second floor was not sufficient for the respondent, his wife, two
marriageable sons, guest and the married daughters.
6. This Court in Harish Kumar & Ors. Vs. Manmohan 2012 V AD
(Delhi) 450 held that a mere bald assertion by the tenant that the landlord has
in his possession number of rooms without any document to substantiate the
same cannot in any manner raise a triable issue. In Ramesh Chand Vs.
Uganti Devi 157 (2009) DLT 405 this Court held that if a tenant alleges that
landlord has at its disposal other accommodation he has to place before
learned ARC some material to show that the landlord has a specific alternate
accommodation at his disposal. Mere bald allegations with respect to
availability of additional accommodation with the eviction petitioner do not
hold any basis and cannot be the reason to deny the petitioner of his right to
get vacated the tenanted premises for his bona-fide requirement.
7. In view of the medical records placed on record and the ailment of the
respondent and his wife and the advice of the Doctor not to climb the stairs
and from the material on record it was evident that the respondent needed
space on the ground floor and hence the decision of the learned ARC
declining to grant leave to defend and directing the petitioners to vacate the
premises cannot be stated to be a view which was not plausible or suffer
from any illegality.
8. Petition and application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2015
'ga'
