Gulab Singh vs Sher Singh
2015 Latest Caselaw 3583 Del

$
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         RC.REV. 353/2012
%                                          Decided on: 5th May, 2015
       GULAB SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate with
                                       Petitioner in person.
                          versus

       SHER SINGH                                       ..... Respondent

                          Through:     Mr. Kunal Yadav, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL)

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10th April, 2012, rejecting the leave to defend application of the Petitioner in an eviction petition filed by the Respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short „the DRC Act‟) the Petitioner prefers the present petition.

2. An eviction petition being E-201/2011 was filed by Sher Singh seeking eviction of the tenanted premises, that is, a shop admeasuring 8 ft. x 9 ft. on the ground floor forming part of the suit property No.1/46, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 which was let out to Gulab Singh, the Petitioner herein. The tenanted shop was let out in the year 1987 at a monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month excluding electricity charges which were increased to Rs.880/- per month. The tenanted shop was required bona fidely by Sher Singh for the purpose of opening a physiotherapy clinic for his daughter who was dependent on him. It was stated that in the suit

property one middle shop was with Sher Singh, the other shop was with Petitioner and the third shop was with the other tenant M.K. Gupta who was running a coaching centre which tenancy was renewed from time to time.

3. In the leave to defend application Gulab Singh took the plea that Sher Singh was not the absolute owner of the tenanted shop. Gulab Singh had not accepted him as the landlord. Sher Singh concealed the fact that he owns one more property bearing No. 1/30, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi admeasuring 65 sq. yards which was built upto five storey and each floor comprised of various large cabins/spaces which were lying vacant. Even in the suit property, that is, 1/46, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar there was enough accommodation to satisfy the requirements of Sher Singh. Further no shop was in possession of Sher Singh and in fact the other two shops were in possession of M.K. Gupta and in one shop he was running a coaching institute and in the other he had opened the office. The projected need of Sher Singh was not bona fide.

4. In the reply to the leave to defend application it was stated that Gulab Singh attorned Sher Singh as landlord and paid rent to him, thus he cannot deny his status as the owner/landlord and absolute ownership is not required to be proved by Sher Singh. The remaining portion of the suit property was residential in nature and cannot be used for the purpose of running the clinic.

5. On the basis of the material placed, the learned ARC came to the conclusion that no triable issue was raised, the need of the landlord being bona fide and there being no alternate accommodation as Sher Singh denied being the owner of the property 1/30, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar and no

counter documents were filed by Gulab Singh, leave to defend application was dismissed and the eviction order was passed.

6. However, the material part of the plea taken by Gulab Singh in the additional affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit was ignored by the learned Trial Court. The learned ARC held that the additional affidavit and the rejoinder affidavit could not be looked into as they were filed beyond 15 days and there was no provision to condone the delay in filing the affidavit. By way of an application under Section 151 CPC along with an affidavit Gulab Singh had pointed out that after the filing of the leave to defend application on 20th January, 2010 the marriage of the daughter of Sher Singh, Ms. Rupali had been ceremonised and she was living at her matrimonial home at Chandigarh, thus she cannot run a physiotherapy clinic from the tenanted premises. By way of rejoinder affidavit the Petitioner Gulab Singh pointed out that after the filing of the leave to defend application M.K. Gupta, the tenant in the other shops has vacated the same and thereafter Sher Singh let out the one shop to one Shri Dharmender Gupta who was running a coaching classes over there in the name of "Dharmender Gupta Coaching Classes" and the other shop was still lying vacant and under exclusive possession of the Sher Singh.

7. The sole issue for consideration before this Court is whether these subsequent events could be considered by the learned Trial Court or not.

8. The Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through its LRs, 2010 (2) SCC 15 laid down that the time period of 15 days in filing the leave to defend application cannot be extended. It is thus settled that in case additional pleas are permitted to be taken later on the same would

amount to extending the time for vacation of the premises which is impermissible. However, the legal position with regard to events which have transpired after the leave to defend application has been filed, that is, subsequent event is different. If the tenant by way of additional affidavit brings to the notice of the Court subsequent events, that is, events which have transpired after the filing of the leave to defend application and not the once which transpired prior to the leave to defend application but came to the knowledge of the tenant after the filing of the leave to defend application, the Court is bound to consider the same.

9. In Hasmat Rai and another vs. Raghunath Prasad, AIR 1981 SC 1711 the Supreme Court laid down that where possession is sought for personal requirement, the requirement pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action but must subsist till the final decree or the order for eviction is passed. If in the meantime, events have cropped up which would show that the landlord‟s requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as the decree or order for eviction is passed against the tenant, he cannot invite the Court to take into consideration subsequent events.

10. In the light of the legal position noted above the facts brought out by the Petitioner, that is, the vacation of the shops by M.K. Gupta which was again let out to Dharmender Gupta and the daughter of the Petitioner having got married at Chandigarh are required to be considered.

11. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside.

12. Leave to defend is granted to Gulab Singh. Written statement be filed within four weeks. Replication be filed within four weeks thereafter. The parties will appear before the learned ARC on 9th July, 2015.

13. Petition is disposed of.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MAY 05, 2015 'vn'