Inder Kumar Lamba vs Veena Sethi & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8751 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Decided on: 24th November, 2015
+       RC.REV. 264/2014 & CM APPL.12884/2014
        INDER KUMAR LAMBA                       ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Ajay Malhotra, Advocate with
                         Ms. Hema Arora, Advocate

                                versus
        VEENA SETHI & ORS                   ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate with
                          Ms. Anjali Chopra, Advocate


+       RC.REV. 265/2014 & CM APPL.12886/2014 (stay)
        INDER KUMAR LAMBA                       ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Ajay Malhotra, Advocate with
                         Ms. Hema Arora, Advocate

                                versus

        ABHISHEK PAHWA & ORS              ..... Respondents
                Through: Mr. P.K. Rawal, Advocate with
                         Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Advocate.


+       RC.REV. 266/2014 & CM APPL.12894/2014 (stay)

        INDER KUMAR LAMBA                                         ..... Petitioner

                        Through:         Mr. Ajay Malhotra, Advocate with
                                         Ms. Hema Arora, Advocate


                                versus



RC. Rev. No.264/2014, 265/2014 & 266/2014                 Page 1 of 7
     ANIL KUMAR CHHABRA                       ..... Respondent
             Through: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate with
                      Ms. Anjali Chopra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI


V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. These are three revision petitions filed by the common petitioner-

landlord against the three tenants in respect of three different shops

bearing Nos. 1,2 and 3 part of the premises No.3-10, Model Town,

Delhi.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also

gone through the record.

3. The petitioner-landlord in the instant case had sought an eviction of

three different tenants in respect of three shops which were under

the tenancies of three tenants by stating that he needs the shops for

the purpose of settling his three adults sons, who were married and

having children. It has been stated by the eldest son is 49 years of

age having two-three children and similar is the case with the other

two sons. It has been alleged that the three sons of the petitioner

are dependent on him both financially as well as for the purpose of

accommodation. Presently, it has been stated that the petitioner

who is suffering from 50% disability is in the business of

manufacturing auto parts in which three sons are helping him. The

petitioner has alleged that he has no other alternative suitable

accommodation available to him where he could settle his three

sons.

4. The respondents-tenants individually filed their three separate

leave to defend applications and in all the three applications, the

tenants had taken the plea that the petitioner has been guilty of

concealment of vital information from the Court. He had an

alternative suitable accommodation available to him in the shape of

a plot in Bawana which is an industrial area which has not been

disclosed wherefrom the sons of the petitioner could run business.

5. The petitioner in his reply to the leave to defend application has

stated that so far as the finance is concerned, the wives of the sons

of the petitioner or the daughter-in-law of the petitioner are doing

tuition business. So far as the industrial plot in Bawana is

concerned, that cannot be considered to be an alternative suitable

accommodation available to him as it is yet to be built and in any

case this plot of land is a leasehold plot of land wherefrom business

cannot be run by the sons of the petitioner.

6. The learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) after hearing the

arguments has granted leave to defend to all the respondents-

tenants essentially on the ground that the petitioner has been found

to be guilty of concealment of vital information from the court with

regard to the industrial plot in Bawana.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as gone

through the impugned order.

8. I find myself in agreement with the learned ARC with regard to

appreciation of facts that a person who seeks eviction of a tenant

must come to the Court with clean hands and give the complete

information. The accommodation which is available with him must

be disclosed and thereafter it may also be disclosed by him as to

whether that accommodation which is available with him is

alternatively suitable or not.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner does not disclose the availability

of an alternative plot and it is only in reply to the leave to defend

application that he admits that he has a plot available to him but

says that it is not suitable.

10. The question of suitability is to be objectively assessed by the

Court though the decision has to be taken by the party himself in

the first instance but when the information itself is withheld by the

petitioner of its availability, it casts a doubt regarding his bona

fides and the tenant is entitled to leave to defend. This precisely

what has been done by the learned ARC.

11. Moreover, the petitioner has stated that he is suffering from 50%

disability while his three sons are adults, married and are stated to

be financially dependent on the father. This fact of the eldest son

being 49 years of age having three children and still being

financially dependent on the father could have been believed by the

Court in case it would have been disclosed to the Court as to how

much money he was getting by assisting his father. In rejoinder to

the leave to defend application this aspect was contested. The

petitioner in rejoinder states that the wives of the sons of the

petitioner are doing tuition business to supplement the income.

This also becomes a kind of afterthought which also adds to the

doubt with regard to the bona fides. Therefore, essentially in a case

of this nature where rival averments are made by the parties on

Affidavit, the only method of determining the truthfulness of the

landlord would be to permit the tenant to produce evidence and

similarly the landlord would also be able to do so. It is because of

these reasons that the leave to defend has been granted to the

respondents-tenants.

12. I have gone through the impugned order. I do not find that there is

any illegality or impropriety or jurisdictional error in arriving at the

finding by the learned ARC prima facie to grant leave to defend.

For these reasons, I feel that the present petitions are totally

misconceived challenging the order of grant of leave.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given a list along with

copies of 28 judgments without specifying as to on what points he

wants to refer the judgments and the principle of law, therefore, I

do not find it necessary to deal with the same. Therefore, these

petitions are totally frivolous and are accordingly dismissed.

14. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

V.K. SHALI, J.

NOVEMBER 24, 2015 vk