Delhi High Court
Manjit Kaur & Anr. vs Netra Pal on 9 September, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC. Rev. No.415/2015 & C.M. Nos.14641/2015, 14645/2015
Decided on : 9th September, 2015
MANJIT KAUR & ANR. ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Dutta, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Dhawan, Advocate.
Versus
NETRA PAL ...... Respondent
WITH
+ RC. Rev. No.421/2015 & C.M. Nos.14727/2015, 14728/2015
Decided on : 9th September, 2015
MANJIT KAUR & ANR. ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Dutta, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Dhawan, Advocate
Versus
DR. R.K. AGGARWAL ...... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. These are two petitions filed by the petitioners/landlord against the
common order dated 13.4.2015 by virtue of which the learned Additional
Rent Controller had granted leave to defend to the respondent/tenant to
show that the requirement of the petitioners herein was not bona fide in
seeking to retrieve the possession of the two shops available with the
respondent herein.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Manjit
Kaur, is an old lady of 84 years. It has been admitted by the petitioner
that she is owner of another property bearing No.1591, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-110052 and further that one of her daughter, petitioner No.2,
Davender Khokhar, is residing at USA for the last more than ten years. It
is alleged by her that because of the old age, her daughter, who was
otherwise settled in America, has decided to come back to India. It is
stated that her daughter has decided to set up a clinic for the poor and
needy for practising Complimentary Alternate Medicine in India which is
a branch of complimentary allopathic treatment and, therefore, requires
the tenanted shops for the said bona fide reason.
3. It is absolutely true that while considering the bona fide
requirement of a person, the court has to objectively look at the
accommodation which is available to such a person. In the instant case, it
is not claimed by the petitioner that she is in possession of any other
alternative accommodation but the learned Additional Rent Controller has
observed that the respondent's requirement is not bona fide and therefore,
has granted leave to defend to the tenant.
4. The learned ARC has rejected this plea of bona fide requirement of
the petitioner on the reasoning that the very fact that the petitioner is 84
years of age and is not suffering from any financial hardship, therefore it
could not be considered as bona fide. Even the daughter has admitted
that she is practicing alternative medicine and wants to serve the needy
and poor and not for the purpose of earning any money. If a requirement
of additional accommodation is not projected with the desire to earn
money then it cannot be said that non-grant of such accommodation to the
petitioner would cause any hardship to her. The petitioner required the
premises not one shop but two for doing charity which is within the
domain of mere desire and cannot be said to be 'absolute necessity'.
Hence, it can be examined only by giving opportunity to the parties to
adduce evidence. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice in case
the leave to defend is granted to the respondent to contest the matter. The
leave to contest the eviction petitions has been granted to the respondent
on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning.
5. After perusal of the short order passed by the learned ARC, I find
that there is no illegality or impropriety in granting permission to the
present respondent for the purpose of contesting the eviction petition filed
on the ground of bona fide requirement.
6. I find the present revision petitions are without any merit and there
is no illegality, jurisdictional error or impropriety in granting leave to
defend to the respondent. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are
dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed off.
V.K. SHALI, J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
'AA'
