Delhi High Court
Rajender Kumar Lohia vs Sunita Maini & Ors. on 27 November, 2019
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.11.2019
+ RC.REV. 464/2019
RAJENDER KUMAR LOHIA ..... Petitioner
versus
SUNITA MAINI & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikrant Arora, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner/landlord impugns order dated 16.04.2019 whereby
the eviction petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by
applying the principles of Order VII Rule 11 holding that cause of
action has not been disclosed.
2. Petitioner had filed the subject eviction petition, on the ground
of bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958, seeking eviction of the respondent from private shop No.9
in property No.2856, Main Bazar, Sikriwalan, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-
110006, more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan
annexed with the eviction petition.
3. After service, respondents/tenants filed their leave to defend
application.
4. By the impugned order, the Rent Controller while considering
the leave to defend application, filed by the respondents, proceeded to
examine the eviction petition suo motto without any such plea being
raised by the respondents in their leave to defend application and held
that the eviction petition did not disclose a cause of action and
accordingly rejected the same under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
5. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Rent Controller has also noticed in the impugned order itself that no
such plea or objection has been taken by the respondents in their leave
to defend application.
6. The Rent Controller has not considered the leave to defend
application of the respondents on merits but has returned a finding
that there is no assertion made in the subject eviction petition that
landlord does not have any reasonably suitable accommodation in his
possession.
7. The grounds of eviction are mentioned in Annexure A to the
eviction petition which forms part of paragraph 18(a).
8. Petitioner in the eviction petition has categorically stated that
the respondent is in occupation of portion shown in red colour in the
site plan annexed and the portions shown in yellow colour in the site
plan are in occupation of different tenants and the portion in
occupation of the petitioner has been shown in orange colour. The
other shops existing in the said property are owned by others.
9. In paragraphs 8 & 9 of Annexure A, it is specifically mentioned
by the Petitioner/landlord that the tenanted premises are required by
the son of the petitioner for commercial purposes and that the son of
the petitioner does not have any accommodation or retail outlet in his
possession. Petitioner has further stated that the tenanted premises in
occupation of respondent is required bonafidely by the Petitioner for
the retail outlet of the son of the Petitioner and he does not have any
property and has got no portion of the subject property in his
occupation.
10. Clearly the finding of the Rent Controller that the petition does
not disclose a cause of action as the Petitioner/landlord has not stated
that the Petitioner does not have any reasonably suitable
accommodation is erroneous.
11. The grounds stated in the eviction petition have to be
meaningfully read and not hyper technically. On a meaningful reading
of Annexure A annexed to the eviction petition it ex-facie appears that
petition discloses a cause of action. It has been specifically stated that
the Petitioner/landlord requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for
the purposes of his son and his son has no other accommodation.
12. When the landlord specifically pleads in the eviction petition
that there is no other accommodation available then it will include the
plea that the landlord does not have any other reasonably suitable
accommodation.
13. In a case, where the landlord pleads that he has other
accommodations available, he would be required to additionally show
or plead that the said available accommodations are not reasonably
suitable. When landlord states he has no accommodation at all, where
is the question of him additionally stating that he does not have any
other reasonably suitable accommodation. The later would be a sub
set of the former.
14. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.04.2019
cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside
15. The eviction petition is remitted to the Court of the Rent
Controller with a direction to consider the application of the
Respondent/tenant, seeking leave to defend the eviction petition, on
merits.
16. List the eviction petition before the Rent Controller on
18.12.2019 for directions, on which date the Rent Controller shall fix
a date for considering the application of the respondent seeking leave
to defend the eviction petition.
17. Petition is allowed in the above terms.
18. The rent controller shall consider the application of the
respondent seeking leave to defend, without being influenced by
anything stated herein on merits.
19. Keeping in view the fact that the eviction petition was filed in
the year 2014, Rent Controller is directed to expedite the proceedings
and endeavour to dispose of the leave to defend application filed by
the respondent within a period of three months from the next date
before the Rent Controller.
20. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
NOVEMBER 27, 2019
rk
