Delhi High Court
Ms.Jaswinder Kohli vs Harkishan on 25 May, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25th MAY, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ RC.REV. 27/2022 & CM APPL. 8799/2022
MS.JASWINDER KOHLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate
versus
HARKISHAN ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Shanker, Ms.Mithila Jain,
Mr.Nikhil Saxena, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated
25.09.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller
(East), Delhi in RC ARC No.641/16.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to the instant petition are as under:-
i. It is stated that the Respondent herein/landlord let out his two
shops bearing No.182, Pratap Nagar, Opposite Mayur Vihar,
Phase-I, Delhi - 110091, (hereinafter referred to 'the tenanted
premises') admeasuring 9.5x19' and 9.5x16' to the husband of
the Petitioner herein/tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.550/- and
Rs.450/-, respectively, vide agreement cum rent deed dated
28.05.2019.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
ii. It is stated that the husband of the Petitioner herein/tenant
passed away on 08.05.2010 and till his death he had been in
continuous possession of the tenanted premises and was
running his business of food items. It is stated that after the
death of the husband of the Petitioner herein/tenant, a mutual
renewal agreement cum rent deed dated 25.06.2010 at increased
rent of Rs.2500/- per month was executed between the
Respondent herein/landlord and the Petitioner/tenant.
iii. It is stated that the Power of Attorney of the
Respondent/landlord, i.e. his son Ravi Chaudhary, filed an
eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement of the
tenanted premises for office space for himself. It is alleged in
the eviction petition that the Petitioner/tenant is a chronic
defaulter in the matter of payment of rent. It was also alleged in
the eviction petition that the Petitioner herein/tenant had
misrepresented herself to be the owner of the tenanted premises
and had also sub-let the same to one Sarvesh Tiwari in
December 2012 who is running a furniture shop under the name
and style of 'Furniture Point' without the permission of the
Respondent herein/landlord.
iv. It was stated in the eviction petition that the family of the
Respondent herein/landlord consists of himself and his three
sons, and out of his three sons, two are settled in their
businesses and only his youngest son - Ravi Chaudhary, i.e. his
Power of Attorney through whom the eviction petition was
filed, is facing problems in setting up his business and for that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
purpose he needs the tenanted premises.
v. It was stated by Ravi Chaudhary in the eviction petition that he
is doing the work of a property dealer in a partnership, but due
to the dispute between him and his partner, he has now planned
to separate from his partner and wants to set up his own
property dealing business, for which he needs the tenanted
premises. It was further stated by Ravi Chaudhary in the
eviction petition that they only have the tenanted premises and
no other alternative shop/space/place is available to set up an
office. It was further stated that Ravi Chaudhary wants to
establish his own business to earn the livelihood for himself and
his family and for that purpose they need the tenanted premises.
vi. An application for leave to defend was filed by the Petitioner
herein/tenant. In the application for leave to defend it was
contended that by Petitioner herein/tenant that she and her
husband are in occupation of the tenanted premises since 1989-
90 vide various rent deeds. It was stated that the rent agreement
entered into between the Petitioner herein/tenant and the
Respondent herein/landlord in the year 2010 was for an
unlimited period since there was no period mentioned in the
rent agreement as to when the Petitioner/tenant shall be liable to
vacate the tenanted premises. It was also stated in the
application for leave to defend that the Respondent/landlord is
not the true owner of the property and the Respondent/landlord
is liable to bring the original documents pertaining to the
ownership of the tenanted premises. It was also stated in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
application for leave to defend that the Respondent/landlord and
his family are in occupation of various properties in Delhi
NCR, which has been concealed by them in the eviction
petition. It was stated that apart from a big house in Chilla
Village, near Patparganj, Delhi, the Respondent/landlord has
many properties, including commercial complex at New Ashok
Nagar. It is stated that when the Petitioner/tenant along with her
son found out the address of the said premises and visited the
same to ascertain it, they were manhandled by the Respondent
herein/landlord's son - Ravi Chaudhary. It is stated that an FIR
in this respect has also been lodged, and in the Police Station,
Ravi Chaudhary confessed that the property bearing No.B-294,
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, besides others, belonged to his
father/the Respondent herein. It is, therefore, stated that as the
Respondent herein/landlord has other suitable accommodation,
he does not need the tenanted premises. It is further stated in the
application for leave to defend that the Petitioner herein/tenant
is a widow and is living with her son, who is a student. It is
further stated that the tenanted premises is being used by the
Petitioner/tenant as a food serving outlet and is the only source
of income for the Petitioner/tenant and her son.
vii. Material on record discloses that Ravi Chaudhary filed a reply
to the leave to defend application filed by the Petitioner
herein/tenant denying the allegations of the Petitioner
herein/tenant and reiterating the averments made in the eviction
petition. In the said reply, it is stated that the landlord only has a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
house in Chilla Village wherein he is residing along with his
family. It is further stated that since Ravi Chaudhary is
unemployed, he needs a suitable office space from where he can
conduct his business. It is further submitted in the reply that an
FIR, being FIR No.87/2013, was lodged by the sub-tenant
against the Petitioner herein/tenant at Police Station Pandav
Nagar for offences under Sections 419/420/468/471/448 IPC
wherein the sub-tenant has denied that the Petitioner
herein/tenant is carrying on any business on the tenanted
premises.
viii. A rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner herein/tenant contending
that the husband of the Petitioner/tenant had given a sum of
Rs.1,85,000/- to the Respondent/landlord as Pagri and
Rs.70,000/- as security on an understanding that the ownership
of the tenanted premises would be transferred by the landlord to
the tenant in the near future. It was stated that these documents
came into light when the Respondent was searching the
documents pertaining to the property in April 2016.
ix. After going through the material on record, the learned RC
declined to grant leave to defend to the Petitioner herein/tenant
contending that the no triable issue had been raised by the
tenant. The learned RC held that nothing had been produced by
the tenant to show that the Petitioner was the true owner of the
property.
x. It is this order against which the Petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the instant petition.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
3. Heard Mr. Satyapal Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.
Amit Shanker, learned counsel for the Respondent, and perused the material
on record.
4. It is trite law that the purpose of Chapter III to the Rent Control Act is
to ensure expeditious disposal of an eviction petition filed by a landlord on
the ground that the premises is required by the landlord. Special category of
landlords, as mentioned in Section 25(B)(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
are entitled to the benefit of summary proceedings for eviction of tenants if
the premises is required for their own bonafide use. When any of the
category of landlords, as mentioned in Section 25(B)(1) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, files an eviction petition for bonafide requirements, there exists
a presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine. It is also well settled
that while filing an application seeking leave to defend, if a tenant makes
averments intending to disentitle the landlord from invoking the summary
provisions, then such statements must be specific and must contain all
particulars which would lead to a triable issue for the learned Rent
Controller not to give the benefit of summary procedure to the landlord and,
therefore, relegate the landlord to go through the usual procedure for
evicting the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement. A tenant has to
give all necessary facts supported by documentary material, if available, in
the leave to defend application so that the learned Rent Controller is in a
position to adjudicate and decide the question as to whether the facts so
disclosed would compel the landlord to enter into the witness box and prove
his bonafide need.
5. In the instant case, the tenant has herself admitted that the premises
were given to her on rent by the Respondent herein/land lord. The tenant,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
therefore, cannot now turn around and aver that the landlord does not have
the competence to institute the eviction petition. The main contention of the
tenant is that the landlord has got several premises and this is no compelling
need on the part of the landlord to seek possession of the premises in
question. However, other than stating that the tenant has premises in Ashok
Nagar, no details have been provided by the tenant substantiating such a
claim. In fact, the tenant has herself stated that she could not ascertain the
address. Additionally, the landlord has himself admitted that there is a house
in Chilla Village which is being used by the entire family for residential
purpose and the tenanted premises lies in the market which would be more
suitable for the landlord for the purpose of running a property dealing shop.
6. The Supreme Court has already opined on how vague assertions by
the tenant are not sufficient for the Ld. RC to grant leave to defend, the Apex
Court in its judgment dated 07.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No.9444/2016
titled as Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 419 has
held as under:
"22. Learned Rent Controller passed a detailed
speaking order. On undertaking such an exercise, he
found that the bona fide need is satisfied; the
averments of the respondent regarding alternative
accommodation are vague; the title of the appellant
cannot be questioned; and the embargo under the
Enemy Property Act does not get attracted. Thus,
having found that the defense set up by the respondent
is only a moonshine, the application filed seeking leave
to defend was accordingly rejected.
*****
24. The High Court, while ignoring the aforesaid
conduct of the respondent, as noted by the learned Rent
Controller, proceeded to allow the revision by treating
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
it like an appeal. It did not even reverse the findings of
the learned Rent Controller, but proceeded to hold that
the denials of the appellant in his reply to the
application seeking leave to defend are vague, qua the
plea of alternative accommodation, notwithstanding
the rejection of the contention of the respondent that he
cannot question the title. This approach, in our
considered view, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
*****
26. We have already discussed the scope of Section
14(1)(e) vis a vis Section 25B(8) of the Act. Therefore,
the mere existence of the other properties which are,
in fact, denied by the appellant would not enure to the
benefit of the respondent in the absence of any
pleadings and supporting material before the learned
Rent Controller to the effect that they are reasonably
suitable for accommodation." (emphasis supplied)
7. Similarly, this Court in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Smt. Leela
Wati & Ors, MANU/DE/1386/2008, has observed as under:
"11. ....... Only those averments in the affidavit are to
be considered by the rent Controller which have same
substance in it and are supported by some material.
Mere assertions made by a tenant in respect of
landlord's ownership of other buildings and in
respect alternate accommodation are not to be
considered sufficient for grant of leave to defend. If
this is allowed. the whole purpose of Section 25-B
shall stand defeated and any tenant can file a false
affidavit and drag a case for years together in
evidence defeating the very purpose of the statute. The
Rent Controller is thus not precluded from considering
the material placed before it by the landlord in
response to leave to defend to show that the tenant's
assertions and averments were totally false. "
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
8. In the present case, other than vague denial of the title of the landlord
and vague statements that there are alternate accommodations available for
the landlord, no particulars have been given by the tenant. In the application
for leave to defend, in paragraph No.6, it has been stated by the
Petitioner/tenant that the Land-lord has other alternate accommodation.
Paragraph No.6 of the application for leave to defend reads as under:
"6. I state that petitioner and his family are in
occupation of various properties in Delhi NCR, which
has been concealed by them in the petition. Apartment
from a big house in Chilla Village, near Patparganj
Delhi, petitioner is having many properties, including
Commercial complex at New Ashok Nagar. When I,
along with my son found out the address of the said
premises and visited to further find out the same, we
were manhandled by the petitioner's son Ravi, who
created a scene, at the premises. It was only after
intervention of the police that the said nuisance was
stopped. The FIR in this respect was lodged. However,
at the police station also Mr. Ravi confessed that the
property no. B-294, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi besides
others, belonged to his father and family. Thus, there is
No question of their bonafide need of the said property.
The said FIR is annexed as Annexure 2."
9. A perusal of the said averment shows that the Petitioner/tenant has not
given any details of the commercial complex other than stating that when
she went to ascertain the premises, she was threatened by the Land-lord. The
statement of the Petitioner/tenant that in the Police Station, son of the
Respondent/land-lord, i.e. Ravi Chaudhary, has confessed that he owns
property No. B-294, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, cannot be taken into account
as it is only a confession and it cannot be ascertained as to whether such
confession was ever made by Ravi Chaudhary in the Police Station or not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
and, therefore, it cannot be taken into account by the learned Rent Controller
while deciding the application of the Petitioner/tenant for leave to defend.
10. Furthermore, no particulars have been provided by the
Petitioner/tenant to show availability of an alternate accommodation or
whether the nature of premises would be fit for the landlord to run the
business of property dealing.
11. In light of the above, this Court does not find any perversity in the
order dated 25.09.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent
Controller (East), Delhi in RC ARC No.641/16. The findings in the Order
dated 25.09.2021 are legally firm and do not warrant the interference of this
Court.
12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed along with the pending
application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
MAY 25, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:25.05.2022
18:33:55
